United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Tea party activists say they'll abstain from voting on Election Day
Source:
pennlive.com
URL Source: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in ... arty_activists_say_theyll.html
Published: Jun 15, 2012
Author: ROBERT J. VICKERS
Post Date: 2012-06-15 17:06:49 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 56490
Comments: 121
Tea party activists say they'll abstain from voting on Election Day By ROBERT J. VICKERS, The Patriot-News Though Mitt Romney has sewn up the Republican presidential nomination, some tea party activists remain unconvinced of his conservative credentials and plan to abstain in November. “I have heard from various folks in the tea party that they would rather stay home,” said Ana Puig, the state director of FreedomWorks, a conservative activist training group. “I’m hearing that from people all over the country and on Facebook.” The Romney rejection stems from the deeply held belief by many conservatives that the former Massachusetts governor is really a moderate wolf in conservative sheep’s clothing. Many conservatives worry that he would govern as a traditional big-government Republican. “They think Romney is a RINO,” said Puig, referring to the oft-used and derisive acronym Republican In Name Only. “You do have the very right-wing folks who are going to stay home, but a no vote is a vote for Barack Obama,” said Puig, who is also the co-chairwoman of Bucks County’s Kitchen Table Patriots tea party group. Scott Burkholder, an organizer in the York County 912 Patriots, said he also has heard tea party members say they’ll pass on voting for Romney. “I’ve heard that,” Burkholder said. “I think that’s dangerous.” It’s not clear how many in the tea party will actually stay away from the polls on Election Day. Burkholder attributed the sentiment to the momentary frustration of not getting a more conservative candidate, such as Pennsylvania’s former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. “The same things were said about [2008 GOP nominee] John McCain,” Burkholder said. “When McCain won the nomination, we were for Romney because he was more conservative than McCain. You can see how far the conservative movement has come now that Romney isn’t conservative enough.” Much of the dissenting sentiment stems from the vocal libertarian wing of the party. “The majority of Tea Party members will vote for Mitt Romney, but the majority of Ron Paul folks will not,” Puig said of the Texas congressman who remains a candidate for the GOP nomination. “They’ll stay home, but they don’t represent the grassroots movement.” Burkholder said he has personally tried to convince libertarian Paul supporters to join the fold. “Ron Paul people are going to vote for Ron Paul no matter if he gets into the race or not,” Burkholder said. “I’ve had that back-and-forth with a lot of Ron Paul people.” Romney will undoubtedly campaign more from the middle to woo independent moderates. Some libertarians — who see no substantive difference between Romney and Obama — believe he could still win over the libertarian wing if he made a genuine effort. “A lot of us are hoping we can form a coalition in August and move forward,” said Dewayne Delgrande, a registered Camp Hill Republican who votes libertarian. “But Mitt Romney needs to have something to offer,” Delgrande said. “He hasn’t shown any indication of that, but I hope it will come. He shouldn’t take the faction for granted.”
Poster Comment: Now why doesn't this surprise me!!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
Some people- when given the choice of shit- sandwiches where one uses Wonder bread, while other uses black bread- will simply refuse both options. Shit is shit, no matter *what* you wrap it in. I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name. Again.
An action that serves no purpose whatsoever. Are you going to continue writing in Ron Paul's name even after he is dead? If you want to register a protest vote, you should do so for someone who is actually on the ballot, like Gary Johnson.
I don't know who Gary Johnson is. I'll vote for the man who has earned my vote. Were I to vote for someone I don't know (like Gary Johnson) or someone I don't like (i.e., the "electable" candidates), THEN my vote would "serve no purpose whatsoever." It's not just a "protest vote" as you call it, but much more; it's a small statement that I will NOT be bought by the MSM, I will NOT buy the "electability" lies, I will NOT be forced into a false choice, and I do NOT accept the overt corruption of the GOP in particular, and the two-party facade in general. Ron Paul has earned my vote, and he shall have it. I stand with people who have principles and integrity. I don't really CARE if you approve or not. You don't like that logic? Fine, I don't really give a shit. If you lack the courage of your convictions to act upon those convictions, than that's YOUR problem, not mine. AS FOR ME, I WILL NO LONGER PLAY ALONG WITH THE CHARADE.
You didn't answer my question. Are you going to continue to write in Ron Paul's name when he is dead? To me, you seem like more of a cultist than a principled libertarian. If you don't know who Gary Johnson is, then you should do some research and educate yourself.
Of course not. You didn't pose a question. You were merely presenting another logical fallacy commonly referred to as begging the question; i.e., a circular argument. Getting desperate, eh? Should you post an honest question, than you shall have an answer. Continue to pose dishonest questions to promote an immoral position, and I will call you out on it, and laugh at your infantile behavior. What's it to be?
Of course I did, TWICE. Here it is for the THIRD time: Are you going to continue writing in Ron Paul's name after he is dead? A simple yes or no will suffice.
You were merely presenting another logical fallacy commonly referred to as begging the question; i.e., a circular argument. A standard high-school debate tactic, which people often resort to when they have lost the moral (or intellectual) high ground. (((((Smirk)))))
I was asking a question, not making an argument, so STOP repeating yourself. Here is the question for the FORTH time: Are you going to write in Ron Paul after he is dead? Why are you afraid to answer the question???
#63. To: jwpegler (#57)
Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion. Hmmm. It would seem you didn't read far enough to fully understand the point. IDIOT. From your wiki link: From the link I provided: Perhaps after you educate yourself, you'll be worthy of further consideration... But for now, I'm trying to discuss Mozart with Zimbu the friggin' Monkey. Bye, bozo.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNow why doesn't this surprise me!!
#6. To: Capitalist Eric (#1)
I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name. Again.
#15. To: jwpegler (#6)
Capitalist Eric: I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name. Again.
JW: An action that serves no purpose whatsoever. If you want to register a protest vote, you should do so for someone who is actually on the ballot, like Gary Johnson.
#22. To: Capitalist Eric (#15)
(Edited)
#51. To: jwpegler (#22)
(Edited)
You didn't answer my question.
#55. To: Capitalist Eric (#51)
(Edited)
You didn't pose a question.
#56. To: jwpegler (#55)
Of course I did, TWICE.
#57. To: Capitalist Eric (#56)
You were merely presenting another logical fallacy commonly referred to as begging the question; i.e., a circular argument.
Replies to Comment # 57. The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".[2] Thus, insofar as petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.
Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument.
Therefore, to beg the question is to argue fallaciously.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]