Posted on 10/09/2014 8:52:46 AM PDT by Jack Black
Conservative stars appeal to voters in radically different ways.
The most attention-grabbing conservatives in the emerging 2016 Republican presidential nomination race are two freshmen U.S. senators who had never held elective office before.
Though nearly equal in their fanfare, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas are romancing Republican and independent voters in radically different ways. The outcome of their fierce competition could influence the direction of their party.
Win or lose, both men have an opportunity to influence a new generation of conservatives in tactics, policy and coalition-building while readjusting the movement’s planks of fiscal restraint, free markets, strong security and social values.
Fashioning himself as an uncompromising truth-teller, Mr. Cruz wants a strict adherence to the federal spending restraints promised, but not practiced, by Republicans over most of the past 25 years. His admirers say they would trust him to advance the Bible as the one true word, the foundation of American politics and policy at home and abroad.
Mr. Paul advocates a more inclusive approach. He appeals to voters regardless of religion, political inclination or lifestyle and substantively pushes a foreign policy tipped away from unending intervention. He has positioned himself as a uniter capable of expanding the Republican Party beyond its core. “We’re an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that don’t look like us, don’t wear the same clothes, that aren’t exactly who we are,” he told Iowa Republicans. In a Senate floor speech last month, Mr. Paul once again laid out his principles for foreign policy, using the Islamic State crisis in the Middle East as a case study. “Intervention created this chaos,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."Reagan was a man of principle and character. Romney has no character and only one principle, making money.
Where are you intending to go with this line?
?????????????????
I have never heard anyone say that about him, and I doubt the author did either.
Reagan's realization of the evil of abortion was totally his own choosing, hardly anyone was even talking about abortion in the early 1970s.
Romney and others claim to be pro-life as a matter of political necessity, there is no conviction. Romney would happily dye his hair pink and dress up like a ballerina if he thought it would win him the most votes.
People like Rand and Ron Paul routinely speak out of both sides of their mouth on abortion. They say they are pro-life, but want to leave it up to the states (i.e. they want California, New York, Illinois, etc. to continue to kill millions of babies). This "I'm against it, but leave it up to the states" was the attitude of the first libertarians, they were called Whigs and their unwillingness to confront evil in America lead to the bloodiest war in our Republic's history.
Of course he is an America hating communist. He sent his personal KGB in the form of Schmitt and Wallace out into the right wing to torpedo any challenge to his candidacies and screwed America royally in the process. Palin being the big example. His entire political RELIED ON Alynski tactics to clear the decks. The only Principle Mitt Romney has came from “Peter”.
Then you look at his record and it is one America destroying thing after another.
I challenge you to find one part in his actual record that did not steer his state toward a more centralized and communistic state of being. One.
I also challenge you to tell the class why it is you feel wiser than Alexander, the founder famous for his quote about an enemy better in the opposing camp than in our own. And I use the term ‘our’ generally because clearly, 2 full years after that POS tanked his own election, people still pining for him clearly are NOT in our camp.
Hi Jim,
What I was trying to point out is that even people we all admire greatly have had difficulty with the abortion issue.
As terrible a problem as I think it is, I’m more concerned about the government killing my kids and grand-kids than I am about preventing other people from killing their own in the womb.
It would be stupid to lose the country over the issue. Most of the pro-aborting types are Team Donkey and don’t have kids anyway, eventually their nasty habit will mean they are in the minority.
If we could elect someone who would fix our financial house of cards, end the pay-to-play culture and TBTF corrupt banking system, close the borders and restore some fear of America in our enemies, but was pro-choice, I would think that was a reasonable compromise.
If the alternative is to insist that we nominate a “purist” who I agree with 110% on every issue, who is destroyed in the general election by the hostile media (again, look at Palin, a fundamentally wonderful person whose story was impeccable but was still destroyed by the MSM) I will choose the former. We are in a terrible place as a country.
Job one is to save America, something that is not just an phrase, but a stark reality. We are losing the nation. We can’t let Obama types continue to control the executive branch.
Towards that end we have to be self-critical and really look for someone who can get the job done. The first part of that means getting elected. Cruz needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny, just like every other contender. FR is my home away from home, but I do know we have not been very good in picking candidates for POTUS. I remember the Alan Keyes support here. Eventually he came out for reparations. I am not suggesting Ted Cruz would ever do anything that ridiculous, but I am suggesting that we tend to favor purists here, to no avail.
So, that’s where I am coming from. Rand has issues, but Ted has issues too. I’m actually hoping a Republican Governor comes forward, as I think having executive experience is a very good thing. (Reagan, Bush2). Neither Rand nor Cruz have that.
This is the place we have to figure these hard question out, I have said repeatedly the Conservative wing of the GOP has to be united going in, not divided like in 2008. Ted Cruz is the front runner, so he needs to have us really vet him. It’s unfortunate that people aren’t willing to take on that task. Because our opposition will make my comments look nice.
That’s where I am coming from.
But I still say: not as bad as Obama. Not even close.
FR is 100% pro-life, pro-family, pro-borders, pro-America, etc. Romney is an abortionist, big government healthcare pimping libtard. Do not try to drag down Reagan on this site. Paul is a light in the loafers amnesty pimp.
because they have to fight two party establishments and the media too.
Yes, sad but true. We have to deal with reality if we want to win POTUS. The media environment is not going to change.
Do you think that Romney would have been as unmitigated disaster for America that Obama has been? Would it not have been better if we had elected the “light in the loafers” RINO instead of the America hating crypto-Islamist tard currently occupying the office?
Romney IS an unmitigated libtard disaster. His campaign alone has damn near destroyed the Republican party. Not sure it will ever recover as a conservative movement.
This is not even about Romney! Get over it!!
We need to win, bottom line. We aren't going to win unless we are more focused, more self-critical, and more ruthless than our opponents. That means vetting at this stage, not cheer-leading, and getting our candidates to step up and deal with their weakness now, here, and not be ambushed by MSM in July of 2016.
Keyes was a false savior, Herman Cain was a false savior, Bachmann was a false savior. Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, two woman I love, both didn't have it in them to repulse the libtard/MSM onslaught and take the field.
I want to take the POTUS job away from the Donks in the worst way. That is all.
trying to out-Democrat the Democrats is not a “win” for anyone no matter the outcome
Do not pimp Romney or any scumbag libtard RINO like him on FR. Do not run down our conservative candidates or our conservative FReepers. Do not compare the most liberal Republican candidate ever (Romney) to our best conservative and most patriotic president in modern times. If you do not wish to support conservatives and conservatism on FR, please post elsewhere.
Oh, yeah. FUMR!! FURP!!
I already said I didn't support him in the primary, and only held my nose to vote for him in the general. None the less I have not regretted that vote, as Obama has proven to be far worse in his second term than Romney would even have been, with all his RINO uselessness.
I am trying to figure out how we win in 2016, how do we turn the tide, and wrest control of the (now all too important) executive branch away from died-in-the-wool libs like Obama, Hillary, Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Consider the evil that will be enabled by any of them.
This is "all in" time. We have to bet wisely, because it's not clear we get another one.
There is no win. We will succumb, to a well recognized violent overthrow by local gov’t.
Support the unabashed pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-borders, pro-constitution, pro-limited government, pro-America patriotic conservative in the race. Looks like Cruz so far.
If Ted looses by a huge margin in 2016 then I'll get back to you, and we'll discuss what's next. Go TED!
It was said Reagan couldn’t win either. Stop being negative.
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.