Unity: Two pro-life groups endorse Romney

posted at 11:01 am on April 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Now that Rick Santorum has withdrawn from the Republican nomination race, Mitt Romney’s challenge will be to unify the party quickly.  He got plenty of help last night from Hilary Rosen, who attacked Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mom and created a massive reaction among conservatives rallying to defend her.  Today, two key conservative groups announced endorsements for Romney in a move that may help stoke momentum for the all-but-certain nominee.  First, the conservative women’s group and fundraising organization Susan B. Anthony List came out with a strong message of support:

The Susan B. Anthony List, which endorsed Santorum and campaigned feverishly on his behalf by taking a campaign tour bus across the country, is now supporting the former Massachusetts governor for the GOP nomination to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

“Now is the time to unite behind Governor Romney in order to defeat the most ideologically pro-abortion president in our nation’s history,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List. “The SBA List is proud to endorse Governor Romney and plans to spend $10 to $12 million in senate and presidential battleground states mobilizing pro-life voters to ensure victory.”

“Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood,” continued Dannenfelser. “A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama’s extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now – and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old.”

“The difference between Governor Romney and President Obama couldn’t be clearer, which is why our Board of Directors voted unanimously to get behind him,” said Jane Abraham, Chairman of the SBA List Board of Directors. “It is the responsibility of all pro-life voters to now unite behind Governor Romney. Together we can put a pro-life leader in the White House.”

The National Right to Life PAC also announced their endorsement of Romney, and drew stark contrasts between the Republican nominee and the Democratic incumbent:

Determined to secure a pro-life victory in the November election, which will decide the fate of unborn children for decades to come, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, today endorsed Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

“On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast. As the country’s most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win.”

Mitt Romney has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn, the medically dependent and disabled, and the elderly.  Romney opposes abortion and has called the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, “a big mistake.” Romney has expressed his support of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. …

In comparison, since taking office in January 2009, President Obama has been an outspoken advocate for abortion and has unceasingly worked to expand funding of and access to abortion.  He rescinded the Mexico City Policy, threatened to veto the entire federal spending bill – forcing a government shutdown – rather than accept a provision cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Obama also threatened to veto the Protect Life Act, which would repeal the abortion-expanding provisions of his health care law, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would permanently prohibit any federal program from funding elective abortion.

Romney needs these kinds of endorsements, and as early as he can get them.  SBA List had endorsed Santorum, which makes their quick shift to Romney all the more significant.  The NRLC had refrained from endorsing any specific candidate, claiming that all four Republicans would represent an improvement over Obama, and in fact scolded its Georgia affiliate in February for singling out Santorum and Gingrich.

In that context, this endorsement looks significant indeed.  Gingrich, after all, continues to insist that he’s still in the race — and this morning insisted that he wouldn’t work for Romney even if Gingrich was offered a job, although he’d be happy to advise him:

Newt Gingrich said on Thursday he would “probably not” accept a Cabinet position under a Mitt Romney administration but would be happy to advise the former Massachusetts governor on policy.

Asked the question in an interview with local radio station WILM at the Hollywood Diner, Gingrich, one of three contenders left in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, said he wouldn’t be interested in joining likely nominee Romney’s Cabinet, but added—“not because I am opposed to Mitt.”

“Look, if the choice does end up being Romney versus [President] Obama, I can be very, very enthusiastic for Romney; that is a huge choice,” the former House speaker said. “But I had a very good life doing a lot of fun things: I’m a grandfather, I’ve got two grandchildren I want to spend time with, Callista has got me into being a really bad golfer. I would like to move up from bad to mediocre.”

The quick announcement of both organizations of their support for Romney might be intended not just to boost Romney, but to tell the other Republicans that it’s time to consider other options for their futures.  So far, it doesn’t appear that Gingrich is getting the message.


Related Posts:

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

Do you know who Robert Bork is? There’s your answer as to who Mitt will nominate.

Basilsbest on April 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Is Robert Bork contracted for the entirety of Romney’s time as president?
Is Robert Bork going to be the primary person he listens to, or will it be a non-political Judicial Nominating Commission made of many people, exactly like Romney is proud to have done in Massachusetts?

here is how much Robert Bork comforts me.

(Robert Bork’s guaranteed contract time as adviser to Romney starting at inaugeration/4 Years)/How many advisers Romney may be listening to at the time

I think that comes out to equaling 0/some number.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM

On the other hand, your willingness to let Obama appoint USSC Justices and wield his veto pen against anything Congress may try to do (or undo) would be mindboggling if I actually thought you guys were conservatives.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM

We ARE conservatives, people like you CLAIM they are while supporting a progressive liberal candidate.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM

We ARE conservatives, people like you CLAIM they are while supporting a progressive liberal candidate.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM

It is far worse than that. They are supporting the Obamanization of the Republican party. Making a beach head from which to push any actual conservativeness out of the party. They are helping change the country to the European model where you have the extremist socialist party (D) opposed by the slightly less extremist socialist party (R). They even use the exact same tactics as the Democrats.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 1:18 PM

We ARE conservatives, people like you CLAIM they are while supporting a progressive liberal candidate.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Anyone who thinks it is conservative to fail to stop the more progressive liberal candidate has got a serious lack of logic.

BTW, I am supporting Gingrich.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I think that comes out to equaling 0/some number.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM

You’re way underestimating the number of IUOs Romney as written so far. By latest count, he will have roughly 100+ cabinate posts on top of 300+ advisor (tsar) posts. And he ain’t done just yet. Will make Hussein’s number look puny by comparison.

All that assuming he is somehow going to win in general with his progressive liberal record.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Do you know who Robert Bork is? There’s your answer as to who Mitt will nominate.

Basilsbest on April 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I’ll give you this: you’ve gone all in on the Kool Aid. If Romney wins, I sure hope you prove to be an oracle.

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Not an oracle but a well informed, fair minded person who unemotionally examines data every day and draws logical conclusions. Romney didn’t appoint Robert Bork to his Judicial Appointments Advisory so he could ignore his recommendations and appoint pro choice Judges and thus create a fire-storm against himself. These dire predictions of how Romney will betray conservatives are moronic. They are not made in good faith.

I’ve looked at Romney’s record. In context it’s very good. He will make a great conservative President. He won’t be dealing with a Congress which is 85% Democrat.

Basilsbest on April 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Anyone who thinks it is conservative to fail to stop the more progressive liberal candidate has got a serious lack of logic.

BTW, I am supporting Gingrich.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Nah… My family has been watching this movie since Russian Revolution. Replacing one idiot with another, even a slightly better one, does nothing productive in the end.

At least we seem to agree that Romney is progressive liberal.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Not an oracle but a well informed, fair minded person who unemotionally examines data every day and draws logical conclusions.

Basilsbest on April 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

You lost me at that. There is nothing logical supporting a candidate whose position changes with time of day, wind direction and position of the stars. So, which Romney positions your logical mind supports, those Romney supported in 2001, 2010 or yesterday? Or those he will support on Sept 1, 2012? Or October 31, 2012?

Nothing logical about supporting positions that directly contradict themselves and change depending on time of day and political benefit.

Main fallacy with Romney supporters.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:30 PM

At least we seem to agree that Romney is progressive liberal.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Not really. Labels deceive. What matters in anything is the real world effects, and the real world effects always have a context.

Romney was a conservative Massachusetts Governor. He would be a progressive Texas Governor. If we assume Gingrich cannot pull out a miracle here, Romney will be a centrist American President.

You will regard him as a progressive, of course, even if he gets Obamacare repealed and successfully reforms entitlements, since you see anyone to your left as progressive and you will be outraged at the compromises he makes to get the job done.

To you, your vote is all about you, not what it actually does to the country.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Anyone who thinks it is conservative to fail to stop the more progressive liberal candidate has got a serious lack of logic.

BTW, I am supporting Gingrich.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM

As with everything. It depends on the cost of the transaction. Anyone would be stupid to take a 1976 Ford Pinto instead of a 2012 Ford Explorer if the costs were identical. They are not, so it depends on what the cost is.

Here we seem to have a Gremlin vs Pinto comparison. They both suck. The cost for Obama the gremlin is 0, the cost for Romney the Pinto is the heart and soul of the Republican party. To me, that cost is too high.

Basically the cost I see is going from Extremist Progressive Democrat party and Moderate Right of Center Republican party to Extremist Progressive Democrat party and Moderate Left of Center Republican party. All for the exceptionally modest compensation of changing the president from a fully on the 100 yard line from our goal to one between the 70 and 95th yard line. We need someone closer to our end goal between the 25th yard line and the goal. I would be willing to vote for someone as far left as the 40th yard line.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

To you, your vote is all about you, not what it actually does to the country.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Again. NO. As in HELL, NO! I cannot vote for a SELF ADMITTED progressive liberal. So its not a matter of “YOU will regard him as a progressive…”, its not only his record by now, which is more than progressive liberal, but his own proud proclamation on camera that he is.

Trouble is you and others can’t get to grip with facts, replacing one progressive liberal with another is NOT a solution, history has proven this time after time and its staring you in the face. Can you remind me how “settling” turned out for GOP in 2008? Can you also remind me just when and how our founding fathers have “compromised”?

Its (ironically) funny how immigrants from repressive regimes differ so much in their views/opinions on the matter with the self appointed/proclaimed “conservatives” born here. We HAVE SEEN this before and no, there is no way in hell we will compromise again since we have actually lived through “compromises” and KNOW how they turned out. Shame that none of you have while you keep arguing without real life experience.

Its mind blowing to see so many RINOs came out of the woodwork. Maybe GOP has to die for people to realize that we cannot compromise about better future for us and our kids. NO COMPROMISE!

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:45 PM

…..All for the exceptionally modest compensation of changing the president from a fully on the 100 yard line from our goal to one between the 70 and 95th yard line…..

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Your judgment regarding the relative weighting is wrong, in your estimate as to how progressive Romney is but much more in your underestimating just how destructive Obama’s reelection will be.

Obama reelection = the permanent termination of American exceptionalism. We won’t be a euroscerotic nanny state. We will be a broken and disintegrating society. We will be yoked to the UN and our borders will vaporize.

If you think that is histrionic, then what do you imagine will stop him? He’s got Obamacare. He has the Supreme Court. He has the streets (riots). He has the EPA and control of our border policy.

Most of all, he has the veto pen. Any attempt by Congress to put the brakes on him dies with the stroke of that pen.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM

To you, your vote is all about you, not what it actually does to the country.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Again. NO. As in HELL, NO! I cannot vote for a SELF ADMITTED progressive liberal…….

Exactly. It is all about you.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Can you also remind me just when and how our founding fathers have “compromised”?

BTW, this is mindboggling. The Constitution was entirely built on compromise.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I would be willing to vote for someone as far left as the 40th yard line.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Trouble is we have the 95 yard line guy, but hell, no, his personal life is an issue. Like anyone should even give a crap. So, when he took the House back in who knows how long, when he balanced budgets and created surplus, when he stopped HillaryCare dead in its tracks, when the only thing Clenis could do is stain some dresses and carpets no one seemed to care much about his personal life. Does anyone have memory cells left or everyone is simply senile, moronic bot who only remembers just the last 10 minutes of life and does as he is told by the “komissariat of GOP”?

So, instead of the 95 yard guy we “settled/compromised” on the 10 yard guy. Great…

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

BTW, this is mindboggling. The Constitution was entirely built on compromise.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It sure was.

/s

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Its (ironically) funny how immigrants from repressive regimes differ so much in their views/opinions on the matter with the self appointed/proclaimed “conservatives” born here. We HAVE SEEN this before and no, there is no way in hell we will compromise again since we have actually lived through “compromises” and KNOW how they turned out. Shame that none of you have while you keep arguing without real life experience.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Amen.

I am an immigrant to this country. I grew up in Europe, where the Right has been emasculated to a degree that it is just a offering lighter version of unadulterated socialism. A “conservative” in Europe today is far to the left of the Democratic Party in the US. It all happened because of “compromise” and establisment elitism.

Romney reminds me alot of the ABSOLUTE WORST of the “center-right” establishment politicians in Europe. The ones who saddled Europe with a huge nanny state, crippling debt, socialized medicine and “carbon credit” schemes. People like Romney are worse than the socialists, because the socialists are at the very least honest with their intentions.

When people say the US is the last great hope on earth, I actually believe that. But I would qualify that statement with saying the conservative movement in the US is the last great hope on earth. Without it, the US is just another EU. If the GOP is saddled with someone like Mitt Romney, that hope is likely lost.

My hard-fought citizenship and right to vote in this country is worth far too much than to waste it on a progressive poser like Romney.

Norwegian on April 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Boy oh boy I just don’t get it. Elections frequently come down to the least worst choice. Progress frequently depends on the ability to reach a compromise. We didn’t get the kind of Republican candidate we’d prefer but, as Donald Rumsfield famously noted, you go to war with the army you’ve got, not the army you’d like to have. It has nothing to do with having firm principles, or thoughts about what the “establishment” wants. We need to focus people! Let’s elect Romney and see what happens. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would be worse than Obama getting reelected.

Fafhrd on April 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM

My hard-fought citizenship and right to vote in this country is worth far too much than to waste it on a progressive poser like Romney.

Norwegian on April 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Only because our views are based on real world experiences and knowledge of what “compromising” does in the end. Voting for a progressive liberal is against any logic and reason in my mind.

FadeToGray (great and appropriate nickname, btw, describes the poster to a T) and others should listen, instead they keep repeating talking points without once looking at factual data that contradict each and every point they make. “Fade to gray” is what will happen soon if we do not take the country back.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

BTW, this is mindboggling. The Constitution was entirely built on compromise.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It sure was.

/s

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Oh, wow. That is even more mindboggling. I was thinking once I pointed it out, you would realize your gaff and move on.

Do you think Virginia wanted a Senate? Do you think Rhode Island wanted a House? Are you unaware some wanted us to have a King? Have you never heard of the fight over the Bill of Rights?

And, seriously, why do you think slavery was in the Constitution? And why was there a sunset on bringing in new slaves? Do you think the slaveowners wanted that?

The whole document from start to finish is a Magnificent Compromise.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Ed, I think you may have missed a few perspective sentences in your first graf . . . but I’ve fixed it for you. (My emphasis added.)

“Now that Rick Santorum has withdrawn from the Republican nomination race, Mitt Romney’s challenge will be to unify the party quickly. He got plenty of help last night from Hilary Rosen, who attacked Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mom and created a massive reaction among conservatives rallying to defend her. For his part, Newt Gingrich has quietly agreed to stay in the race for the time being in order to accelerate that unity process. Speculation is that the more Newt persists in alienating voters, the more quickly Romney will be able to attract their support to his candidacy. In that regard, Newt’s current role is as the complimentary Republican counterpart to Hilary Rosen. Today, two key conservative groups announced endorsements for Romney in a move that may help stoke momentum for the all-but-certain nominee. First, the conservative women’s group and fundraising organization Susan B. Anthony List came out with a strong message of support:”
. . . .

Trochilus on April 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Nah… My family has been watching this movie since Russian Revolution. Replacing one idiot with another, even a slightly better one, does nothing productive in the end.

At least we seem to agree that Romney is progressive liberal.

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

riddick is a CINO

sheikh of thornton on April 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

riddick on April 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Words fade to gray. Reality is fang and claw. Everything gets eaten.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Your judgment regarding the relative weighting is wrong, in your estimate as to how progressive Romney is but much more in your underestimating just how destructive Obama’s reelection will be.

Obama reelection = the permanent termination of American exceptionalism. We won’t be a euroscerotic nanny state. We will be a broken and disintegrating society. We will be yoked to the UN and our borders will vaporize.

Permanent? How much more permanent can the change in America be than the moving of the Republican party leftward? Both Reagan and newt moved the country to the right. They did it as conservatives in a party that said it was conservative. The prevention of the leftward movement of the country is accomplished by a conservative opposition party. With the damage Romney will bring, there will be no opposition party, similar to what happened in 2006 and 2008. I think you underestimate the damage that Romney can do to this country by undermining the only currently valid opposition to the many democrats in congress that will still be in congress even if Obama loses.

If you think that is histrionic, then what do you imagine will stop him? He’s got Obamacare. He has the Supreme Court. He has the streets (riots). He has the EPA and control of our border policy.

Most of all, he has the veto pen. Any attempt by Congress to put the brakes on him dies with the stroke of that pen.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Wow, just wow! My argument is based on reality. Your argument is based on some fantasy. The left has you so deeply bamboozled that it might be decades for you to wake up. I guess that argument about it is not what power you have that matters, but what power you can convince the enemy you have has completely won you over.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Your comment could have been much shorter. Just say, “Obama is no big threat.”

Your extreme naivete is noted.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Words fade to gray. Reality is fang and claw. Everything gets eaten.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I just realized better would be:

Words will fade to gray
Reality is fang and claw
All things get eaten

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Your comment could have been much shorter. Just say, “Obama is no big threat.”

Your extreme naivete is noted.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

The smaller of the two I am presented with. Your short sightedness is noted. As for me being naive, I am far more experienced than most, and I take the lessons learned from those experiences much easier than most.

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Are they endorsing the pro-abortion Romney of the past, the pretend pro-life Romney of the present, or the pro-abortion Romney of the future?

Crusty on April 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Are they endorsing the pro-abortion Romney of the past, the pretend pro-life Romney of the present, or the pro-abortion Romney of the future?

Crusty on April 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The pro using of tax payers dollars to support pro-life groups while he triples the amount going to pro-abortion groups. Like Malthusian John Holdren might say, I would hate to burden the environment with more babies. Isn’t John Holdren one of Romney’s trusted advisers and Obama’s as well? The guy who thought putting birth control in the drinking water of America?

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Crusty on April 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Good question. I think it was unwise for these two groups to endorse Romney at this point. Pro-lifers should have waited for Romney to endorse them by his commitments and actions.

I’ve read Romney’s Values page and the RNC 2008 platform sections on pro-life issues. The RNC contains very specific language, while Romney’s statement has more feel-good and less specifics—leaving him future wiggle room. If, as it seems, he does become the nominee, I predict future heartburn and angst for them, and that may occur at the Convention with fights over platform positions. Since the first Convention after Roe v. Wade, the party platform has always been pro-life and the statements and language have expanded to cover specific pro-life issues.

Verify, then trust.

INC on April 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM

That is a total logic fail. Voting to defeat the guy I think will bring on the nanny state sooner does not mean I want to cripple my children with an overbearing nanny state.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM

So, by voting for a non-statist, I’m voting for statism, but by voting for a statist, you are voting against statism? And I’m the one with logic problems?

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Not an oracle but a well informed, fair minded person who unemotionally examines data every day and draws logical conclusions.

Basilsbest on April 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Blindly believing what Romney says what you want and ignoring or rationalizing his record when he says things that you don’t like isn’t an objective analysis. Sorry.

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

And let me guess . . . your autobiography will be entitled:

“Getting Back to Me …”

Trochilus on April 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

astonerii on April 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

When Romney was governor Holdren advised him on global warming and carbon emissions.

http://news.investors.com/article/588168/201110141846/romneys-bad-advice.htm?p=1

Interestingly enough!!!in looking at Wiki’s entry on Holdren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
I didn’t see a reference to his work for Romney.

I always wonder who’s been editing those kind of things.

INC on April 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Watching ABRtard heads explode is fun!!!!!

More popcorn please.

Gunlock Bill on April 12, 2012 at 3:35 PM

To you, your vote is all about you, not what it actually does to the country.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Wrong. You want the immediate benefit of a slightly less statist government over the next 4 years, not giving a damn that it will keep us on the road to socialism and move the GOP further on the road to becoming a statist party that happens to believe in a slightly smaller state than the Dems (a la the Tories in the UK), essentially dooming any chance that our children and grandchildren will inherit a free society.

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM

When Romney was governor Holdren advised him on global warming and carbon emissions.

INC on April 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Interesting how important it is to talk about Romney’s advisors when talking about Bork and judges, but when Holdren comes up … crickets.

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM

So, by voting for a non-statist, I’m voting for statism, but by voting for a statist, you are voting against statism? And I’m the one with logic problems?

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Perhaps you are coming into the argument late. I support Gingrich. The argument is over whom to support on election day in November assuming the only candidates left with any chance of becoming President are Romney and Obama.

At that point voting to stop Obama from destroying us is the vote against statism, unless you really believe Romney will be as much of a statist as Obama (which is sheer wilfull ignorance).

And, at that point the decision to not use your vote to stop Obama even if it means electing Romney is the vote for a more statist country even if your vote is being cast for a genuine, ardent Constitutionalist.

The logic is completely straightforward and obvious. The inability to understand the logic makes me think the guys who don’t get it have some kind of basic mental flaw, like when people stubbornly invert if-then statements or confuse correlation with causation.

I think the mental flaw has to do with their inability to recognize their vote is not about them or how their vote makes them feel. It is about who will get the power.

There are some like asteronii who just don’t understand what kind of man Obama is or how much damage he can wreak on our country over the next four years. They are just clueless.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Wrong. You want the immediate benefit of a slightly less statist government over the next 4 years, not giving a damn that it will keep us on the road to socialism and move the GOP further on the road to becoming a statist party that happens to believe in a slightly smaller state than the Dems (a la the Tories in the UK), essentially dooming any chance that our children and grandchildren will inherit a free society.

besser tot als rot on April 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Riiiight. Obama getting elected instead of Romney will move us away from statism. The GOP will realize they must shun all of those fools voting for Obama and instead turn to placate the conservatives who are so far out there they cannot see the difference between Romney and Obama.

You people are stark, raving mad.

fadetogray on April 12, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Tragedy.

powerpro on April 12, 2012 at 4:10 PM

So far, it doesn’t appear that Gingrich is getting the message.

And that’s why this article from The Onion sounds so hilariously realistic.

Mr. Prodigy on April 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM

150 dollars nearly 20 years ago.

blatantblue on April 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM

and so I’m supposed to believe Mitt is pro-life now? I look at what a politician has done, not at what he says.

8 weight on April 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

It doesn’t matter who endorses Mandate Mitt. You have to vote your conscience. I simply cannot be a hypocrite and vote for Mitt.

I have no allegiance to the Republican party. Mitt is a liar and frankly has no problem lying at all just like Obama.

The welfare of the country has moved way beyond party politics. We are headed off of a cliff. Only children will vote party line. The adults in the room know that Mandate Mitt will appoint leftist judges just like he did in Massachusetts. We know that Mandate Mitt did not create any jobs. We know that he is the author of Romneycare. We know that he is a vulture capitalist. And we know that he agrees with quantitative easing and will give us Cap and Trade.

I am one of those Indy’s. I vote my conscience. Mitt is repulsive and so is the hypocrite Rethuglican machine. I despise them just as much as Obama.

There is no choice here.

Jayrae on April 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2