Conservatives are at it again: shooting our own. Posted on 04/12/2012 8:09:43 AM PDT by hocndoc
Conservatives are at it again: shooting our own.
When Conservatives decide not to vote for Republican candidates, Republicans lose. Conservatives lose. The Democrats, socialists, and atheists win. Obama wins.
Where Republicans voted in 2008, we won new offices. Where they voted in 2010, we won majorities. Conservatives made the difference in the winning races and in the lost races. Not only did we have fewer Republican victories in those races where Conservatives didn't vote, the races were decided by the least knowledgeable among us or by the Dems.
More than before, in conservative blogs and forums, I'm reading good men and women declare that they will never vote for Romney if he's nominated. They remind me that they were the ones who refused to vote for John McCain in 2008, or who (like me) voted for Sarah Palin and McCain just benefited as a side effect.
I certainly wish that Conservatives had found themselves working hard to force McCain to keep his promises for that last three years instead of watching Obama keep his.
And here come the third party rallies!
The problem is certainly the "GOP elite," and their support for Romney -- that's why Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum couldn't get a foothold, right? And why Newt Gingrich is still so far behind?
How many votes do you suppose the "elite" have, anyway?
Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yesterday, Rush Limbaugh warned Conservatives what may happen if the Republican nominee doesn't win. Yes, he titled the post of the segment "A Warning to the Republican Establishment," ending with a prediction that the Republican Party might never recover if "they screw this up."
The warning to the rest of us is ignored:
If this doesn't pan out to big-time electoral victory the way the establishment has it figured, then what will their excuse be? And I think I know. I think that if this campaign goes on and if it results in Obama winning, I think what the establishment is going to do is blame us. They're gonna blame us conservatives for once again being too rigid and too demanding and too narrow and unrealistic and all this, and telling us that we're the reason that Obama won.
Why not? That's exactly what happened in '06 and '08. (And don't forget Rush's own Chaos.) The media and the Left ate it up! The lesson learned was that no one can count on Conservatives. That's why we repeatedly watch people who should be our champions "pander" (Rush's word) to the "middle," the "undecideds," the independents.
Why not learn instead from successes, like the 2000 election, a victory that the Dems never saw coming? A good friend recommended that I re-read David Horowitz' "How to Beat the Democrats." One of the lessons is,
Lesson 3: There Is No Natural Conservative Majority (But You Can Create One through Political Action). The critical role Republican unity played in the election leads to a third lesson: There is no “natural” conservative majority.
. . . Such facts are no cause for conservatives to despair. What they are is a reality-check. If the conservative mission is to restore basic American values, the way conservatives fight the political battle will determine its outcome. There may be no current conservative majority in America, but there is a potential majority, if Republicans have the will and intelligence to create one.
David Horowitz (2002-10-06). How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas (Kindle Locations 842-843, 861-863). Spence. Kindle Edition.
Do we have the will? The intelligence? Can we forget the animosity we have had for each other the last year? Are we willing to say, "Let him who never had a change of heart cast the first stone?"
An estimated 56% - give or take - of the Republican National delegates have been decided, but 44% have not. The numbers aren't set in stone, yet, depending on what happens to the delegates who went to candidates that dropped out or in States like Iowa, where the actual choice will be made at caucus in June. "It ain't over till it's over."
I'm sure that I won't see Conservative blogs pulling their anti-Romney posts, but I hope to see a few willing to be positive and work together to ensure Primary victories for the remaining Conservative in the Republican Primary, in order to deny Romney an easy nomination. Is their motto, "Anybody but Romney," or is it, "Anybody but Obama?"
I do not want another Reagan, nor do I want another Obama.
I do not want a Republican candidate that you cannot differentiate from a Democrat candidate.
Rationalize voting for the smaller tiger, while you get eaten anyway.
The conversation began with my wish that we’d been able to spend the last 3 years holding McCain to his promises, rather than watching Obama keep his.
And if the Republican party nominates Obama-lite the fault is theirs. Better a bitter enemy to oppose than one from within.
I’m not so sure that we shouldn’t have all gotten behind Gingrich in January — but that’s hindsight. None of us knew that Santorum would last so long or that he’d drop out just when we started having hope.
I don’t believe anyone has blocked any move in the Texas Primary - http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/10/texas-still-considering-winner-take-all/ (I didn’t like it because I think we’ve had enough delays and changes to our process here in Texas. It seems like a cheat to try to manipulate matters, now.)
Rationalize? I have a chance against the smaller Tiger. What the heck does that mean?
I proudly voted for McCain (who I loathe) and I’ll proudly vote for Romney, if he’s the candidate. Sanctimoniously sitting on your hands means you’ve chosen the bigger tiger. Bravo.
Yeah, how’s that workin’ for you?
Either way a tiger is loose. Either way it is a loss.
I do not advocate sitting on my hands. I will vote, especially down ticket, but Romney will NOT get my vote. I will not say “I PROUDLY voted for this socialist piece of effluvium.”
Excuse me, you are advocating voting for no-one-or-anyone-but so you are PROUDLY voting for Obama. When the goin’ gets tough, the sanctimonious vote Perot.
I don't know what McCain would have done, but history says that moderate or liberal Republicans don't appoint strict constructionist Justices.
LOL - it is working great for me. I’m not the one having a problem with my position. Seems to me that it is the moderates and RINOs who seem to have a problem with my position because they were counting on me holding my nose and supporting their candidate.
When there is so little difference between Obama and Romney on the issues that matter to me, then the best choice is minimize the amount of time either candidate has in office. 4 more years of Obama vs 8 years of Romney. 4 more years of fast socialism or 8 years of slow socialism.
I would rather the 4 with principled opposition in the House and Senate that 8 years of slow socialism and see the redefining of what it means to be a conservative.
“I joined the conversation at post 45. Sorry, I wasn’t responding to your original post,”
(now, my feelings are hurt. :)
I don’t have a logical reason to support Romney and Obama. So I feel more than proud to vote for the constitution party.
Damned if we do; damned when we don’t. Makes no difference.
Mittens and the GOPe do not want conservatives in the party. I am sure they will be fine and win the day! When you think about it, they win the day if Obammy wins anyway. Better to be the minority socialist party and put beat their only real political enemies! GOPe wins by losing.
Don’t worry! Be happy! The Rinos are driving the bus! You can get in the baggage compartment if their is room.
Because O is a MARXIST!! At least President Mitt would listen to a TEA PARTY led House and Senate. O wouldn't!!
A little better. Slow socialism vs fast socialism is a better analogy than Gumby’s tigers. And it is not, as folks would have us believe, the Executive branch that can stave off socialism, it is, as you seem to be able to see, a function of the Legislative branch to control not just the purse but the bureaucracy, which they have abdicated.
The Executive is the Commander-in-Chief, first and foremost, according to the constitution. I vote for the person who will do the least harm in that capacity. Next, and this is more a present day necessity, is the person who will do less harm in judicial appointments.
Would I prefer Alito over O’Connor? Sure. But I’d prefer O’Connor over Souter. And Souter over Ginsburg. I don’t like my choices, but those ARE my choices.
I was told the same thing about McCain - there’s so little difference. Really? Then seriously, push the button for Obama, because anything else has the same effect.
Perot 2012!
And you sir, are on the wrong site. This is a conservative one, not a socialist-apologetics one.
Wrong side? You’re the one voting for Obama.
Perot 2012!
Republicans, generally speaking, are not conservatives, especially after a short time in office.
But again, I will VOTE against any democrat, at any level.
Learned my political lessons from LBJ and the Duke of Duvall County Texas, George Parr. To me democrats are nothing but crooks and communists.
Bttt. You’re good people and I thank you for your hard work and dedication in the real world to spread the conservative and pro-life agenda. You definitely walk your talk.
Reading these posts reminds me of an old Daughtry song - “open up the Book you beat me with again”. Sheesh.
It’s called ‘compromise’ and RINOs should learn it.
****
What a stupid post!
RINO's and moderates are the same animal.
As of Tuesday, Mitt Romney now controls the Republican agenda and will continue to do so until he is defeated in either 2012 or 2016 or in his lame duck final 18 months in office. Until then, the GOP House and Senate Leadership will NOT take any action that is not first approved by Milquetoast Mitt.
You must remember that conservatives are just a pulrality within a Republican House majority. Unfortunately, Conservatives will not unseat the Speaker and his current mainly RINO leadership team and committee chairs. So, despite the intent of the voters to seat a conservative Congress, the RINO's will again control the House agenda via Mitt through Boehner.
Even if there is enough public support on a particular piece of conservative House legislation to get it past the roadblocks of the RINO House chairs and leadership, the legislation or a similar bill must also get introduced in the Senate.
While any Senator can introduce a Senate bill, the Senate Majority Leader can control whether the bill gets assigned to a committee. So even if Republicans gain control of the Senate, do you really think a RINO like Mitch McConnell is going to bend over backwards to advance a truly conservative piece of legislation?
Further, any Senate bill needs to get past cloture which requires 60 votes for floor consideration. So even if the GOP gains a Senate majority in November, they almost certainly will not have a 60 member supermajority. That means any bill will need to be watered down and compromised to gain Democrat votes.
This is another way RINO leadership can stall or kill a conservative bill. If too many compromises are made, the handful of bona fide conservative Senators might feel compelled to withdraw their support. Even if the Senate compromise is palatable and passes the Senate, any changes that differ from the House version are resolved in a House-Senate Conference Committee.
Guess who gets to appoint the members to the conference committee? The House and Senate Democrat Leaders and the House and Senate RINO GOP leaders.
By the time the bill emerges from the conference committee is sent on to the White House for the President's signature or veto, it is so watered down as to render it nearly meaningless and symbolic.
The only legislative benefit to a President Romney vs. a President Obama is that Romney will sign - rather than veto - meaningless symbolic legislation.
Admittedly, the ability to appoint more conservative federal judges and Supreme Court justices is desirable. But please note that as Governor, Mitt Romney appointed liberals to the state bench on a 2 to 1 ratio.
And yes, Romney will "control" the Cabinet offices and administration policies and will not be an activist like Obama, but I highly doubt he will trim the size of a federal Leviathan stocked full of career bureaucats who will simply push the nation leftward at a slightly slower pace.
Don't fool yourself. The conservative agenda is dead at the federal level for at least the next 4 years. The RINO's will either run the entire GOP agenda with Mitt in the White House or will work twice as hard to keep Conservatives from gaining party control if Mitt should lose.
The only way to beat down the RINO's is to stand firm and fight them at every level. Conservatives need to mobilize to gain control of their state party apparatti. They need to run Conservatives against RINO's in EVERY primary election - including a 2016 re-election campaign by a President Romney.
You can go ahead and compromise if you want, I'd rather fight the bastard RINO's.
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.