• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why I'm supporting Mitt Romney

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
103
Location
Texas
Is he as conservative as I would like? No. But, I'm fairly certain that any candidate that is as conservative as I would like would never have a chance of winning the general election, anyway. And it is extremely important that we win this election.

That's why I'm supporting Mitt Romney - because he has the best chance of beating President Obama.

Actually, I would have preferred Michelle Bachmann. A Palin would have been even better. But neither of those was meant to be. And I'm not sure that either would have been electable.

I expect Perry to be out after South Carolina. I think he'd be a lot better than what we've got now, but it was clear from the beginning that he was going nowhere.

Ron Paul is just a little bit too goofy for me, even though I like a lot of the things he stands for. But sometimes he comes across as a senile old man. Additionally, he strikes me as being too much like Ross Perot was. I liked Ross Perot, but it was obvious that he would never be able to get along with the other branches of government to get anything done.

I despise Newt Gingrich. He might be a fiscal conservative, but he reminds me a lot of Barack Obama - way too arrogant for my tastes. He acts like he's God's gift to the electorate. We've already got somebody like that, we don't need another one.

Not to mention his ethical problems. Heck, if a womanizer of questionable ethics can be President, I may as well run for it myself. But we can do better than somebody like Newt Gingrich and I'm willing to vote for somebody that I don't agree with completely on policy as long as he has some ethics.

Santorum? Again, he reminds me somewhat of President Obama in that I think he would be lost once he got in office. I just don't see enough executive experience in his background to get the job done.

Also, the fact that he couldn't even win re-election to the Senate in his home state should be troubling to people. I realize that he lost that race when it wasn't popular to be a Republican, but if the people in his own state didn't want him, why would the rest of us?

So, I'm supporting Mitt Romney. Because he is the most electable candidate the Republicans have running. He has the most appeal to swing voters and that is going to be very important. Heck, we might even get some former Obama supporters like OT to vote for Romney.

I'd like to see a Romney/Rubio, or even a Romney/Bachmann. But anybody for a VP will work, as long as we have a winner. It's that important to me that we not have a second Obama term - important enough to support somebody that isn't really as conservative as I would like for him to be.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not sure if I'll follow Romney or not... I really didn't like him when he ran before...

My choices were Gary Johnson, Huntsman, or Paul... Still hoping Johnson gets the Libertarian nomination...Depending on who's his running mate I would probably support him first..

Definitely would support a Johnson/Paul ticket...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I'll follow Romney or not... I really didn't like him when he ran before...

My choices were Gary Johnson, Huntsman, or Paul... Still hoping Johnson gets the Libertarian nomination...Depending on who's his running mate I would probably support him first..

Definitely would support a Johnson/Paul ticket...

I honestly don't understand the logic of voting for someone you know has zero chance of winning.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I'll follow Romney or not... I really didn't like him when he ran before...

My choices were Gary Johnson, Huntsman, or Paul... Still hoping Johnson gets the Libertarian nomination...Depending on who's his running mate I would probably support him first..

Definitely would support a Johnson/Paul ticket...

I honestly don't understand the logic of voting for someone you know has zero chance of winning.

Just wait, he supports these guys trying to sound like he would support the Right guy. Since he can't vote for these guys he named then he will sound all fair and balanced when he HAS to change his vote for obama. Just a ploy to sound fair and balanced but just a slight of hand vote for obama.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I'll follow Romney or not... I really didn't like him when he ran before...

My choices were Gary Johnson, Huntsman, or Paul... Still hoping Johnson gets the Libertarian nomination...Depending on who's his running mate I would probably support him first..

Definitely would support a Johnson/Paul ticket...

I honestly don't understand the logic of voting for someone you know has zero chance of winning.

Oh I've voted for Paul before- and last year donated to his election...
Before that I voted twice for Perot... The only other D I've ever supported was after the Nixon scandal- I supported Carter- which was a mistake (almost as big as voting for GW)...After Nixon and Carter neither the D's or R's looked very inviting....
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
28
Location
South Central Montana
Texan said:
Is he as conservative as I would like? No. But, I'm fairly certain that any candidate that is as conservative as I would like would never have a chance of winning the general election, anyway. And it is extremely important that we win this election.

That's why I'm supporting Mitt Romney - because he has the best chance of beating President Obama.

Actually, I would have preferred Michelle Bachmann. A Palin would have been even better. But neither of those was meant to be. And I'm not sure that either would have been electable.

I expect Perry to be out after South Carolina. I think he'd be a lot better than what we've got now, but it was clear from the beginning that he was going nowhere.

Ron Paul is just a little bit too goofy for me, even though I like a lot of the things he stands for. But sometimes he comes across as a senile old man. Additionally, he strikes me as being too much like Ross Perot was. I liked Ross Perot, but it was obvious that he would never be able to get along with the other branches of government to get anything done.

I despise Newt Gingrich. He might be a fiscal conservative, but he reminds me a lot of Barack Obama - way too arrogant for my tastes. He acts like he's God's gift to the electorate. We've already got somebody like that, we don't need another one.

Not to mention his ethical problems. Heck, if a womanizer of questionable ethics can be President, I may as well run for it myself. But we can do better than somebody like Newt Gingrich and I'm willing to vote for somebody that I don't agree with completely on policy as long as he has some ethics.

Santorum? Again, he reminds me somewhat of President Obama in that I think he would be lost once he got in office. I just don't see enough executive experience in his background to get the job done.

Also, the fact that he couldn't even win re-election to the Senate in his home state should be troubling to people. I realize that he lost that race when it wasn't popular to be a Republican, but if the people in his own state didn't want him, why would the rest of us?

So, I'm supporting Mitt Romney. Because he is the most electable candidate the Republicans have running. He has the most appeal to swing voters and that is going to be very important. Heck, we might even get some former Obama supporters like OT to vote for Romney.

I'd like to see a Romney/Rubio, or even a Romney/Bachmann. But anybody for a VP will work, as long as we have a winner. It's that important to me that we not have a second Obama term - important enough to support somebody that isn't really as conservative as I would like for him to be.

OH MAN!! sorry to do this to you...but...the mainstream media is wanting Mitt to win... in other words the mainstream media is AGAIN choosing their repub. for us...because???? he is a moderate to left "Republican". MT chose him 2 yrs ago, but I wouldn't give him my vote today. OH , MAN :cry:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I'll follow Romney or not... I really didn't like him when he ran before...

My choices were Gary Johnson, Huntsman, or Paul... Still hoping Johnson gets the Libertarian nomination...Depending on who's his running mate I would probably support him first..

Definitely would support a Johnson/Paul ticket...


OT was probably one of those Paul supporters threatening rape and murder, due to their differing opinions.........Bigot......OT probably even supports those racist opinions that Paul holds.......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I'll follow Romney or not... I really didn't like him when he ran before...

My choices were Gary Johnson, Huntsman, or Paul... Still hoping Johnson gets the Libertarian nomination...Depending on who's his running mate I would probably support him first..

Definitely would support a Johnson/Paul ticket...

I honestly don't understand the logic of voting for someone you know has zero chance of winning.

I'm not so sure of that anymore...With Independents being the majority of voters anymore- and the growing Libertarian following---If it is a Paul/Johnson ticket they could be capable of beating the Dem candidate...

At least do better than the ultraright social conservatives like the Newt, Santorum, and Perry....


The poll also indicates Paul statistically tied with Obama, with the president at 48% and the longtime congressman at 46%. But according to the poll, the president is doing better against two other Republican presidential candidates. If Rick Santorum were the GOP nominee, Obama would hold a 51%-45% advantage over the former senator from Pennsylvania. And if Newt Gingrich faced off against the president, Obama would lead the former House speaker 52%-43%.


Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns


Posted by
CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) – Mitt Romney is all tied up with President Barack Obama in a likely general election matchup, with the president showing signs of weakness on the economy and Romney seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans, according to a new national survey.

And a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday also indicates that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is also even with Obama in another possible showdown this November. The survey also suggests the Republican advantage on voter enthusiasm is eroding, which could be crucial in a close contest.

According to the survey, if the November election were held today and Romney were the Republican presidential nominee, 48% say they'd vote for the former Massachusetts governor, with 47% supporting the president. Romney's one point margin is well within the poll's sampling error.

The poll also indicates Paul statistically tied with Obama, with the president at 48% and the longtime congressman at 46%. But according to the poll, the president is doing better against two other Republican presidential candidates. If Rick Santorum were the GOP nominee, Obama would hold a 51%-45% advantage over the former senator from Pennsylvania. And if Newt Gingrich faced off against the president, Obama would lead the former House speaker 52%-43%.


Enthusiasm in voting in the presidential election this November now stands at 54% among registered Republicans, down ten points from last October. Meanwhile, enthusiasm among registered Democrats has risen six points, and now stands at 49%.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Faster horses said:
Ron Paul certainly bombed last night on his foreign policy...I hope more
and more realize he's in left field on this. Someone said on tv that
he came across more like Obama......... :shock:

He's got that whine in his voice. I can't go with it. No matter what else he was about, that whine gives him a definate no go - from the get go.
 

katrina

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
2
Location
East north east of Soapweed
backhoeboogie said:
Faster horses said:
Ron Paul certainly bombed last night on his foreign policy...I hope more
and more realize he's in left field on this. Someone said on tv that
he came across more like Obama......... :shock:

He's got that whine in his voice. I can't go with it. No matter what else he was about, that whine gives him a definate no go - from the get go.

I thought he was rather pathtic.... Sorry lonecowboy :( I know where you're coming from...
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
103
Location
Texas
Hanta Yo said:
OH MAN!! sorry to do this to you...but...the mainstream media is wanting Mitt to win... in other words the mainstream media is AGAIN choosing their repub. for us...because???? he is a moderate to left "Republican". MT chose him 2 yrs ago, but I wouldn't give him my vote today. OH , MAN :cry:
Sorry to disappoint you, Hanta Montana. :lol:

However, I can assure you that the mainstream media has nothing to do with my selection. Anyway, I thought the mainstream media was wanting another Obama term?

Who would you rather I support? I'm willing to let you persuade me...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Who would you rather I support? I'm willing to let you persuade me...

the choices are not great,.. let alone good..

I did find your point about Santorum interesting.. you didn't want to support him because he lost his race for senator in his home state...

Romney lost his bid as senator as well... (in his home state)

sort of got lucky in that the incumbent governor was not well liked, and decided not to run...

at that time Romney decided to run for governor, he didn't even live in Massachusetts.

he declined a second term.. ever consider why?

and then there is his positions on the issues..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney


During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."[8] Romney promised to "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and declared "I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts' pro-choice laws."

In 2003, Romney as Governor of Massachusetts, said in a press release "If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts . . . I will always come down on the side of public health."[112] Insisting that a coal power plant meet tough emissions standards even at the cost of losing jobs, Romney announced "I will not protect jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people."



In 2007, Romney signed the anti-tax pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Reform, pledging no new taxes or increases of existing taxes; in 2002, Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge because he considered them "government by gimmickry."

To help get the state out of debt, Romney doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations and firearm licenses, raising $400 million in the first year of the program.[102] Romney also increased the state gasoline fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue; the fee is in addition to the 21-cent-per-gallon state gas tax.[101] Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet[103] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases,

He would consider cap-and-trade only if part of a larger global plan. He has not offered specific targets on energy efficiency

He opposes a unilateral US global warming policy and believes that worldwide solutions are optimal.

As Governor, Romney supported clean environment initiatives

o curb global warming, Romney as Governor of Massachusetts supported regulation of greenhouse gas emissions,

He issued a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. His staffers spent more than $500,000 negotiating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI—pronounced "Reggie"), which Romney praised in November 2005, saying "I'm convinced it is good business."

Romney wrote, "I believe that climate change is occurring. [...] I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.



In 2006, Romney opposed the Cape Wind offshore Cape Cod wind farm proposal[117] because of its visual detriment to Nantucket

In his 1994 Senate campaign, Romney called for the "virtual elimination" of the federal Department of Agriculture[139] and for reductions in farm subsidies.[140] In 2007, when questioned about these views, a Romney for President Iowa campaign spokesman responded: "Governor Romney believes that investing in agriculture is key to our economy and families,"
seems Romney speaks with forked tongue?

I could go on and paste alot more.. but Romney has said and done about everything on both sides of almost every issue..

at least you can't call him a rigid ideologue
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
28
Location
South Central Montana
Texan said:
Hanta Yo said:
OH MAN!! sorry to do this to you...but...the mainstream media is wanting Mitt to win... in other words the mainstream media is AGAIN choosing their repub. for us...because???? he is a moderate to left "Republican". MT chose him 2 yrs ago, but I wouldn't give him my vote today. OH , MAN :cry:
Sorry to disappoint you, Hanta Montana. :lol:

However, I can assure you that the mainstream media has nothing to do with my selection. Anyway, I thought the mainstream media was wanting another Obama term?

Who would you rather I support? I'm willing to let you persuade me...

OK Texan from Texas....;I'm not quite sure who I will be voting for....I will give you the NOTS: Ron Paul & Mitt Romney. I will continue to read and listen and prolly decide when it's time to vote...right now I'm leanin' toward Newt. Might change in a cpl months...I want a leader who is NOT politically correct...and will say and DO what needs to be done. I am sick and tired of being politically correct...Newt blows through that crap and sez how it's gonna be done...I see him as..."Cowboy Up" (not the poster on here) but to Cowboy Up...
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
103
Location
Texas
Steve, you've told us why you don't like Romney, now tell us who you do like. As I posted, electability is most important to me. Even though he's going to be labeled as one of those 'evil' rich people, I still see Romney as the most electable.

There's just no way that I can stomach voting for that sleazy bastard, Newt Gingrich. I might have to vote for him in November if he wins the nomination, but it sure won't be in the primary. I'd vote for Santorum before I'd vote for Newt.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
103
Location
Texas
Hanta Yo said:
OK Texan from Texas....;I'm not quite sure who I will be voting for....I will give you the NOTS: Ron Paul & Mitt Romney. I will continue to read and listen and prolly decide when it's time to vote...right now I'm leanin' toward Newt. Might change in a cpl months...I want a leader who is NOT politically correct...and will say and DO what needs to be done. I am sick and tired of being politically correct...Newt blows through that crap and sez how it's gonna be done...I see him as..."Cowboy Up" (not the poster on here) but to Cowboy Up...
Hanta, I also like somebody that doesn't worry about political correctness. But just because you and I like that, doesn't mean that person is electable. And I'm much more concerned about Newt's arrogance and his ethical problems than some people are.

If Newt is the nominee, you can expect another four years of Obama. By the time the Democrat attack machine gets through running negative ads about Newt all day, every day, week after week after week, his freakin' dogs won't even like him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Steve, you've told us why you don't like Romney, now tell us who you do like. As I posted, electability is most important to me. Even though he's going to be labeled as one of those 'evil' rich people, I still see Romney as the most electable.

There's just no way that I can stomach voting for that sleazy bastard, Newt Gingrich. I might have to vote for him in November if he wins the nomination, but it sure won't be in the primary. I'd vote for Santorum before I'd vote for Newt.

Texan- I totally agree with you--if Newt is the chosen candidate- Obama walks into the WH for a second term with no problem...Same with Santorum...
Romney is probably the only one that stands any chance of getting the backing of many of the moderates and Independents (that now make up 40% of the voters).....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Texan said:
Steve, you've told us why you don't like Romney, now tell us who you do like. As I posted, electability is most important to me. Even though he's going to be labeled as one of those 'evil' rich people, I still see Romney as the most electable.

There's just no way that I can stomach voting for that sleazy bastard, Newt Gingrich. I might have to vote for him in November if he wins the nomination, but it sure won't be in the primary. I'd vote for Santorum before I'd vote for Newt.

I am not a fan of Newts either.. right now he sounds conservative and presidential... but his past is anything but...

Santorum's record has been distorted and they have done a good hatchet job on him.. he has made a few missteps over the years.. and has paid for standing by his principles..

Santurom has a few thing that I would consider un-defensible.. but he is better then both Newt and Romney..

and as far as electability, Santorum came up in a far left district and won in a left leaning state.. and he beat Romney in Iowa..

Santorum was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district, located in the eastern suburbs of Pittsburgh. He scored a significant upset in the heavily Democratic district, defeating seven-term Democratic incumbent

Although the 18th District was redrawn for the 1992 elections, and the new district had a 3:1 ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans, Santorum still won re-election with 61% of the vote.

As a member of the Gang of Seven, Santorum was involved in the exposing the members of Congress involved in the House banking scandal.

In 1996, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform, and contributed to legislation that became the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Santorum was an author and the floor manager of the bill

Santorum served in the U.S. Congress as a Senator from Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2006. From 2001 until 2007, he was the Senate's third-ranking Republican


we all know the basics of what happened in 2006,.. but if you consider who he lost to... Bob Casey, Jr., a son of one of the most popular democratic governors of the state..

between picking a person with instant name recognition in PA, they also did a hatchet job on Santorum's record.. ironically the same lame biased claims have arisen, and must be debunked again..

as for his opponent in the race he lost..Casey's father once declined to run for an office, and another with the same name ran and won by a landslide.. now that is a name that carries some weight..

Mistaken identity

Restricted from seeking another term as Auditor General of Pennsylvania, Casey declined to seek the office of State Treasurer in 1976. Instead, a county official who was also named Robert Casey won the Democratic primary and the general election, spending virtually no money and doing virtually no campaigning; voters merely assumed they were voting for the outgoing Auditor General.

so given the choices right now... still undecided..
but leaning...

Santorum,
Newt or Paul,
Romney..

in that order..
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
Steve, you've told us why you don't like Romney, now tell us who you do like. As I posted, electability is most important to me. Even though he's going to be labeled as one of those 'evil' rich people, I still see Romney as the most electable.

There's just no way that I can stomach voting for that sleazy bastard, Newt Gingrich. I might have to vote for him in November if he wins the nomination, but it sure won't be in the primary. I'd vote for Santorum before I'd vote for Newt.

Texan- I totally agree with you--if Newt is the chosen candidate- Obama walks into the WH for a second term with no problem...Same with Santorum...
Romney is probably the only one that stands any chance of getting the backing of many of the moderates and Independents (that now make up 40% of the voters).....

When I take your worthless opinion for any value whatsdever will be the day I support the leftwing socialist obama for his second term. Hell you haven't been right about anything in your life.
 

Latest posts

Top