Skip to comments.Jim Robinson: Taking stock of our dwindling conservative inventory
Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Interesting ... ...dont blame me for Arnold, I voted for McClintock for Governor during Daviss recall.
Had every Republican in the state voted for Tom (a wonderful man, hugely respected in my five-generations-native ... now into its 7th generation ... and mostly conservative Californian extended family), he'd still have lost. A vote for Tom was certainly and reasonably regarded by many as, sadly, a wasted vote. If I had it to do over again, I'd have voted for Tom knowing he'd lose, but willing to risk that Bustamonte (he was the one running against Scwarzenegger and Tom) would have done less damage in the long run -- AND HE WOULD HAVE. But I was still practicing Einstein's Definition of Insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
So you threw your vote away, but voted your conscience -- and it turns out you did the right thing.
I don't know about Jim, but as for me, I urge you: do the same if it's Romney in 2012. Otherwise YOU will be fulfilling Einstein's definition of insanity, and doing the same thing (I take it you voted for McCain in '08, and probably for Whitman in the last CA Governor's race, right?) as always but expecting different results.
NICE FReepeing with you, by the way. Your civil tone is much admired and respected.
I didn’t think I was throwing my vote away. I thought McClintock had a chance.
Yes, I did hold my nose and vote for both McCain and Whitman as lessers of evils.
Nice Freeping with you as well.
Ditto, best post of the thread laying out what’s going on. And we need not be fooled that the R establishment has become a part of that enemy. Conservatives, especially social conservatives, have been disowned by this party.
Same here, if the Republicans party is no longer conservative-and that includes social conservatism-then I’m no longer Republican. And as you say, my social conservatism is the most important part, though closely followed by fiscal. Anyway, as you say, they must intertwine.
I don’t know who this present Republican party as represented by those in leadership, is anymore. Either they’re cynical opportunists who get in front of the biggest parade going at a given moment, or they’re liberals in sheeps clothing.
Been saying this all along - there are too many conservatives of one stripe or another running. They split the conservative votes while the “moderate” Romney wins the Primaries - and Obama wins the General.
We need agree that, if all else fails, we’re still voting AGAINST Obama.
I totally agree. When it gets to the point where we have to vote for the very things we oppose, just to stop the other guy who will also do the same things, we’ve come to a dark and dire crossroads as to where to go next-but choosing between two guys who are practically clones of each other and then allowing the remnant of the Republican Party (conservatives need not apply) get the “credit” for the stuff headed towards the fan just makes no sense. Once the Party is destroyed by having been used to elect a man who held naught different in principle , than the man whose principles we despise, then what principles were we ever for?
Don't forget the usual Intolerant and Biggoted as well, comrade. Wouldn't want folks to think I was getting soft-hearted on the Reds.
Glad to see that I’m in good company with regard to my take on this. Thanks!
I say we ignore the media...open the wallets and double down on Newt.
I don't know if you heard the late-night commentators on Tuesday night, Jim, but all the PBS and ABC talking heads but one were practically out-of-control ecstatic. I thought Charlie Rose guests Al Hunt (WSJ) and Mark Halperin (TIME) were going to french-kiss each other, and all of them, even Charlie Rose, were soaring, with Rose talking up the meme that
"America is finally going to get the kind of political campaign America deserves, on the great issues and the direction the country should take" (/paraphrase),
At ABC, Jake Tapper, David Muir, Matt Dowd, NYT slug Jonathan Karl, and the infamous Donna Brazile (Algore's 2000 campaign manager! -- will ABC refuse to hire any Clintonista hack?!) all lined up to line-dance to the chant "Romney won!! La la la la, we love Obozo!"
Jake Tapper, punk David Muir, and troll Matt Dowd were all field-testing a new Party Line meme, that "Romney is the inevitable nominee unless someone decisively defeats him" .... funny, I thought the convention decided that, but I guess I just need to "git mah maaaaahhhnd raht!" </Strother Martin>
Donna Brazile sheds more light than the rest of them combined, and earned a Party Line Check from ABC late-night referee Terry Moron, because she let out that Romney is the Republicans' weakest candidate, and closed the loop the ABCbots want left open:
What's good for Mitt Romney, is good for Obama.
She also noted that nobody has attacked Romney the way all the conservatives have been attacked. <voice stage left: Shut up, Donna! Shut up shut up shut up, you're letting the cat out of the bag!!! /voice >
Compared to the rest of them, Brazile talked straightest, and even Georgie Clintonopoulos sounded almost statesmanlike .... the rest of them were out-of-control exultant for Obama and Mittens's "inevitability". What does that say?
Tuesday evening, Charlie Rose twice made the mistake of calling Mitt Romney "Obama" -- proving the equation in his own mind, of a Romney win with an eventual Obama win (he agrees with Donna Brazile -- hell, they all do, they just won't tell us.) Al Hunt had to correct him.
Significant datum from open-primary New Hampshire:
Ron Paul (they said on Charlie Rose) won the independents and Dems who crossed over in masses to vote in New Hampshire. That ought to tell us something ..... but at least Paul and Huntsman are splitting Romney's vote and muddying up the Establishment's claim that "we won, shut up already".
Nailed it. They outed that analytic on Charlie Rose Tuesday night, that Paul led the NH crossover indie/Dems.
The only county Paul won, was Coos County up in the north end of NH, sparsely populated with fewer crossovers, but those people are Old School 1920's Republicans, Cal Coolidge type people. Paleocons and isolationists. The rest of the State tumbled for Willard and what one FReeper called "his latex rictus" (death-mask grin).
South Carolina has got a lot of straightening-out to do. That's why Gov. DeMint, who endorsed Romney in 2008, jumped out in front and endorsed him again. And people kept telling us how conservative DeMint is.
Santorum/Gingrich. We need Gingrich for VP nominee, to free him up as the heavy who punches out the other ticket like Razor Ruddock -- the role Bob Dole had in 1976.
Santorum for policy, Gingrich for the slugfest.
(Side note: I'd like to see Dingy Harry's face, when Newt ascends the VP's chair.)
I have my occasional moments of prescience.
To say that what Romney did to businesses is “capitalism” is to say that what homosexual pedophiles priests did to alter boys is “Catholicism.”
I don’t think so.
Unfortunately I think we have to write off our chances of having an ideal candidate this go-around. Meanwhile let’s keep busy doing the good we can do both publicly and privately. Let’s add to that inventory of good conservatives by **being** that public conservative we so **want** to admire.
Like that's happening, right Jim? Tell you what, just tell us how to vote and put an end to all this in-party bickering...........Anybody who disagrees with the choice, ban them. It works for DU so it should work here........
Well, I can’t do that, but I can say that this pro-life, pro-family, pro-country conservative site will not support abortionist/statists like Mitt Romney or moonbat surrender monkey liberaltarians like Ron Paul.
And if we don’t coalesce around and support one of the three remaining pro-life, pro-family, pro-country conservatives very soon, our split conservative vote will stick us with Romney as our Republican nominee and consequently stick us with Obama for a second term. Our only prayer will then be that we vote in a veto proof congress, but with a disenchanted, disenfranchised conservative base that’s probably not happening either so we’ll be pretty much stuck.
It’s going to be a helluva four years.
Run Sarah Run!!!!
There is not and there is no cohesive force to create one.
The Tea Party is therefore not a relevant factor
There is then the House of Representatives. The influence is and relevance is greater there and can be an influencing factor when all three branches are Republican controlled.
Check out this link ... at the bottom of it is the link to part 1, which covers his college days ... part 1 is rather short. Read the ‘squire September edition’ ... the first interview of his wife of 18 years ... it is a bit long but worth reading to the end of it. Especially if you are seriously thinking of backing Newt.
Being a futurist is good.
That is precisely what is needed. We need a leader who can and will look out over the side of the rut and see far down the road. Staying in the rut is ridiculous but that is what many want.
No change is the wrong way to go forward. The future can and must be molded by a plan to go forward. To try to stay in the 60’s is to die.
The choice is simple...... a smaller government with no deficit and reducing debt in a changing world where there is going to be intense competition or the change being implemented by the Messiah and his Marxist associates.
Standing pat and dying is not a choice . To insist on such a course is to lose. It will not be allowed.
Agreed ... however to make the jump to One World Government is not going to be the answer either. Nor do we choose to bow to international law made by the United Nations ... (the UN ... usually nothing).
So far the ideas of the United Nations owning some of our parks (under Bill Clinton) has gone somewhat under cover.
The next step will be to own our land and there will be no private property owned by individuals.
Wake up this step by step incretmentalism is going to cover us over. It will all be under the auspices of the UN. Imagine that. How futurist are you willing to go?
As for me and my house we will serve the LORD.
Agree 100%. Our republic is gone if the Marxist Muslim usurper gets back in.
I don’t post much outside of a few comments - and truth be told I’m not a Republican as I refuse to put any party before my country, but let me put something out there and see what kind of response i get.
How many TEA type or other conservative group leaders are on this board? Is there any chance that we could have a private thread with just them caucusing amongst themselves in combination with Jim?
As a result of this caucus a release is then made that we would support any of the 3 conservatives (Gingerich, Perry, Santorum - alphabetical not preference) should they be chosen; but that the herein listed (with groups and or affiliations denoting position) recommend A in order to consolidate the conservative vote to prevent a Romney or Insane-Man capture of the nomination.
As part of the release a set of columns listing ABC grades for each major area of concern (economy/defense/foreign policy/taxation/illegal aliens/social issues/etc) could be listed for the 3 and demonstrating why that was the resulting consensus.
Then at the bottom a line that says while we expect each voter to exercise their independence and conscience we the aforementioned endorse X in order to prevent a total meltdown destruction of the conservative values of the party - heck you could even tick off the current party platform for the grade columns I suppose.
To go a bit further a step out to other conservative sites that aren’t following the Romney-is-inevitable meme could be added as well, but frankly this is the best known conservative discussion site so I don’t see a need to do that if it is too difficult or doesn’t feel right.
It’s just a thought - as I said I’m not nor will I ever be a party member, but It’s how I would try to draw a consensus between functions and personnel in the companies I’ve worked in where there are differing goals and objectives.
I realize that it isn’t work that I would have to do - though sense I suggested it and I’m not a repub nor claim a party at any primary I’d be open to attempting to act as a referee. (I hate the word facilitator).
My guess would be that if the personnel are easily rounded up it could be accomplished by Florida with the official announcements etc - I’m sure that the establishment types would pooh-pooh it, but I think the majority want to know what some of the real ground working conservative leaders think and it would be more influential then say mcstain, etc to the everyday Joe.
Sorry if I’ve overstepped I know I’m more of a poster-of-opportunity, but I’m watching this and concerned that it’ll go to Romney if something additional isn’t done.
(I don my general quarters gear and await the shelling to come)
Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:21:59 PM · 432 of 774
BuckeyeTexan to darrellmaurina: “Bump that.”
Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:28:16 PM · 436 of 774
simplesimon to darrellmaurina: “That was amazing ~ Thank you.”
Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:14:59 PM · 469 of 774
cracker45 to darrellmaurina: “Thank you! I agree with your sentiments about absolute truth, right and wrong, etc. Some things are non-negotiable, which is likely why I could never be a successful politician, lawyer or diplomat, not that I have ever wanted to be one of those!”
Unfortunately, you're probably right. I can just imagine Bill Clinton sitting and thinking, “Hey, I could never get away with asking Hillary for an open marriage... I'd get hit with another lamp and maybe the Secret Service wouldn't show up in time to save me.”
Now that a Bible Belt state like South Carolina has shown it's willing to vote for a multiple adulterer and do so by a wide margin, Gingrich has probably proved his electability in the South. I don't know how he did it, but he did, and in the spirit of Jim Robinson's warning that we need to stop the circular firing squad and destroying ourselves, we're probably going to have to accept Gingrich as the main conservative Republican alternative to Mitt Romney.
The next few primaries, many of which are in Southern states, are likely to cement Gingrich's lead as the main alternative to Romney unless something even worse comes out of Gingrich's background, and I can't imagine anything worse than the open marriage accusations. If that happens, we as conservatives need to sit down and have some really hard discussions about how we're going to handle being the party of family values if Gingrich is the nominee and is running against Obama, who will focus on all his work to strengthen black families.
I don't know how Gingrich won South Carolina, but he did it, and elections have consequences.
Let's try to prepare for them this time instead of flying by the seat of our pants. I'm not ready to throw in the towel and surrender a role for Christian conservatives in the Republican Party, but we've got some really hard work to do in the next few months.
763 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:11:38 PM by Excellence: “To say that what Romney did to businesses is capitalism is to say that what homosexual pedophiles priests did to alter boys is Catholicism. I dont think so.”
Can’t support the parallel here.
What Romney did to businesses may well have been awful rapacious robber-baron capitalism, and definitely was politically stupid for a future politician, but it was legal. What pedophile priests did was illegal according to the laws of both man and God.
There’s a difference.
As much as I object to Romney’s views, I will defend the right of owners to do what they want with their private property. If they run for office, I can and will take a hard look at how they managed their businesses and ask if their use of their private property was appropriate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.