I take it back--Mitt's not OK

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by cnorman18, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Awhile back, when asked which candidate I supported, I remarked in passing, "Mitt's OK."

    He's not. To wit,

    "Gun control: [Romney] supported bans on so-called "assault weapons." He supported the Brady Bill. He spurned the National Rifle Association. As late as 2002, he still was defending Massachusetts' confiscatory gun laws. But last year, he joined the NRA and claimed to favor easing licensing requirements."

    There is much more. Read Joseph Farah's complete article at Human Events (Reagan's favorite newspaper):

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22057
     
  2. A5Mag12

    A5Mag12 New Member

    101
    0
    0
    You're preaching to the choir.
     

  3. allmons

    allmons New Member

    363
    0
    0
    Mitt and Guiliani are trying to cozy up to conservatives

    It will not work. We can look at their records and past actions. It is obvious that they are both anti-gun and don't trust ordinary citizens to run their own lives. Both of them can crawl back up North and stay there for all I care.

    Poor Ron Paul is a little bit off the beam, so that leaves Huckabee or Thompson.

    There are NO democrats running who believe in the Second Amendment.

    :confused:
     
  4. BLS33

    BLS33 New Member Supporter

    607
    0
    0
    I stand by my support of Ron Paul. People tell me " he has no chance of winning so why support him". Well I don't subscribe to the ideology of voting for who I think can win over who I want to win.
     
  5. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    Amen. That's why the primarys are so important. In order to win the presidency, a candidate has to be nominated. In order to be nominated by their party, they have to win primarys, to "prove" their electability. What has been so frustrating for those of us who live in the west, by the time the primary here rolls around in the spring, it's already been decided in the east and many candidates have already quit.

    In the last two elections, I held my nose and reluctantly voted. I wasn't so much voting FOR Bush, as I was voting AGAINST Gore & Kerry. I believe I did the right thing. If it comes down to it, I'll vote for Romney / Giuliani, versus Hillary / Obama. Romney I think can be persuaded regarding gun control. If Bill O'Reilly can be persuaded, ANYONE can. I won't be happy about it, but by not voting, the other side wins.


    My preference is Fred Thompson. If he's elected I may think about re-joining the Republican Party.
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Perfectly said -- it mirrors my view.
     
  7. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    That works for a primary election, but in the general election, it often comes down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. As far as gun rights and other conservative issues, I'd rather go with a republican, than almost any democrat. At this stage of the game we all have our favorites, but reality is, they all can't run in the general election. If you decide to protest by not voting, the other side wins and the rest of us lose.

    That's how we wound up with Bill Clinton. Ross Perot taking votes away, on principle.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  8. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yeah, that's one way to look at it. Personally, I look at voting for the lesser of two evils as throwing away my vote because I'm not actually voting for the person I want.

    From now on, I'll vote for the person who most closely meets my idea of the perfect candidate, even if s/he is on a third-party with no chance of winning.
     
  9. BLS33

    BLS33 New Member Supporter

    607
    0
    0
    The whole voting system in general is flawed, with the electoral college some peoples votes carry more weight than others and swing states are far more valued.
     
  10. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    principle vs. reality

    Some call that "throwing away your vote". I call it what it actually is--"supporting the Democrats."

    Sorry, I have to disagree. The idea that "principle" trumps real-world results is more characteristic of liberals than of conservatives. I thought we were supposed to support policies that actually WORK, as opposed to policies that OUGHT to work if the world were perfect.

    Vote as you choose; but if you KNOW that going 3rd-party--or not voting at all--is more likely to put a Democrat in office--well, you are still my friend, but you're no friend to the rights of gun owners. And if Ron Paul, or whoever else, runs a 3rd-party campaign and draws votes away from Republicans, neither is he.

    Would you carry a gun that "OUGHT to work," but which experience has shown you will misfire or jam on every shot? My life experience has taught me, "If it works, use it; if it doesn't work, throw it out."

    In the primary, we can all vote for Wile E. Coyote for all I care. But in the general, we'd all better vote Republican unless we'd rather keep our noble "principles" and give up our guns.
     
  11. 1984cj

    1984cj New Member

    296
    0
    0
    Cnorman18- I am glad you disagree. That is what makes discussions interesting. BUT.....
    What if everyone that has succumbed to the theory of "Vote republican and keep your guns" voted for the same libertarian, Constitutionalist or Independent candidate? We could actually have someone in the Govnmt that we wanted rather than having to settle for a Republican.
     
  12. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    right, but...

    I quite agree: but such a candidate MUST build up support before the general election. By that time, it's too late.

    I've voted Libertarian before, and even once in the general election (I won't do it again--they've gotten way off the beam by making drug legalization their biggest talking point). And I'm not supporting Ron Paul, not because he has no chance, but because he intends to cut and run in Iraq. Bad idea. Very bad.

    The time may be coming for a viable 3rd party to replace one of the 2 majors. It's happened before; at one time, one of the 2 major parties was the Whigs. If the Republicans don't stop knuckling under to the Dems in futile efforts to placate the mainstream media, we may see it sooner than anyone expects. But so far, I don't see anyone with the stature of a Reagan that could make it happen. And besides, I haven't given up on the Repubs yet. As long as the extreme Left keeps calling them "repiglicans" and hates their guts, they must be doing something right.
     
  13. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    Just a reminder, Bill Clinton was put into office both times, with only 43% of the vote. And those just coincidently were the only times Ross Perot ran for office. Coincidence? I'm not usually a conspiracy theory buff, but the Clinton machine is ruthless enough to have set the whole thing up. Third parties almost always favor the Democrats. Vote on principle, vote Democrat. Sorry, but that's the way it works out.
     
  14. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    PS--i think it's more likely that a 3rd party is going to show up on the extreme Left; it could happen, considering how the DailyKos and other loony-left blogs have been savaging DEMOCRATS who don't totally buy into their Marxist agenda. The Greens have a lot of power in Europe already, and this Unity08 group that Sam Waterston is pushing SOUNDS like a "moderate" group till you look closer; their actual positions are all far-left. My bet is, a 3rd party at this time would be a lot closer to Che Guevera than to James Madison.

    This would be a very good thing. The EXTREME left will never hold a majority; most Americans are center-right. But splitting themselves off would (1) strengthen the Republicans, and (2) move the Democrats farther toward the center. Let 'em pull out and go beat their heads against the wall.

    But I'd HATE to see a 3rd party appear on the Right, for exactly parallel reasons: it would strengthen the Democrats, and leave the rest of the Republicans closer to the Left, both very bad things.

    At bottom, I have faith in The People, now more than ever. With Fox News #1 in the ratings, and with the New Media (like what we're doing here) breaking the back of the Old, the essentially conservative nature of Americans is coming to the fore. It's no accident that back in the 60s, Walter Cronkite was the most conservative voice on TV and CCW "shall issue" laws were few and far between.

    I insist that things are getting better--but that's not to say we've won, or that we necessarily WILL win. In 1944, we were winning in europe--but the Battle of the Bulge still lay ahead.

    It'll NEVER be over; but I firmly believe that the authentic American Way will prevail, as it has, with some inevitable setbacks, for 216 years.
     
  15. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    ?

    Why is that a "flaw"? The Founders set up the Electoral College (not to mention the Senate) so the larger states couldn't dominate the smaller. Seems to me the system works exactly as it's supposed to. I don't really want New York, L.A. and San Francisco dictating policy to the rest of the nation. Do you?
     
  16. BLS33

    BLS33 New Member Supporter

    607
    0
    0
    Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Electoral College make some peoples votes worthless due to a winner takes all result?
     
  17. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    ?

    No more "worthless" than any other time you vote for a guy that loses. You're still part of the decision-making process.

    More to the point, "winner-take-all" is not in the Constitution, as has been pointed out here. The distribution of votes in the EC is determined by the states--and The People decide that, too, through their state legislatures.

    No vote is "wasted". Sometimes you lose, that's all.
     
  18. Duck

    Duck New Member

    140
    0
    0
    If everyone that said, "I would vote for him, but it would be a wasted vote." would just grow a set and vote the way they know they should he would be in office.
     
  19. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Not so fast

    I wouldn't support Paul if he DID have a chance. His Iraq policy is "surrender now!" On that score, I might as well vote for a Democrat.
     
  20. Tony Soprano

    Tony Soprano New Member

    120
    0
    0
    The democrats will always win if 3rd party votes are casted,I believe Bush #41 would of won a 2nd term if it wasn't for Perot,I believe Dole would of beat Clinton too! Either you are on one side of the fence or the other,sitting on the fence or 3rd party voting gets no one no where!Take a stand(side)!
    :eek: