TexasCHLforum.com

I hope you're wrong TAM, because I'm not voting for someone who supports Obamacare and gun control, no matter what party backs him.

tbrown wrote:I hope you're wrong TAM, because I'm not voting for someone who supports Obamacare and gun control, no matter what party backs him.

Honestly, what would surprise me is if Romney wins the GOP nom and the NRA endorses him.

*Sigh* Who am I kidding? That wouldn't surprise me at all

OldCannon wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

It's the first primary. It's not over for any of the candidates unless they quit.

Oh, I realize that, and I am referring to the entire primary campaign, not just the Iowa Caucuses.

If romney only has something like 22-25% support nation wide, where is all the "super pac" money coming from that is being used solely for his benefit?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

It's the first primary. It's not over for any of the candidates unless they quit.

Oh, I realize that, and I am referring to the entire primary campaign, not just the Iowa Caucuses.

I'd love if the GOP declared ALL state primaries were to be held on the same day (Say, Feb 15th). To me, there are multiple advantages.

A few states won't get to pick the nominee before people in, for example...TEXAS, have any say in the matter.

Candidates will then stop spending money and effort beating each other up so they can concentrate on beating the democrat they will be up against. (I know this is probably a pipe dream...they'll just spend the money earlier in the year...but, with the short term attention span of the American people....if they stopped sniping at each other by Feb and went to work on attacking their dem opponent...at least people are less likely to remember the repubs attacks on each other)

One quick, nationwide primary...any thoughts?

74novaman wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

It's the first primary. It's not over for any of the candidates unless they quit.

Oh, I realize that, and I am referring to the entire primary campaign, not just the Iowa Caucuses.

I'd love if the GOP declared ALL state primaries were to be held on the same day (Say, Feb 15th). To me, there are multiple advantages.

...
One quick, nationwide primary...any thoughts?

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Spreading out the primaries lets candidates visit citizens and shape their policies and (re)shape their campaigns. Having them all at once doesn't let their candidacy evolve. I know it's a mess with the media, but I think it's a reasonable system.

Mitt is going to be the pick. I'm warming up to him
As for his healthcare and gun history, it helps me to consider that it took place when he was a Republican governor of a very liberal state. The same state that kept sending Kennedy back to the Capitol.
A politician has to modify his platform and his actions to reflect the will of his constituency. I expect him to do the same if American conservatives and Tea Partiers send him to the White House.

IMO the thing Mitt has going for him is he is a moral person, with apparently no skeletons in the closet.
At least until the MSM manufacturer one in his honor.

If spreading out the primaries makes sense, so does spreading out the general election.

At this rate, if no conservatives have a shot at being the GOP candidate for potus when Texas primaries roll around, I might as well vote in the Democrat primary to have some say in local politics. As an added bonus, when people tell me to vote for Romney in November, I can tell them I voted in the Democratic primaries and give them a

I wonder if we'll see a Romney/Paul ticket?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dave2 wrote:I wonder if we'll see a Romney/Paul ticket?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Um, like, "never"

if oboma is re-annointed, all the "protest voters" should be ashamed to take part in any poiltical discussions for the next 5 years.

grow up.... you can't always have everything you want... unfortunately.

mr surveyor wrote:if oboma is re-annointed, all the "protest voters" should be ashamed to take part in any poiltical discussions for the next 5 years.

grow up.... you can't always have everything you want... unfortunately.

A "protest vote", to me, isn't really immature. You might not like it, but each person should cast a vote according to their conscience, even if that conscience is based purely on objection.

A "bought vote" (promises of money, free health care, mortgage forgiveness) is reprehensible, but such things have existed since voting was invented, I'm sure.

mr surveyor wrote:if oboma is re-annointed, all the "protest voters" should be ashamed to take part in any poiltical discussions for the next 5 years.

grow up.... you can't always have everything you want... unfortunately.

A candidate doesn't have to give me everything I want, just one thing: commitment to this country's founding values. Mitt Romney is closer to that than Obama, but that's kinda like saying that the Vatican City is closer to Dallas than Rome.

mr surveyor wrote:if oboma is re-annointed, all the "protest voters" should be ashamed to take part in any poiltical discussions for the next 5 years.

Actually, it's the party establishment that should be ashamed if they back Romney because of seniority and HE FAILS to beat Obama. They should be so ashamed they resign (seppaku is not required) to make way for the new guard.

It's the people who back Obama Lite as the GOP candidate who should shut up for five years if he fails to steal enough votes from Obama to make up for the conservatives who reject both Obama and Obama Lite to vote for a HORROR! conservative who shares at least a few of their priorities.

The NRA and I liked Huntsman, alas.