Posted on 08/10/2014 8:06:44 AM PDT by IChing
I was in a spiritually-oriented meeting a week ago, and there were about fifty people in the room. Halfway through, a guy in the center of the room chimed in and announced that he was going to open his speaking time by sharing with us his personal, painful example of the worst kind of betrayal. We all leaned a bit closer to listen as he described, with tongue secretly hidden in cheek, a time when he bit into what he’d thought was a chocolate chip cookie–only to realize with shock and dismay that it was actually a raisin cookie.
He was making a wry point, of course; about expectations, and about accepting and appreciating reality. Later in the meeting, another speaker picked up on the thread, and proceeded to wax allegorically on the relative merits of raisin cookies.
Some of my friends are going to skin me alive for writing this.
As much as I’d like to see someone as fierce and as fundamentally righteous as Texas Senator Ted Cruz, or South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016 and subsequently the winner of the general election, I have to accept the reality that (for various reasons understood by those who understand these things) nobody of their bright, bold stripe is likely to be the one. Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I think we’d better adjust ourselves to seeing someone like Cruz as the elusive chocolate chip conservative cookie.
Enter the humble raisin cookie, familiar to all, and perfectly palatable in its own right. Not exactly what you were dreaming of, but still very good with a few gulps of cold milk.
Mitt Romney’s star has suddenly reappeared in recent weeks, and it is rising again. Barack Obama has shown himself, to the overwhelming majority of people in our country, to be a total disaster as president, and the buyer’s remorse is palpable. A CNN/ORC poll from late last month had Romney beating Obama in the popular vote 53% to 44%, if the 2012 election were held again today.
Romney’s foreign policy proscriptions and prognostications during the 2012 presidential campaign, once widely mocked and ridiculed by Obama supporters (and most of all by Obama himself, in the debate in which Romney made them), are now looking like pure prophecy, in light of the horrific developments in the Middle East and Ukraine.
The world is hurtling violently into the flaming, bloody abyss on Obama’s non-watch, and American families are hurting from year after year of the democrat neo-socialist Keynesian quagmire and the far-left police state his heavy handed regime has enacted. We are sick and tired of this crap.
Mitt Romney, by comparison, can realistically be seen by the larger body politic as not only a relative breath of fresh air, but the guy we should have listened to all along–someone to whom we, as a country (not necessarily as only us conservatives, mind you), perhaps now owe at least a term in the driver’s seat.
Sure, we’ve seen the prequels, but this would be a whole new movie, with a different villain and, we pray, a better ending.
Romney’s flaws are well-known–all the more reason to get over them already. They are certainly nowhere near as deal-breaking as those of Hillary, or of Wampum Warren.
Most of all, Mitt’s widespread recognition and public familiarity make for an easier time with the endlessly sought-after swing voters, I think. Plus, it sure doesn’t hurt that he has been so thoroughly vindicated in so much of what he laid out, both very forcefully and sometimes rather ineffectively, in the 2012 debates against Obama.
It just occurred to me, after typing all the above–the guy I mentioned in the meeting from last week, the one who was talking metaphorically about personal betrayal and biting into a raisin cookie–maybe his example would actually be closer to an Obama voter who realizes that what he got after the election was not what he thought it was….? Oh, cripes.
Too late, I’ve already baked the batch, and I’m not about to throw them out. Don’t forget what I said earlier about cold milk (go ahead and draw all the Sarah Palin analogies you like; she was right on the money about foreign policy, too, by the way!).
Wrong. He won because there was no viable conservative running, no good candidate as alternative. He got the votes. If you stayed home AFTER that, you’ve got blood on your hands. No one in the GOPE appointed him, he simply won.
Fair enough. It would be nice to have the sense Walker is more likely to win the general election against Hillary or whoever. There are now millions of remorseful new Romney democrats out there.
Good grief, get a life.
Thanks! Is that your strategy to win us back? Good luck with that in 2014 and beyond...
Sorry, they have no excuse, leaving an American hating Marxist in office and claiming you stayed home for "your conscience" was beyond wrong and beyond belief.
Keep telling yourself that, Hoss.
Oh, get a life.
And yes, believing "the party drove you away" is just a horrendous excuse for leaving this horror in office as you seem to have done.
Well golly, you sure made the case for helping Obama get reelected, didn’t you! Cruz is my personal choice. Is my choice realistic? I tend not to think so. I understand the difference between fantasy and reality. Who is most realistic for our side? Rand Paul has alienated me with his shameless pandering to blacks.
And I’ll keep telling you that, because it’s the truth. But I guess you don’t want to hear the truth.
I didn’t say I endorsed Walker in 2016, I said 2012. We need Ted Cruz in 2016.
As for the claim of “millions of remorseful new Willard Democrats”, well, I can see how it would be easy for Democrats to support a Democrat. Of course, if you’re willing to play a sure loser and phony, you need to balance it out with an even larger % of the Conservative base who won’t vote for him under any circumstances.
Simply stated, if that ringer is put up again, Hillary can start measuring for the drapes. Of course, the GOP Establishment is just fine with that. They prefer Democrats in the White House.
You summed it up perfectly.
Dubious at best, if you're willing to vote for candidates simply because they have an "R" after their name.
...I'm not a party member, I never wanted Romney as the nominee.
Don't care...
...And yes, believing "the party drove you away" is just a horrendous excuse for leaving this horror in office as you seem to have done.
See Post 226
Cute, how you pretended not to notice the reference to Reagan democrats.
It wasn’t the truth when you first started spewing it long ago, it still isn’t the truth when you repeated it in this thread, and it won’t be any more true in the future.
Frankly, all this Willard apologia is so... boring. Screaming “you have blood on your hands” at people who had the conscience not to vote for a Socialist fraud, liar & ringer on this website is pure trollbait.
Like I said: You need to get a life, cause you've got blood on your hands.
I ask a serious question when I ask you to explain how Cruz gets around the bases to home plate.
Iching, arrogance and condescension are very ugly character traits to have.
The reference doesn’t equate. Willard is no Reagan. Willard didn’t even vote for Reagan.
Who are you supporting in 2016 ? Willard the Ringer or Ted Cruz, the overwhelming choice of the Conservative base ?
He’ll have to defeat the party establishment. That the establishment hates him shows how on target he is.
Are you supporting Cruz in 2016 ?
You’ve been here a year, you’re pushing a queer lover like Romney, and you have the nerve to call a 14-year Freeper a troll?
Yeah, keep digging.
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.