FreedomWorks chief: If Romney’s the nominee, tea partiers might have to stay home

posted at 4:10 pm on June 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

Don’t look now, but between this and Amy Kremer’s comments on Fox last weekend, we’ve got a bona fide tea-party split over Mitt.

I knew that FreedomWorks was intent on torpedoing him in the primary but I didn’t think they’d take it quite this far quite so soon. Better Obama II than Romney I?

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for president, Tea Party activists may not show up at all to vote in the general election, one leading group associated with the Tea Party movement is warning.

“I think that’s a potential problem,” said Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks’ president, during a wide-ranging interview with reporters at The Daily Caller.

He also warned that if Republicans nominate another “John McCain,” activists might even vote third party in 2012.

“I believe in redemption, but at some point, you sort of give up,” he said. “And we’ve given up on Mitt Romney.”

An idle threat? Potentially not:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that in a three-way congressional contest with a Tea Party candidate on the ballot, the Democrat picks up 40% of the vote. The Republican earns 21% support, while nearly as many (18%) favor the Tea Party candidate. Twenty-one percent (21%), however, remain undecided…

In the new survey, the Tea Party candidate draws 28% support from GOP voters, while 85% of Democrats back their party’s candidate. Just 45% of Republicans support the Republican candidate in the three-way matchup. Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, 15% like the Republican, 29% the Democrat and 25% the Tea Party candidate.

When asked about Romney’s rivals, Kibbe told the DC that Cain could be vulnerable for his TARP position and that, while he likes Palin, “she needs to prove that she can study up.” Where does that leave FreedomWorks at the moment, then? With Bachmann? I’m skeptical given their approach to the Castle/O’Donnell primary in Delaware. While other tea-party heroes like Palin and DeMint lined up behind O’D, Kibbe told the Christian Science Monitor at the time, “We stayed out of that race because we are not convinced that Christine O’Donnell can win.” Bachmann’s a longer shot for the nomination than O’Donnell was in her Senate race, so presumably she’s not an option for them. Maybe they’re holding out for Perry to jump in? Or maybe, per their O’Donnell logic, they’re going to invest in Pawlenty as a conservative yet electable candidate.

It’s worth flagging this if for no other reason than as a sneak preview of how wrenching Romney’s nomination could be within the party, especially among activists. The possibility of people staying home in protest is real but it’s already priced into his stock; what hasn’t been fully considered yet is the prospect of rifts opening within the grassroots and between tea party groups as people choose sides between the Kibbe and Kremer approaches. Any group that bolsters Obama’s chances by walking away will be so vilified afterwards that they’ll be essentially committing themselves to a fully third-party identity. Maybe FreedomWorks will think better of that strategy — Kibbe could simply be bluffing to nudge people towards nominating someone else — but “we’ve given up on Mitt Romney” is pretty high-stakes.

Update: Tabitha Hale of FreedomWorks tweets that we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions:

The piece didn’t say it was “purity” or Obama at all. In fact, Kibbe actually said opposite – that he was CONCERNED about that.

We’re willing to rally, right now we’re not sure around who – but this is the time to duke it out.

Okay, but if there’s a chance the group might grudgingly support Romney in the interest of beating Obama, why drop “we’ve given up on Mitt Romney” on him now?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

As for nominating a fiscal con, there’s no problem with that. Thing is the TP’ers have gotten preachy and simply being a fiscal conservative is no longer enough.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 4:35 PM

There are no “fiscal conservatives” who aren’t also “social conservatives”. You think Romney is a fiscal conservative? Huntsman? Daniels or somebody? These “moderates” form all their opinions based on what their pollsters and focus groups tell them will get votes and media approval. Just because somebody owns a $2000 suit and appears to be a “businessman” doesn’t mean he will have the desire or the courage to disrupt the federal apple pork cart.

Can you imagine Mitt Romney or any of your “fiscal conservatives” signing a bill to close the department of education, for example, or even to end government involvement in student loans?

I’ll tell you who would have the courage to sign that bill: the same people you dismiss as “social cons”. Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann. They’d sign the bill to close the Education department, and they’d fight to end abortion. They’re strong on all issues, and your so-called “fiscal cons” aren’t strong on any issues, not even the fiscal ones.

joe_doufu on June 10, 2011 at 4:54 PM

I really don’t want Mitt, but I WILL vote for him, if necessary.

pambi on June 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Well I certainly feel the same way. I just think the guy will pander to anyone for any reason to get a vote. I think we have had enough of that and I’m sick of it, however not sick enough of it to allow my lack of voting to allow Obama to remain in office.

whbates on June 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Knowing what Obama’s done to this country, anyone who says they’ll sit out the election or vote third party if Romney’s the nominee is full of crap.

Pcoop on June 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM

You mean I won’t be popular with GOP “moderates?” I’m heartbroken.

Bugler on June 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Yes, because electing Romney would be far worse than four more years of Obama.

BRILLIANT logic.

Especially considering that the Supreme Court doesn’t matter…

nickj116 on June 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM

A.k.a. “The Sampson Plan”, or “Scorched Earth”

scotash on June 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Really? Show me a true fiscal con that the TP wouldn’t support.

blink

Romney is a hell of alot better on fiscal issues than Obama. Gingrich led a shutdown of government in an attempt to reign in spending.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Mittens?

No.

Friggin’.

Way.

Hello Libertarian Sacrificial Candidate.

You got my vote.

Bruno Strozek on June 10, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Just plain stupid.

clnurnberg on June 10, 2011 at 5:00 PM

It’s not an idle threat. Nobody with at leat two functioning brain cells will for Romney or Gingrich or Huntsman or any other typical unprincipled politician. Why? Because Romney et al blow in the political winds — there’s no way anyone can know what position they will hold on any given issue a year from now, or five years from now.

I would vote for a principled moderate over an unprincipled “conservative” every time.

Still doing research on Perry. Not sure what to think yet.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:00 PM

I won’t vote for Romney.

Bugler on June 10, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Then you hate America, & Kittens! & Soft Serve Ice Cream! /

portlandon on June 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Yea. Hand Obama another four years. It’s the idiots that don’t understand the Tug-Of-War concept in politics that will get us killed in elections.

blatantblue on June 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Almost anyone would be better than Obama, that’s why I would vote for Romney if I had to. But after his statements on ethanol and global warming, in addition to RomneyCare, I won’t vote for him in the primary.

Unless Rick Perry jumps in, it’s looking like Pawlenty for me.

I like Herman Cain, but he’s never held political office. If he can’t win in his own state, how can he win nationally?

He’s also clueless when it comes to foreign policy, haven’t we had enough of that already?

POTUS should not have training wheels.

Common Sense on June 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Tea partiers would rather see the country go irretrievably socialist than compromise their “principles”? Then they haven’t any.

clnurnberg on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Still doing research on Perry. Not sure what to think yet.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:00 PM

..well, be sure to get back to us soon and let us know what you think. We’re waiting with bated breath for your pronunciamiento.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

I’ll tell you who would have the courage to sign that bill: the same people you dismiss as “social cons”. Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann. They’d sign the bill to close the Education department, and they’d fight to end abortion. They’re strong on all issues, and your so-called “fiscal cons” aren’t strong on any issues, not even the fiscal ones.

joe_doufu

And all those candidates of yours will lose, BADLY. Why? Most people don’t want Education closed. Most people don’t think all abortion should be outlawed. Most people don’t think Gays should be prevented from getting married. Hence a social con will not win.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Romney is the only candidate who would make me consider staying home. Possibly Huntsman and Gingrich, too, but not as easily as Romney.

I would gladly vote for Pawlenty, Cain, Palin, Ryan, Christie, or Perry.

Caiwyn on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Not Voting Romney or Pawlenty EVER.

Nelsen on June 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Romney is a hell of alot better on fiscal issues than Obama.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 4:59 PM

That’s a dubious qualification. A cockroach would be better than Obama on fiscal issues. Doesn’t mean it will get my vote.

Romney is a typical big-government Republican, and he’s unprincipled to boot. He knows how to talk the conservative talk when it’s politically expedient to do so, but you’re a fool if you put more credence in talk than action.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM

joe_doufu on June 10, 2011 at 4:54 PM

+1
Maybe the test should be a promise to close something, anything. A real promise not an Obama promise.

ORconservative on June 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Tea partiers would rather see the country go irretrievably socialist than compromise their “principles”? Then they haven’t any.

clnurnberg on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Except for Romney is just as much of a socialist as Obama. I mean he doesn’t admit it straight up but he still would continue us down the same path.

Nelsen on June 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM

If we’re going to hell in a handbasket, I’d rather it happen faster under Obama and sit back and wait for the revolution, as Jeff Goldberg @ Protein Wisdom stated. I’m all in. >:/

CambellBrown on June 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Another revolution will not be like 1776, it will the worst thing mankind has ever witnessed. The horror would be indescribable. You do NOT want another revolution. Save the country while you can, or you will be partly to blame for the carnage.

scotash on June 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Obama/Romney – not much difference – only a matter of degrees and not enough of a difference to fix the country’s problems.

So – the GOP can nominate Romney with his Romneycare, big government, AGW believing philosophy, but then I stay home.

Romney is not electable. Nominate Romney and you might as well save your campaign dollars for 2016.

Over50 on June 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM

If Romney is the nominee I don’t plan to quietly tolerate bitching about Obama from the stay at home conservatives. They will be just as guilty as the libs.

clnurnberg on June 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM

..well, be sure to get back to us soon and let us know what you think. We’re waiting with bated breath for your pronunciamiento.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Don’t get your panties in a bunch.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Hence a social con will not win.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

We shall see!

fourdeucer on June 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Any group that bolsters Obama’s chances by walking away will be so vilified afterwards that they’ll be essentially committing themselves to a fully third-party identity.

To eventually come crawling back to the GOP. Where they will never be forgive. Nor should they.

Vyce on June 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

A lot can change in two years, and Mitt has repeatedly disappointed me since then. Today, Mitt sounds more and more like Obama, both in policy and in social issues.

Back then, I still had my doubts about Mitt, but McLame and the others weren’t better prospects. The only real candidate wasn’t running.

Kini on June 10, 2011 at 4:45 PM

So you were ok with Romneycare back then, but not now?

And who is the RINO here?

NoStoppingUs on June 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Another r****** will not be like 1776, it will the worst thing mankind has ever witnessed. The horror would be indescribable. You do NOT want another r******. Save the country while you can, or you will be partly to blame for the carnage.

scotash on June 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Agreed, and there’s no guarantee that our side would win. Look at Egypt, the team with the best organization wins. The team that is willing to be the most brutal and immoral wins.

That kind of talk is the height of ignorance.

slickwillie2001 on June 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

You’re not understanding. Tea Partiers believe that the only way to prevent the country from going irretrievably socialist is to prevent RINOs from winning any more elections. Even if that means allow D’s to get into office temporarily.

Regardless of whether or not TP’ers have any principles, you’re stuck with them as a constituency. The question is what are you going to do about it? Play chicken with them, or work with them?

blink on June 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

If they stay at home and give us 4 more years of Obama then they’re damn fools and as guilty as any Obama voter. And there will come a time when they cn no longer reverse the damage.

clnurnberg on June 10, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Knowing what Obama’s done to this country, anyone who says they’ll sit out the election or vote third party if Romney’s the nominee is full of crap.

Pcoop on June 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM

wow like trying to decide between two fudgesicles…

tinkerthinker on June 10, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Tea partiers would rather see the country go irretrievably socialist than compromise their “principles”? Then they haven’t any.

clnurnberg on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Can you name a policy difference between Romney & Obama?

They are the same candidate.

Sorry, not voting for either.

tetriskid on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Vyce on June 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

I’ll go ahead and mark you off my Christmas card list now.

Bugler on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

I’d much rather be governed by Romney than Obama

jp on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

So those Republican primary voters that cast their vote by who they think can win the general election really need to consider the new paradigm shift the Tea Party has created. They might not like it. It might be stupid. But they ignore it at their own peril.

blink on June 10, 2011 at 4:57 PM

..your opinions sound pretty reasonable to me. We should be voting for someone whom we believe to be more conservative than Romney in the primary. But if Romney is the nominee — under these circumstances — we should realize that it will do the country far better to get Obama out than to cast a vote for — as one person put it above — a sacrificial candidate and give that clown four more years to wreak havoc.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Obama/Romney – not much difference – only a matter of degrees and not enough of a difference to fix the country’s problems.

So – the GOP can nominate Romney with his Romneycare, big government, AGW believing philosophy, but then I stay home.

Romney is not electable. Nominate Romney and you might as well save your campaign dollars for 2016.

Over50 on June 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I agree, except for one thing. Romney as POTUS will actually be worse for America than Obama. Why? Because Repubs will have both the House and Senate after the 2012 election. Romney will convince a lot of squishy Repubs and moderate Dems to go along with his big-government agenda. But if Obama wins, both chambers will be united against him, and Obama will be limited to legislation by fiat, which Repubs will fight as best they can.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

And all those candidates of yours will lose, BADLY. Why? Most people don’t want Education closed. Most people don’t think all abortion should be outlawed. Most people don’t think Gays should be prevented from getting married. Hence a social con will not win.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Zaggs, we (conservatives) aren’t in politics to make futile gestures. Fifty million innocent people are already dead. If abortion cannot be ended (and you’re wrong about what most Americans want, by the way) then America is doomed. If you (RINOs) are ready to admit “we’ve only been pretending to be pro-life to get your votes”, then we (conservatives) have no more reason to support your (RINO) candidates, now, do we? After almost forty years, it’s time for you (RINOs) to deliver what we (conservatives) want.

Again, those of us you dismiss as “social cons” are better on the social issues and the fiscal issues.

joe_doufu on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

I’d much rather be governed by Romney than Obama

jp on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

But how could you tell?

tetriskid on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Can you name a policy difference between Romney & Obama?

They are the same candidate.

Sorry, not voting for either.

tetriskid on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

..oh yes you are. You’re voting for Obama.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Is everyone here familiar with Bill Whittle from PJTV? As Bill Whittle has frequently said, “Victory is a ratchet.” That means even if we can only take small steps in the right direction, we should still take those steps. Big steps are great, but they’re not always possible.

As a previous commenter noted, “FIGHT for the primary, UNITE for the general.” If Mitt Romney is not your preferred candidate (and goodness knows he’s not mine), then FIGHT your a$$ off in the primary season to get your candidate to be the nominee. However, when the primary is over and the general election comes, then it’s time to find the less-worse candidate, and remove the worse-worse candidate from office. Mitt Romney may be only slightly better than Obama, BUT THAT IS STILL BETTER. We CANNOT allow Barack Obama another four years to wreck the country. CAN NOT.

TSUGambler on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

If I was a liberal I’d be absolutely thrilled by this thread.

What a depressing mess we’re in.

Rod on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Unless Romney wants Obama to win he must get out of the race.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

The exaggerations here about similarities between little Bammie and Romney are just ridiculous. The same Supreme Court picks? Both socialists? If you folks are just making this crap up to dissuade anyone from voting for Romney in a primary, it’s not credible. If you really believe it, you are too stupid to vote.

slickwillie2001 on June 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for president, Tea Party activists may not show up at all to vote in the general election, one leading group associated with the Tea Party movement is warning.

That clinches it: The left will be out supporting Romney in the primary.

iurockhead on June 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Anyone who wants Romney to stay in the race is de facto for Obama.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Romney as POTUS will actually be worse for America than Obama.

This is absolutely and categorically untrue. NOBODY is worse for America than Obama.

TSUGambler on June 10, 2011 at 5:15 PM

If I was were a liberal I’d be absolutely thrilled by this thread.

What a depressing mess we’re in.

Rod on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

..the grammar nazi strikes again!

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Romney must get out of the race and join forces with Al Gore and Newt Gingrich to spend all their time to save the planet from global warming before we all bake to death or drown.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:16 PM

You’re not understanding. Tea Partiers believe that the only way to prevent the country from going irretrievably socialist is to prevent RINOs from winning any more elections. Even if that means allow D’s to get into office temporarily.

Regardless of whether or not TP’ers have any principles, you’re stuck with them as a constituency. The question is what are you going to do about it? Play chicken with them, or work with them?

blink on June 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

They are wrong, both in prescription and diagnosis. The problem over the last four years has not been the existence of some handful of obnoxious RINO’s, but the failure of the conservative wing of the GOP, both in office and in the grassroots, to make the effort to push said RINOs in a proper direction in order to fulfill a conservative agenda.

Nancy Pelosi, horrible as she may be, understood the importance of having some less than ideologically stellar players on her team. They won in places others could not, and she then followed up with a hard grip, and pushed the “squishes” into following the party line for important votes and measures. They passed Hell-Care, along with a whole plethora of other left wing bills, all while having Blue-Dogs in office.

The problem in politics is a lack of ideological purity across the line, but the failure of the party “vanguard” to make the substantive moves to push the rest into line. What consequences are there for Republicans like Scott Brown? None. He acts with impunity.

blatantblue on June 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

he problem over the last four years

Scratch that.

Ten years.

blatantblue on June 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

The problem in politics is NOT a lack of ideological purity across the line,

fifm

:X sorry

blatantblue on June 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Anyone who wants Romney to stay in the race is de facto for Obama.

That is patently ridiculous. Instead of making inane comments like that, why don’t you attempt to PERSUADE people of your candidate’s superiority to Mitt Romney? (It shouldn’t be hard, I don’t think any of the commenters here actually support him in the primary.)

TSUGambler on June 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

If I was were a liberal I’d be absolutely thrilled by this thread.

What a depressing mess we’re in.

Rod on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

..the grammar nazi strikes again!

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Thanks a lot. Now I’m even more depressed.

Rod on June 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

But if Romney is the nominee — under these circumstances — we should realize that it will do the country far better to get Obama out than to cast a vote for — as one person put it above — a sacrificial candidate and give that clown four more years to wreak havoc.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Wrong. See my comment above at 5:13. Romney’s policies may not be as openly socialistic as Obama’s, but as POTUS, Romney will be worse for America than Obama.

Your thinking is hopelessly short-sighted.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Q: What happens when one party controls the Presidency and Congress, regardless of party?

A: Insane spending and expansion of government. Every. Single. Time.

But it’ll be different this time? Right.

Bat Chain Puller on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

The GOP is lost without the teaparty.

tinkerthinker on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

That is patently ridiculous. Instead of making inane comments like that, why don’t you attempt to PERSUADE people of your candidate’s superiority to Mitt Romney? (It shouldn’t be hard, I don’t think any of the commenters here actually support him in the primary.)

TSUGambler on June 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Can you think of a single policy position where Obama & Romney differ?

I doubt it.

Romney is on video taking multiple positions on just about everything.

tetriskid on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Thanks a lot. Now I’m even more depressed.

Rod on June 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

..like my friend used to say, “cheer up, things could get worse. So I cheered up and, sure enough, things got worse!”

You’re doing fine, Rod.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

The Republican Party has a problem, as per Rasmussen:

Poll: Democrat 40, Republican 21, Tea Party 18

[..]

Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, 15% like the Republican, 29% the Democrat and 25% the Tea Party candidate.

The Tea Party went from nothing, not even present, in 2008 to 18% affiliation today and it is capturing a larger percentage of the unaffiliated voters than the Republican Party is.

That 18% used to be either unaffiliated or voted Republican (which would put the two parties in a dead heat if there was no TP), and now it is the second largest vote getter amongst the unaffiliated. There is one, and only one place left to get votes and that is amongst the 49% who sat out the 2008 election. With bad economic times AND a Leftist candidate who will be seen as owning the problem, do you want to give those who sat out 2008 a John McCain enthusiasm level clone? Or do you want to give them a stark choice back to fiscal sanity?

If you think you will get them back with a good loser, then you will get Obama back for 4 more years – the old calculus of the 1990′s is gone. It is no longer a 2-party system and one of the parties that used to be major is splitting apart. The wedge to break up the other party is a very, very stark choice between a lot of personal liberty, fiscal sobriety, and honesty that government is the problem, not a smooth talking used car salesman who believes in mandates, the AGW hoax and cap’n'tax.

Give the American people a choice, a hard choice, a stark choice, one that brooks no half-measures and they will choose starkly as cold water is splashed on their faces. They won’t like it much, but it is either abandon the 1990′s and step into the 21st century or hand us yet another go-around of the 20th century. Weren’t two world wars enough? Do we really have to repeat those mistakes again, but this time with nuclear devices? The parallels are horrifying, and yet no one wants to point them out. Don’t try to replace an FDR with a Hoover: they both did the same types of things and gave us this horror show we now have. And more of the same of that will doom us no matter what letter adorns that individual’s name.

ajacksonian on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Mitt Romney/Dennis Kucinich – the very best third party ticket that can save America from global warming and alien abductions.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Thing is the TP’ers have gotten preachy and simply being a fiscal conservative is no longer enough.

Yeah ya just gotta puke at all that honesty talk.

Don L on June 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM

..oh yes you are. You’re voting for Obama.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

And you’re voting for squishy unprincipled big-government RINOs, which will encourage more of the same in the future. Thanks.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Don’t get your panties in a bunch.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM

..they’re knot.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Which federal budgets and deficit would you rather see today:

Clinton 1992-2000 or W. 2000-2008?

Gridlock works.

Bat Chain Puller on June 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

And you’re voting for squishy unprincipled big-government RINOs, which will encourage more of the same in the future. Thanks.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

..who said that? I haven’t told you for whom I am voting. You a mind reader too?

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Global warming will kill your children and drown your parents if you don’t vote Romney as only Romney can persuade Al Gore to become his science czar.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:26 PM

If you don’t want your house to be too hot, you must get hot for Romney.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM

The GOP is lost without the teaparty.

tinkerthinker on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

He won’t pull the pro-life vote in large numbers.

I think the GOP doesn’t really care – with the punditry guards taking potshots at Sarah, they aren’t looking to capture her conservative voters at all.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night and I know suicide.

Don L on June 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Okay fine, if you guys rally want to throw temper tantrums like that if you don’t get your way, then do us all a favor and just vote for Obama. Cut out the middle man. We all know that a vote for a third party or sitting out the election just hands it to him anyway and that’s what he wants. Don’t think he’s not hopign that what happenes so he can play you all like violins and get you fighting amoung each other.

I’ve told so many people this but if you want to see our future in that case, look at Venezuela. The opposition had a chance to get rid of Chavez early on but kept fighting amoung themselves over who they wanted and what they wanted and never focused on the one common goal, getting rid of Hugo Chavez. Now, over a decade later, you know the rest of that story.

Their fate will be our if we don’t get our heads out of our a**es.

Pcoop on June 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM

wow, typo city.

Pcoop on June 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Romney is on video taking multiple positions on just about everything.

tetriskid on June 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

And that’s why nobody has any business voting for Romney — you have no idea what you’re voting for.

Romney is the Dem version of Obama. Dems voted him in believing he’d transform America into a socialist paradise, and I’m guessing Obama intended to do exactly that. But once in office, he discovered that political expediency demanded he abandon most of his promises.

A vote for Romney is a vote for . . . um . . .

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

wow, typo city.

Pcoop on June 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Romney will ban typos as well as global warming.

Vote Romney.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Don’t let all of Al Gore’s heroic efforts to save the planet go for naught. Mitt Romney will pick up where Al Gore left off and save mankind.

Be cool and vote Romney.

HalJordan on June 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

I haven’t told you for whom I am voting. You a mind reader too?

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Nope. A word reader.

But if Romney is the nominee — under these circumstances — we should realize that it will do the country far better to get Obama out than to cast a vote for — as one person put it above — a sacrificial candidate and give that clown four more years to wreak havoc.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

You stated that in the general election, you (implied in “we”) would vote for Romney over Obama. Or have you flip-flopped already, a la Romney?

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

There are no “fiscal conservatives” who aren’t also “social conservatives”.

BS. There are plenty of libertarian leaning Republicans.

toliver on June 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

BS. There are plenty of libertarian leaning Republicans.

toliver on June 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Yes, like Sarah Palin.

joe_doufu on June 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Given the fact that O is shutting down the coal industry, and the off shore drilling industry, it shouldn’t be hard to vote for Romney.

Obama is strongly anti-gun, pro-abortion…and is perfectly happy (eager) to use the power of the executive branch to get his stuff done. His big government friends will be looking over the reports on contractors to make sure that they are donating the right way. Oh, and I’m sure that localism will be the top priority in his second term. Well, plus more agressive CAFE standards…If you like those little electric commuter cars that go 40miles (if you shut off the a/c)..you’ll luv barry’s second term.

Yes, if you luv all the above…vote for Barry…but don’t posture and say you’re pure…be honest..and vote for Barry

r keller on June 10, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Most people don’t want Education closed. Most people don’t think all abortion should be outlawed. Most people don’t think Gays should be prevented from getting married. Hence a social con will not win.

Zaggs on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Maybe – but if you’re assessment is right -there really is not much need to stop Obama and socialism. Why fight about money and approve of killing innocent life and moral corruption? What truly decent human could make that choice?People who support that will do far worst things than a little socialism, kill babies, kill old folks, go China, kill girls….slow poison -fast poison -take your pick.

When Reagan got in the social cons and the fiscal cons worked together -not any more, the money folks think that following God has nothing to do with preventing the bad guys stealing their money. They prefer to argue sound economics with theives

Don L on June 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Yes, like Sarah Palin.

joe_doufu on June 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM

She leans more conservative.

toliver on June 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM

The problem with any of the RINO Republican candidates is that there is a proportion of conservative voters, specifically Tea Party members and supporters, and religious individuals who will not compromise their convictions, who simply will not vote for anyone they deem untrustworthy, and who in effect makes policy decisions based upon preference, instead of principle.

Nominating a RINO, not unlike in the 2008 election, will cause this proportion of traditional Republican voters to vote, in effect, “present,” thus ensuring President Obama’s re-election, and by virtue thereof, the nation’s continued slide toward moral and economic collapse. Accordingly, Republican primary voters would be very wise to nominate a true, authentic, conservative candidate, which will ensure the maximum turnout among all facets of traditional Republican voters in the general election.

The country is divided; and this presidential election will be won and lost based upon voter turnout. Republicans must have the maximum turnout among their traditional voters to win the 2012 presidential election.

SheetAnchor on June 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Yes, if you luv all the above…vote for Barry…but don’t posture and say you’re pure…be honest..and vote for Barry

r keller on June 10, 2011 at 5:38 PM

If you love squishy, flip-flopping, unprincipled, big-government RINO politicians, then by all means, vote for Romney, because that will send a message to all the other squishy, flip-flopping, unprincipled, big-government RINO politicians that there are plenty of useful idiots out there who will vote for anyone with an (R) by their name. But don’t posture and say you care about conservatism — be honest and say you’re a RINO.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Romney is the only candidate who would make me consider staying home. Possibly Huntsman and Gingrich, too, but not as easily as Romney.

I would gladly vote for Pawlenty, Cain, Palin, Ryan, Christie, or Perry.

Caiwyn on June 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

How odd. I don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between Huntsman, Romney, and Christie, at least from a policy and history view. Pawlenty would seem to be more conservative, historically, than any of the three. Huntsman seems to be the most consistently liberal.

Jaibones on June 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Look people, it’s simple. The main task should get getting Obama out of office. We can hash out the rest later. It’s so simple but we’re gonna blow it if we keep fighting with ourselves like a bunch of nitwits.

Pcoop on June 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

So you were ok with Romneycare back then, but not now?

And who is the RINO here?

NoStoppingUs on June 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Truthfully, I didn’t know the full story on Romneycare until I started researching it. Once I saw the comparisons to Obamacare, it changed my mind about mittens. Additionally, his latest comments on Global Warming just put a lid on that.

If you’re so enamored with Romney, then don’t expect me to changes my mind about him, now or later.

Kini on June 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

You stated that in the general election, you (implied in “we”) would vote for Romney over Obama. Or have you flip-flopped already, a la Romney?

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

..you want to split hairs, old son? Nowhere did I specifically say I was voting for Romney. You infer a lot.

But, so I do not mince words, I am not necessarily voting for Romney at the outset. I share your reservations about him and will be examining the “GOP” candidates to see who would be the best to vote for. At present, if Perry gets in, then I would probably vote for him unless, of course..

But, sadly, I live in California and my general election vote counts for very little. But as for the primary, I may even vote in the Dem primary if someone is running against Obama and has a good chance at upsetting that asssclown’s chances.

Look, I respect your opinion and, of course, your right to vote for the candidate you choose. I also admit you’re probably right about Romney. It’s just that I feel that Obama is far, far worse.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Romney is my LAST choice in the primary. ANYONE but him.

But in the general against Ofilth? Yeah, I’d vote for him.

KeepOhioRed on June 10, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Damn glad to meet you. I like people with functional brains, unlike the nitwits who think it would be a good idea to vote for a third party or stay home if it’s Romney vs. O’Bonehead.

Jaibones on June 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

If the choice was between voting for a puss filled anal polyp or Obowma…

… I would wrap my lips around the polyp and pull the lever!

Seven Percent Solution on June 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

This is hardly news. Anyone remotely connected with Tea Party movement knows this:

If Romney or Huntsman is nominated; Obama walks to a 2nd term.

Norwegian on June 10, 2011 at 5:51 PM

People who use black mail to overide the will of the people are not Republicans they are Democrats anyway.

If people vote for who people want, instead of who the “Tea Party” wants, they will split. That is not democracy. That is thugocracy. How is that different from those Democrats in Wisconsin who ran away when they didn’t get their own way? Not a wit of difference.

Governing by black mail is unAmerican. If they have a candidate… put them up, if they win they will be the nominee! That is why we vote.

I say fine. Let them go third party.

If they are intent on destroying the country there is nothing we can do about it. They aren’t the whole Tea Party, and who appointed Dick Armey the leader?

Dick Armey who lobbies to grow government. That is his job. And he is for small government now? Right.

Armey who lobbies for wind power? Armey who lobbies for bank bailouts? There is the pot is calling the kettle black!

Dick Armey is a hypocrite. He had tons of sexual harassment complaints from students, he always denied it, then he dumped his wife and married one of his students!

Yes this group is a winner they got a true grass roots leader.\sarc How stupid are these people?

If they hate Republicans so much then fine, I’m sick of every difference being blown so out of proportion. They are the RINOs so let them get a new name.

How about “Personality Cultists Who Complain a Whole Bunch But Don’t Do Anything Useful Party”?

I was once a Tea Party person myself. But they have morphed into power hungry weirdos, and what was once grass roots movement has become part and parcel of old Washington power plays by failed old Congressmen.

Besides if we get the weirdos out we might get some reasonable Independents to join up, and have a true center right party called the Republicans.

A party that respects the will of the people and doesn’t use black mail to get their own way.

petunia on June 10, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Look, I respect your opinion and, of course, your right to vote for the candidate you choose. I also admit you’re probably right about Romney. It’s just that I feel that Obama is far, far worse.

The War Planner on June 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Fair enough. I disagree, but I’ve been wrong before.

Splashman on June 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Nominating a RINO, not unlike in the 2008 election, will cause this proportion of traditional Republican voters to vote, in effect, “present,” thus ensuring President Obama’s re-election, and by virtue thereof, the nation’s continued slide toward moral and economic collapse.

SheetAnchor on June 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

It stems from Bush who didn’t have conservative principles, but just wanted to please his dad. This is what led to Obama. So the Tea Party is understandably tired of non-conservatives. Just TRY and nominate a RINO. The Tea Party will see as being just as bad or worse than Obama and I really can’t say they’d be wrong.

MrX on June 10, 2011 at 5:54 PM

I fear this isn’t about policies and prescriptions and all of that. If 0bama wins in ’12, the Left will be convinced they have beaten us all for good, and that nobody will be able to stop them from stomping over all of our rights. We could be giving each other head-slaps over the vote from a jail cell. Like the guy talking about Chavez, Venezuela ended up with a Dear Leader whose opposition was too divided to defeat him, and became too weak to resist him when he began trashing their constitution.

If you want to get your lad(y) nominated, fight for him/her in the primary, but unite in the general, even if the resulting candidate is far from perfect.

Sekhmet on June 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5