[Image] GOP wants to beat Obama, using Romney ? (from Facebook)

[J_White]

Saw this graphic on facebook, about the flawed logic of the GOP supposedly wanting to beat Obama.

 

[wongster41]

It's pretty clear by now that the GOP have no intention of winning.

 

[Jeremy]

Ron Paul lost to McCain too.

 

[sailingaway]

If the GOP wanted to beat Obama, they wouldn't pick Romney. The establishment GOP wants to keep its stranglehold on the party, and Romney is perfect for that.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul lost to McCain too.

Yeah, but the party fought Ron. If these were fair contests with fair media, that result might mean more.

 

[phill4paul]

Ron Paul lost to McCain too.

Shush, you, with your truthiness.

 

[Lucille]

It's pretty clear by now that the GOP have no intention of winning.

I've believed that for a long time now, and I don't think it's far-fetched at all.

Mitt Romney: In Your Heart, You Know He’s A Loser
Are the Republicans deliberately throwing the presidential election?

It makes sense if we take the economic critique proffered by anti-inflationists like Ron Paul and Gerald Celente seriously: would you want to be President if we’re on the brink of another Great Depression? As the American dollar is destroyed, and the buying power of the average American is about to become the equivalent of a consumer in, say, Zimbabwe, is it really in the GOP’s interest to take the White House this year?
[...]
Ron Paul isn’t the only one conjuring visions of America as Greece-times-ten, and it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the march to austerity will be met here in this country, where Americans’ sense of entitlement is almost as well-developed as their taste for vulgarity. What happens when the bread-and-circuses stop, and Americans are forced to confront the grim reality of being broke?
[...]
Before taking that historical note too far, however, I have to admit the idea of the Republican high mucka-mucks getting together and deciding it would be better for them to throw the election to Obama by putting up a loser like Romney does seem a bit far-fetched. Perhaps they’ve convinced themselves, on one level, that Romney can actually win, while – on quite another level – they don’t believe it for a minute. People usually have no trouble holding mutually exclusive beliefs in other areas, and politics is certainly no exception.
[...]
If voters are in the mood to punish the Democrats somehow, and if they can’t in good conscience do it on the presidential level, then isn’t it more likely they’ll take it out on the rest of the ticket? If Republicans can retain control of the House, that may be enough to keep them from regretting their loss at the top of the ticket. Another wave of victories on the state and local level will perhaps be enough to satiate them, at least for the moment, until they get another crack at the White House. Then they can sit back and blame the President for everything, as the crisis unfolds, while cat-calling from the sidelines: a perfect set-up for career politicians who have no principles, no sense of duty to the country, and no compunctions about defrauding their supporters. With Congress in their hot little hands, they can obstruct the President’s domestic agenda and heckle him into getting more aggressive on the overseas front – a perfect vantage point from which to observe the rapidly accelerating decline of the American empire.

 

[jbauer]

see above. all you need to know.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Ron Paul lost to McCain too.

That's the first thing that I thought about

I mean it would have been a nice poster for someone who didn't run last time but NOT for Paul

If the GOP wanted to beat Obama, they wouldn't pick Romney. The establishment GOP wants to keep its stranglehold on the party, and Romney is perfect for that.

Again, we DON'T need the GOP establishment, I not saying that they're totally unimportant BUT what we need is to REACH OUT TO GOP VOTERS & ANTI-OBAMNEY SENTIMENT just like many others rode that momentum, Santorum was obviously the one who rode it best & the ONLY reason we haven't been able to is because Ron is seen as "unelectable" & we've done very little to bring out RON'S SUPERIOR ELECTABLITY AGAINST OBAMA

Remember, the ONLY reason Romney has been the "frontrunner" from the start is because of his "electability" so it has to be understood that ELECTABILITY is VERY IMPORTANT to GOP voters, beating Obama is very important & we haven't done a great deal to PROMOTE RON PAUL AS ANTI-OBAMA; now, that it's essentially Paul v Romney, we CAN promote PAUL vs OBAMNEY

 

[pauletteNV]

reply to Jeremy

Originally Posted by Jeremy
"Ron Paul lost to McCain too."



Perhaps, but only after being forced down the peoples' throats and the voting machines fixed it, imo. Romney Obama the Same....if the party is serious about trying to replace Obama then it would seem logical that the best bet is to run the people's choice and someone who is not a reflection fo the same.

 

[J_White]

i seriously did not think of that, lol !
but then as sailingaway said, its not a fair fight, because the GOP is not even open to giving Peace..i mean Paul a chance.

Ron Paul lost to McCain too.

 

[MisfitToy]

Oh crap I didn't see this thread first and posted my sentiments elsewhere

I agree the GOP does not want to beat Obama and we are doing a great job of winning people over.

 

[DEGuy]

I'd add that Romney hasn't done anything in the four years since losing to McCain. He hasn't had a job, even outside of politics. The only thing he's done is support Obama on Obamacare and the NDAA. What has changed? I think the graphic is spot on. Paul has at least been in Congress fighting the good fight.