Free Republic

The RNC rules are the sort of thing that relate to whether or not your Republican organization meets the standards they believe should be met to be a Republican organization. The rules on delegates concern whether or not the RNC is going to accept your delegates. Noncompliance with the rules doesn't affect the existence of your own state party but it might well mean you get fewer votes at the convention than you would otherwise get.

Who is the "you" and "your" here? I'm an individual voter. If delegates from my state aren't going to represent my vote, why should I care how many of them there are?

BTW, the guys in the smoke filled rooms who are elected officials or registered candidates ARE the party. The voters ARE NOT the party ~ never were ~ nobody even thought they should be ~

I think a lot of rank and file Republican voters believe that it is their votes that should matter in the primary.

When a state nominating convention is held it is the case in some states that all registered voters willing to attend that convention get a vote and they get a chance to directly meet with the candidates.

That might work out just fine for professional political types, or those who have a job that permits them to act as a full-time pol. For the rest of us, we read, pay attention, and vote. And I don't think we should lose our voter just because we don't want to hang out with a bunch of political wankers for a few days.

You seem to believe that the votes/opinions of activists should count for more than the votes of other voters, which is sort of the same rationale propelling groups like OWS. I don't.

Those countries have voting methods more to your liking BTW. So, if you want to stay here, learn to enjoy misery.....

You keep making this same argument, as if the rules are permanent and can't be changed. In fact, they can be. that's what some folks are so puset about.

Well, I plan on staying no matter what. After all, those rules have been in place for decades. Not surprising, really, since it is in the self-interest of power-hungry "grassroots" people (i.e., the local political class)to want to trump the votes of the citizenry with their own opinions. They care more, see, so they should be able to override my vote with their own opinion.

However, it now appears that those rules are being changed to some extent, so it would be decidedly odd if I chose to emigrate now.

Now, the National Committee is made up of state committee chairmen ~ it's not an independent body. These guys are all from the real party ~ the one at the state level. The RNC is just a tool ~ it has no independent existence. It is not the master.

And here I thought the "real party" was the average registered Republican. Instead, I find it is the cigar-smokers in their conference rooms who want to keep the real power in their hand.

In any case, you are wrong. The Republican National Committee is a legally independent entity. The members come from states, but the organization itself is legally distinct. But look, if the states actually have all the power, then what are some people so upset about with the rule changes?

In an interview with Time magazine, Obama says he expects Republicans in Congress to work more cooperatively in a second term, since his re-election would no longer be a factor.

Michael Medved has accurately pointed out that there has never been a President who has accomplished more in his second term than his first. So even if you were an Obama supporter who likes what he did in this first term, you're going to be disappointed in his second.

But this is a weird statement for a whole separate reason. Every presidential candidate I can recall, incumbent or challenger, has always argued that he needs to have more support from his own party in Congress. It's a way to help out downticket candidates. Here, Obama is actually telling voters that it is okay if they vote Republican downticket, because he'll be able to work with them anyway. Very strangle.

The deal is the political parties make a claim that they'll represent your interests and intentions. They then do various things including identifying the delegates who will vote at a convention.

Been going on a long time. If you don't like the way the delegates vote, then vote for a different party.

So what if it has been going on for a long time -- does that make it any more right? The rules for primaries weren't handed by by Moses, nor are they based on any discernable constitutional principle. A state party is certainly permitted to have the final word on how it will select canddiates for state races. But likewise, the party at the national level has the right to set the rules for how candidates at the national level will be chosen. And if some state party organizations choose to disenfranchise ordinary voters by letting insider delegates vote however they want, regardless of what citizen voters said, then the national party has every right to ignore those votes.

This is a bunch of whining from the semi-professional activist class who believes their opinions should count for more than the votes of ordinary citizens. Screw them. If I cast a vote for a candidate, in my case Newt, I have every right to support rules that ensure that vote actually goes to that candidate, or, if that candidate withdraws, he (rather than some delegate whom I've never met and know nothing about) has my proxy.

Or, like I suggested, emigrate to Denmark or Israel ~

No thank you. Perhaps you should emigrate if you don't like the rules set by the national party for the nomination of national candidates. I've served my country in the Marines, in combat. I've earned the right to support changes to party rules that protect the votes of ordinary people, with ordinary lives, who cast their votes expecting they'll actually go to the person for whom they voted, without being filtered by "grassroot activists" who think they know better.

It is extremely difficult to discuss this stuff if you just keep stating conclusions instead of specific facts. Lacking specifics, I'll simply say that I'm limiting my comments to supporting the idea that national candidates should be permitted to choose the particular delegates who will be assigned to that candidate based on the proportion of votes won by that candidate. I do not support the idea of some local/state party functionaries whose identities I don't even know can do whatever they want regardless of the primary votes cast.

Well, I feel a bit differently about that. If Ron Paul is running on a ballot, then he should get to pick his slate of delegates, whom he presumably picks because they reflect his views. If he gets a qualifying percentage of votes sufficient to get his delegates, then those people should get to go to the convention, and be Paul's representatives on the floor. Same with any Tea Party candidates who don't have enough votes to win, etc..

That's representative democracy, as far as I'm concerned. And if they want to make noise, I think that's fine, even if it may not be the best move strategically for the party. Of course, I also think it is reasonable for the party to set convention rules regarding thresholds, etc., that make it so that very small minorities can't throw a monkey wrench into the actual process.

If some jackwagon who has one lousy delegate can gum up the works with endless roll call votes, etc., that's a bad system also.

These political parties who hold the primaries are private entities ~ they are not the government.

Nobody is claiming that the parties don't have the right to set their own rules as private entities. The debate is over what those rules should be.

If you look carefully at your ballot next time you'll see "vote for a delegate for" so and so. Mine always have. Maybe some states are different.

Sure, but who are these delegates, who chose them to be the the ones who go, and what are their beliefs/stances on the issues? If that isn't disclosed (and it isn't), then you're essentially forced to cast a vote in complete ignorance of the person to whom you are giving your proxy. That's a stupid rule, and it should be changed.

That's just a bunch of empty rhetoric. All I'm saying is that the guy for whom I cast my vote should actually get my vote. That shouldn't be a controversial proposition, but apparently, it's goring the ox of a bunch of party flunkies who thought their gig earned them the right to substitute their judgments for those of the voters.

Yesterday’s actions were intended to stifle and prevent the TEA Party or anyone like Palin from threatening the Ruling Class’ hold onto power in the GOP and in D.C.

I don't get that. If a Tea Party candidate, Palin or otherwise, gets the votes in the primary, he/she gets the delegates. It's pretty simple. But what this sounds like is certain members of various organizations wanting the right to control the outcome despite the fact that they didn't actually win the votes.

How would you like it if a Tea Party candidate actually won the votes in a primary, but party functionary delegates decided to support someone else instead? This stuff cuts both ways.

Obama’s quote is actually even worse when you look at it in full context. The paragraph before, where he overtly mocks people who think they succeeded because they were intelligent or worked hard, is unambiguous, and even more damning, then the “you didn’t build that” comment.

Since you don't directly vote for President ~ Originally, before passage of the 17th amendment, you voted for your members of the state legislature and they voted for your senators! The original design is representative democracy.

Yes, but in a representative democracy, the representatives themselves campaign publicy for office, explain themselves to voters, etc.. You are voting for people about whom you actually have some relevant knowledge. That's sort of the entire principle of representative democracy, right? And I don't recall anyone running and saying "hey, I want to be a presidential delegate, vote for me!"

So (the question you didn't answer) who are these people acting as delegates? Their names weren't on my ballot when I voted in the Presidential primary. I voted for Newt.

Personally I have no problem understanding the term "Presidential Preference Primary" ~ and given the exigencies and contingencies of political life, you really don't want to tie a delegate to voting for a dead guy, or someone who quit the campaign either.

That's true, although there are a great many situations where the candidate isn't dead, and I think delegates should be legally bound at least on the first ballot to that candidate.

But then the question is who should select the delegates who may have to make a different decision if their candidate drops out, dies, or we have to go to a second ballot? Because I have no effing clue who those people are. As I said, the name on my ballot was Newt. So it seems to me that if I trusted Newt's judgement enough to support him as the nominee, then the best proxy for that with delegates is Newt picking his own delegates as the people most likely to mirror his thinking, and therefore best represent the intent of my vote.

But instead, some faceless party functionary who may disagree with both me and Newt on a ton of issues, who I don't know from Adam, is just going to make his own choice as a delegate? That's not representative democracy -- that's just a self-perpetuating political oligargchy of a professional political class.

Where do you get all that from? Sheesh, I thought the Soviet system involved, well, soviets. You should perhaps look up the term to see what it means.

Sorry, but the closer we get to direct primary election of candidates, with fewer intermediaries who seek to use their own judgment at a convention rather than that of the voters who supposedly sent them there, the better. At least to me, who is just a voter and not a party functionary.

The "grassroots" argument seems akin to arguing that Presidential electors in the general election should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the intent of the voters. Personally, I thought power should lie ultimately with the voters, not with faceless committee members and self-appointed activists.

The problem with the proposed changes is simple ~ they replace the diffuse representation system so typical of American politics and business with Democratic Centrism, a system more appropriate to a Politboro in a Communist state.

Okay, so in this "diffuse representation system", who are these "diffuse representatives", and how, exactly, are they selected?

When I vote for someone to hold a local office, I expect I'm voting for the candidate I want in that office. When I cast a vote for a state office candidate, I figure I'm voting for that particular state official. And when it comes to the presidential primaries, I figure I'm voting for a particular presidential candidate.

But it sounds like some folks think a better system is that rather than actually voting for the presidential candidate, I'm really just voting for some lower level "grass roots" party official who may or may not support the guy for whom I thought I was casting my vote. And I have absolutely no clue who the "diffuse representatives" are that supposedly are representing my vote at the convention. Why should these "grassroots activists" be able to trump my vote by doing something different at the convention?

Personally, I'd be much happier with just direct vote tallies for primaries.

The problem with the proposed changes is simple ~ they replace the diffuse representation system so typical of American politics and business with Democratic Centrism, a system more appropriate to a Politboro in a Communist state.

Okay, so in this "diffuse representation system", who are these "diffuse representatives", and how, exactly, are they selected?

When I vote for someone to hold a local office, I expect I'm voting for the candidate I want in that office. When I cast a vote for a state office candidate, I figure I'm voting for that particular state official. And when it comes to the presidential primaries, I figure I'm voting for a particular presidential candidate.

But it sounds like some folks think a better system is that rather than actually voting for the presidential candidate, I'm really just voting for some lower level party official who may or may not support the guy for whom I thought I was casting my vote. And I have absolutely no clue who the "diffuse representatives" are that supposedly are representing my vote at the convention. Why should these "grassroots activists" be able to trump my vote by doing something different at the convention?

Personally, I'd be much happier with just direct vote tallies for primaries.

I just don't get this.

I thought there were candidates, and then people who voted for those candidates. And I thought that ultimately, it was the voters who were supposed to determine the direction of the party by voting for a certain candidate.

But apparently not. Apparently, there are these "grassroots" people, various "committeemen" and other party functionaries. And those folks are supposed to have the real power as delegates to do what they think should be done, rather than pay attention to the actual voters.

These party committee members, etc...do they run campaigns to be elected? Because I don't recall hearing about their platforms, or knowing their views. This sounds to me like the folks int he smoke-filled rooms want to toss out what the voters actually want, in preference for their own ideology.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with liberal or conservative, because the process itself is ideology neutral. It could just as easily be "RINO" moderate types at the state level trying to undermine voters who pick a more conservative candidate. If I vote for a candidate in a primary, essentially giving him/her my proxy, then why shouldn't that candidates delegates be from a slate he/she selected? After all, aren't those the folks whose views are most likely to align with the person for whom I cast my vote?

It really was a very good speech. And whatever his other flaws on other issues, the fact is that he is very good at changing the terms of debate. We actually have people out there articulating the superiority of the private sector over the government, and telling people that the deficit-spending funded party must end. Being able to discuss those issues openly and win while doing so is critical.

No, you have your federalist principles backwards. The state parties are not subject to the jurisdiction of the RNC which handles nothing but the Presidential nominating convention. Theoretically your state party, if it wants their delegates recognized will need to abide by RNC rules.

I don't have anything backwards. You're describing the way the rules are, and I'm telling you why I don't care, and don't want my state people as intermediaries doing something with my vote that I did not intend.

When I vote in a primary, I'm expressing my opinion regarding which candidate I prefer. I don't want my vote to be filtered through some state party functionary/appointee about whose views I may be completely unaware. I voted for Newt, and dammit, and view my vote as giving Newt my proxy, not some "grassroots" committeman I've never met, and wouldn't know from Adam.

So if I'm understanding this right, these grassroots activists -- whose votes should not be worth anything more than mind -- want to act as though they got my proxy, and then use their own individual judgment and discretion regarding what they're going to support with the vote I cast. I think that's b.s. by little lord wannabes. I voted for Newt. So, the best way to ensure that my vote is accurately represented is to have that delegate selected by Newt.

Your state committees manage Senatorial and Gubernatorial, et al, races. You also have district committees handling House races, etc.

Good for them, but that's not who I'm thinking about when I vote in a Presidential primary. If the current mechanism essentially gives my proxy to them, then I'd prefer to see that system changed, because I don't know them, and they don't publicly campaign regarding their views.

Look, everyone is getting all enraged about this because it is supposedly conservatives getting shut out. But the mechanism is ideologically neutral. It could just as easily be a bunch of wishy-washy party functionaries wanting to go to the convention and fight against a conservative nominee. And if that was the case, we'd all be going nuts.

Well, let me see if I understand this right. Are we talking about the candidates who run in the primaries getting to choose the people who will be their delegates, as opposed to lower level party functionaries choosing who those delegates will be? Because if that's the case, then I'm siding with the candidate. When I go to the polls during a primary, I figure I'm voting for the candidate. I'm not voting for some low level party committeeman, or for anyone else. I'm not expecting that person to have their own agenda. I figure I'm getting someone who that candidate wants as their delegate, because there's no way I'm going to be familiar with all these faceless local party types.

Now, if that's not correct, then fine. But there are parts of this that sound like state and local level party people trying to maintain some independent authority and discretion at the convention, when they're not the people I voted for. I don't know who they are, nor do I care. I voted for a candidate, not a grassroots flunky.

In essence, it is this: in 2016 Romney would be able to choose what delegates are seated at the convention. The states would no longer do that. If Romney doesn’t like the delegates the people of a state choose i.e. they choose to vote for someone other than Romney, then he can replace them with those that are for Romney.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound right to me as it pertains to 2016. I think you must be misreading/exaggerating those claims. Is there a link to the specific rules/proposals anywhere?

You should care because the aristocrats and oligarchs are choosing our leaders for us. They are setting up the machinery to ensure that only someone they choose will become the republican nominee ever again. How do you think we get such men as Gerald Ford, Robert Dole, George Bush and his son, and now Mitt Romney. They worked hand in hand to destroy Goldwater, and since Reagan’s two landslides, they’ve been working to ensure that a conservative never again gets the nomination because they cannot be controlled. They’ll pick someone and that’ll be it because where are we going to go, they’ll say.

That all sounds fine, but exactly how is that being done? What rules are being changed to make that more likely? I mean, I'm sitting here as a guy who voted for Newt in the primary. He lost, okay. Now, everyone without an axe to grind acknowledges that Romney is going to be the nominee, and he certainly did get the most votes in the primary.

So what specifically is happening that is causing the problem? I'm reading that so and so got booted off some committee. Well, what practical difference is going to result as a consequence of that? There is simply not enough detail reported on this stuff for me to figure out why I should care. Maybe I disagree with these people who are getting the boot, because nobody is saying what those people are advocating that is getting them the boot.

Honestly, this just sounds like fighting between party officials. Maybe it's more, but a lot more context would be helpful.

Can somebody explain why these rule changes are so important? I don't get it. Why should I care if certain delegates are on some committee, and others aren't? Does it actually matter? Romney's the candidate, Ryan's the Veep nominee, so what's the point of the rest of this stuff?

I'm not trying to be argumentative -- I honestly don't get it. Exactly who are these people being removed, and who put them in those places to be removed in the first place?

Yes, but those type of actions during Army-Navy week are not crimes. The tipping of that junker car, or any number of things that happen then at both schools, are all within the bounds of what is commonly understood to be acceptable in that specific context. Or at least, motivated by the salutory idea of school spirit.

That is completely different from rioting in a town, tipping cars that beling to private parties, and defying police. And what makes this even more difficult from the Army's perspective was the context. The fact is that the national perception is that, at a minimum, JoePa did not take proper action when informed of child molestation. So it appears that the students were rioting in support of a guy who did something wrong, and failed in a duty.

He put the Army in a pretty tough position -- cadet arrested for rioting in support of JoePa. Ouch.

He could always choose to enlist after graduation, and then do enough to impress his superiors to perhaps get a bid to OCS after a few years.

Obama aside, that is a very well-written article. I remember the moon landing, and never quite thought of Armstrong's behavior afterwards in the way this author put it. Here's the money part for me:

Armstrong's heroism wasn't the lunar walk, though. It was how he comported himself afterwards that showed the true measure of the man. He was among the more famous human beings in history. Yet he retired to a quiet and private life teaching aeronautical engineering and tending to his farm. His walk on the moon wasn't a personal achievement, per se, but an accomplishment for all of humanity.

He made few public appearances. He gave very few speeches or interviews. His resignation from the public square made his lunar walk something mankind achieved rather than something Neil Armstrong achieved. His walk was the culmination of the work, not only of the thousands of engineers and scientists who directly worked on the mission, but also of the countless others throughout the ages who looked up at the skies and dreamed. Armstrong understood this.

How many of us could have resisted the siren song of global celebrity? How many of us would have chosen to withdraw and ensure the walk is remembered as mankind's greatest triumph rather than a personal glory?

What a fanstastic tribute to Armstrong. Figure Obama went in the exact opposite direction, though.

Representative Akins’ first appearance in film....

I can't stop you guys from any discussion here, but it would go a long way by letting this not get waaaay bigger than it should be.

The MSM and average Joe don't care what we say here about this issue. We're just discussing the political implications of this among ourselves.

Akin may not be the best candidate at this time, but you have failed to get him to leave the election, and as a consequence, you're helping the Dim Dems.

Just because he has not yet withdrawn does not mean that he won't. He really has until late September. After the last date for withdrawal, I'd agree with you. But personally, I think he is going to withdraw before then.

And for your information and the rest of the self-defeatists, Romney has figured it out to shut his trap about giving ammunition to the enemy rats. Only the Dummies keep this up.

Romney speaking may give ammunition to Democrats that could resonate with voters. Us writing things on here doesn't -- we're not running for President.

That's a step in the right direction to shut up by quit joining the Dims.

"Step in the right direction?" Exactly how far is that "step" going to take us? Because I don't think comments online from Freepers are going to affect Akin's chances to beat McCaskill at all.

What you're really doing is trying to squelch any discussion/analysis as to how Akin's comments affect his chance. As if all of us shutting up about Akin will magically make this issue go away.

Remember that McCaskill is the one saying he should stay in the race. The Democrats are the ones who spent more than a million to help him win the nomination. So when you try to shut down discussion from conservatives as to whether he is actually the best candidate, you ought to consider the motives of those with whom you are in agreement.

No, the blame now goes to you guys keeping the issue alive at a higher intensity.

Oh, so it's the Freepers who think he stepped in it that are the problem? If we just shut up, he'd be fine and run to victory?

You have failed to persuade the legitimate primary winner to leave the race, and your baneful efforts are now helping the Dems. That's all your fault. Yes, because absent online comments by Freepers, the media, Democrats, elected Republican politicians, and everyone else would just drop this.

Yeah, I'm not buying that one. Pretending that the Emperor still has clothes after that kid pointed out that he didn't isn't going to work.

It doesn't matter what he meant. What matters is what he said. Like it or not, Republicans are held to higher standards than Democrats. We can whine about the unfairness of that all we want, but it is the truth.

If a Republican can't meet those standards because of a verbal gaffe, that's his own fault.

I agree. You don’t write a book that is expected to sell millions of copies and expect to remain anonymous. He should have kept his yapper shut like the other guys did.

Tapper is pretty much the best the MSM has to offer. He’s the kind of guy who may end up at Fox in a few years.

It is way past time for a Republican to show some apine and refuse to quit. A quit is a loss and I bet he will still win. You don’t ever win by quitting. Democrats never quit, just look at Biden.

Not true.

In 2002, incumbent Democrat Bob Toricelli won his primary and was set to be his party's nominee. Subsequently, nasty stories came to light about him taking campaign donations, and it looked like the seat was going GOP.

The Dems pressured him to withdraw, and he did, despite it supposedly being after the deadline. They put up Lautenberg instead, and he won, keeping the seat in the D column.

If you've got a nominee who screws up badly after the primary, getting rid of him may well be the smartest move.

Sometimes, it is better to order the 6th Army out of Stalingrad rather than ordering it to die in place, no matter how good giving that order may feel. A vote for Romney is a vote for a tactical retreat rather than a strategic rout.

In a time of plenty, Romney would be dangerously likely to spend us into oblivion with RINO programs. But in this time, with what is going on now, I suspect it will be different. His businessman's respect for the bottom line, reflected in his selection of Ryan, is the only shot we have to reverse the worship of socialism currently in vogue at that White House.

Well ... the GOP E-RINOs hate Conservatives “so much” that they would rather lose with a pitiful candidats like Myth Romney ... than WIN with Newt and Sarah Palin .... and everyone at Free Republic knows I speak the TRUTH ..

You should be a bit more careful about speaking for other people. I supported Newt in the primaries, but I think a Newt/Palin ticket would have lost big. Palin was successfully defined negatively by the media, and doing reality TV shows wasn't the way to change that image.

Gov. Crispy Cream of NJ is absolutely the wrong OPTIC for the party. He will represent a party which is out of touch with starving poor people.

How then do you explain him having a 56% approval rating in NJ? The left successfully defined him as anti-public employee union, he vetoed a gay marriage bill, and yet, he managed to overcome all the attacks and post that approval rating. Fat body and all.

For all his policy flaws on other issues, the guy is an absolute master at speaking hard economic truths, and making tough solutions appealing to the average voter. I wouldn't want him as the nominee, but in terms of changing the debate and giving momentum to the Ryan approach to budgeting, he's the best possible pick.

Gov. Crispy Cream of NJ is absolutely the wrong OPTIC for the party. He will represent a party which is out of touch with starving poor people.

How then do you explain him having a 56% approval rating in NJ? The left successfully defined him as anti-public employee union, he vetoed a gay marriage bill, and yet, he managed to overcome all the attacks and post that approval rating. Fat body and all.

For all his policy flaws on other issues, the guy is an absolute master at speaking hard economic truths, and making tough solutions appealing to the average voter. I wouldn't want him as the nominee, but in terms of changing the debate and giving momentum to the Ryan approach to budgeting, he's the best possible pick.

Thank you as well. The circular firing squads aren't helping anyone but the bad guys.

The scariest part of all this is the demographic trends, which favor Democrat interest-group politics. I'm not sure what the solution to that is long-term, other than getting a transformational candidate like Reagan who can really swing votes.

Thank you as well. The circular firing squads aren't helping anyone but the bad guys.

The scariest part of all this is the demographic trends, which favor Democrat interest-group politics. I'm not sure what the solution to that is long-term, other than getting a transformational candidate like Reagan who can really swing votes.

I came to the conclusion that the GOP really wanted to hide the hideous Conservatives as Step-children back in the late 90's.

Even before then. There were a bunch of Republicans scared of Reagan as well, and he clearly proved them wrong.

I believe that almost all of us here on FR are conservatives, and agree on underlying values. Where we disagree is on strategy.

The truth is that a majority of the American people do not agree with us across the board on all those issues. Nor do they agree with the left. The left is winning this war for the future of our country via relentless incrementalism, holding ground when they are in the minority, and then pushing for change when they manage to get a majority. Tactical retreats, strategic advances. It's ugly, but it has worked for them. It also helps that they are not above lying to voters to accompish what they want.

How to best combat and reverse that trend is a matter of strategy, not principle. I think grass roots supporters sticking to their guns is important, but at the same time, I don't think a "no retreat" rule works any better in politics than it did for Hitler in late 42 through the end of the war. There are small issues that matter little, but that can be demagogued very successfully and cost elections. And on those issues, I'd rather see a conservative candidate take a tactical loss if necessary for a larger victory.

I think it is unfortunate that a difference in strategy has divided so many here who actually agree on principle. I don't trust Romney, though I do like his selection on Ryan even though I disagree with him on gay issues. I just view Romney as the political equivalent of a strategic retreat from Stalingrad, rather than telling the Sixth Army to die in place at the hands of the marxist(s). I don't think electing Romney is going to mean victory for the conservative agenda, but I do think he may stop a more complete victory for the left.

I'll be happy when this election is over so that we all can remind ourselves that we're actually on the same side.

Romney wants to and will implement some form of Romneycare nationally.

What is the evidence supporting that conclusion? That's the opposite of what he's said.

As horrible as RomneyCare is, there is a massive difference between states deciding on their own to do something, and being bound by the balanced-budget amendments that most states have, and the one-size fits all budget/business destroyer that ObamaCare imposed on all 50 states.

It should also be noted that Romney did veto (overridden) the $295/employee tax on businesses that was in the Massachusetts bill. ObamaCare includes a $2000/employee tax.

I hate RomneyCare, but then, I could care less what happens in Massachusetts. If Romney pushes reforms that give more states more discretion at their level, that's much, much better than being stuck with ObamaCare.

Do I think there was anyone better out there out of 300 million Americans. Absolutely. Do I think we had a better choice in the primary --for the general--not who I and the rest of FR would vote for but who I think would not have been destroyed by the MSM. Probably not. Newt, Santorum, Bachman -- I don't know if they could have beat Obama by the time the media and SNL got through with them.

I thought Newt had a chance because when he was a good, he was really good, and had the potential to take Obama apart that the others didn't have. But he also had the ability to self destruct as well. Overall, it was a badly flawed crop of candidates, which is unfortunate because the right guy might really have been able clobber Obama.

Do I think there was anyone better out there out of 300 million Americans. Absolutely. Do I think we had a better choice in the primary --for the general--not who I and the rest of FR would vote for but who I think would not have been destroyed by the MSM. Probably not. Newt, Santorum, Bachman -- I don't know if they could have beat Obama by the time the media and SNL got through with them.

I thought Newt had a chance because when he was a good, he was really good, and had the potential to take Obama apart that the others didn't have. But he also had the ability to self destruct as well. Overall, it was a badly flawed crop of candidates, which is unfortunate because the right guy might really have been able clobber Obama.

Is that all you've got? Personal attacks? Check my posting history. I supported Gingrich in the primaries, but even he was a flawed candidate among a bunch of flawed candidates. The guy I thought who governed conservatively and could have beaten Obama was Mitch Daniels, but he chose not to run.

Despite his flaws, I think Romney is much better than Obama because he believes in markets and capitalism as a general matter. I think his judicial appointments will be better, and I think he really doesn't like ObamaCare because like any good businessman, he can look at the bottom line and see we can't afford it as a nation. I certainly didn't like Romneycare, but a state-run program is infinitely less threatening to the fiscal health of the nation than is a federal one.

If you think that means I'm secretly an Obama fan, you're entitled to your delusions.

If this doesn’t wake up the conservatives that Romney is a big liberal, nothing will. When Obama Voters are wanting Romney you know there is nothing good there.

In other words, if the nominee is someone who is actually able to win by attracting votes, he's a big liberal? You're only principled if you support nominees who can't win. Oh, that's good.

I'd guess that there are a fair number of people who voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 who voted ended up voting for Reagan in 1980. Guess that makes him a big liberal too.

Even so, if conservatives are not made part of this convention, millions of Republicans will abandon the Romney/Whoever ticket.

Well, one problem is that you have a lot of self-described conservatives who are angry at virtually every possible VP alternative. For some folks, any Republican who has said he/she supports Romney is a "traitor" -- which knocks out everyone from Palin, to Rubio, to Ryan.

But I agree with your point -- Romney must make a real effort to appeal to conservatives, because we are the core of the party. I'd like to hear him give a bunch of those classic Reagan lines at the convention, and to nominate as a running mate someone who can articulate that message strongly.

The core theme of this election -- at least to me -- is for the American people to decide whether the government is the solution, or the problem. For Republicans to win, they have to be able to make that argument convincingly. And that will take someone as VP who can hammer that issue.

I'm right with you. Romney is a poor candidate, coming out of what I felt all along was a field of pretty poor candidates. I have no faith that he's not going to gaffe himself right out of contention.

I'm actually less worried about him on matters of policy because Obama has moved left so hard, that it makes the decision an easy one -- at least for me. I don't like Romney's position on some issues, but Obama's positions are generally so much worse. Obama is willing to kill our pseudo-capitalist system deliberately, based on his belief that the government can "do it better". Whatever other valid criticisms there are of Romney, I still think he's a much bigger believer in capitalism than Obama ever was. And the social issues won't go anywhere anyway.

But I don't have much faith Romney can pull this off.

Romney is on record as stating that he supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and the he believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. He's held that position consistently, even going back to 2002, though he does support civil unions. Having stated that position clearly, all he gets by jumping into the Chick-Fil-A controversy is buying into a bunch of statements he didn't make, and that he might have worded differently. I'm fine with that.

I think he's dead wrong on gays in the military, though.

That’s a pretty fair article overall from a typical lefty journalist. He points out that the objective economic numbers favor Romney, but that Romney is a fairly poor candidate who may not be able to take advantage of that. Sounds about right to me.

I also think “cock-sure” isn’t a helpful term in this case.

Well-played. Somebody definitely has some "issues" here.

And to those of you who are so cock-sure of how you would react in any given situation, it is with trepidation that I say: I hope you get the chance to find out.

I'm assuming here you're not hoping more young boys get molested so we can find out, so I'll approach it differently.

Are you saying that if you had been aware of what was going on, that you wouldn't have tried to do something about it?