Mitt Romney’s MD Chair: Women Will See Romney’s “Real Views” in the General Election

Bob Ehrlich

Mitt Romney is running as a conservative now, but in the general, we can expect a flip-flop. It was made clear already by a top Romney campaign adviser saying he will erase his conservative views as with an “Etch-A-Sketch” once the general election comes around,  if he is the nominee. Tonight, Romney’s Maryland campaign chair said that women will see Mitt Romney’s “real views” in the general election.

From  CNN, transcript:

Piers Morgan: Obviously, Governor Romney’s got a problem in the polling with women, not entirely surprising given the social issue debates that have been raging in the Republican Party have been pretty negatively received. How does he rebuild trust in the female vote?
Romney’s Maryland Campaign Chair, Bob Ehrlich: I think that’s more a function of the Santorum campaign, quite frankly, and the Democrats using some of Senator Santorum’s verbiage to their electoral advantage, to their partisan advantage. I think, when the general election, again, when you have one-on-one election, a general election, and they see again, are reminded of Governor Romney’s real views, that gender gap will dissipate rather quickly.

Why do people vote for this? Mass insanity, that’s why. People have rejected moral reasoning, and when you reject moral reasoning, you don’t think reasonably. Believe me, I know about this in living technicolor as I live with Bipolar Disorder. If I don’t find my identity in God’s truth, I will go quite literally crazy. Healthy brains can do the same thing when they reject moral reasoning.

From Pope Benedict XVI”s Chrismas 2010 address:

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his day, observed that democracy in America had become possible and had worked because there existed a fundamental moral consensus which, transcending individual denominations, united everyone. Only if there is such a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function. This fundamental consensus derived from the Christian heritage is at risk wherever its place, the place of moral reasoning, is taken by the purely instrumental rationality of which I spoke earlier. In reality, this makes reason blind to what is essential. To resist this eclipse of reason and to preserve its capacity for seeing the essential, for seeing God and man, for seeing what is good and what is true, is the common interest that must unite all people of good will. The very future of the world is at stake.

The Madonna in Sorrow. Il Sassoferrato


“Eclipse of reason.” “The very future of the world is at stake.” Is the Pope being “over the top” here? No. It is all plain as day to the faithful.

This is why I always say that we have to elect Rick Santorum because “the future of the world is at stake.” It really is. Either we embrace moral reasoning, or we sink into the abyss.

I’ve been saying since long before Rick Santorum decided to run for president that America is rejecting moral reasoning and that we are headed for a dark age if we don’t get our bearings back. Seeing people fall for the “Etch A Sketch” candidate and seeing the full weight of the Republican Party establishment out to destroy Rick Santorum’s hopes for the nomination is no surprise to me. America will elect Rick Santorum or it’s game over.

Catholics, particularly, who vote for Mitt Romney should be ashamed of themselves. The man stood on stage before a national audience and, in order to save his own political skin, told a blatant and horrific falsehood about the Catholic Church. He said that the Church voluntarily submitted to subsidizing child murder. He’s clearly a man who will say and do anything to gain power, even tell such a lie about the Church before a national audience, and yet…Catholics are voting for him. “Eclipse of reason.”

I’m ashamed of Catholic Republicans who are voting for this impostor, but then, the Church has been through worse. We’ll get through this as we have gotten through far worse things, albeit losing many souls along the way. God, help us.

Think I’m going overboard? I don’t have to win elections. I only have to remain close to Christ, because He is all. I don’t lose any sleep over the possibility that Rick Santorum may not win. As he told me tonight after losing in Maryland, Wisconsin and D.C., “God is good.”  Indeed, God is good, and God will remain eternally good, even if America rejects Him. She will get what she deserves, but it is my hope that she works hard to deserve freedom by helping to elect a man of principle – Rick Santorum.

 

54 Responses to Mitt Romney’s MD Chair: Women Will See Romney’s “Real Views” in the General Election

  • given the social issue debates that have been raging in the Republican Party have been pretty negatively received.

    This makes Ehrlich’s response even more pathetic. Morgan based his question on an inaccurate presentation of facts. Poll numbers do not actually jibe with this comment. Instead of pointing that out, or turning the narrative around, Ehrlich chooses to implicitly wave the white flag of surrender on these issues. It’s little surprise that he got thumped in his attempt to unseat Gov. O’Malley in a year when he should have had a prime opportunity to get back in the governor’s mansion.

  • Lisa—I admire your passion and all the more as a father dealing with a BPD in the family. I would caution against using that passion to judge how some Catholics vote in this primary. And, I do not say that as a Romney supporter but given the sloppiness of the other candidates in failing to get on the Virginia ballots I didn’t have a dog in the fight….so to speak.

  • I can absolutely judge how people vote and express shame about it. What I can’t judge is their individual culpability.

  • Seeing people fall for the “Etch A Sketch” candidate and seeing the full weight of the Republican Party establishment out to destroy Rick Santorum’s hopes for the nomination is no surprise to me. America will elect Rick Santorum or it’s game over.

    The current situation is distressing in many respects, but one should recall that it is not without precedent for the Republican electorate to opt for an opportunist (as it did in 1960, 1968, 1972, 1988, and 1992) or a Capitol Hill fixture (as it did in 1976, 1996, and 2008).

    This makes Ehrlich’s response even more pathetic. Morgan based his question on an inaccurate presentation of facts. Poll numbers do not actually jibe with this comment. Instead of pointing that out, or turning the narrative around, Ehrlich chooses to implicitly wave the white flag of surrender on these issues.

    Wave the white flag is what that creature prefers to do. It was no loss to the Republican Party when he was chucked out of office. On the bill of particulars with regard to Mr. Romney would be maintaining Robert Ehrlich in public life.

    See here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663849/posts

    This man is not your friend. He is no more than minimally honorable.

  • It is telling that Romney surrounds himself with the likes of Bob Ehrlich and John Sununu and the people responsible for “Game Change”. NONE of these people – including Romney – is our friend. They, including Romney, will screw us. Big time. Count on it.

    Conservatives, we need to hold on to the only thing we have left in this election, which is our self respect. Don’t fall into line in November and vote for this cast of characters who hold you and your views in contempt. Vote for Virgil Goode. Or Bob Barr. Or any conservative 3rd party candidate who happens to be on the ballot.

  • “NONE of these people – including Romney – is our friend. They, including Romney, will screw us. Big time. Count on it.”

    Guaranteed. But I’d rather suffer an attempted screwing that can be easily rectified than engage the battle that will ensue should Comrade Barry and hs New Fascist tribe get another, consequence-free crack at deleting the Constitution.

    A Republican Congress with a considerable Tea Party and small-l libetrarian presence will keep “Whethervane” [sic] in check. It’ll be our jobs to, publicly and without fear, attack, dissect and nullify the guaranteed media assaults that will come.

    Barry’s not a sudden phenomenon. He’s the endpoint of 3 generations of Progressive cultural infection. It will take more than one presidential term to undo what’s been done. The medicine may be bitter in its first doses, but it’s light-years better than taking more of the same poison.

  • Lisa,

    However much I agree with your post, I disagree with this statement:

    “America will elect Rick Santorum or it’s game over.”

    Our success or failure as a nation does not depend on Rick Santorum. Rather, it depends on whether we as a people turn course and repent, or we continue like lemmings off a cliff. Yes, Santorum is the best candidate, but Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world however much I wish Santorum would win the nomination (which as it now looks is a non-credible scenario).

    In any event, excellent post – thanks.

    (PS, I think the game has been over for quite some time now – just my opinion – regardless of a Santorum nomination, but am by nature a pessimist.)

  • Republican Congress with a considerable Tea Party and small-l libetrarian presence will keep “Whethervane” [sic] in check.

    So, you’re deputizing the cows to watch the cowboy, eh?

    This is one of those oft-recited claims that is made of tissue paper. If the Republican House is not willing to fight the President for fear of bad optics, what are the odds that a Republican Congress is going to keep Mitt Romney in line? Especially when he’ll be starting up his engine for 2016, and want to avoid unpopular decisions? Throw in the fact that he is delighted to shiv any Republican who crosses him, and you have a recipe for a staggering disaster.

  • Past performance does not guarantee future results.

    The infusion of Angry White People (if you take MSM at their interpretation) into Congress in 2010, and the continued upending of Establishment GOP candidates in this years’ go represents a dissatisfaction at that level which does not resemble the Kumbaya warm-n-fuzzy of past years.

    It remains to be seen whether Washington DC is a symptom or a cause. However, no matter what, keeping Satan in the White House is the last choice any sane American would want. The Romnoid is a poor second-worst, but a second-worst nonetheless. If I have to wear a gas mask and NBC suit to punch my chad for him, I will do what must be done.

    If Barry gets only 30% because the rest of the coutry hates him, but nobody else gets that much because everybody else stomped their feet, threw hissyfits and split the remaining 70% between 4 different candidates, we still lose.

  • Oh success as a nation depends on standing on the platform Rick Santorum is now standing on quite alone with his supporters.

  • A Republican Congress with a considerable Tea Party and small-l libetrarian presence will keep “Whethervane” [sic] in check. It’ll be our jobs to, publicly and without fear, attack, dissect and nullify the guaranteed media assaults that will come.

    You have this backwards. It’s not that Congress is going to keep Romney in check, it’s that Romney will likely work to keep Congress in check. So when the “radicals” in the US House go too far in trying to curtail spending or in repealing the pernicious parts of Obamacare, it will be ole Mitt working behind the scenes to check Congress, especially when that precious approval rating goes deeper into the red.

  • Given where I live my vote will not affect the outcome (a very red state.) So if Romney is nominated, I will be looking for a third party candidate. That is unless things look very close in Nov. Then I will be clearly looking to vote to limit the evil that Obama is seeking to do.

  • I don’t see a problem with Ehrlich’s answer. The press has been implying or outright declaring that the Republican candidates want to criminalize contraception. By not letting the issue go, Santorum indirectly encouraged that perception. I’m sure that Romney’s looking forward to dispelling that perception.

    Am I less Catholic for believing that? I don’t see how. I think that a Catholic Republican could vote for any one of the four primary candidates, having reached that conclusion through sound, faithful thought. I’d disagree with a couple of those decisions, but I wouldn’t denounce them.

    On this note, I agree with a lot of the moral arguments that Santorum doesn’t bother making, but it drives me crazy that he only alludes to them. When he says that pornography is wrong, or that Kennedy’s church-state speech makes him sick, the 10% of us who understand what he’s saying are overjoyed at it. But his failure to spell out the argument behind his thought leave the vast middle convinced that anyone who says such things is out of his mind. In a society that believes that anything good must be constitutional, it sounds like Santorum wants to outlaw pornography and start a state religion. Subtle thought requires careful explanation, and failure to explain subtle thought damages the reputation of the thinker.

  • So, you’re going to vote for the man who stood up on a stage before a national audience and said that the Catholic Church voluntarily subsidized child murder, instead of being forced to under his law, because you don’t think Rick Santorum is eloquent enough?

  • The press has been implying or outright declaring that the Republican candidates want to criminalize contraception. By not letting the issue go, Santorum indirectly encouraged that perception

    How? You can’t just make this claim and leave it that. Please explain how any comment Santorum made during the campaign would lead any rational individual to conclude that he wanted to criminalize contraception. And cite something he said – not some vague allusion to it.

  • Thank you, Paul. That is an excellent suggestion.

  • Ehrlich’s comment doesn’t say what you’re suggesting it does. Clearly he’s simply saying that they’ll “remind” the voters of the “real views” Romney has been articulating throughout this campaign, as opposed to the caricatures and distortions the Democrats have been painting all the Republicans with over this phony “war on women.”

    I find a lot to like about Rick Santorum. But when his supporters distort the truth, they don’t do him any favors.

  • And what views are those that are so appealing to Democratic women?

  • You know how the Democrats have been mischaracterizing the contraception debate as well as I do. Back to the subject at hand: did you, or did you not, misrepresent Erlich’s comment?

  • Thanks, Art–I’d forgotten that disgraceful bit of backstabbing from Bob Ehrlich. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • No, I did not misrepresent Ehrlich’s comment. Please see Paul Zummo’s challenge above.

  • As far as Ehrlich’s comments here, I think it was more stumblebummery than etch-a-sketching.

    There have been no end of smug assumptions and even outright contempt from the Romney camp, but I think this was a bit of clumsy phrasing from Ehrlich. I read it as “women are confusing Romney’s statements with Santorum’s and that will clear up in the general.”

  • Which statements, Mr. Price?

  • None Mr. Zummo’s posts make the case that your characterization is accurate, or contradict my explanation for it. I’ll ask one last time: are you willing to cover Mitt Romney related news honestly and objectively, or do you simply hate him so much that the ends justify dishonesty?

  • Probably the one to the evangelicals regarding being the first President to talk up the problems with contraception, Ms. Graas. It’s reasonably safe to say Romney differs on that particular point.

  • As I noted, we seem to believe these days that anything that’s good is constitutional, that there are no restrictions on the role of government. In such an atmosphere, the public makes the jump from “I approve of X” to “I would mandate X”. The entire health care debate, up until a week ago, revolved around the notion of doing what’s best, not doing what’s permitted. The creation of the TARP bailout fund and the takeover of GM weren’t done after careful scrutiny of the appropriate role of government; they were done in a panic about what would happen if we didn’t. You guys know that the Supreme Court from the 1950′s up through Rehnquist’s ascension, and half the Court since then, considers the consequences of a decision first, then fills in the legal reasoning that gets them to the “right” answer.

    In such an environment, except on the issue of abortion, no one says that they’re personally opposed to something but favor the government staying out of it. And on the abortion issue, fewer people bother to include the personal opposition when they recite the formula.

    So, I ask you, has Santorum ever articulated why he believes that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed, but contaception is wrong and should remain legal? He rightly points out that Griswold was a bad decision, and rightly points out that Roe was a bad decision, but he doesn’t take people through his reasoning. At least I’ve never seen him do so. There are Youtube clips of him elaborating on these things and doing a fine job of them, but when he’s on the center stage, he fails to.

    Is that simply ineloquence? It’s pearls before swine. It’s inviting parody in the internet age, when people are even more prone to taking things out of context.

    Furthermore, when he fails to articulate the proper understanding of church and state, he gives the impression that he supports the modern good=legal paradigm. He seems to say that the one restraint the modern thinker puts on government (that it shouldn’t be directed by religion) is to be broken. And it’s not just liberals, who are predisposed against him, who hear that in his comments. Libertarian-types who would have voted for Reagan are afraid of him too. The only people who don’t portray him as a theocrat are the ones who understood the distinctions he makes before he ever said them. That means he’s 100% unconvincing in his presentation. Worse – people who might have given him the benefit of a doubt are scared off by him, so he’s 150% unconvincing.

    I wish this site had “comment preview”. I’m not sure if this comment of mine is coherent, or if it even addresses where the conversation has turned by now. Oh, well. I’ll follow up on it if necessary.

  • He delineates his positions in his book, It Takes a Family, and explains his positions in detail there. Lisa has watched him on the stump with great regularity, so she would better be able to tell you what he has said in his public statements on the trail.

    That said, I don’t completely disagree with you in that he could have been much clearer in some of his statements. He has to understand that he’s not always talking before audiences that already have some deeper understanding of the subjects he is talking about. Then again, candidates can’t exactly deliver extended exegeses every time they are on the stump. And I think that media unfavorable to him are more than happy to completely take him out of context. Sometimes that is his fault for giving them the soundbite, but not entirely.

  • In his introduction of Rick Santorum tonight, Josh Duggar rightly noted that thanks to Mitt Romney, an abortion in Massachusetts now costs less than the price of filling your car up with gas.

    I’m not sure why anyone who is a regular reader and/or contributor of The American Catholic, at minimum, would think that it could be morally okay to vote for Mitt Romney.

    Add to that the fact that, as I noted in the article, he stood on a stage before a national audience in a presidential debate and claimed that the Catholic Church voluntarily agreed to subsidize abortion.

    Add to that the Etch a Sketch remark, which preceded Mr. Ehrlich’s remark.

    Why, pray tell, aren’t we all running to do whatever we can to make sure Mitt Romney is not leading the Republican Party as nominee? Why, pray tell, are we not doing everything we can to make sure that a faithful Catholic who has a chance to beat him can make it over the finish line?

    The answer is in the article above. Eclipse of reason.

  • “Why, pray tell, aren’t we all running to do whatever we can to make sure Mitt Romney is not leading the Republican Party as nominee? Why, pray tell, are we not doing everything we can to make sure that a faithful Catholic who has a chance to beat him can make it over the finish line?”

    Lisa,

    Jesus Kingdom is not of this world. We have forgotten that, thus God allows evil leaders. I wish sincerely I could do more to see Santorum win the nomination. I will pray the Litaniae de Sacro Corde Iesu tonight that God’s will be done with the GOP nomination. That will may NOT be His perfect will, but His permissive will, because He may see us needing to be taught a lesson that we have for too long ignored. I applaud your stance. And I will pray.

    Iesus vivit in saecula saeculorum! Remember – that’s what counts.

  • In other words, Ms. Graas, you cannot defend your mischaracterization, and are no longer even trying to do so.

    “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

  • I have found that my strongest critics are always anonymous. I wonder why that is.

    It’s also interesting that you accuse me of committing sin. I did not accuse Mitt Romney of committing a sin even though he did this.
    http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie-about-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate/

  • If you’re not bearing false witness, then simply explain why my characterization of Erlich’s words is wrong and yours is correct.

  • You are asking me to convince you of something you will most likely never be convinced of in order to prove to readers of this blog that I am not in sin (separated from Christ.) If you were my confessor, I would take your request very seriously and find another confessor. As it stands, I think my only option is to pray for you and not continue discussing this with you.

    For the rest of you reading, it is clear to most people that Mitt Romney fully intends to change his positions on the issues once the general election rolls around, if he is the nominee, particularly given the fact that the campaign has admitted this openly in the Etch-A-Sketch claim. This remark by Ehrlich indicates that Romney’s “real views” on the issue are not consistent with Santorum’s views on the issue. Rick Santorum’s positions on the issue currently being debated — contraception — is the same as the position Mitt Romney has taken. At best, Mr. Ehrlich wants people to believe that Rick Santorum wants to ban contraception. For anyone to claim that I am bearing false witness by bringing Mr. Ehrlich’s remarks about Rick Santorum to light is rather mind-boggling to me.

  • “On this note, I agree with a lot of the moral arguments that Santorum doesn’t bother making, but it drives me crazy that he only alludes to them. When he says that pornography is wrong, or that Kennedy’s church-state speech makes him sick, the 10% of us who understand what he’s saying are overjoyed at it. But his failure to spell out the argument behind his thought leave the vast middle convinced that anyone who says such things is out of his mind.”

    Thank you Pinky for putting this so lucidly.

    When reading any secular media outlet they automatically mischaracterized Santorum as wanting to use the blunt force of government, as would a liberal, to enforce policy matters down the throats of the American public. The common caricature of Santorum is that he wants to impose a Catholic style theocracy, with his “out of touch” views on contraception.

    In any event I don’t know when this race became an election on the canonization of Saint Santorum but the country will be much better off without Obama than with him no matter where one stands as a conservative and as an American.

  • I’ll be praying for you too. Honesty is non-negotiable, no matter what the cause or candidate.

  • It’s not a “canonization” at all. I won’t ever in my life be voting for anyone who says on national television that the Catholic Church volunteered to subsidize abortion. Sorry. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, I will write in a name.

  • God knows the truth about my heart, not you.

  • A vote not effectively used to defeat BO is a vote for him. Ideally, your vote is your “consent to be governed.” Since you will be governed whether you like it or not, your choice then is “consent to the flavor du jour of government.”

    Today, we are most likely faced with two distinctly distasteful options. One of them, though, could spell the end of options as we know it. Now is not the time to fall on our swords in honorable suicide. Getting to where we are has taken 75+ years, and one election will not solve 99% of what needs to be changed. But ebbing into greater darkness solves even less. If, by refusing to vote (not endorse, support or work for – simply vote) in a way that prevents a greater evil, in an ostensible demonstration of greater good, what then does that good accomplish for anybody but you? We are left suffering under a godless, fascist tyranny. But you can say to me while they’re hauling me away, “At least I didn’t vote for the other guy, either!” Thanks. Nicely done.

    If martyrdom in the voting booth is your choice, then so be it. Should a sufficient number decide that now is the time to be noble instead of practical, though, then I will be looking for you on the front lines – with me who chooses to save my martyrdom for something more genuinely noble – when the battle starts for real.

  • WK Aiken, your explanation of the ultimate importance of practicality on 11/6 says it all. Mitt Romney wants to work for our country, which will be a wreck by November. It is in his blood and, I for one, am thankful for that. The current administration is working against all that binds us together in a despicable manner. Romney has a light in his eyes and can still smile. Obama doesn’t – and is daily becoming more ‘radical’ as he accuses any opponent person or institution of what he is, while he doesn’t do his job and while he plays god.
    I don’t want to see what is being set up for the US, us, happen because we can’t remember that we aren’t God.

  • A vote not effectively used to defeat BO is a vote for him.

    Please stop. This cliche keeps getting trotted out, and it is logically false. Only a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for Barack Obama.

  • I agree with Paul Zummo. I may vote for Romney, or I may vote for a third party candidate. A Santorum win of the nomination looks to all appearances non-credible barring a divine miracle.

    I don’t like Romney’s waffling and I don’t trust him. Furthermore, the Constitution Party Platform is the closest to Church teaching, so why should I not in good conscience support a candidate whose party platform is closest to Church teaching?

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

    The more that people tell me I must vote for Romney, the more inclined I am to vote for a third party candidate. And since Jesus’ Kingdom is NOT of this world, then why can I NOT vote consistent with my conscience for a person and a party that really do uphold Judeo-Christian values?

    It’s principles – however impractical and non-feasible – before personalities. None of the Saints of old cared a fig leaf for practicality and expediency.

    “I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.” St Ignatius of Antioch

    “18 Eleazar, one of the scribes in high position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to open his mouth to eat swine’s flesh. 19 But he, welcoming death with honor rather than life with pollution, went up to the the rack of his own accord, spitting out the flesh, 20 as men ought to go who have the courage to refuse things that it is not right to taste, even for the natural love of life. ” 2nd Maccabees 6:18-20

    I am sick and tired of sacrificing principle just to defeat a greater evil with a lesser evil. Maybe God has to bring America low just as He did Israel and Judah, and maybe Obama is His tool for doing that. He used Pharoah in the same way:

    “17* For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18* So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.” Romans 9:17-18

    BTW, if you won’t live for principle now when the wood is green, then don’t bother arguing you are reserving your line in the sand for when the wood is dry.

  • HonestCon – You should note that Lisa doesn’t accuse Romney of anything falsely, because she doesn’t accuse him of anything specific. I suspect that she doesn’t trust him to have a consistent pro-life record as president, but she doesn’t say that in the article. She says that we should expect a flip-flop during the general election, but she doesn’t spell it out. So, just like we shouldn’t read things into Ehrlich’s statement, we shouldn’t read things into Lisa’s.

  • “Please stop. This cliche keeps getting trotted out, and it is logically false. Only a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for Barack Obama.”

    While technically true it does miss the larger point about not letting the ideal be the enemy of the good.

    These intra-conservative arguments on voting most always end in the dispute between principle vs prudence. One side argues that it is tantamount to abandoning principle to vote for “X” and the other side arguing voting for X is less than ideal but we can all agree better than alternative “O”.

    Which is why as a Catholic I’m grateful to the Church for many things including in this case the principle of double effect.

  • No one who stands on a national stage and proclaims that the Catholic Church voluntarily subsidizes abortion will ever get my vote. I do not want my name to go down in history as being someone who said that is okay.

  • “No one who stands on a national stage and proclaims that the Catholic Church voluntarily subsidizes abortion will ever get my vote. I do not want my name to go down in history as being someone who said that is okay.”

    One more reason for me to vote for the Constitution Party.

    BTW, folks, Obama will have the black vote, the Jewish vote, the woman vote, the Hispanic vote, the environmentalist vote and the wacky liberal progressive hippie vote. With those voting blocks, I think (perhaps pessimisticly) that he’ll win. I pray that I am wrong.

  • “BTW, folks, Obama will have the black vote, the Jewish vote, the woman vote, the Hispanic vote, the environmentalist vote and the wacky liberal progressive hippie vote. With those voting blocks, I think (perhaps pessimisticly) that he’ll win. ”

    How in the world Paul do you then explain the shellacking the Democrats took in 2010? Really, people need to get a grip. Obama isn’t unbeatable, but is a President with a poor record who can barely get above 45% of the vote in the Rasmussen head to heads with Romney. That is death for an incumbent President.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

  • All valid points, Donald, and I sincerely pray that you are correct. I guess I am simply too pessimistic. :-(

  • Donald…..I did a write-in in 2010, too. Rand Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act and committed forgery to publicly smear Kentucky Right to Life. You can’t compare 2010 to 2012.

  • “You can’t compare 2010 to 2012.”

    True Lisa. In 2010 the Democrats lost the House. In 2012 they will lose the Senate and the White House, while the Republicans keep the House.

  • Dear Heavenly Father, please grant that Donald’s statement may prove prophetic! In Jesus Name, Amen!

    And I write that with all true sincerity and hope.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .