« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

I’m a Republican in Texas and I’d like to cast a meaningful vote in a presidential primary

It’s over?!?

This happened four years ago. It was over. John McCain was the candidate. I was told to rally around John McCain because I had no choice. And I did rally around John McCain.

Now, I’m told to rally around Mitt Romney, because…

…someone else chose him for me.

Texas is a large Republican state, and Texans don’t count?

Maybe I want to vote for Rick Perry. Maybe I want to vote for Ron Paul. They’re from Texas.

Maybe I want to vote for Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich.

Look, I used to be a Republican in New York City. I know what casting a meaningless vote is like.

In 2004, there was the slogan “Vote or die!” Maybe that should be changed to “Vote? Why?”

I feel like I’ve been disenfranchised.

No, I’m not going to vote for Obama in November. But can a Texan please be able to choose the Republican candidate?

I get to vote on May 29th.

It’s over?!?

COMMENTS

  • greyeagle

    In this case, you can thank the TX Democrats for delay, delay, going to court and delay again for the primary mess there. Vote for whomever you want. I am sure that they will all still be on the ballot. TX could have made a huge difference in the election if it had not been for the Democrats. Good luck.

  • texastaxpayer

    So who knows if this god forsaken nightmare will ever end. Just think we still have four years of whomever wins this farce in November on our televisions daily to look forward to.

  • damianvincent

    The entire nomination process is screwed up. Non Republican states end up picking our nominee, look at Romney lost nearly every GOP state, the South, the Mid West, and is on his way to being our nominee, because Maryland, and Mass picked him. The process needs to be changed to give the base of the party the first choice. This is downright B/S

    • Filibuster Keaton

      Thank you for an invaluable post. I’ve seen others try to point this out, but not so succinctly.

    • checkmate2012

      Totally screwed up but this time it’s Dems and DOJ’s fault. Once again, we have no voice in the election. This proportionate vote is awful…& we have it this year in TX! Former RNC Steele is responsiblefor this mess and is now on MS! It’s time for a national primary day. I say one million for each candidate and 6 months of campaigning. Ideas not $$

  • demsaresatanic

    Jurisdictions without Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress [Rule 13(a)(4)]:

    * 6 at-large delegates from American Samoa.
    * 16 at-large delegates from the District of Columbia.
    * 6 at-large delegates from Guam.
    * 6 at-large delegates from the Northern Mariana Islands.
    * 20 at-large delegates from Puerto Rico.
    * 6 at-large delegates from Virgin Islands.
    and see the inadequate bonus for solid Repub states;
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Alloc.phtml

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    The State Party ultimately has control over the delegate selection process. The courts have said a political parties’ right to self governance trumps state law. The problem with TX is part of the delegate selection process involves a Congressional District Convention. Since the redistricting map ended up in court , it left the primary in limbo with the date being moved ahead. If Texas had changed its delegate allocation rules to exclude a congressional district convention, the primary could have been moved up as soon as Super Tuesday. Rick Perry might have stayed in the race.

    The NH GOP chooses to allocate delegates based on a percentage of the primary vote on primary day. No congressional district conventions. That is good because our final congressional District map is still being tossed around in the State legislature.

    Texas delivers more electoral votes for the GOP nominee in every Presidential election. Texas has a lot of clout, why they don’t use it baffles me. If I lived in TX I would be calling for the heads of the
    GOP party leadership. How much more incompetence do GOP voters in TX have to put up with.

  • http://www.barrypopik.com barrypopik

    We don’t even have a scheduled Texas Republican debate. This is just so incredibly pathetic that the Republican base counts for so little.

    http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/effort-would-change-texas-primary-to-winner-take-2286254.html
    Effort would change Texas primary to winner-take-all, benefit Santorum
    By Chuck Lindell
    AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
    Published: 10:00 p.m. Thursday, April 5, 2012
    Trailing badly in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, Rick Santorum is banking on a fast-moving effort to change the Texas primary into a winner-take-all affair, sending all 152 eligible delegates to the state’s top vote-getter.

    Weston Martinez, a Santorum supporter and Texas Republican Party official, said Thursday that he has lined up enough support to call the party’s executive committee into an emergency session to consider the change.

    Martinez said a winner-take-all format could rescue the Texas primary from potential irrelevancy after delays caused by redistricting lawsuits pushed the election to May 29.

    By then, 43 other state contests would be decided, raising the uncomfortable possibility that the race for the Republican nomination will be over before Texas votes.

    “Texans want to be relevant. We’ve been passed by in the process before, and we’re tired of sitting on the sidelines,” said Martinez, a member of the state party’s executive committee from San Antonio.

    A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, however, cast doubt upon the effort late Thursday.

    Texas would need a waiver from the national party to change its primary, spokesman Sean Spicer said via Twitter. “There is no basis for a waiver. Texas will remain a proportional state,” Spicer said.

    Under rules determined last year, Texas will award 13 percent of the 1,144 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination based on the percentage of votes received by each candidate.

  • DaveWT4

    I commented about this yesterday in mbecker’s diary:

    There are two ways you could do this:

    Instant Run-off: Instead of voting for one candidate you would rank them all. In the first round you drop the last place candidate and add their votes to their #2 selections, and so on until you have one candidate.

    Or do a primary run-off every month starting in January. Each month the last place candidate is forced out of the Primary.

    I know it sounds a little too Survivor-ish, but it would get rid of fringe candidates like Ron Paul so the adults can actually debate.

    I really think this is the way to go. Force all the primaries to be closed as well, and we could finally get some real candidates.

    Have a debate before each round of voting, that way the low-money candidates at least get a chance to be heard and pick up momentum.

  • Seedyrom

    http://www.conservativehq.com/article/7443-push-get-santorum-out-shows-romneys-weakness
    The Romney campaign

  • Common_Cents

    to give a better chance to conservatives, not DC chosen ‘inevitable picks’

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      go last.

      • lapert

        You can either have conservative states front loaded or closed states – but not both. Would you rather have the open states of Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Utah, Nebraska early on or the closed states of Iowa, California, Michigan, Washington, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, DC, Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware?

        Ok, a bit of cherry picking there but from my view of the lists I don’t think open/closed is good indicator for which states should have the leading say.

        • gekster

          has open primaries.

          • lapert

            It was listed as closed on realclearpolitics – and it looks like they call themselves closed when they mean you can only vote in one of them.

            Which of course raises a separate question of what defines closed and how does the RNC enforce it on the states when it has shown an inability to enforce much of anything.

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            According toe The Green Papers website
            http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-DSVE.phtml?sort=v

            There are 31 closed elections out of the 50 states, 5 territories, and District of Columbia. Michigan is a closed primary according to them, and so is Iowa. However, when you dig deeper into the details then you find out that in Iowa one can change from a D to an R on the evening and at the place of a caucus meeting.

    • acat

      Historically, when Conservatives have been in agreement before Iowa, we’ve gotten our way.

      Historically, when Conservatives are not in agreement before Iowa, the Squishy/Establishment gets their way and we get to pound sand.

      This year was no different. 2008 was no different. 2000 was no different. Etc. etc. etc.

      Mew

      • lapert

        I’m not sure why you think it is even possible for ‘Conservatives’ to present a single candidate before the primaries even begin. It presumes there is some organized entity of Conservatives that speaks for all factions and potential candidates.

        When you say historically when there was agreement before Iowa we got our way – are you thinking of any time other than 1980? Because I don’t see how having an obvious front runner (or at least ‘next in line) who is conservative ahead of time and the only plausible competition from the establishment choosing not to run serves as a useful model for future runs.

        • acat

          That’s the model.

          The two candidates* who sorta-kinda followed this model were Romney and Palin.

          Romney has been running since 2006 but did not attempt to unify conservatives – one could argue that he worked to keep us fragmented. Romney also did not follow the public part of the model, preferring to stay behind the scenes and making inroads with insiders.

          Palin chose not to run, but did follow the public part of the model. Her routine hits on Obama and the Dems were body blows .. had she not been quite so polarizing, she could have been a contender.

          Had Pawlenty or Perry or Johnson or Gingrich started making the same kinds of statements in 2009 or early 2010, started stumping *nationwide* with GOP house candidates, etc. .. we would have known who the conservative front-runner was.

          Mew

          * for certain values of “candidate”

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            Rick Perry won his reelection in 2010 as Governor of Texas. There is no way he could have won and also began stumping in the manner that you describe to become the 2012 nominee for POTUS.

          • acat

            as well as making his ongoing fights with the Obama administration a little more public could have tilted it…

            Mew

          • windwaker24

            He said himself that his highest goal was to be Governor of Texas. He only ran because people begged him to do it, and he thought his country was in trouble.

          • lapert

            Conservatives need to be begging two years earlier in the process if they don’t want to be stuck with the candidates who are actively seeking the office. Whether that means being active campaigner for other in the midterms or doing the more active behind the scenes work of gathering support from the right backers, creating the campaign infrastructure etc. is debatable – by to think someone is going to come in late and run a competent campaign is foolish.

          • acat

            Yes, Perry *wasn’t* running in 2009 or 2010.

            That made it near-impossible for him to unite conservatives in 2011 and 2012… and resulted in his defeat.

            When Conservatives aren’t united going into Iowa, we lose.

            Period.

            Perry didn’t unite conservatives prior to Iowa…. and lost.

            Pawlenty and Johnson and Santorum and Gingrich and Bachman also didn’t unite conservatives prior to Iowa. They have also lost.

            I’m not saying any of ‘em aren’t presidential timber, I’m not saying they were robbed .. I’m saying they all started too late!

            Mew

          • windwaker24

            But I think he was probably expecting his record to speak for him (which is what primaries are supposed to be about, seeing who has the best record to go up against an opponent) which is why he jumped in. I’ll admit myself this is 1st time that I’ve seen top-notch experience tossed to the wind, especially after all of belly-aching the GOP did about Obama’s inexperience and lack of record. This GOP primary was nothing more than a rhetorical beauty contest. Whoever sounded the most flowery and polished won the night. There is no way Perry could have prepared for that, cause it’s a stupid way to choose someone.

          • acat

            not a serious discussion about leadership. That said, I think Perry needed to be better prepared for the debates .. there’s really no excuse there. (Nixon vs. JFK is an old enough historical precedent)

            Yes, a good record should matter, but .. let’s face it, the consumer culture looks for shiny new pretty first, and *then* checks Consumer Reports, not the other way ’round.

            Mew

          • windwaker24

            Perry wasn’t prepared for the debates and I agree with you no excuse. But as it progressed I could tell as his back got better and he was more comfortable on the national scene, he got better at them, but no one cared. People were still stuck on the “oops” moment and missed all of things that he did say and did, things that the voters said that that were looking for in a candidate.

            Maybe it’s just me, debates and talk don’t mean that much to me. I hardly pay attention to them anyway. Records and character are what I weigh because that is the true candidate, but what done is done and I glad Perry ran. Fidelity to the Constitution and the Founders are my thing and Perry showed me that some politicians out there still believe in it and just don’t give it lipservice. He lives it.

          • Scope

            I am willing to bet $10,000 that many many would have accepted 10 ooops moments, with a fantastic record as Gov., and someone who has proven that he could win elections, even those where he had the whole Bush/Rove team working against him.

            Perry’s early campaign team did him a disservice when they didn’t jump on the false narratives being written about him portraying him as a racist, while he was getting slammed on the other side for signing the in-state tuition bill. He was slammed by some others for his gardisil issue, while so many other states are doing the same mandating of the vaccine. The VA legislature, with R support, just passed another law keeping the mandate in place. He was portrayed as a picker of winners and losers with his Texas Incentive Fund, even though probably every state has those same funds that are used to try to attract businesses to their states. VA has relied heavily on those funds even though they have not attracted half the businesses that Texas does. Some were crying because he was “stealing jobs from other states.”

            Much of what Perry was attacked for could have, and should have been turned into positive messaging, if he had a clever enough staff to accomplish that. That would have been up to his staff, as Perry didn’t need to spend his campaign time and speeches on trying to defend his past positions.

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            In 1980 Ronald Reagan had six years since leaving the California Governor’s mansion to stump and organize and have the campaign structure in place to be nominated. The same six years applies to Mitt Romney leaving the Massachusetts Governor’s mansion in 2006.

          • acat

            See over here or here or here

            This is not a complex point, Pilgrim, and I’ve addressed it many, many times – including that Romney was running .. but that he did *not* try to unify conservatives.

            Mew

          • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

            When you have retired from being the Governor for six years, then you enjoy the luxury of having all of that time to organize, give stump speeches, and assemble a strong campaign structure that you need to clinch the nomination. Not every candidate has this luxury. Reagan and Romney did.

          • acat

            I see your point, but .. I’m having a hard time taking it seriously.

            Mew

          • morrigan

            if he “tried” to unify conservatives?

            He’s running on a platform which is conservative orthodoxy right down the line. Where specifically is he failing to “try” to unify conservatives?

            If he was running on a platform which in some respects was repugnant to parts of the base (such as McCain’s full-bore support for amnesty for illegals) then I could see grounds for arguing that Romney was failing to try to unify conservatives. But that’s not the case.

          • acat

            Ryan Larsen and his brother Phil did an abysmal job of Romney advocacy.

            Further, they’re far from the only Romney supporters who chose to defend their candidate by attacking other candidates.

            You cannot tell me that this was not predictable given Romney’s record(s), and the lack of a competent let alone coherent grass-roots effort tells me that he’s either not really tried to unify conservatives, or he’s a lousy campaigner.

            My guess is he hasn’t tried because the rest of his campaign has been too slick for that excuse to work.

            Mew

          • morrigan

            If I based my perceptions of the candidates on their advocates on this site, there is no way in hell I’d vote for Santroum or Gingrich either. But in fact, I’d vote for either of them in a heartbeat if they won the nomination.

            >”My guess is he hasn

          • acat

            I’ll wait.

            Mew

          • acat

            serves as a very pointed contrast to Romney’s.

            (and a thank you to Scope for the reminder)

            Mew

          • Scope

            the legislative season was over, just as Cuccinelli and Bolling could not begin their races for VA Gov while the VA legislative season was still in session.

            In addition, Perry also would not have been wise to express presidential race desires, if he had them back then, while he was running for re-election as Texas Gov. Short of not running for re-election for Gov. in 2010, there simply was no way Perry could have gotten into the race any sooner than he did.

            I still firmly believe that Perry got out when he did because he saw the lengths the Romney team were willing to go to, in order to destroy the records and reputations of any one who posed a threat to him becoming the nominee. I’m convinced that it was someone working for Romney that did the rock story in order to paint Perry as a racist. Is Perry a racist? not even close. That’s the politics of personal destruction, not destruction of someone’s record. Perry’s record was a world better than Romney’s and he and they knew that. BTW, have you heard anything about the investigation Cain was going to do to find out who was behind the can’t keep it in his pants gate? Cain served his purpose for Romney when he went on Fox with Chris Wallace and all but called Perry a racist, until they went after him.

            I would go so far as saying that Romney’s 08 run was a practice run, which he used effectively to figure out who he had to work on to get them on his side, and to support the meme that he was the only inevitable candidate in 2012. I would never have thought that Karl Rove had that much influence with Fox.

            I’ve often gone and checked who Romney’s state campaign chairs, or high level staffers were in the various states. He consistently choose state party insiders who would and could influence the state GOP’s to work in his favor. VA Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is the most glaring example. He did not usually rely on plain old seasoned campaign operatives, who may not have had the ears of the insiders in the state. And even though the primary season is not over by a long shot, there are 4 candidates still standing, yet the RNC has already announced a fundraising co-effort with Romney. Al Cardenas, the current head of CPAC came out in favor of Romney a few weeks ago.

            Did you see any of Romney’s speech before the press club the other day? I started watching it, but missed most of it because I fell asleep. And that is going to beat Obama?

          • acat

            A barnstorming tour would not have needed to “look like Presidential aspirations”, just “helping out the team”.

            I’m in the ABO camp, Scope… I don’t care for Romney as the candidate, but .. he’ll be better than four more years of Obama.

            Mew

          • jimmyg

            You may have forgotten but Gov Perry appeared on Today, Morning Joe, Fox and Friends, Heritage Foundation, and even the Daily Show with John Stewart in the fall of 2010 touting his book. Obviously he was trying to sell books and raise his image. I don’t know if he was looking at a presidential run, but others speculated about it in fall of 2010 just as he was hitting the East Coast on his book tour.

            I never bought into the meme that Gov. Perry was talked into running for president late. I think he miscalculated, and believed that a run for president was not much harder than running for governor of Texas. He had won the governorship, without much effort, for a third time against a popular national figure in KBH. After all, his predecessor in the governor’s office had done so, and made it look easy.

            http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Will-Perry-s-book-tour-lead-to-White-House-run-797570.php

          • acat

            and his book tour never registered.

            That’s kind of the point – Perry’s entry was semi-surprising to insiders, and that indicates he hadn’t done the necessary ground-prep.

            Mew

          • jimmyg

            But I think Gov. Perry was thinking about running for president at least as early as fall of 2010 if not earlier. If you think about it he had every advantage in late summer of 2011. His announcement as a presidential candidate on the day of the Iowa straw poll stopped any momentum Bachmann would have had by winning the straw poll He then took the lead in the polls. The Governor’s problem was that he had not prepared for a presidential run.

            I don’t think it is useful to relive Gov. Perry’s campaign, it speaks for itself, and has been done ad nausum on these pages. Simply stated, I believe that he may have thought that a run for president would be the same as running for Gov. of Texas, just on a larger stage, with the same supporting staff. He was wrong.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Day

          • acat

            A man, jeans and a sweatshirt, is walking through a field when he notices a hot air balloon drifting lower.

            The pilot leans out of the balloon’s basket yells “Hey, I’m lost! Where am I?”

            The man on the ground yells back “You’re about 120 feet up in the air”

            The pilot yells back “You must work for Microsoft!”

            The man on the ground replies “Yes, I am! How did you know?”

            The pilot yells back “Because what you told me is technically correct but utterly useless!”.

            Have a happy Easter, counselor.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            So I get your point quite well as concerns engineering types but it’s still much harder to do two jobs as well as one given the limits of the physical world.

          • acat

            Delegate!

            Mew

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Superficially, yes, we can blame “the RNC” or the individual state party committees for all that ails us with respect to our current primary system.

    So, how to fix it?

    Start with the RNC committee members and the state party committee members and work backwards. How do we we conservatives have a hope of affecting what they do?

    In the end, there’s only way.

    Change them.

    How?

    There’s only one way. We conservatives have to be in a position to elect the committee members.

    I’ll give you an example of how it works in my state, AZ. And I’ll just focus on the three people AZ sends to the RNC. The AZ GOP has three representatives on the RNC, our state chairman and our national committeeman and national committeewoman. (Just like all of the other states; see the Rules of the Republican Party.)

    Our AZ GOP chairman is elected every two years. To be able to cast a vote for a candidate for that slot, one has to be a state committeeman. To be a state committeeman, one first has to be an elected precinct committeeman. To be an elected precinct committeeman, one has to have been elected in the primary election of the even numbered year. To get on the ballot to be elected, one has to get ten or fewer signatures from registered Republican or independent voters in their precinct. After the general election, all of the elected precinct committeemen (who are now members both of the legislative district committee and county committee) will meet at their respective legislative district committee meetings (AZ has 30 legislative districts) to elect officers and state committeemen.

    Each legislative district committee has the right, per the state committee bylaws, to elect one state committeemen for every three elected precinct committeemen. (This is an incentive for each legislative district to recruit more PCs.) These elected state committeemen may then attend the state annual meeting to elect the state committee officers, including the state chairman, who also serves on the Republican national committee. (I know of one legislative district that succeeded in electing 69 conservatives to all 69 of its allotted state committeeman slots; by contrast, the conservative PCs in my LD were able to only fill about two-thirds of our allotted slots with conservatives.)

    The AZ national committeeman and committeewoman are elected to a four year term at the AZ GOP convention held during the presidential election year. The precinct committeemen in each legislative district elect delegates (separate from the state committeemen) to attend the state convention. Unlike the requirement to be a state committeeman to vote for the state chairman, any registered Republican can nominate themselves to run for a delegate position. But, it’s more likely that the precinct committeemen will end up electing as delegates fellow precinct committeemen. Those delegates then attend the state convention and elect the delegates to attend the national convention and the AZ GOP’s national committeeman and committeewoman.

    So . . . if you want to get people to change the rules for how the primary process works, you’ve got to elect people who might be inclined to discern that we have problems with the process, both in terms of how the RNC can make fixes and how the state committees can make fixes. And to do that, you’ve got to get “inside” the Party where you live. It’s not hard to do. Every state has a unique system.

    As an example of how a state primary system can be changed, here in AZ we have a “somewhat open” primary system. Those who are registered “independent” or “party not declared” can choose whether to receive a Republican, Dem, Green or Libertarian ballot. Some of us want to change that. How do we do it? It would take either a lawsuit by the Party or legislation. The Party can’t afford the lawsuit, I’m told, and I’m told the Republican state legislators don’t see the urgency for changing the primary process. So to make the changes, we either have to raise the money and convince the state chairman and state committee to spend the money on the lawsuit or lobby the Republican state legislators and governor to enact legislation.

    The Texas GOP web site has a very good summary of “how it all works” in Texas: http://staging.electionmall.ws/texasgopsite/inner.asp?z=2

    I’ve linked at my little blog, which is linked below, whatever state “how it works” guides or videos I’ve found.

    Yes, we can blame the RNC and the state committees, but we’ve got to go beyond that and blame those who elected (or chose not to participate in those elections) these Party officers. Overall, on average, in every state, half of the “voting slots” of the Party are vacant and one third of the precincts have not even one Republican precinct committeeman. The Party is there for the taking by conservatives, but they have to show up. And so far, they haven’t been. We’ve been pretty successful in changing that here in AZ. All of the grass roots conservative groups that sprung up after Obama got elected were fertile grounds for recruiting conservatives to come “inside” the Party to try to change it and strengthen it from within. Now, after almost 3 years, many of our county and legislative district committees have new conservative officers as does our state committee. For example, here in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous, we’ve gone from 1,989 PCs in 2008 to 3,511, and a strong majority of the new ones are conservatives.

    That kind of change makes all the difference in the world in terms of what kind of Republicans get elected to the officer slots. Including the state committee and national committee.

    I hope this helps.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

    • Common_Cents

      With much lower turnout than general elections, getting involved locally in recruiting new conservative candidates and rallying support is much much easier than any other way. Not that other ways aren’t important. The huge bang for the buck is getting involved in the local party and that is why the DC establishment never says a word about it.

  • morrigan

    “I get to vote on May 29th”

    Why don’t you tell your readers WHY you get to vote on May 29th? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother to tell you here.

    “Texans don

    • acat

      For a change, we count. Sorta.

      Mew

  • Scope
    • conservativerock5

      I know he is running for governor against Lt. Gov Bill Bolling and I hope he wins, but he is going to be visiting Iowa this year.

      You can tell who will be running for President by where they visit. Chris Christie visited Israel, so he is making plans. Rand Paul is visiting Iowa as well, so he is making plans.

      • Scope

        and I doubt that he will be looking to run against a Republican incumbent president in 2016. If God forbid Obama is re-elected I wouldn’t discount Cooch making a run for it, and in fact doing very very well, especially if he is near to completing his term as VA Gov. Let him be the Gov for a few years, and we will have a great record to put before the voters. I promise he will not disappoint. If my choices were between him and Mike Pence, I would have a very hard time trying to decide. Pence will hopefully also have a Gov. record to judge him by.

    • morrigan

      I’m not “excited” at the prospect of Romney as the nominee. He strikes me as being another George W Bush Republican, a Chamber of Commerce big business Republican. If elected President I’m sure I’ll be spending some of my time fighting him, as I did with Bush.

      Of course I’m also not excited at the (now vanishingly small) prospect of Santorum or Gingrich as the nominee. They’re pretty flawed candidates as well, in same ways flawed in the same fashion as Romney, in other cases flawed in their own special ways.

      But I voted for Bush twice. In fact in 2004 I donated generously and spent a couple of days before the general working the GOTV for him. And I’ll do the same for Romney (or if he drops dead, for whoever replaces him) because my excitement will come from getting Obama and his crooked friends out of the WH.

      • Viet71

        I’ve been watching your anit-Romney comments. And listening to your words. I’ve got a pretty good ear.

        Are you here to further the debate on RS? Or to disrupt it?

        • morrigan

          You’ve mixed me up with somebody else.

          >”I

          • Viet71

            Are you a Dem infiltrator?

          • morrigan

            Of course, that’s exactly what a “Dem infiltrator” would say, isn’t it?

            Are you a cyborg sent back from the future to alter the course of history? Answer honestly now! I mean it!

          • Viet71

            Congratulations.

        • Scope

          I’ve not agreed with some of what morrigan has posted, but to ask him if he is a Dem infiltrator when he said he voted and worked for Bush, and will do the same for Romney albeit reluctantly doesn’t a Democrat make. I know you’ve been pushing hard for Romney, but it doesn’t help Romney at all whatsoever when his supporters ask the reluctant people if they are Dem infiltrators because they are much less enthusiastic for A Romney as the nominee than you are and have been for quite some time. You really need to stop doing that kind of thing.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    nominee. This sucks, its a bad move, but we have to deal with it and move on. I do not like Romney, I dislike Obamas policies more. I cannot levy a protest vote in a cycle that may lead to two new liberals on the court. If we can replace these with conservative justices, it would all be worth it.

  • Pingback: read more