« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney and Faust

Romney?s Name On The Devil?s Dotted Line

By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary)  |  January 20th, 2012 at 10:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

– Rudyard Kipling The Jeffersonian.com

There are certain things you should never be willing to do just to get ahead. In the end, the short-term gains never justify the cost of having sold out your ethics and principles. Yes, this diary is about another reason not to support Mitt Romney in the GOP Primaries this year. No, it has nothing to do with his business career or his tenure at Bain Capital. I think it addresses an issue that ultimately matters a whole lot more.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney kept a close relationship with Planned Parenthood. In the course of keeping this relationship, he signed away any possible Pro-Life convictions he would later attempt to lay claim to. Like Faust signing his soul over to Mephistopheles, Romney signed a document pledging strong support for almost all agenda points that Planned Parenthood wanted him to pursue as Governor of Massachusetts. Buzzfeed.com has a copy of the questionnaire Governor Romney prepared for Planned Parenthood.

Romney's Deal With The Devil

Now every Republican and every Democrat in DC can claim that they value human life. Perhaps the silver lining to the evil organization known as Planned Parenthood consists of the fact that their political lobbying activities give us a measure of exactly how much each politician values life. Planned Parenthood will pursue unabated nihilism and will pay what it needs to buy off political support. In order to pay a Danegeld of sorts to Pro-Abortion Movement in Massachusetts, Romney was willing to do the following:

1) Support the Roe v. Wade USSC decision.
2) Favor the use of Medicaid dollars to fund abortions for low income women.
3) Favor “safety zones” to keep protestors away from abortuaries.
4) Support emergency contraception via the morning after pill.

Of course, even Mitt Romney had his limits.
1) He wouldn’t favor government funding for contraceptive pills until he had studied the legislation.
2) He would not fight bans against partial birth abortions.
3) He didn’t sign on to support abortions for minors without parental consent.

This suggests to me that Romney has some Pro-Life tendencies when they are favored under political cost/benefit analysis. This is an issue he would rather either ignore, or buy himself silence on. In responding favorably to so much of Planned Parenthood’s 2002 abortion rights questionnaire, he showed himself willing to pay a significant Danegeld to pro-Abortion groups in order to avoid having to fight against them for the lives of unborn children.

Mitch Daniels talked of a truce on social issues. He was accused of being a traitor to the right and it ended any chance he had at running for President. Mitt Romney actually signed on to pay a Danegeld. He has sold out his principles and avoided a fight over abortion. This validates and perpetuates the continued existence of abortion on demand. Cowardice always serves the ends of evil. You cannot claim to be a Pro-Life political figure if you are too frightened of Planned Parenthood to actually fight abortion.

Suing for peace with Planned Parenthood has availed Mitt Romney very little. It was as if he had signed away his right to have morals and ethics in a deal with the devil. And when one of Rick Santorum’s campaign workers passed around copies of Mitt Romney’s Planned Parenthood questionnaire, it was like Mephistopheles reminding Faust that in the end, Old Scratch would always show up and collect.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Newt’s answer here is revealing: when does human life begin. Newt, who clearly believes we are his intellectual inferiors, shot out the answer “at implantation.”

    In an interview with ABC News on Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he believes that human life does not begin at conception but at “implantation and successful implantation” because if you say life begins at conception “you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.”

    Gingrich also said that his “friends” who take “ideological positions” that human life does begin at conception “don’t then follow through on the logic of” that position.

    Gingrich and the beginning of human life

    Why is this such a big deal? Why did this statement cause pro-lifers to run screaming down the street with their hair on fire? Simple. Newt’s position left the door wide open for embryonic stem cell research. It left the door open to all kinds of experimentation on human embryos. Since most lab research is done on lab created embrios that were never “implanted” it would be perfectly legal. Big bio-tech firms could turn human embryo production into a lucrative commodity under the Gingrich definition. A fertility clinic could make a handsome profit selling unused frozen embryos to colleges and research labs. And why not? If they’re not “implanted” they’re not human. Right?

    Gingrich quickly retreated from this statement after being hit on it by Michele Bachmann. This raises the question: has Gingrich been influenced by lobbyists from the bio-tech industry? Was this really a Freudian slip?

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Nice try, candi-bot.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        But thanks anyway. I will cherish your objectivity.

        Gingrich’s position, which we may never truly know until he gets elected, would open up the use of human embryos for harvesting. Do we really want to turn human life into a commodity?? Really??

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          >>>>>Do we really want to turn human life into a commodity?? Really??

          If you sign on to a Planned Parenthood petition because you lack the political courage to fight them then apparantly you really do. I also wonder what that says about the people who support a candidate who willingly and volitionally signs Planned Parenthood petitions.

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            People who hold up Newt Gingrich as “pro-life” are deceiving themselves. Nominating Gingrich guarantees there will be more abortions.

            I have followed his career for 20 years and he is unstable and unprincipled. One-bama is the most pro-abortion POTUS in US history. Under his administration Federal funding will be used for more abortions with some estimates say the One-bama’s policies could fund and EXTRA 500,000 abortions per year. If we nominate Newt Gingrich we guarantee One-bama will be re-elected thus furthering the slaughter of innocent unborn children. Is that what you want?

            Is the subject of your post about stopping the most pro-abortion candidate?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            For every poster on RS that says that about Newt I can find you at least 1 who would say it about Romney or Santorum.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I came here to argue against your comment title. :)

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            NT.

          • jakeofalltrades

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            It clearly shows that Repair_Man_Jack is a lterate and enlightened person. If he really wants an example of a Faustian bargain he may want to take an objective look at Newt Gingrich’s career.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And he did it on purpose.

            If you think it’s legitimately great, you’re likely a candibot.

          • barleycorn

            I think Neil came here because of the title RMJ used on the post up thread that Neil actually responded to, not because of the “Romney and Faust” title at the top.

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            This primary is Romney’s to lose.

            The full tonnage of Newt’s baggage has yet to hit the fan. One-bama is printing up thousands of “Share Me” tee shirts even as we speak.

            Romney is not my first pick, but the big question out here in the real world is “Is America ready to elect another adulterer to the White House?”

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Stuff like the Obama Administration being completely unable to to reverse the current joblessness is totally boring compared to wondering if the President thinks too much w/ his dickey-whickey.

            http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-02/markets/30466478_1_jobs-report-jobs-recovery-chart

          • acat

            If you go ahead with this business plan, I want a cut.

            Mew

          • jakeofalltrades

            “I slept with Newt – who wouldn’t? Newt 2012″.

            Own the insult, Newt. Despite all appearances, you’re a stud.

          • circlegranch

            .

        • veritaseequitas

          commodity, or haven’t you been paying attention to the politics of funding PP?

    • Juggernaut

      http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/conception-implantation.html

      Implantation occurs within the body and is natural

      Bio tech is another area, did he accept money, there are sources on that form of implantation which is normally called artificial insemination.

      • jakeofalltrades

        Very nice, Juggernaut.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        n/t

    • cheetah2

      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-backpedals-says-life-begins-conception-supports-14th-amendment-protection

  • sjwrick

    to his debate performance/statements last night.

    I hate it when politicians play the semantics game. He is pulling a Clinton.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Here’s why: 75% of conceived eggs never implant in the uterine lining.

    If life begins at conception, then unprotected sex during ovulation would be homicide 75% of the time.

    • jakeofalltrades

      Reply intended for this comment by NickDeringer.

    • jakeofalltrades

      I’ve been saying it for years. No candi-botting, and I’m still for Romney (barely).

    • jdbird

      By that logic 100% of human activity results in homicide because in the end because, in the end, we all die. By that logic, your left to conclude that all abortion and even infanticide are acceptable as long as they occur before an arbitrary point where after which mortality has assumed an acceptable level. Not all death is homicide,

      • jakeofalltrades

        is at least manslaughter.

        It’s like loading a four-shot revolver with three bullets, spinning the barrel, aiming at someone, and pulling the trigger.

        • acat

          (null)

        • jdbird

          It’s a silly argument. Being conceived ultimately ends in death 100% of the time. The only way your argument makes sense is if someone does something to prevent the implantation. I’d agree with you on that point, intentionally preventing implantation should be outlawed. But, you can’t criminalize an act of God.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Conception is not the cause of death by old age or accident or disease or whatever, so your analogy is entirely spurious.

            If I put on a blindfold in a theater and start randomly shooting, I didn’t intend to hit anyone. If I killed someone, I still committed a homicide, and I’m going to jail because of my reckless indifference to human life – even if the odds were greatly against me actually hitting someone.

            If I push someone off the side of a building, the gravity – an act of God – is what kills them. That doesn’t mean I’m innocent, unless it was an accident or due to bare negligence.

            That is why conception is not “when life begins” – because otherwise unprotected sex during ovulation would usually be manslaughter.

          • jdbird

            Conception causes non-implantation in the same way it “causes” old age.

    • cheetah2

      A fertilized egg that does not implant as a natural process is exactly the same as when a child lives to be born and later dies from a birth defect. Would you say that the parents murdered or manslaughtered that child?

      • jakeofalltrades

        is divinely engineered – it is by design. And I do not believe God to be that callous towards His own image as to kill 75% of us off the bat. When that embryo stretches out towards its mother and embeds itself in her, that is a very beautiful, meaningful event. Once that happens, I call it a baby.

        Think about it – why not say life begins before conception? Why aren’t sperm and eggs human beings when their DNA is unique as well?

        Because God’s own design condemns almost all of them to death. It is too counter-intuitive to me that He would be so callous towards His image.

        • jdbird

          Adam’s sin condemns us all to death. Since we don’t know how things worked out in the garden, we can’t make an normative argument from God’s creation. One could certainly argue that if Man remained sinless implantation would occur 100% of the time.

          I read a quote recently, and I can’t lay my finger on it at the moment, by the theologian Charles Hodge, I believe, about child and infant mortality. He believed that the majority of humanity across time was destined for heaven rather than hell. One can obviously look around and see that Christians do not nor have ever comprised 50% or more of the world’s population. He based this assertion on the idea that children and infants who died were destined for paradise rather than eternal damnation. So, who’s to say that a failure to implant is sign of a callous God? Perhaps it is yet another sign of His infinite and undeserved mercy.

          • jakeofalltrades

            then narrow is the road to hell, and wide is the way of life. That’s the opposite of what I have been taught.

            The notion that dead babies automatically go to heaven is both popular and unfounded.

          • jdbird

            The notion that they all go to hell is also unfounded and decidedly less popular. . .unless your an arminian perhaps. As a good presbyterian myself (as was Hodge), I believe the official church position is elect infants are saved. Who elect infants are is left unstated. And many, many excellent Calvinist theologians have decided to err on the side of they might all get in, though admitting we don’t know for sure.

            Your point however was that non-implantation would prove God to be evil, mine is that it is the natural result of a sinful and fallen world that God perhaps works out for good, in His own way. Skipping this world and immediately going on to the next doesn’t seem all that raw a deal to me.

          • jakeofalltrades

            are every bit as reasonable as those for “life begins at implantation”.

            Reasonable people are free to disagree on that point.

            What we are not free to disagree on is that a fetus is a human being IMO. Anything that feels pain or has a nervous system or a beating heart, and has mostly-human DNA (see: mutations) is a human life worthy of equal protection.

          • jdbird

            I can agree that one can disagree on this point which is probably a tad esoteric, because really, we don’t know. I prefer, however, to err on the side of caution when it comes to something so important. I feel comfortable being to the left of neo-Platonist who might argue for the protection of the potentiality of life in the egg and sperm.

          • Common_Cents

            Continuous improvement shouldn’t be abandoned by life at conception pro lifers. At least for public policy.

            Life at implantation can get rid of the exceptions the choicers use, such as rape, incest, etc.. Implantation takes up to a couple weeks?

          • lapert

            Using implantation doesn’t address those exception since implantation happens before pregnancy is detected in pregnancy tests.

            It would limit debate on birth control which using conception as the line calls into question – and frankly makes it a losing argument these days as shown in Mississippi last year.

        • littlehouse18

          and are thus not yet human. A human is created by their union (and hence the union of the mother and father).

          Where do you get your 75% figure.

          Cheetah2, I concur with you.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR (June 1999). “Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy”. The New England journal of medicine 340 (23): 1796?9.

          • Uma Richie

            doesn’t say anything about implantation rates of fertilized eggs, i.e., brand new humans.

            The study looked at the relationship of (number of days between ovulation and implantation) to (miscarriage rate). Ovulation and implantation were detected by measuring hormone levels in samples of urine that were collected by women and stored in home refrigerators for up to two weeks. There was no attempt to detect fertilization.

            This was a fantastic study and I really enjoyed reading the report; however, it had absolutely nothing to do with God killing babies before they have a chance to implant.

            Can you please post the link where you found the 70% figure? I am not interested in debating the issue, but I do want to track down the source of the information.

            From a practical level, I can’t believe that the estimate came from an observational study on naturally conceiving humans. I suspect it originated from an in vitro lab or from an animal study. Again, please let me know where you found the information, it would help a lot. Thanks!

          • jakeofalltrades

            I have to rely on experts, and the rate of embryo implantation is shockingly low according to practically every expert I’ve read.

            Here’s another one.

            I have no interest in providing cumulative evidence. That is the last expert I will provide.

          • Uma Richie

            I was trying to be nice. I was looking for information, and you headlined me like I am some kind of idiot. I didn’t want to argue this point with you. We have a lot of work to do in creating a culture of life in this country, and I do not have time to dispute heads of pins and their resident angels, as beautiful and precious as they all are. I wanted to know your source so that I could educate myself.

            Unlike you, I like to see the scientific evidence before I naively believe a presumed expert, particularly on life and death issues.

            The link you just gave points to the source of the information as the following:

            quote-
            John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President?s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is ?enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.?
            -unquote

            So I just looked for the testimony in question. I found some of Dr. Opitz’s testimony, but for a different date here:
            http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/jan03/session1.html

            And what this testimony really says is not that 60 to 80 percent of random embryos fail to implant, but that there are many, many genetic defects that cause death before there’s even the chance of implantation.

            So if we are to believe Dr. Opitz, those of us who have a moral problem with artificial measures that make a woman’s uterus inhospitable to a human blastocyst seeking to implant are being logical in our values, because the blastocysts seeking to implant are in the majority of cases healthy humans.

            I hope that you can see the difference between two things. On one hand is accepting death soon after fertilization caused by genetic abnormalities, which, in my opinion, are the key to human adaptation to changes in the environment and survival of the species when they actually work out. On the other hand is using the natural deaths of a large percentage of very young humans to justify cutting off the lifeline to a completely different group of very young humans. It would be like starving arbitrarily selected gay men to death at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

            Dr. Opitz gave no citation for his claim, but rather said that the estimate has been in place by a number of respected authors for decades.

            That might be enough for you, and that is fine, but from here I must continue to investigate. Dr. Opitz’s claim is not consistent with my observations regarding my own five pregnancies. As a natural family planning user, I am very proficient in estimating the date of ovulation. I have never gotten pregnant outside my own fertility window (about 9 days per month, which breaks down into 5 days for pre-ovulatory sperm survival, and 4 days for release of two eggs 48 hours apart, each surviving 48 hours) calculated in hindsight, at the end of a cycle, based on three biomeasurements recorded daily. 100% of the time I have had relations within this window of fertility, I have had a successful implantation. I have never gotten pregnant outside this window of fertility.

            So, now, please believe when I tell you that I was simply looking, in particular, for your source of information because I had an academic interest. It was not because I am too lazy or stupid to Google it myself. It was not because I was trying to make a point.

            Thank you and good night.

          • cheetah2

            It is interesting to see the arguments on both sides of this issue. I prefer to err on the side of caution. I see a big difference between a sovereign God allowing some embryos to die before implanting, and humans taking that decision into their own hands.

            I do believe that little ones who are not old enough to tell the difference between right and wrong do go to heaven if they die.

            Jake: You said,” When that embryo stretches out towards its mother and embeds itself in her, that is a very beautiful, meaningful event. Once that happens, I call it a baby.”

            so being attached to the mom vs not being attached to her is the difference between being a baby and not being a baby?

  • veritaseequitas

    redux by Marianne Gingrich and the Left’s pitiful attempt to smear Newt with something that has been public knowledge for years, I think that Newt’s skeletons have escaped the closet. He has claimed repentance and asked for forgiveness. He has released his tax returns. He has said he took some stupid positions that were mistakes.
    Mitt, on the other hand, has done none of those things. He has not disavowed Romneycare, he has put off releasing his tax returns and even though he claims a pro-life position, I agree with RMJ that Mitt views it as politically expedient for him to stake that claim. After all, doing the kind of work he did at Bain, and so successfully I might add, points to him being a bottom line kind of guy. While It might be painful to shut down a mill or other business and cause people to lose their jobs…bottom line, it has to be done. I think he looks at his “positions” in the same way. He does not have my vote tomorrow.
    I think also that The Communist and his handlers have a lot in common with Mitt and so welcome a run against him. It will be like shooting fish in a barrel for them.

    • zollistar

      This is what worries and even scares me.

      Thanks for this detailed post, Repair-Man. I also appreciate your comments re: his expediency, Veritaseequitas.

      And, yes, I’m willing to believe that a person has changed his or her position if he or she very publicly disavows the former position, works to “repair the damage”, etc., etc.

      Below is (most of) the e-mail I sent the head of our Tea Party this morning, fwiw:

      Dear __________

      We have our “Romney differences”.

      Before talking about how one can change one’s position on a matter as serious as abortion — which, of course, one can do: Bernard Nathanson, M.D., a NARAL co-founder who personally aborted one of his own children and was a major force in the legalization of abortion in New York state comes immediately to mind — while this this kind of a change is true, Romney’s conviction has more to do with expediency.

      Romney has always been expedient. This is why it’s hard to trust him.

      Please take the time to read this RedState.com posting re: his abortion-related expediency:

      http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2012/01/20/romney-and-faust/

      I absolutely do not trust Romney. There is no reason to trust him.

      I surely hope I don’t have to work on his behalf….

      PS: You may not know much about Nathanson, but I do. When he finally
      realized that he was involved in the killing of human life, he limited his
      abortion work. Then he quit it entirely. Then he began speaking out in favor
      of pro-life and pro-lifers volunteering and helping us.

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

      one says they should be forgiven the Clinton era behavior, but the other is pretty well behaved when it comes to his personal life. on the flip side, one has shown leftist tendencies while, wait so has the other.

      The only reason to support Newt is he would be fun to watch, but would likely self-destruct along the way, and the only Reason to support Romney is he is running head to head in the polls with Obama, even winning in some, while Newt is trailing in most by big numbers.

      Neither of these are good reasons to support these two. oh what to do, what to do.

  • jakeofalltrades

    • acat

      I rate this post 5 spicey chicken legs!

      Mew

      • cheetah2

        It is so much more fun with illustrations.

        • jakeofalltrades

          <img src="http://www.mywebsite.com/picture.jpg" width="400"/>

          Replace the bolded text with the address of the picture. You can get this by right-clicking the picture and selecting “Copy Image Location” in Firefox; then, just paste it. In Internet Explorer, right-click the picture and select “Properties”, then copy the address from the dialog box that pops up and paste it over the bolded text above.

          • acat

            First, using image locations inside other folks’ web sites is called “deep linking” and some sites frown on it … to the point where they’ll put up offensive or nasty replacement-images.

            Second, and as I’m not Jake this is a guess, the width=400 stuff is intended to make the picture small enough for Red States’ threaded comment view. It might, though, end up expanding a very small picture and making it look less pretty….

            Mew

          • jakeofalltrades

            after typing in all those HTML entities.

            As acat hinted, only include the width part if the picture looks like it might be wider than the comment thread you’re pasting into.

            The sites that tend to prevent deep-linking are:

            Private blogs or vanity sites with their own domain name
            All online forums
            Single-business commercial websites whose sole product is online

            Sites that tend to not to care are:
            Churches
            Commercial websites for bricks-and-mortar businesses
            Personal sites that have an ISP in the domain name

            Everything else is best-guess; usually the determinant is whether the bandwidth load from deep-linking is sufficient to cause the business to prevent it. I can guarantee you that if you deep-linked to any of my work’s websites, I wouldn’t bother to stop you. Under normal circumstances (not the last few weeks), I am far too busy to bother with small potatoes.

            You can test it first by pasting the img code into notepad or a text editor and saving it with the .html extension, then opening the file in your web browser. If they don’t like deep-linking, you will see either nothing or a very nasty message.

            And yes, nerds, the HTML produced by this process isn’t technically valid, but let’s face it: most HTML isn’t valid anyway. It’ll work.

          • cheetah2

            tomorrow when my brain is working at full capacity I will try it out.

  • Kyle-MI

    Does that mean, if Romney gets the GOP nomination, you would be willing to vote for the Devil’s candidate in order to get rid of Obama? Or would you vote for Obama instead of the candidate that made a deal with the Devil? Or if you believe, Romney and Obama are both of the Devil, will you sit this out or vote third party?

    Look, I have not problem with people arguing about who to vote for in the primary. Some of these anti-candidate screeds just seem ridiculous, however, especially because we all know you will vote for Romney over Obama.

  • garythompson

    Really? We’re talking about Abortion? With all the problems that are in DC, do you really think the next President and Congress are going to tackle Roe v. Wade? I think abortion is murder and of course we should pick presidents who will appoint Judges to the SCOTUS and I think Romney will do this. Any discussion outside of that topic is a waste of time.

    So can we get off the social issues that only dilute our message? What next? Gay Marriage? This is why Santorum can’t be our candidate.

    I’ll vote for Romney on Saturday because he has the best chance to beat Obama. Gingrich’s hand is always “6 inches from the self destruct button” and he will turn off those in the political middle of this country. Obama has to go and I see Mitt as the ONLY remaining candidate who can beat him.

    And I can’t believe how many times I’ve had to defend Romney – I would’ve never guessed I’d be the one defending this guy and much less voting for him in the Primary. I wrote down my reasons for voting Romney a few weeks ago and for the most part those are still valid for me.

    http://cosmoscon.com/2012/01/04/calm-down-conservatives/

    • benko

      even with notice can’t figure out how to answer the question about releasing his taxes? He came across as flustered when that question which he had to know was coming was asked of him. He comes across as someone who is phony but not polished about it (as opposed to e.g. slick willy).

  • hls87

    Comparing the two is silly. It’s like arguing over which barnyard animal has the most odiferous excrement. Neither Romney nor Gingrich is minimally acceptable and Gingrich has no chance whatever of winning the nomination. Romney will be the nominee so it doesn’t matter how well or badly he compares with any other Republican. Maybe Gingrich is more pro-life than Romney. Maybe he isn’t. Maybe an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. What difference does it make?

    The only conversation worth having now is how to do better in 2016 when we will have another chance to pick a suitable, post-progressive President to succeed Obama. The 2012 game is over and it’s time to start preparing for next time.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Please, tell us more about how your buddy Barry is so invincible.

      • hls87

        Obama is hardly invincible but to beat him you have to draw a contrast. An election devoid of ideological contrast is nearly always close and ties typically go to the incumbent, even in bad times. This year will be without precedent at least since 1940. The economy is bad, but it has been bad long enough that bad is becoming the new normal. Nobody knows how the electorate will react to this situation, but it is hardly a slam dunk for Republicans.

        The insistence that any Republican will do and that the summum bonum is beating Obama has put us in a no-win situation. Many conservatives, including you, have repeatedly told the progressive Republican Establishment that we will swallow whatever they choose to dish out and guess what? They dished out a steaming bowl of progressive mush which is quite likely to lose in November and would do very little, if anything, to improve our situation in the unlikely event of a victory..

        The biggest asset the GOP had going into the election was the enthusiasm gap. Thats gone. The most important issue was the health care overreach. That’s gone. Obama and Romney are equally attached to the nanny state, they just disagree about who should be the head zoo keepter charged with caring for us all. The election will be about nothing and in such an election the challenger is likely to lose.

        Beating Obama was never the primary goal. Taking control of the GOP from its progressive establishment was always job one and too many conersvatives can’t grasp that. Nothing good will happen in American politics until conservatives can conquer the GOP and Romney’s victory means we blew our chance for now. We have to go back to the down ticket races and try to rebuild the Party from the ground up and we have to get ready to play a smarter game next time. We have to learn not to waste energy on no-hopers like Bachmann, Cain, Santorum and Gingrich.

        In the mean time, there’s no point in pretending that Romney’s victory is not a disaster. When you turn your back on reality, reality bites you in the butt every time.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          If it’s game over, Dude then why are you still around? Just think, you could be off somewhere working on a toe-cheese sculpture. It would be more useful than whining about the demise of a candidate who doesn’t even exist.

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

          submitted to the establishment in the hope to beat Obama, but really, even if we take Washington back, have we really won. I am not so sure. I can see why Beck moved to Texas, and why he calls Newt Gingrich a progressive thinker. What happened to bring us here?

    • barleycorn

      “It?s like arguing over which barnyard animal has the most odiferous excrement. ”

      I think that would be the his87. A whole herd of those camped out in a bunch of cities recently and hoo boy did they stink up the place.

  • unsk

    This election comes down to whether to vote for someone who fights for our rights or one who will surrrender our rights to the Progressives.

    The choice is clear.

    Newt will fight to save our rights and save America.

    Romney won’t. Willard is a bought and paid for capitulator’agent of the Progressive Left.

    The powerful TBTF/ Nanny State Hegemon wants to obliterate any opposition and rule with impunity. Any Conservative who dares to fight this hegemony will come under a withering attack, as have both Sarah Palin and Newt. Loads of dirty laundry, truthful or not ,will be thrown at any candidate that is a serious threat to curtail the Ruling Elite’s power.

    Both Obama and Romney serve this aristocratic elite monster and will do it’s bidding. There isn’t in the end much difference between the two. Both support the Progressive Left position consistently. Romney just comes wrapped in more presentable faux ‘ Capitalist/ Republican” package.

    Romney’s support for Planned Parenthood should come as no surprise. When has Romney not sold out Conservatives and our rights?

    Newt doesn’t have perfect character. Yes, he has had affairs and can be arrogant, but he has always tried to find solutions to America’s problems. Fighters like Newt usually are a little rough around the edges and rarely come squeaky clean. Yet, Newt is one of the few who has fought the Establishment in the past and won when few Republicans even dared. He is a tough so and so and can take a punch. Newt is so tough that he is probably the only one of the contenders who could take the unbelievable amount of crap they will throw at him or any other serious Conservative nominee in this coming election. That may be why he is the man for this moment.

    The choice is clear.

    If you are comfortable with this Depression, have no qualms about the 25 million or so out of work, and don’t care about our rights that will be lost to the Progressive Left, vote for Willard.

    If you want to save America and save our rights, vote for Newt.

    • cheetah2

      Obama won in part because his opponent was reluctant to fight him. Before the primaries ever began I said I would be for the candidate who would fight Obama the best. That is Newt Gingrich at this point.

      • papabear

        nt

    • Common_Cents

      Romney=McCain

      or

      Gingrich

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

      unless of course all these options are bad. I really wish I could believe Newt was who he claims to be now, he just has not been that person.

  • scchuck

    then you have already made a Faustian bargain by not supporting Rick Santorum who is and has always been an unequivocal pro life candidate. You can pick apart any candidate on the basis of one or two issues such as electability, grandiosity or conservatism. In the end you have to judge the candidates on their overall package warts and all and determine who you believe will can win in the fall when its important. I get to vote tomorrow and I have already decided it will not be Gingrich. I think what plays well in front of a partisan crowd during the primary debates will not play in the Presidential debates. The optics of a sitting President versus a former Speaker of the House forced out by his own membership will be much different. Gingrich will not get his Lincoln Douglas style debate. More likely the result will be similar to when Gingrich complained about sitting in the back of Air Force One, he will look small and petty.

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

    if this keeps up, I won’t vote for anyone in the general election. Romney talked states rights last night, he won me over some, Newt us a beast, still thing he would harm the party down ballot. But if Romney is as bad as many say; please tell me how we should even care if he beats Obama. it looks like Romney is going to be the nominee, but if he is this, why should conservatives even bother, we will only have Obama with an R by his name, or Newt, which I still think cannot beat Obama, and probably not Romney.

    Why, oh, why.

    • paladin1

      one of your posts from yesterday. Maybe it will help you from the point of view of one Perry guy to another.

  • nativetexan41

    I have supported Perry from the time he ran for AG Com. So I have been sad since he dropped out, I just cannot vote for Romney. I believe that Newt has been forgiven and as a Christian I should also forgive him and I will vote for him. He is a very smart man and has a lot of good ideas and will fight for this country. I trust Perry on this.

  • runner12

    on Romney. I just do not know what the man stands for. What are his principles? Does he have any? Or is it all about political expediency.

    On the other hand we have Newt. I loved what I heard him say on Hannity today, for the most part. But I was disappointed at his absence of an apology towards his ex-wife, even when Hannity gave him a clear opening to do so. No matter how tasteless I think the timing of this is, the man owes her an apology at least. Then in turn, maybe she will apologize to his first wife for her behavior. What a soap opera!

    Now that Perry is out, place me in the undecided camp (in the primary). In the general, it is ABO.

  • David123

    because with Rick Santorum, who he is is pro-life. He walks the pro-life walk.

    If 90pct of people were pro-choice, would Mitt Romney be pro-life? Would you bet your life on Mitt Romney being pro-life? I wouldn’t.