Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(125 posts)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:32 PM Aug 2012

Why Rebublicans Should Vote For Obama

When I was young I was an activist in the conservative wing of the Republican party. I was an officer for three years in the "College Republicans" of my university, a delegate to two state conventions, and twice a delegate to the "Midwest Federation of Collegian Young Republicans." I was also a member of "Young Americans for Freedom" (YAF), a conservative political group, and a delegate to their national convention. In our heart we knew Goldwater was right, the nation deserved a choice not an echo, and that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. We believed Kennedy sold out and weakened our defense by removing the Jupiter missiles from Turkey after the "Cuban Missile Crisis"; People's freedom and liberty was being impinged on and lost because of the regulations of the "Public Accommodations" law; America was headed down the road to socialism with the passage of Medicare.

If these sound vaguely familiar it is because our ideological descendants have taken an iron-grip control of the Republican party. I have moderated my views with life experience, but I remain and always vote Republican. I have also discovered that often, what is important is not what a man will say he will do, what is important is the nature of the man; character counts. Those who now control the Republican party seem to have forgotten Goldwater said "it is time to put conscience back in government. And by good example, put it back in all walks of American life." In their desire to win, they have chosen a man with no conscience.

Our candidate Mitt Romney, who is running to be our President, does and says many strange things. He seems to change his stance on issues depending upon who he running against. Does he believe in anything, or is he only seeking power? This is a man who says that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. As Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor at the trade publication "Tax Notes" said, “when you are running for president, you might want to err on the side of overpaying your taxes, and not chase every tax gimmick that comes down the pike.”

I quote Mitt Romney: “I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more”; "I'm not familiar precisely with what I said, but I'll stand by what I said, whatever it was"; "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"; "I'm not concerned about the very poor"; "I like being able to fire people"; "Corporations are people". Mitt would brag that he was a great businessman and we should vote for him because of this; he could turn around the economy. Yet, when it was shown his company outsourced jobs to other countries, fired employees and drove companies into bankruptcy, he stated he was not responsible for these things because they happened after he left the company in 1999. However, official SEC documents, which he signed, indicate he was CEO of his company until 2002. Either he lied to the SEC, which is perjury, or he is lying to us, we the people he wants to vote for him.

He has secret bank accounts in the offshore tax havens of Switzerland, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands. Mitt's father, George, released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President, saying "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul." When Mitt's campaign was asked to release more then two years of returns, it responded “We’ve given all YOU PEOPLE need to know" and has refused to give out additional information.

Does Mitt sound like a man of the people, a patriot, who would brave the freezing and starvation of Valley Forge, charge up Omaha Beach during the Invasion of Normandy (D-Day), or slog through the mosquito infested jungles of Viet Nam? Or does Mitt sound like he owes us nothing, and he deserves the presidency as if anointed thru the divine right of kings? After all, he says we should vote for him, yet refuses to tell us how he got enough money to live like a king? His attitude is: he owes "We, the people" nothing. YOU PEOPLE, just trust me, I am not a crook.

I am a Republican, but I am an American first. I love this country, but I watched in despair as democracy in the Republican primaries was desecrated by the power of money. In state after state, Mitt and his affiliated PAC's outspent his opponents by 6, 7, 10 times, using negative ads to grind them to a bloody pulp so that they could not be recognized for who they really were. Adolf Hitler said "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth"..."Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." Does Mitt also believe this?

Those of us who love freedom and liberty must never forget "Watergate" and President Nixon's "ENEMIES LIST." This was a list which was used to harass ordinary American citizens who Nixon felt were his enemy. This was one of the reasons he was impeached in what is now known as the "Watergate" scandal. The official purpose of this list, as described by Nixon's White House Counsel John Dean, was "how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." I fear Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney are cut from the same cloth.

The only negative things we knew about Nixon before he was elected president were: he worked as an aide to Senator Joe McCarthy; he gave a maudlin speech about his dog "Checkers" and his wife's cloth coat; and he did not shave very well. My fear about Mitt Romney may be baseless, for no man can see into another's man heart. But his actions in the primaries; his secrecy and attitude when questioned about his finances; the lack of compassion and empathy indicated by his teen-age bullying and tying his dog to the roof of his car for 12 hours; and his seeming lack of core values in an endless chase for political power; these all add up in a very troubling way. I know I seem to be a traitor to my fellow Republicans, but feeling the way I do, I would rather be a traitor to my party, then a traitor to my country.

If we elected Mitt, we would have a man who is closely tied to Wall Street and corporate financiers, in fact he was one; he was ruthless in the way he handled his business (Bain) and political campaigns; he has no problem being deceptive, to either us or the SEC (as to when he left Bain), along with for many years not disclosing a Swiss bank account on government financial disclosure forms; and he is completely opaque and secretive in whatever he does. In sum, a man whose attitudes and aloofness more closely resembles that of royalty, rather than those of a patriot.

When I was young I was very active in the Republican party. I have been a Republican my whole life, and have a voters registration card dated in 1993 indicating that fact. However now politically, I am a nobody. I am one citizen, one voter who happened to vote Republican my whole life, and decided to vote for the other guy this time around. There is nothing extraordinary about that, it happens in every election, in both directions. I just happen to write well, and took the time to document why I made this decision. I reveled nothing new, I just took what is already in the public record and wove it into a coherent tapestry. Watergate ruined political activism for me, while I was working my heart out for a candidate (Nixon) who I believed in, he was abusing and shredding the Constitution. I decided that I had better things to do with my life, so I became "Joe Private Citizen." A voter, but not an actor in the great drama of American democracy. What I found out about Mitt Romney changed that.

Republican Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, Ford were Americans first and only secondly were they Republicans. They would work with Democrats and compromise for the good of the country. They would be shocked and loudly denounce any other Republican like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said "The single most important thing we (Republicans in Congress) want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." We were in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930's and my Republican party has as its main goal trying to make sure the president fails — even if the country fails right along with him. Shame on him and others like him.

It is time for moderate people of conscience to take back the Republican party !!!

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies


(71 posts)
1. There are no more...
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:37 PM
Aug 2012

...moderate republicans left, the tea party has seen to that. They are beyond hope, time for them to just slowly fade away.


(954 posts)
5. After 2004, 2008, and now this election... this GOP is only about far-right culture war
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:49 PM
Aug 2012

They wrapped themselves in the flag and called all "liberals" unpatriotic. Then they went full-tilt insane in 2008, deciding that they only represented the "real america" in their minds. Since then, they've stopped caring about the entire nation and increasingly seem hellbent on civil unrest... resisting all change and refusing to work together to solve problems.

Even now, in 2012, instead of a platform focused on their ideas for improving the economy, they've mostly focused social issues and vague trickle-down hot air.

While I don't expect many moderate Republicans to hop over to the Democrats, I sure hope they register as "independent" and vote Obama. More conservatives need to speak out against the far-right and increasingly fascist, nationalist, and nativist rhetoric.


(10,622 posts)
9. Yes and no, they are still here, but the Moderate Republicans of the 70's thru 90's are now called
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:04 PM
Aug 2012

Third Way Democrats.

The simply responded to the invitations of Rahm Emmanuel and others when the Republican party started their purges.
We invited them, they took us up on it, and now run our party....


I still vote Democrat but I realize that the policy will be adaptations of vintage Heritage Foundation and US Chamber of commerce now, I guess it beats the hell out of the fascist Dominionist party now called Republicans, but to a guy my age they really are just vintage "moderate" Republicans out for the same campaign money from big bussiness that they have allways been before.

I really miss the Democratic party I grew up with. We really need them now but they are an ignored voice marginalized within the newly usurped version of my party.

Still better than fundy fascists, but not what we need, we need classic Democrats.
I suppose we must go with the least fucked up option, and so I for one still support them, even if they are just re-branded moderate Republicans.

I suppose this post is against the rules now, but it is none the less true and should be considered.



(125 posts)
10. What is classic Democrats
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:47 PM
Aug 2012

The RW Republicans now want to take us back to 1929. Take a look at my nightmare at:

It is described, in the middle of the post which is similar to this one. I would like comments on that posting and the nightmare in particular.



(125 posts)
11. This is the Nightmare
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:02 PM
Aug 2012

I fear a NIGHTMARE scenario for the United States if Mitt Romney is elected President. I assume he will implement the Ryan budget plan, which will cut taxes for the "investor class" (aka the rich), while reducing government spending by cutting programs that benefit the poor, working and middle class families. Since money knows no nationality, and owes no loyalty but to itself, most of the tax cut the rich receive will be invested in emerging market countries, where it will get the greatest return, or deposited in the secret bank accounts of "offshore tax havens", or hidden away in gold. This money will not circulate through the American economy, create demand, and help the economy grow.

Meanwhile, since Romney promised not to increase the deficit, the budgets would be slashed for programs like: crop insurance for farmers, natural disaster relief, food inspection, interstate highway repair and maintenance, school nutrition programs, unemployment insurance, student financial aid, food stamps, employment training, "Head Start", "aid for dependent children", etc. Cuts in federal grants to local and state governments would mean the layoff of policemen, firemen, and teachers. Of course, all these things and people consume "goods and services" which employ people to meet this demand. To the extent demand is now lessened, employers will cut back and factories may close, jobs will be lost, and the unemployment rate will rise. Rather then the agonizingly slow but steady economic growth we presently have, the economy will begin to shrink, we will be in a "double dip" recession.

As the economy shrinks and people lose jobs, their ability to make their mortgage payments will decrease, and bank foreclosures will increase. They will lose their homes. They will be looking for help, but they will get none from Mitt Romney, since he believes "don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom." But we must always remember the statistics we read about unemployment and foreclosures are not just numbers. They represent real men, women, and children, who, maybe for the first time in their lives question: “Will I eat tonight and where will I sleep?” They are more afraid then they have ever been before in their lives. Without any government help, what will those families be forced to do in order to survive? Prostitute themselves, steal, become criminals in order to put a roof over their head and food on the table for themselves and their children. Is this what Mitt wants, because in some cases, this is what he will get.

But the nightmare continues: Mitt Romney has said, "I have indicated, day one, I will issue an executive order identifying China as a currency manipulator. We'll bring an action against them in front of the WTO (World Trade Organization) for manipulating their currency, and we will go after them." Sounds good until you read what that same WTO states on their Website "The short-sighted protectionist view is that defending particular sectors against imports is beneficial. But that view ignores how other countries are going to respond. The longer term reality is that one protectionist step by one country can easily lead to retaliation from other countries. (For example), the trade war of the 1930s when countries competed to raise trade barriers in order to protect domestic producers and retaliate against each others’ barriers. This worsened the Great Depression."

Will Mitt Romney's actions towards China, if elected president, ignite a fire he may not be able to control? Europe is economically frail, already many countries are in a recession because they adopted the equivalent of the Romney/Ryan budget. Austerity in those countries has only caused the financial condition of the people to worsen, and created political instability and rioting in the streets. At this point, the possible starting a trade war between the world's two largest economies would be a unwarranted risk. A trade war, when combined with Europe's fragile economy, and the downturn in the American economy caused by the Romney/Ryan budget, would result in another economic depression, not just a severe recession.

While the preceding facets of my nightmare are based on facts, what follows is INFORMED SPECULATION. The Romney/Ryan budget has increased economic inequality, in that, it gave significant tax cuts to the rich while cutting benefits such as unemployment insurance, student financial aid, food stamps, "Head Start", school nutrition programs, etc, mostly used by the poor. This will revive and reinvigorate the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, perhaps to the extent where the size of its demonstrations will match those against the war in Vietnam. Because of the economic downturn, and Romney's policies which are seen as causing it (unlike Obama who was seen as inheriting it from the Bush administration), the demonstrators will be angrier then they were in the first wave of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Some of the demonstrations may deteriorate into riots, as they have done in London, Greece, and Spain. These will only be splinter groups but media reports, especially Fox News, will focus on them.

President Obama was "hands off" regarding the first wave of "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement and appeased them by using a more populist tone in his speeches. However Romney will not do that, since he will be pressured by his "hard right" supporters, including Rush Limbaugh, into declaring the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators are terrorist, because of the riots, and evoking the "Patriot Act." (As an aside, many of the illegal actions in regards to the anti-war movement for which Nixon was impeached in Watergate, would today be perfectly legal under the "Patriot Act.&quot The "Occupy Wall Street" encampments would then be swept clear and destroyed by soldiers, like what happened under President Hoover, to the encampment of the "Bonus Marchers" in 1932. At that time soldiers with fixed bayonets and hurling tear gas destroyed an encampment of 10,000 people. Two babies died and nearby hospitals were overwhelmed with casualties.

America would be bitterly divided, especially if any demonstrators were killed by soldiers, as they were at "Kent State" during an anti-Vietnam War protest. And as president, we would have a man who is closely tied to Wall Street and corporate financiers, in fact he was one; he was ruthless in the way he handled his business (Bain) and political campaigns; he has no problem being deceptive, to either us or the SEC (as to when he left Bain), along with for many years not disclosing a Swiss bank account on government financial disclosure forms; and he is completely opaque and secretive in whatever he does. With this combination no one could know what would happen next.

As Martin Luther King Jr reminded us, "We must never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." Hitler in a time of political and economic distress, in a sloppy and flawed political process, achieved office democratically. We say it could never happen here, but as the little known "plot against FDR" shows, it is not unthinkable. The economic system of the United States has already changed, we have gone from capitalism to corporatism; stealthily, without notice. A Wal-mart store, because of the size of the corporate chain, get a special low prices from manufacturers available to no one else; it comes to town and how many stores on main street go out of business. Banking corporations get too big to fail, they take reckless risks to increase profits, they get in trouble, and the taxpayer has to bail them out; while their executives, the same ones who took the risks, get huge bonuses. This is because as Mitt said, "The TARP (bank bailout) program was designed to keep the financial system going," and as a CEO of a private equity firm, he was a part of this financial system and previously had been a partner in transactions with many of these banks. In the past, we would say this could never happen here, but it did. Thus my nightmare ends.

You may think I'm paranoid, and I can only hope you're right. However, many economist believe that if Romney does what he says he wants to, in regards to the budget and China, the economic portion of my nightmare will become a reality. As far as the political portion of my nightmare, the very fact that I can make a coherent, cogent and credible scenario, is scary enough.


(10,622 posts)
12. This is an example of a classic Democrat:
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:46 PM
Aug 2012
“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

The classic Democratic values expressed most completely above did not die with FDR either, it was evident straight through until at least LBJ (regardless of his flirtation with war that I vehemently disagreed with), and even to a lesser extent Carter.

The Neo-Democrats came in largely with the Neo-liberals that had much in common with the Neo-cons of the same time (the war Republican lights if you will) and also the founding by the Kochs and others of similar values of the Democratic Leadership Council (who's crowning achievements were Bank deregulation, Welfare reform (that ended welfare), and free trade agreements that favored outsourcing of much of our factory work.

The latest incarnation of these stealth Republican ideologists that are registered as Democrats like to call themselves "The Third Way". You may check out their beliefs on their own site and compare their ideas to Newt's Republican Congress, you will find the ideas the same or very similar. http://www.thirdway.org

I hope this was somewhat helpful.
I will check out that post you linked to, but may not post in it as telling the truth has gotten my posts hidden before by hyper-partisans.


(125 posts)
13. I self identify as a Republican, but we may have more in common then you would think
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:18 AM
Aug 2012

This was from my very first posting at

Mitt Romney has said "entitlement programs" such as Social Security should be cut back or made voluntary. This is necessary since these programs make up most of the budget of the United States and the deficit cannot be dealt with unless we change these programs. Making Social Security voluntary for young workers raises several questions. Should it be replaced with the equivalent to an "Individual Retirement Account" of some type? This idea would be the death of Social Security as we now know it. Would this IRA be the equal to Social Security, in any case of disability of a young worker? Will there be some type of guarantee against "market risk" for this replacement IRA? How would this change effect low pay workers who might not be able to contribute much money to an IRA type of account? Social Security is a guaranteed life-time benefit, what happens if a person outlives their IRA account? President Obama has said Social Security should be maintained, but reformed. Among the suggestions that have been put forward by study groups are: the retirement age being extended, perhaps to age 72, the cost of living adjustment should be reduced or eliminated, or the benefits paid could be reduced. For many Americans, Social Security is the biggest part of their post-retirement income, it is the safety net we all use, so the effect of any changes to the program could have a huge impact on people's lives.

The Social Security and Medicare programs are called "entitlement programs" because people pay a special tax in order to be "entitled" to them. In the case of "Social Security" it is the "FICA Payroll Tax." This tax can be thought of as being the equivalent to an insurance premium. Under the present "FICA Payroll Tax" system, the person who earns $110,000 pays the same exact amount in taxes as the person who earns $1,100,000, or $10,000,000. Mitt Romney had an income of $21.6 million in 2010; instead of a FICA tax of $1,404,000 without the cap, he paid $7,150. President Obama had an income of $1.72 million in 2010; instead of a FICA tax of $112,327 without the cap, he paid $7,150. The actual FICA tax rate for the ditch-digger, garbageman, or teacher is 10 or 100 or 1000 times that for a CEO, corporate financier, or government official. Rather then making it voluntary or reducing benefits or delaying the retirement age, shouldn't we be talking about ending the $110,000 cap on incomes that are taxed, while capping the present maximum benefit, and maintaining the cost of living adjustment? Adopting this program would mean the system would be fairer since the tax would then become a defined flat tax for all Americans rather then the present regressive tax. The Social Security trust fund should be put in a "locked box" which is not used as part of the General Federal Government Budget. The new taxes collected would help reduce the budget deficit by relieving the problem with the Social Security trust fund in the future. Perhaps if the increase in revenue was great enough, the FICA tax rate could be reduced for everyone. However, neither Mitt nor Obama has suggested this type of solution.

Uninsured medical costs was the biggest reason people filed for bankruptcy. In response to the problem of millions of Americans having no health insurance and being unable to pay for medical care if they got sick; President Obama proposed and passed the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009" (Obamacare). However, this was not a single payer system, based on Medicare, but rather it was based on a plan supported and signed by Mitt Romney in 2006 when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Both programs had individual mandates to require people without health insurance to purchase it from private companies, in many cases with financial assistance from the government. This makes no sense to me, why not expand Medicare to cover everyone. Why force people to buy insurance from the hodgepodge of insurance companies, each with their own administrative costs and policies, trying to maximize profits? The cost of this bureaucracy means that medical care in the United States costs almost twice that of any other country with a single payer system. Why not have the insurance companies offer a Medic-gap type and gold plated wrap-around policies? The government provides a safety-net floor which people can voluntarily build on.

Expanding Medicare to include all Americans would also be a benefit to Medicare; it will financially stabilize what is now the high-risk pool of the health insurance industry. A substantial majority of Medicare enrollees – roughly 87% have at least one chronic condition, and nearly half have three or more. The people covered by Medicare include 1) people age 65 and older, who are the most likely to have Heart Attacks, Strokes, Cancer, and other diseases related to age; 2) people who have permanent disabilities and receive Social Security Disability Insurance; 3) people with end-stage kidney disease which requires maintenance dialysis or a kidney transplant; 4) people with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) which is a slow wasting away of the body. The common thread between both disease specific groups is, they are expensive to treat and there is no cure. By expanding Medicare to include everyone, you would be adding 10's of millions of people under 65, the vast majority of whom are healthy and seldom require medical care. These people would have the security of knowing if they did get seriously ill, they would be treated without the rigmarole of complex rules and regulations regarding pre-existing conditions, pre-authorization, and Coordination of benefits. Medicare would benefit from the inflow of low-risk money which otherwise would go to pay premiums to private for-profit insurance companies. Medicare spreads the financial risk associated with illness across society to protect everyone, and thus has a somewhat different social role from private insurers, which must manage their risk portfolio to guarantee their own solvency. Medicare is a pragmatic program that works and is supported by a vast majority of Americans; however ideologues would call it socialism.


(397 posts)
6. Welcome to DU viguy007
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:56 PM
Aug 2012

I can understand how you feel. Though I was registered Independent and never Republican, I once considered myself a conservative a voted Republican. It slowly changed for me over the course of a few years. I haven't abandoned a few of my conservative views, but I have abandoned any hope for the Republican party. I was making the ideological transition prior to 2008, but seeing how Republicans have been since has pushed me the rest of the way over. I will never claim Democrats are perfect. But I will argue everyday and twice on Sunday they are in general better for the country.


(9,384 posts)
7. Glad that you could realize this and welcome aboard!
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:58 PM
Aug 2012

Yes, lots of memories from the days when the Republican Party had many great ideas and honorable politicians.
My parents, usually Democrats, followed politics closely and I did too as a kid. I was 7 during the Goldwater/LBJ campaign and when the TV said "in your heart you know he's right" my Dad would answer "in your guts you know he's nuts!"


(1,372 posts)
8. The repubs bet it all on one number and they're gonna lose...
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:02 PM
Aug 2012

Plus, loook at all the things they have piled up
that people are not ready to support:

Woman's rights
Reducing people's ability to vote
Threaten medicare
Threaten social security
Continue to shift money to the wealthy
Say they'll deregulate business when it's obvious
that business has no loyalty and is only focused
on earning as much as possible
Lying, manipulating and creating propaganda in order
to confuse the voting public (didn't Tokyo Rose go
to prison for doing the same thing?)
Manipulating ballot counts
Allowing Citizens United

Who can possibly vote for these cheats?
They have no ethics!

And why isn't the judiciary branch putting safeguards in place
to guarantee a clean election?
Why don't they take ads that misrepresent off the air?

Why can elected officials spend two years doing nothing
for the American people and still get paid $180K?

Without a doubt - VOTE THEM OUT!!


B Calm

(28,762 posts)
14. I work with a bunch of republican
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:23 AM
Aug 2012

co workers and I don't see any enthusiasm from any of them for Romney. I don't know if they'll stay home this election, but I do have my fingers crossed!


(592 posts)
15. Very well written and thank you for sharing...
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 03:39 AM
Aug 2012

For me it is important to see "conservatives" like yourself recognize where the Republican party has drifted too. It is not the party you knew when you were younger. you give me hope that others will also wake up and see what they have evolved into.

Welcome to the DU... I look forward to reading some of your other points of view...



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Rebublicans Should Vo...