Florida: A Wasted Primary

Florida’s Republican primary was one wasted primary.

Romney won it in something hailed as a “huge win.” But is it?

Of the 4 million registered Republican voters in the state, only 1.5 million voted in the primary. The 775,000 voters for Romney gave him a very small “huge victory”; among the total of registered Republicans they amount to less than 20%. All we know that among those interested in the primary, almost half voted for Romney. But they are not a majority even among all the Republicans, let alone among the population.

Is it worth it?

A grim reality is slowly but surely dawning on Romney, and on the Republican establishment that is promoting him: Romney can not win the general elections against Obama. He can only win among the small number of die-hard Republican voters whose philosophy can be summarized as “our party right or wrong.” That’s in the primaries. But what about the general election?

Well, there are the evangelical voters. As South Carolina demonstrated, Romney won’t probably find a way to convince those to vote for him. His religion is one thing. And then, of course, is his total lack of charisma; that thing is very important for evangelicals, even if the candidate is a serial adulterer who converted to Roman Catholicism.

Then there are the Tea Partiers. The godfather of Obamacare has not much to say to them. Neither does the candidate with Goldman Sachs as his best sponsor. Neither does the East Coast establishment liberal who became a governor of Massachusetts by promising all kinds of liberal policies – and later acting on this promise. A few Tea Partiers may swing to voting for him. That’s it.

And of course, the worst part of it, the nightmare of the Republican establishment, the Ron Paul’s supporters. More and more it is becoming obvious that no Republican can win without them. They are the only ones that can create a counterbalance to the enthusiasm of what’s left of Obama’s supporters. Even FOX News pundits admit it. And high level GOP functionaries admit it; and suggest that the Republican Party allows Ron Paul a prime speaking spot at the national convention. In fact, as The Hill reported, there is a plan devised to get the Ron Paul’s supporters toe the party line (good luck with that). Long-time Republican sponsors like Jack Welch admit it. Romney himself knows it very well; he carefully avoided throwing darts at Ron Paul all the debates, hoping to win the hearts of his supporters.

But those Ron Paul’s supporters remain obstinate in their support for the man. More and more, they talk about writing him in rather than voting for whoever the establishment wants to sell to them. A young Ron Paul organizer from California said it the other day: “Our vote is not for sale.”

The Republican establishment wants to keep the momentum it gained from the Tea Party in 2010. But Romney is not the man for that. In fact, if anything, he would energize the Obama voters more than the Republican voters. He just can’t become a President, period.

So the vote of these 775,000 Republicans in Florida was completely wasted. They voted to continue the agony of the Republican Party; and probably to re-elect Obama in November, if Romney gets the Republican nomination. Romney is unelectable, and he realizes it. And so does everyone who knows what actually is going on in reality. It’s just the Republican voters who don’t get it yet.


Comments

comments

About Bojidar Marinov
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman.
  • deleted152911

    "And then, of course, is his total lack of charisma; that thing is very important for evangelicals, even if the candidate is a serial adulterer who converted to Roman Catholicism"

    Newt, I believe has repented of his sins and is honest with himself AND the American people. Calling him a serial adulterer is a bit of a stretch. Bill Clinton was a unrepentant serial adulterer who basically told us as president it was STILL none of his business what he did in the Oval Office. There is no comparison there between Newt and Bill Clinton.

    Newt 2012!

    • ForConstitution

      I also don't believe, like in SC, that Evangelicals will vote for Romney because he's in the Cult of Mormon.

    • tricky

      Newt has repented? Do his previous wives know about his repentance? Did they forgive him? Or are they too sick for him to worry about asking them for forgiveness?

      • ForConstitution

        And who do YOU support, Ron Mohammed Paul?

        • tricky

          I don't know about Ron Mohammed Paul. I support Ron Paul, the only true conservative in the race.

        • ForConstitution

          RP is the fourth highest porker in the House because he takes home 100 million in bacon a year for his district.

        • Myrtlelinder

          Don't they nave 1.5 million yam dankies down there?? Why were the Floridians not voting. Can't see the forest for the trees!!

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Agreed. He is the only true conservative right now.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Santorum isn't exactly a statist. And he also remembers the freedom that individuals were given by the founders.

        • upaces88

          Roger, I realllly like Santorum...Give him a few years -- he'll be back and stronger than ever!

      • Gail

        Newt doesn't need the forgiveness of his ex-wives in order to repent. He can still repent even if they never forgive him. Repentance comes from he who repents, not from anyone else.

      • Sandi Trusso

        That thing about Newt supposedly asking for a divorce while his wife was on her death bed, was an out and out lie. His daughters have exposed it. The woman who was supposed to be on her death bed is still alive. Where were you "stone casters" when Clinton was running for office, when Ted, Bobby and Jack Kennedy were running. Apparently if you're a Democrat you are held in high esteem while you make a career of infidelity, and keep right on practicing it while you're in office (and everyone knows it). You can even leave the scene of one of the girls who went off a bridge in the car with you and drowned while you waited a day to even notify police. But here Newt Gingrich asked for forgiveness for something that went on 20 years ago, and has turned his life around, and you're still persecuting him. As many have pointed out. Even the Apostle Paul came to Jesus with a lot worse baggage than Newt Gingrich! But you sanctimonious snobs just keep right on judging him, even though God forgave him the moment he asked for forgiveness. If he were still living the same lifestyle I could understand, but not when he's turned his life around with the help of God.

    • upaces88

      The Presidents who were unfaithful:

      Clinton
      Kennedy (Jack & Bobby)
      Johnson
      Roosevelt
      Woodrow Wilson
      Grover Cleveland (had an illegitimate child)
      Jefferson
      Andrew Jackson
      Adams who wanted PIckney to act as his pimp
      Madison
      Washington

      and, of course, do you realllly think Obama has given up his gay life?

      • ForConstitution

        Why are you telling lies about our Founding Fathers? Can you prove they committed adultery and I mean they admitted out of their own mouths? Or at the very least, you are believing leftist history books. Which is it?

        John Adams was faithful to his wife. I have read the letters they wrote to each other, and he NEVER committed adultery and he could have very easily when he was in France all those years without her. In fact, he was shocked at the immorality of the French so much so, that they disgusted him.

        • upaces88

          These people were human beings with flaws just like the rest of us.
          They were/are still seen as "GREAT" men....Please Google the information for yourself.

        • daves

          Ronald Reagan Republican President of the United States, excerpt from Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography (1991), discussing the later years of Ronald Reagan’s marriage to Jane Wyman; Reagan started dating Wyman while she was still married to Martin Futterman. A series of women passed through Ronald Reagan’s bedroom in those years, so many, in fact, that he later told Joe Santley, a publicist, that he once found himself in the Garden of Allah Hotel with a woman he didn’t know. “I woke up one morning and I couldn’t remember the name of the gal I was in bed with.

        • Myrtlelinder

          Was there someone keeping records?? If so, was whoever took the records sin free? You know there are ten commandments and only on them mention adultery. If I remember correctly there is one which says "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor!! Then, there are eight more of them.

        • upaces88

          I think politicians must leave their Bibles at home and probably dusty from non-use.

        • Myrtlelinder

          Maybe they should leave their record books home, too. Anyway, the Bible is a book which belongs to the CREATOR OF THE WORLD, and who has the right to tell anyone what to do with what they have made. I mean just talking for myself, If I make it it is my business what I do with it.

          As a normal thing politicians don't do what we think they should do.

        • upaces88

          You are right!

        • Myrtlelinder

          Thanks, Every positive e mail counts!

        • upaces88

          us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/towncry/sex.html
          Opponents of President John Adams, during his reelection campaign of 1800, ... to "procure four pretty girls as mistresses, a pair for each elderly gentleman. https://www.google.com/#pq=jefferson+and+his+mist...

        • upaces88

          Well, since they are not here "out of their own mouths" -- the point is moot.
          There is evidence he did. He is not going to talk about adultery to his own wife in a letter.
          PROVE ME WRONG with a valid historical account -- not just your opinion.

        • ForConstitution

          Read this book which is written by a historian named David McCollough.
          http://unputdownables.net/2011/06/24/john-adams-b...

        • Sandi Trusso

          The burden of proof is on you. You're the one making the accusation.

        • upaces88

          http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/05/27...
          Obama member of Chicago Gay Men's Clug
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/obama-ga...
          Obama and Gay Marriage
          https://www.google.com/#q=Obama+is+gay&hl=en&...
          Multiple Video(s) of him being gay, etc.

      • icouldahad

        George Washington was NEVER unfaithful to Martha. Nor did Madison cheat on Dolly. As for Jefferson, he never cheated on his wife and there is only supposition that he had affairs with married women.
        I think you're a bit sick to accuse our founders that way.

        • upaces88

          Largely forgotten charges that 'Thomas Jefferson had a handsome light-skinned slave as his mistress for several decades have been resurrected in a recent Jefferson biography. This book was followed by a popular novel elaborating upon the same theme. 'The appearance of these works has brought to public attention allegations that were first given currency a year after Jefferson became president of the United States in 1801. Growing out of the charges were others to the effect that a beautiful daughter of the master of Monticello and his purported paramour was sold into prostitution in the New Orleans slave market, with Jefferson's knowledge and consent. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jef...

        • Myrtlelinder

          Are sex sins the only sins that were recorded, the lies, they may have told, something they may have stolen, like somebody's reputation with those lies.

          We can remember the bad things much better that the good that these people did, Why?? You know I don't have to worry, I never did anything wrong.

        • icouldahad

          That charge was made by someone who had a dispute with Jefferson and didn't want to see him elected as president. It was one newspaper article and John Adams quickly came out to defend Jefferson against the charge and the matter was dropped. How ridiculous you are. You WANT to believe the worst in people. You WANT to believe the lies. When I first heard that charge I searched for proof it was a LIE and found it immediaitely. But what did you do? You said, "Oh, it must be true' and sought to prove your opinion. Why do you want to believe the worst in people? This says more about your character than it does the lie. There is no proof - NONE! Thomas Jefferson had brothers, it may have been them. Sally never said who fathered her children. NEVER. Her children made the claim and all that was proved was that the children came from Jefferson's line. Take the beam from your own eye before you try to take the splinter out of another's.

        • upaces88

          If there is an article written during that time...FIND IT.
          Again, we can't take your word for it because you feel offended Our Founding Fathers were human beings and not God.
          FIND THE ARTICLE. Please

        • upaces88

          Prove me wrong, please! I would rather think of him the way you do...PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.

        • icouldahad

          You can't prove a negative. Plus, you never proved your point. Prove your point with articles off the internet and then I will prove my point from articles off the internet. What will that prove? It's YOU that must have the faith that the Founders named are innocent of your charges. They are long dead and all we have now are hateful Marxist-minded professors who will do anything to discredit the founding of America in order to make her something you want to see end.

        • icouldahad

          Our Founders were also men of faith - it may not be a faith you recognize today, but that they believed in God is indiputable as they mention the 'Creator' and 'Providence' in our founding documents. These same wretched professors say that because they didn' mention the word 'God' or speak outright of the Bible they didn't believe. You refuse to acknowlede that at that time 'FAITH" was a private matter and not discussed, like so much more was never openly discussed. Our 'open society' would be repulsive to our Founders who were modest men who spoke mostly when necessary. You don't seem to know what 'integrity, 'principled' and 'honest' means. Don't pretend you want to be proved wrong by someone other than yourself. Only you can change your mind and refuse to listen to the hate spewed at our Founders. Gosh, how old are you that you can't decide for yourself? Read the Founders words, not what someone else said about them and learn for yourself. There are plenty of books that have the Founders' own writing in them. Get them. Read them. Stop being childish. Be self reliant and learn on your own.

        • ForConstitution

          I doubt upaces has ever read a history book. All he/she could do was post liberal websites and TV channels.

          We ALL know they started these lies about our FF when Clinton was exposed as a serial adulterer and quite possibly a rapist. The Bimbo eruptions showed that Clinton had possibly slept with over 100 women since he was Governor or AK.

          I've read books written by historians dedicated to the truth and I've also read many letters Adams wrote to his family AND Jefferson. The Adams family kept every single letter they wrote to each including the letters John and Abigail wrote to each other when they were dating.

        • ForConstitution

          I used to live in WI and their universities are the MOST liberal in all the USA.

          Just because a website says it, doesn't make it true. It's lame you just "google" and list a bunch of websites dedicated to revisionist history. Adams is my favorite Founding Father and I have researched him extensively. He was NEVER unfaithful to his wife. NEVER.

          He took this commandment seriously......."Thou shalt not commit adultery."

          Like I said, Adam's letters to his wife and family were ALL preserved. Go read them. Read his actual words and quit quoting lame websites and google.

          Your original list of "unfaithful" presidents proves you are a liberal troll. Go read your Bible and see what God has in store for those who lie. Every idle word that you speak, you're going to give account in the day of Judgement......Liar.

        • upaces88

          If you believe that, PLEASE, I would rather you make me wrong. I don't mind being misinformed or wrong, but I can't just take your word for it.
          Go find an article that proves your point. Okay?

        • ForConstitution

          Go read a book, moron.

          David McCoullough is a historian dedicated to the truth of our Founding Fathers.

          "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

          ~John Adams
          http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp...

          David Barton is another historian dedicated to the truth of our Founding Fathers. Read some of his articles and books.

        • upaces88

          Google it and please, please prove me wrong. I have no problem being wrong and changing my view if I am incorrect. However, I can't just change my mind because "you say so."

          Go find it. Prove your own point!

        • ForConstitution

          Oh yeah.........google is the end all of truth. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you upside the head.

        • upaces88

          PROVE IT!
          You didn't live then -- therefore, you don't know. FIND a historical book written or go to the History Channel and look it up and come back.
          We CANNOT take your word for it.
          I hold no malice -- NO bad opinions of our founding fathers because they were human. They were NOT God.

        • ForConstitution

          http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/tp/Adams...

          Here are the actual letters. Read them and get back to me.

          The History Channel is a liberal TV channel dedicated to revisionist history.

          So let me sum you up. Google, PBS,, a liberal WI professor and the History channel is the sum total of your lazy research. Go read a friggin' book, lazy.

      • Mel

        Bobby Kennedy was never President...

        • ForConstitution

          She's a liar dedicated to revisionist history. She can't even get the list of presidents right.

      • Myrtlelinder

        And Bush, Sr and Bush, Jr and ...................

        • upaces88

          Myrtlelinder, I did NOT know that. Do you have any articles about that?

        • Myrtlelinder

          No, I am sorry to say, I read them and throw them away but I am sure you can do some research an find them. I do know that Bush, Sr push the One World Union. Some of these article were on TV.

        • upaces88

          He did! Thanks!
          However, two mainstream media sources have confirmed that their sources also have reported an ongoing affair between Mr. Bush and Rice.

        • Myrtlelinder

          I had not heard that!! Thanks!

        • ForConstitution

          You are a lazy liar who can't even prove what you say.

          Just because a link says it, doesn't make it true. God calls lying an abomination.

        • upaces88

          Then find something that proves your point -- Otherwise, it is just YOUR opinion.

      • GerryC

        What a crock, Jefferson was never "unfaithful to his wife" you just believe the Sally Heming Lie. And there is not just no evidence but not even the accusation that Washington was ever unfaithful to his. And "Madison" that would be exactly counter to everything we know about him, not even a remote possibility there.

        • ForConstitution

          Exactly! Jefferson was never unfaithful to his wife. That was a lie that was perpetrated during the 2nd presidential campaign when Adams was running against Jefferson. Jefferson's wife, who died from childbirth, was dead at this point.

          These liberals will lie about our Founding Father because they want to find some type of approval for their sin. Democrats starting lying about our Founding Fathers when Bill Clinton was found to be a serial adulterer. "Everybody does it" is their commandment.

          At least Newt repented of his sin. Bill Clinton NEVER did.

      • Sandi Trusso

        I hate that when people accuse with no proof. You don't know if Obama ever practiced homosexuality. This election is about issues, not people. The only time it could be made about people is if we had proof that he is not an American citizen, or if there were proof that he is continuing to live an immoral lifestyle. Furthermore, although there had been rumors of Roosevelt and his secretary, there was no proof. Nor was there proof (other than Clinton and the Kennedy's) of most of the presidents you mention. But, hey, let's just accuse men who are dead and can't defend themselves. It's so disgusting to destroy reputations (especially when accusations cannot be proved).

    • Myrtlelinder

      Them yam dankies should have to go back North to vote. It is not fair to Florida that hey get this reputation because of these dankies!!!

      • upaces88

        Myrtlelinder, A True Southern Lady just like me!@
        Send them packing!

      • ForConstitution

        Florida is filled with selfish liberal Democrat baby boomers. It's not a conservative Evangelical state.

  • ForConstitution

    A young Ron Paul organizer from California said it the other day: “Our vote is not for sale.”

    Ron Paul voters voted for Obama to begin with in hopes of getting drugs and homosexual marriage legalized and I think they'll vote for him again in 2012.

    Ron Paul & Obama, two sides of the same Anti Semitic coin. Just "ax" em.

    • icouldahad

      And you have the nerve to use the name 'ForConstitution'? Ron Paul is the only candidate trying to restore our Constitution.
      I guess you approve of warrantless searches, undeclared wars, fiat money, the destruction of our Bill of Rights... the list goes on.
      Making up lies doesn't help your anti-Ron Paul cause, either. Ron Paul doesn't want to legalize drugs or prostitution. But as you boast that you are 'for' the Constitution in your alias, perhaps you can tell me where in the Constitution Congress has the authority to legislate those issue? You can't. That means, as Ron Paul rightly says, those issues are to be left with the states to decide. Please learn what the Constitution actually says.

      • BOTK

        Correction: he is the only candidate who airs out his own claims about how much of a constitutionalist he is.

        I too don't approve of warrantless searches, undeclared wars, fiat money, the destruction of the Bill of Rights and so on. There's two reasons why I disagree with RP: one, his definition of those things is wrong and anti-constitutional. For example, to him, warrantless searches includes searches of American citizens who have committed treason against the United States by siding with the terrorists.

        Two, when you're fighting against some idea or something done in practice, you have to offer an alternative to it. You can't just fight an idea without an alternative. Ron Paul's alternatives to those things are not much better (in fact, worse in many cases) than what liberals and RINOs have instituted so far.

        Third, you're setting up a straw man against ForConstitution. Just like the straw man that Ron Paul set up against Rick Santorum in the last debate when they were discussing defense. Just because he dislikes Ron Paul, doesn't mean he dislikes every single one of RP's views. "I must stand with anybody that stands right — stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong" to quote Abe Lincoln. Just because he doesn't adhere to Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution doesn't mean he sides with the liberals and the RINOs.

    • daves

      You have to admire someone who says their vote is not for sale.

      • ForConstitution

        I despise people who are moral relativists like the RP crowd.

  • BOTK

    Another article in defense of the candidate who spouts off as conservative while trying to defend his liberal record. He occasionally tries to vote conservative when it comes to economics, so as to make him appear conservative. Other than that, he is a liberal, through and through.

    - Endorsed COMMUNIST Cynthia McKinney. If he'd rather endorse a radical leftist than a moderate conservative like McCain, shouldn't that tell us something about his views? Like, that they're closer to those of radical leftists than those of conservatives?
    - Calls himself a constitutionalist, yet only accepts the constitution when it fits his libertarian views. Example: Slaps Santorum in the face for voting with the liberals against the National Right to Work Act. Well, let me ask Mr. Libertarian Constitutionalist where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to pass such an act?
    - Criticizes the other candidates for voting liberal, yet he himself has no problem siding with liberals in Congress.
    - Said he could "connect" the TEA Party with OWS! http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/31/ron-paul-says-...
    - Non-interventionist foreign policy: held by every single radical leftist of the past century, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt.
    - Oh, and don't forget the racist newsletters.
    - Like any other politician, and UNLIKE what he claims, he cares mostly about his term in Congress. http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-... scroll down and read the third paragraph from the bottom.
    - Claims to be "consistent". Pah. Far from it. He rants against government waste and then puts pork spending projects that often benefit HIS home district. He claims to be "the one who stood with Reagan" and yet is known to have criticized Reagan throughout the 80s. Claims that the only job of the government is to protect liberty, yet opposes the Civil Rights Act. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,....
    - Doesn't really oppose the welfare system. Listen to this: <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDUQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDa6irSCvnZY&ei=Iv4pT73DMqne2QW0yL3wDg&usg=AFQjCNFVROvbxatT0_GNyymV9lqZ1TbrNQ" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&a..." target="_blank">Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDa6irSCvnZY&ei=Iv4pT73DMqne2QW0yL3wDg&usg=AFQjCNFVROvbxatT0_GNyymV9lqZ1TbrNQ . In the middle of the speech, he talks about Social Security. Listen to what he says. He practically says he would reduce defense spending so as to bring back "life" into the Social Security system.
    - Which brings us to another topic. He constantly rants about "the wars that are driving us into debt." But I wonder if he's actually looked at the latest CBO reports? According to their reports, ~760 billion goes for defense every year. A whopping 2.1 TRILLION goes to welfare, TARP, and other "mandatory" programs. No person in his sensible mind with such obvious facts in front of him would go about ranting like that without having some of an agenda, a leftist agenda.
    - Etc....

    I hope you get it. Ron Paul is far from a conservative candidate.

    • tricky

      I get it. He looks pretty conservative to me. The most conservative of all.

      • BOTK

        Did you even read my list? Perhaps not. I wouldn't expect any Paulbot to read any criticism of RP thoroughly and try to understand what the author is saying. Or maybe you have a different definition of conservative. I.e. your definition of conservative is most people's definition of liberal.

        • ForConstitution

          Excellent list.

          And no, tricky didn't read it. He's too busy doing drugs down at his local OWS!

        • BOTK

          Thanks! I'm sure he may have been doped when trying to read it, but couldn't focus.

        • IdontBrakeForDems

          This election is about saving our country from collapse. Establishment republicans will be more of the same, that's why the media is cramming Romney down our collective throats. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist which is also what our forefathers were when they wrote the constitution. In my book, that says volumes about who we need in office today. I am a life long conservative and will never change. But I am discovering my Libertarian side is actually stronger than my republican side, and it's because of Ron Paul pointing out the differences. Todays republicans are no better than todays democrats; they are two sides of the same coin. I'll vote for Ron Paul and not because of his stand on drugs like some of these weasels seem to think. Ron Paul in 2012, I'll not vote for anyone else.

        • ForConstitution

          Don't forget his racist newsletters that were written in the first person!
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-s...

        • IdontBrakeForDems

          That's it isn't it? There is nothing else in Ron Pauls past anyone can drum up against him. Haha! He didn't even write it himself, and 20 years later, who cares? If that's the only thing anyone can come up with to throw at Mr. Paul, he is truely the right candidate. All other candidates have a looonnng laundry list of real infractions that actually matter. Votes and policy positions are crucial. Newt, Romney and Santorum have a LOT of skeletons in their respective closets. Ron Paul has nothing except a stellar voting record of upholding citizen and state rights, and trying to keep our government in check. Ron Paul is the only candidate worthy of a vote, and vote for him I absolutely will do.

    • icouldahad

      What you wrote is a total obfuscation of what Ron Paul actually represents. I address one issue for berivity sake.
      Ron Paul wants to end Social Security but knows it cannot be done immediately because there are many people depending on it. He proposes that anyone 25 and younger does not have to go into that system. By cutting the military industrial complex off, he will then use that money to fund Social Security. With the troops home, our national defense will be strengthened because our troops will be here and not spread out all over the globe. They will be stationed on OUR borders protecting America from illegal invaders.
      Of course, I doubt you have the integrity to actually look up where you went wrong with everything else you wrote, but I'll leave that up to you.

      • BOTK

        With the troops at home, we'd be fighting every single war against our enemies ON OUR OWN SOIL. So much for trying to protect America from foreign invaders.

        • upaces88

          Unfortunately, you are correct. When God Is busy doing other things, he send the Troops in to serve and protect.

  • icouldahad

    Ron Paul IS the only Rep candidate that can and will defeat Obama. As a Ron Paul supporter I know I won't vote for anyone else. If America is going to fall, best it be under a democrat and especially Obama. If the rest of the Repubs don't care about our country and continue to vote NewtRomney knowing neither of them will beat BO, then Ron Paul supporters should vote their conscience and vote for Ron Paul. At least our votes won't be wasted because we know we are voting for America.

  • upaces88

    @Bobby, thank you for your correction even though i "KNEW" that. Ted Kennedy was also NOT a president; however they were very strong notable men close to the President who made an impact on our country.

  • upaces88

    @Dave: I forgot all about that. You're right.

    I AM NOT saying it is right. What I am saying is that powerful men and women have to have huge ego(s); and confidence. With that comes people who are "attracted" to that vibe of Power and Presence". Have any of you ever been in the presence of a film star or politician (even in local govt)? Their personalities are vibrant and reach over a crowd to enfold them it their Charisma.

    Don't worry, I am going to make a point. That same Charisma attracts women/ and men just to be close to that "power" they emit. It is very difficult if you work for them to be in that power without confusing it. Imagine it for yourself. People of the opposite sex clamoring to just be near you -- practically throwing themselves at you on a day in and day out basis? It would be hard to resist even for the strongest character.

    I am NOT excusing the behavior but it is NONE of my business what goes on behind close doors in a marriage.

  • zeprin

    The EARLY (mail-in) FL ballots had Perry on them. And Possibly others who had dropped out by the day of the Primary.
    So how many votes disappeared down a Black Hole by being so early that they did not get counted because they were for former candidates? An argument for a default 'None of the Above' maybe.

    • upaces88

      You would bring that up...crap.

    • WARancher

      Good point.

  • Bill

    I am sticking with Romney.

    • upaces88

      ...because?

    • WARancher

      Probably still stickng with those funny cigarettes too? Just kidding but I have to ask; If you are a true conservative, how can you stick with Romney the RINO?

  • GerryC

    Good job Godfather, you have written exactly what I've been saying about Romney since 2007. The Republican Establishement is desperate to run a Partisan Race, and so are the Democrats. 15% of the voters are partisan Republicans, 25% patisan Democrats. In Partisan Races the GOP loses 15-25 every time (Ford, Bush '92, Dole, McCain, Romney). The Republican Party should run an Ideological Race 40% are conservative 20% liberal. In ideological races the GOP wins 40-20 landslides every time (Nixon, Reagan, Bush 88, Bush 43, anyone but Romney).

    The establishment press is depserate to push the Romney line. If Iowa does vote for Romney they are irrelevant, if NH doesn't pick Romney they are irrelevent, if S Carolina doesn't pick Romney then they are irrelevant.

    Think of each election as a "battle" where money is your soldiers. How many soldiers did you sacrifice to take this hill or that hill.
    Romney outspent all the rest in Iowa 5:1 and he lost - Strategic Defeat
    In New Hapshire 3:1 for NH and won by far less - Tactical Defeat
    In South Carolina 4:1 and lost - Strategic Defeat
    Florida out 4:1 and didn't even break 50% - Wash (lost 4 times as much but was winner take all)

    Romney is burning through money and running out of Big Doners, and not winning in any proportion to what he is expending. He is spending 8% of the money and getting 30% of the votes. And it is almost all negative personal, which is turning off all the conservatives who want to see ads and debates on the issues.

    I think Gingrich shot himself in the foot by saying Romney was "anti-immigrant", most Americans are even more anti-immigrant than any of these clowns on the Republican side. Also the Republicans lost in 2006, and 2008 because of the War. So Santorum shoots himself in the foot everytime he keeps pushing his we have to invade Iran the intel is as solid as it was in Iraq.

    Americans are sick of wars, sick of immigrants both legal and illegal. And Gingrich doesn't want sent 80 year old grandmother back to their own countries even though they are criminals, but has no problem throwing them out of their homes because they can't afford his tax rates and mandates.

  • upaces88

    @ Gerry: Did you ever take a debate class in High School or College?

    We learn from each other by "debating". I presented my side with articles concerning history.
    Now! YOU present YOUR FACTS -- NOT YOUR OPINIONS>

  • Stephen_Brady

    Why does the GOP keep doing this, to themselves? Why does the establishment hate Newt, so much, and support a man who is only marginally farther to the right than Obama?

    For over forty years, the GOP establishment was comfortably in the minority. They could go onto television, and complain about the DEMs. They could write books, or go onto the lecture circuit, and make tons of money. They enjoyed the perks the DEMs provided them, like immunity from the laws they helped to pass, and the House Bank, etc. If something bad happened, they blamed it on the DEMs. It was very comfortable, indeed.

    Then,along came Newt Ginrich, and the Republican Revolution of 1994. He gave the GOP a majority. He and the House Freshmen changed the ways things were done in the House. They took away the perks. But the Establishment was not happy. Now, they actually had to govern ... and if they got it wrong, they suffered the consequences in the media, and at the polls.

    Barry Goldwater would have done the same thing, had he won the Presidency, in 1964. But he shot himself in the foot with his "extremism" comment (one which I agreed with ... in context) and the Establisment didn't have to deal with President Goldwater.

    And so, this year, having disposed of the pesky and hated Newt, the Establishment gives us another loser, and four more years of Obama. But hey, they'll be happy! They won't have to govern ...

  • Patsy S.

    Dear, LORD GOD and FATHER, forgive us for failing to govern this wonderful land that YOU have given us . Help us to elect a man to get us out of this mess,with your help ,we will.

  • Tomdavis

    It appears obvious to me that the Republicn party is having a great time keeping the Obama idiots off balance. No one in his right conservative mind expects any one of the four males spending huge sums of other people's money to be the "Conservative" nominee of the GOP. I am betting a surprise is going to be sprung just before the November primary. All the right people are in place and prepared for the trap to be sprung. That is all you liberal, mouthy, arrogant and fascist supporters of an interloper need to know right now. Talk to you later. From the inside shines the light of intelligence and 'right' thoughts. Lean over here Barack and I;ll whisper in one of your big ears who isgoing to send your lying carcas back to Kenya or Indonesia. Take your pick.