|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
January 11, 2012 · By John Jones · 1 Comments
The political race towards the White House continues to pick up steam.
Things have been looking bleak for America since the last presidential election and the current one has turned into a fight for the future of our country.
Democrats seek to re-elect Barack Obama and Republicans seek to oust them and him from the Oval Office.
The Republican choice for president is currently still undecided, but with his narrow victory in Iowa and favorable polling in New Hampshire, it appears as though Mitt Romney is the “inevitable” choice.
It would certainly seem that way. Romney supporters and voters who consider Romney to be “Plan C” at best continue to push this angle to the point where even the most ardent Anti-Romney supporter is liable to think it might be true.
Does that make it true? No.
Mitt Romney has earned the label of “filp-flopper” for his ability to switch opinions on any given issue at any given time. I once read a comment from a “Plan C: Romney” voter who described Mitt Romney as a weathervane: his position changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. The commenter told their fellow Republicans that a President Mitt Romney can be reined in by surrounding him with conservative Republicans and creating a wind that pointed Mr. Romney towards the conservative north.
The painfully apparent facts about Mitt Romney an outsider can gain from such a “Plan C: Romney” voter are these: Mr. Romney is not a conservative and is a Republican only in the sense that he does not call himself a Democrat. This brings us to the heart of the issue in regards to Mr. Romney being the “inevitable” choice for President:
Why are Republicans being called to vote for a man who changes his opinion based on which way the wind blows and not a genuine change of mind?
Why are Republicans being called to vote for a man who does not hold many conservative and Republican values dear and near to his heart?
“Anyone is better than Obama.” True.
It is imperative that the Republican Party oust the Democrats and their President from the White House.
But must we throw our other (more conservative) candidates into the Grand Canyon for a faux-Republican just because he appeals to some Obama voters with “buyer remorse” or some independents who are supposedly scared of true conservatism?
Do we need to sacrifice our values in order to win?
What will be left if we do? Nothing will be left except the shell of our former selves.
What sense does it make to vote for someone who needs to be reined in by true conservatives when we could have voted for those true conservatives in the first place?
What should we do if Mr. Romney manages to gain the Republican nomination? Should we rally behind the lesser evil in order to defeat the greater evil? Or is there no difference between these two evils?
We could try to point President Romney towards conservatism… but what will we do if the Democratic wind manages to point him towards the liberal south? He already tends to point in that direction based on (among other things) his trying to force Massachusetts to accept homosexual marriage.
Mitt Romney is a determined man. He has been campaigning for six years. He wants to be the President of the USA. He wants to be in the Oval Office.
Do conservatives really want to help put him there at the expense of our values and with the high chance that such a move will backfire spectacularly?
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
I love Dennis Miller. He isn't as conservative as I'd like, but we see eye to eye on most of the important stuff. His appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show was pretty good, until he got to the discussion of the nutty idea of gender-neutral bathrooms, then it became hilarious. I normally try to steer clear of scatological humor, but if we're going to go down this asinine path as a society (as it seems the homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" seem intent on taking us), then there are some serious (though funny at times) issues we really need to consider.
The United States of America can't do much worse than Obama. That said, whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you are voting for politics as usual. What we've been getting for a long, long time is lip service, empty words, just plain lies; thinking we can save the whole world, spending irresponsibly beyond our means; no accountability to ethics, the law or the Constitution; government intrusion into every aspect of our private lives… politics as usual. Politics as usual will be the death of America.
The wind energy industry has been having a hard time. The taxpayer funding that has kept it alive for the last twenty years is coming to an end, and those promoting the industry are panicking. Despite twenty years of taxpayer funding, says the Financial Times, “Most of these technologies are unable to stand on their own commercially, particularly in competition with a resurgent natural gas industry that has created a supply glut and driven prices to 10-year lows.” The WSJ opines: “the tax subsidy has sustained the industry on a scale that wouldn’t have been possible if they had to follow the same rules as everyone else.”
What better way to control citizens of a country than to control the water supply? What better way to control the countries of the world than to control the seas? We have two stories in our face this week that are seemingly unrelated, yet at the same time, they both represent the anti-American, anti-freedom, dictatorial advancement of tyranny. A nation’s water supply is one thing, and the seas and oceans of the world are another.
While we can't take back how things played out with the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman encounter or anything that led up to those final moments of life-death changing events, we do have a responsibility of calling the media, our president, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Black Panthers and a few others to account for their irresponsible responses, reporting and race baiting behavior thereafter. Turns out that, Zimmerman, the "white Hispanic", is not only nearly as Black in heritage as our president, if not completely so -- he was raised under the influence of a half-black grandmother, rather than, a white grandma as Obama was.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
Pingback: Octogenarian Asks if Mitt Romney is Eligible…and Able| The Post & Email « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)