Replies

Did I misspell influence?

OK, the tongue in cheek part is "conservatives" as used above...so I'll modify that to "not-so-much-RINOs"

You/we, aren't going to change the world this year. We are certainly not going to change the world for the better if we sit home in a snit because our guy (or our former governor) didn't get the call.

What you/we need to do is (are)
a. Drop the one-cause-fits-all demands.
b. Actually work for any and all likely (or more similar to) conservative candidates - at any level.
c. And make it clear to the candidates and office holders that "tea party" isn't limited to a bus tour of the USA.

A Romney, with a likely more conservative (by necessity) VP and more conservatives in congress can be moved toward the center/right...maybe not too very much, but way, way, more than the current Bozo-in-charge.

The folks being floated as potential VP candidates are Romney fans. The GOP-e is not going to allow somebody on the ticket who is not approved of by them.

The fact that Romney is easily sailing to victory shows that the GOP-e doesn't even pretend to care about Conservatives anymore.

We are certainly not going to change the world for the better if we sit home in a snit because our guy (or our former governor) didn't get the call.

Nobody said anything about staying home - don't assume that just because I won't vote for somebody like Romney, that I won't show up and vote. I'll show up and I'll vote for the most conservative candidate in each race. Sometimes it means a Republican, sometimes a third party.

What you/we need to do is (are)
a. Drop the one-cause-fits-all demands.

There are some things I won't compromise on anymore, because I've been compromising for decades, and all of that compromise has done nothing but lead us to Romney.

b. Actually work for any and all likely (or more similar to) conservative candidates - at any level.

That's exactly what I'm going to do. Of course it means that I will have to look at third party candidates in a lot of races, since there are too many liberals with an (R) next to their name.

c. And make it clear to the candidates and office holders that "tea party" isn't limited to a bus tour of the USA.

If the GOP-e actually gave a damn about Conservatives, Romney wouldn't have the nomination.

Since 1988, we have gotten progressively more and more liberal Republicans because most of us ultimately bend over and do what the GOP-e tells us to do - namely support the candidates who win the primaries.

You know what supporting Romney really does? It tells the GOP that your will can be bent, that you will sacrifice your morals and your principles because the GOP tells you to or because the GOP scares you by using Obama as the bogeyman.

George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney - each progressively more liberal than the last. The two Bushes, Dole, and McCain - what did they do? They either lost to scumbag liberals or they gave us bigger and more expensive government, and then turned that government over to scumbag liberals. Romney is even more liberal than that bunch, and supporting Romney tells the GOP you are just fine with how they've been doing things since 1988.

At some point you will wake up and realize you've been used and abused for decades by the liberals running the GOP. For me, it was the realization that the GOP-e was going to do all that they could to get Romney the nomination, and that if Romney is the candidate in 2012, then we'll see an even more liberal Republican in 2016 or 2020.