Oh and Christian, Be Sure and Vote for Mitt

Exactly. The GOP get a free ride just because they are not democrats. As Gov Wallace said all those years ago there is not a dime's worth of difference between them.

The only way to force a change is to stop voting 'the lesser of two evils' because you still have to vote for evil.

 

What you fail to understand is that the U.S. as a whole is not nearly as conservative as you are. The people are much more moderate than you, who seemingly want to elect a pastor as president.

I generally vote for the democrat, but if we have to have a republican in the White House, I would much rather it be someone like Romney rather than someone like Reagan. I still shudder when remembering the awful days of the Reagan regime.

 

Read my follow-on post, bottom of page 2.

 

I'm not a Romney supporter, but I would presume the difference would be that Romney would have a GOP majority in the House and hopefully a GOP majority in the Senate. The difference is that in Massachusetts Romney had a legislature that was at least 70% Democratic, a veto-proof majority. They could pass almost any law they wanted. Thus, you get universal health care, gay marriages, abortion rights, etc. (Currently the percentage is 79% Democratic.) So Romney's record in Mass. is basically the result of having no power to veto anything.

 

If the choices in the general election are between Romney and Obama, I will not vote for the latter. I will neither vote for an independent nor a third-party candidate, because in this age of American politics, to do so would be throwing my vote away.

If Romney is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him.

 

I haven't voted for a major party candidate since 1984.

I refuse to vote for anyone I cannot support.

 

Or it could be said that if the party places Romney as the candidate the GOP is helping Obama. Let's keep the blame where it lies at its origin. People should vote their conscience and doing so does not place blame when the bad candidate gets elected.

 

Totally in agreement. This Republican refuses to vote for Romney in the primary or the general. If he becomes the party nominee I will be changing my registration to an independent party. Enough is enough.

 

Romney's religious preference is not an issue for me. The fact that he is just another Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama clone is the issue.

 

Nooo....! You mean Romney is a politician?

 

As in the last election I am bothered by the idea that God's children should vote hypocritically and against their conviction and conscience as a political ploy.

I contend that we should do right and trust God with the outcome.

 

Of course Mitt does not have the Holy Spirit guiding him, but in my lifetime I do not think we have had a Christian President, or atleast not since I can remember.

What bewilders me is that Reagan is as much of an icon as he is. Prior to gaining the elected office, Reagan ran as a conservative but once in office he was much more moderate, allowing for taxes to be raised 6 times and government expanded. Today, most of the candidates are claiming to reduce government by making it bigger and reduce taxes but closing loop holes so there will be no net tax benefit for the country.

I have listened to a myriad of speeches by Reagan before he was elected, and I would have endorsed him. However, after elected he was more moderate... though he would be considered more conservative at the time.

You are right when you say Mitt is not Reagan, but that also may depend on which Reagan, the one who won the 1980 election or the one who was President.

 

I disagree, especially with Romney. As noted in another post, Romney believes in cutting taxes and that the economy needs to jettison toxic assets. To me, this is more conservative than any in the field except Ron Paul. Kennedy was for an FDR approach to toxic assets, keeping them around for the sake of jobs. People who call upon Kennedy as conservative usually play the tax decrease mantra; however, Kennedy's economic policies were more liberal than Romney and more Keynesian. Not to say that Romney is not a Keynesian, because he is, but he is more conservative than Kennedy.

 

Thomas Jefferson was a known non-Christian, many Christian groups did run against him in one of the ugliest campaigns in history.

As for Carter, he is a liberal and having read his theology, he is opposed to historic Christian beliefs that has traditionally been accepted as being heretical. He goes to church and talks about his liberal moralistic religious views, but I would not classify him as a Christian in the traditional sense.

 

Hallelujah!