Anti-Romney Republicans

[Cobbler]

There are a few of them on the board. I'm wondering, out of the batch of Republican candidates from this cycle, who would you have wanted to get the nomination, and do you think they'd be doing better than Romney at this point?

Romney has flaws, but he's made the race close. I really have a hard time believing that Newt, Perry, or Santorum (all of which have serious flaws as well) could do that.

Discuss?

[BritishDixie]

There are a few of them on the board. I'm wondering, out of the batch of Republican candidates from this cycle, who would you have wanted to get the nomination, and do you think they'd be doing better than Romney at this point?

Romney has flaws, but he's made the race close. I really have a hard time believing that Newt, Perry, or Santorum (all of which have serious flaws as well) could do that.

Discuss?

Thats very true. One thing that p****s me off is this constant talk or Romney being not a true conservative. I think it's much more likely that he moderated his views in order to be elected Governor of the most liberal state in America.

[WhyteRain]

I'm not a Republican, but you can see by my "political test scores" that I am an economic conservative and a social liberal, and I am both shocked and dismayed that the GOP will nominate Romney.  There were a few of the Repubs for whom I could have "held my nose" and voted, but Romney's not even close.

I favored Gov. Gary Johnson in the primaries, and even sent him a donation ($150).

What possible reason would I favor Gov. Romney?  Because, as one of his supporters said on TV last night, that "he will make the trains run on time"?  (Rep. McCarthy (R-CA) on Greta's show on Fox News.)  I don't want a candidate who will make the trains run on time.  I want one that will leave the trains -- and most other things -- alone!

[Donerail]

There is a relatively large contingent of anti-Romney Republicans. Here's why:

[WhyteRain]

There is a relatively large contingent of anti-Romney Republicans. Here's why:

Ron Paul -- who is, btw, the Congressman of one of my sisters -- is a bad messenger with a good message.

[Donerail]

Ron Paul -- who is, btw, the Congressman of one of my sisters -- is a bad messenger with a good message.

Agreed. If it wasn't for the newsletters incident, and possibly if he'd been a tad younger, he could've won Iowa, and then where would be be?

[WhyteRain]

Ron Paul -- who is, btw, the Congressman of one of my sisters -- is a bad messenger with a good message.

Agreed. If it wasn't for the newsletters incident, and possibly if he'd been a tad younger, he could've won Iowa, and then where would be be?

No newsletter plus a tad younger would make him Gary Johnson, wouldn't it? 

No one with such views will ever be allowed to get the GOP nomination.  The Wall Street bankers and the neo-cons (often the same people) will make sure of that.

[Donerail]

Ron Paul -- who is, btw, the Congressman of one of my sisters -- is a bad messenger with a good message.

Agreed. If it wasn't for the newsletters incident, and possibly if he'd been a tad younger, he could've won Iowa, and then where would be be?

No newsletter plus a tad younger would make him Gary Johnson, wouldn't it? 

No one with such views will ever be allowed to get the GOP nomination.  The Wall Street bankers and the neo-cons (often the same people) will make sure of that.

Maybe if Johnson had run in 2008 and acquired a large youth following, yep. And sadly, your second statement is probably true.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I think if Gov. Perry hadn't had that back surgery and it messed up his sleeping schedule and therefore debate performance, he could have given Romney a run for his money. Rick Perry's debating skills got a lot better in November and December after the "Oops" moment.

[Cobbler]

But do you think he'd have been doing well against Obama? I feel like other than maybe Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson, none of the other candidates would be doing as well as Romney against Obama.

[Purch]

The thing about Ron Paul is his message has been the same ,even when he was a young congressman.  The only difference is now a big portion of Americans are starting to understand the short end of the stick they're inheriting as a result of the national debt, unemployment, a weak dollar, our overseas empire, expansion and nation building.

The only reason his voice is bigger now than in the 1980's is because of what's happend since then, we bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and kept our bases on Saudi Arabia, and continued to screw over Palestine in favor of Israel and as a result got 9/11. And what are we doing now? We're bombing Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan  and trying to propagate us into a war with both Syria and Iran and trying to topple anti-American regimes and destabilize the middle east.

What also happened since the 1980's? The government violated three crucial Amendments with the patriot act and has not only detained but has also admitted to assassinating American people without due process. Whiles they continue to violated international law at Guantanamo and all around the would.

What else happened? The most predictable financial crisis since the great depression, as the federal reserve, federal government and the bankers contributed to nearly ended our whole financial system.

People realize we have a fundamentally flawed system and are tired of hearing the same solutions said by different politicians, they've heard enough Reaganomics, enough welfare state, enough military expansion, enough bailouts, enough taxing the rich, enough war on terror ext. And that's the people that rotate around Ron Paul.

 It's the kind of people who don't see much difference between Obama getting over a million dollars from Goldman Sachs in 08 and Romney getting 600 thousand so far from Goldman sachs. The same interest... The same politicians.

H.W, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Four different politicians same destructive foreign policy and interest.

[WhyteRain]

The thing about Ron Paul is his message has been the same ,even when he was a young congressman.  The only difference is now a big portion of Americans are starting to understand the short end of the stick they're inheriting as a result of the national debt, unemployment, a weak dollar, our overseas empire, expansion and nation building.

The only reason his voice is bigger now than in the 1980's is because of what's happend since then, we bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and kept our bases on Saudi Arabia, and continued to screw over Palestine in favor of Israel and as a result got 9/11. And what are we doing now? We're bombing Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan  and trying to propagate us into a war with both Syria and Iran and trying to topple anti-American regimes and destabilize the middle east.

What also happened since the 1980's? The government violated three crucial Amendments with the patriot act and has not only detained but has also admitted to assassinating American people without due process. Whiles they continue to violated international law at Guantanamo and all around the would.

What else happened? The most predictable financial crisis since the great depression, as the federal reserve, federal government and the bankers contributed to nearly ended our whole financial system.

People realize we have a fundamentally flawed system and are tired of hearing the same solutions said by different politicians, they've heard enough Reaganomics, enough welfare state, enough military expansion, enough bailouts, enough taxing the rich, enough war on terror ext. And that's the people that rotate around Ron Paul.

 It's the kind of people who don't see much difference between Obama getting over a million dollars from Goldman Sachs in 08 and Romney getting 600 thousand so far from Goldman sachs. The same interest... The same politicians.

H.W, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Four different politicians same destructive foreign policy and interest.

Yup -- four Ivy League Masters of the Universe in a row.  If I'm right in my prediction, we will get our fifth in a row this year.  But thank goodness we are nowadays too smart to elect some cheap state university or Eureka College-type grad!

I invite you to read AMERICA'S RULING CLASS -- AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
 
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

READ MORE AT http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

[Cobbler]

Yup -- four Ivy League Masters of the Universe in a row.  If I'm right in my prediction, we will get our fifth in a row this year.  But thank goodness we are nowadays too smart to elect some cheap state university or Eureka College-type grad!

Why do you prefer someone from a "cheap state university"? The Eureka College type that comes to mind is Ronald Reagan, who was probably pretty friendly with the banks as well. I don't understand why going to an Ivy League university is a bad thing.

[WhyteRain]

Yup -- four Ivy League Masters of the Universe in a row.  If I'm right in my prediction, we will get our fifth in a row this year.  But thank goodness we are nowadays too smart to elect some cheap state university or Eureka College-type grad!

Why do you prefer someone from a "cheap state university"? The Eureka College type that comes to mind is Ronald Reagan, who was probably pretty friendly with the banks as well. I don't understand why going to an Ivy League university is a bad thing.

Historically, the "dumb" presidents have way outperformed the "smart" ones.  Hoover and Carter come to mind.

Second, I don't want my president to think he's the smartest man in the room -- even if he is.  Such people aren't good at taking advice.

Third, people who attend elite schools tend to think they're smarter than they really are.

[BritishDixie]

The thing about Ron Paul is his message has been the same ,even when he was a young congressman.  The only difference is now a big portion of Americans are starting to understand the short end of the stick they're inheriting as a result of the national debt, unemployment, a weak dollar, our overseas empire, expansion and nation building.

The only reason his voice is bigger now than in the 1980's is because of what's happend since then, we bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and kept our bases on Saudi Arabia, and continued to screw over Palestine in favor of Israel and as a result got 9/11. And what are we doing now? We're bombing Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan  and trying to propagate us into a war with both Syria and Iran and trying to topple anti-American regimes and destabilize the middle east.

What also happened since the 1980's? The government violated three crucial Amendments with the patriot act and has not only detained but has also admitted to assassinating American people without due process. Whiles they continue to violated international law at Guantanamo and all around the would.

What else happened? The most predictable financial crisis since the great depression, as the federal reserve, federal government and the bankers contributed to nearly ended our whole financial system.

People realize we have a fundamentally flawed system and are tired of hearing the same solutions said by different politicians, they've heard enough Reaganomics, enough welfare state, enough military expansion, enough bailouts, enough taxing the rich, enough war on terror ext. And that's the people that rotate around Ron Paul.

 It's the kind of people who don't see much difference between Obama getting over a million dollars from Goldman Sachs in 08 and Romney getting 600 thousand so far from Goldman sachs. The same interest... The same politicians.

H.W, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Four different politicians same destructive foreign policy and interest.

Yup -- four Ivy League Masters of the Universe in a row.  If I'm right in my prediction, we will get our fifth in a row this year.  But thank goodness we are nowadays too smart to elect some cheap state university or Eureka College-type grad!

I invite you to read AMERICA'S RULING CLASS -- AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
 
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

READ MORE AT http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Hopefully you are right, otherwise, you would have gotten wrong a prediction with a 100% chance of success.

[WhyteRain]

The thing about Ron Paul is his message has been the same ,even when he was a young congressman.  The only difference is now a big portion of Americans are starting to understand the short end of the stick they're inheriting as a result of the national debt, unemployment, a weak dollar, our overseas empire, expansion and nation building.

The only reason his voice is bigger now than in the 1980's is because of what's happend since then, we bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and kept our bases on Saudi Arabia, and continued to screw over Palestine in favor of Israel and as a result got 9/11. And what are we doing now? We're bombing Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan  and trying to propagate us into a war with both Syria and Iran and trying to topple anti-American regimes and destabilize the middle east.

What also happened since the 1980's? The government violated three crucial Amendments with the patriot act and has not only detained but has also admitted to assassinating American people without due process. Whiles they continue to violated international law at Guantanamo and all around the would.

What else happened? The most predictable financial crisis since the great depression, as the federal reserve, federal government and the bankers contributed to nearly ended our whole financial system.

People realize we have a fundamentally flawed system and are tired of hearing the same solutions said by different politicians, they've heard enough Reaganomics, enough welfare state, enough military expansion, enough bailouts, enough taxing the rich, enough war on terror ext. And that's the people that rotate around Ron Paul.

 It's the kind of people who don't see much difference between Obama getting over a million dollars from Goldman Sachs in 08 and Romney getting 600 thousand so far from Goldman sachs. The same interest... The same politicians.

H.W, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Four different politicians same destructive foreign policy and interest.

Yup -- four Ivy League Masters of the Universe in a row.  If I'm right in my prediction, we will get our fifth in a row this year.  But thank goodness we are nowadays too smart to elect some cheap state university or Eureka College-type grad!

I invite you to read AMERICA'S RULING CLASS -- AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
 
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

READ MORE AT http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Hopefully you are right, otherwise, you would have gotten wrong a prediction with a 100% chance of success.

Not our fifth presidential term with an Ivy Leaguer president (it's already been six -- every one since 1988), but our fifth president in a row from the Ivy League.

It just seems to me that Americans were a lot happier in 1988 than we are now  -- despite all that highly-credentialed leadership since then.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think anti-Romney Republicans are misguided and stubborn if they can't hold their noses and vote for Romney. Maybe that's offensive, but I really don't care.

If these people are truly conservative, they must realize that Obama can't be re-elected.
If these people are truly smart, they must realize that the only two candidates with a shot at winning are Romney and Obama.
If these people are honest, they must realize that they should vote for Romney.

[Purch]

I think anti-Romney Republicans are misguided and stubborn if they can't hold their noses and vote for Romney. Maybe that's offensive, but I really don't care.

If these people are truly conservative, they must realize that Obama can't be re-elected.
If these people are truly smart, they must realize that the only two candidates with a shot at winning are Romney and Obama.
If these people are honest, they must realize that they should vote for Romney.

Lol. Your post is exactly the problem with the two party mentality.

1. If these people were truly conservative, they wouldn't be voting for a man who's promised to expand spending on the military and has made zero reference to balancing the budget.

2. If these people are truly smart, they'd realize that the lesser of two evils still leaves you with a bad president.

3. If these people were smart they'd realize that the interest of the same banks are represented in both Obama and Romney's campaigns I.E look at the donations from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. If these people were smart they'd realize that Obama and Romney hold the same overly aggressive foreign policy that lead our country to attacks such as 9/11. If these people were smart they'd realize either through unfunded entitlements or expansion of the military both Romney and Obama would explode the debt over the next 4 years.

Like I Just alluded to, the problem with the two party mentality is that you have people afraid to disagree or question a candidate from their party based on principles simply, because you're viewed as being disloyal for not supporting a candidate from your party.

George Washigton warned against political parties because of this extreme group mentality in which candidates are voted on strictly based on their party rather than their actual beliefs. And as a result this system would give rise to politicans who don't actually protect the intrest of their voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RJ]

I'm not a Republican, but I always thought that Santorum would have outperformed Romney at the national level when it was all said and done. It's almost like the Palin factor: I think everyone knows what they're going to get out of Romney; keep it close and hope the final weeks of the campaign bring something good. Santorum would have energized the base and I think his grass roots campaign(or one that looks like it) and actively participating with several public appearances and being accessible would have gone over well. In many ways I think Santorum would have been seen as being more in touch with everyday people than Romney.

-NONE- of this means I wanted Santorum to win or even cared for that matter. I'm a little urked that the work Rick put into the campaign didn't pay off as I like to see it and Romney essentially bought the nomination but I don't want either of those candidates to win the next election. As for Cain, Bachman, Perry, Paul and so on well these were just horrible alternatives.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think anti-Romney Republicans are misguided and stubborn if they can't hold their noses and vote for Romney. Maybe that's offensive, but I really don't care.

If these people are truly conservative, they must realize that Obama can't be re-elected.
If these people are truly smart, they must realize that the only two candidates with a shot at winning are Romney and Obama.
If these people are honest, they must realize that they should vote for Romney.

Lol. Your post is exactly the problem with the two party mentality.

1. If these people were truly conservative, they wouldn't be voting for a man who's promised to expand spending on the military and has made zero reference to balancing the budget.

2. If these people are truly smart, they'd realize that the lesser of two evils still leaves you with a bad president.

3. If these people were smart they'd realize that the interest of the same banks are represented in both Obama and Romney's campaigns I.E look at the donations from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. If these people were smart they'd realize that Obama and Romney hold the same overly aggressive foreign policy that lead our country to attacks such as 9/11. If these people were smart they'd realize either through unfunded entitlements or expansion of the military both Romney and Obama would explode the debt over the next 4 years.

Like I Just alluded to, the problem with the two party mentality is that you have people afraid to disagree or question a candidate from their party based on principles simply, because you're viewed as being disloyal for not supporting a candidate from your party.

George Washigton warned against political parties because of this extreme group mentality in which candidates are voted on strictly based on their party rather than their actual beliefs. And as a result this system would give rise to politicans who don't actually protect the intrest of their voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can spout that all you want.

But do you honestly believe Mitt Romney would be worse than Obama? I don't think you do. Do you honestly believe that anyone other than Mitt Romney or Obama will win? I don't think you do.

Thus, help defeat Obama.

[Purch]

Depends what you mean by worse? Worse in terms of allowing entitlements to grow at an unsustainable rate? No.

Worse in terms of expanding our imperialistic foreign policy that's on the verge of bankrupting the country? Yes.


Helping defeat Obama doesn't leave the country any better off since Romney also seems comfortable with the idea of trillion dollar deficits if it means satisfying the neo-cons.

This two party mentality makes it more about defeating one person rather than actually fixing the country.

[WhyteRain]

I think anti-Romney Republicans are misguided and stubborn if they can't hold their noses and vote for Romney. Maybe that's offensive, but I really don't care.

If these people are truly conservative, they must realize that Obama can't be re-elected.
If these people are truly smart, they must realize that the only two candidates with a shot at winning are Romney and Obama.
If these people are honest, they must realize that they should vote for Romney.

Lol. Your post is exactly the problem with the two party mentality.

1. If these people were truly conservative, they wouldn't be voting for a man who's promised to expand spending on the military and has made zero reference to balancing the budget.

2. If these people are truly smart, they'd realize that the lesser of two evils still leaves you with a bad president.

3. If these people were smart they'd realize that the interest of the same banks are represented in both Obama and Romney's campaigns I.E look at the donations from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. If these people were smart they'd realize that Obama and Romney hold the same overly aggressive foreign policy that lead our country to attacks such as 9/11. If these people were smart they'd realize either through unfunded entitlements or expansion of the military both Romney and Obama would explode the debt over the next 4 years.

Like I Just alluded to, the problem with the two party mentality is that you have people afraid to disagree or question a candidate from their party based on principles simply, because you're viewed as being disloyal for not supporting a candidate from your party.

George Washigton warned against political parties because of this extreme group mentality in which candidates are voted on strictly based on their party rather than their actual beliefs. And as a result this system would give rise to politicans who don't actually protect the intrest of their voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hear, hear!

[Donerail]

But do you honestly believe Mitt Romney would be worse than Obama? I don't think you do. Do you honestly believe that anyone other than Mitt Romney or Obama will win? I don't think you do.

Thus, help defeat Obama.

Here will be your voting options presidentially come November:

[ ] The guy that will spend a bit more money (D)
[ ] The guy that will murder a few more people (R)

Does it really matter who you vote for?

[BigSkyBob]

There are a few of them on the board. I'm wondering, out of the batch of Republican candidates from this cycle, who would you have wanted to get the nomination, and do you think they'd be doing better than Romney at this point?

Romney has flaws, but he's made the race close. I really have a hard time believing that Newt, Perry, or Santorum (all of which have serious flaws as well) could do that.

Discuss?

Well, if you think it important that tweedle-are rather than tweedle-dee captains the Titanic as it rams into the iceberg, then, you may have a point. If you want change, then you would prefer someone other than Romney. A candidate for change might lose for standing for change, but, with the current tweedle-dee/tweedle-are matchup defeat for change is guaranteed.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Santorum, and yes. He'd just have been handed the election by Roberts. Telling the Congress that they are going to have to undo Obamacare, would fire up his base to fight it out all the way to the election. Now we have to deal with Romney's "trust me, I'm not lying to you this time".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The race isn't really close. O+3 nationally will result in a landslide.