Posted on 02/07/2008 4:18:27 PM PST by wagglebee
To all of you FRiberals out there, and that means all of you Rooty Rooters and Romneyites, it's your fault that the GOP is almost for certain stuck with McCain as the nominee. Now, I don't mean those of you who voted for Romney on Super Tuesday in an effort to split the vote, but the rest of you are culpable.
Conservative FReepers have spent the past year listening to the likes of you tell us that conservatives have "had their foot on the neck" of the GOP for too long. We were told that all that mattered was someone who was strong on terror. We were told that we needed someone with strong name recognition. We were told that generally the GOP decides whose "turn it is" and then nominates that person. We were told that we needed someone who can get independent votes. We were told that ANY Republican would nominate strict constructionists to the Federal bench. We were told that winning was all that mattered.
Now, some of you who said this were supporting Rooty, some of you were supporting Romney. But you were all pretty much saying the same thing: you preferred your candidates to a conservative. Some of you even got so upset with conservative FReepers that you ran away to start a RINO forum
Well, guess what? You were successful, though not in the way you thought you would be. It looks like it's McCain's "turn." But don't worry, McCain is a war hero and strong on terrorism (as long as we don't actually take terrorists into custody or try to keep them from crossing into the United States through open borders), he says he can get independents to vote for him, he says he will appoint constructionists, and most important, he has name recognition.
So, if your real agenda was to destroy the GOP, you very well may have succeeded. If your agenda was to create a "Democrat Light" party, you have almost certainly succeeded. If your agenda was to keep the Democrats out of the White House, you have probably failed.
But regardless of what your agenda was, you have harmed the United States of America -- I just hope it's not permanent.
Ouch
If moderates didn't vote for McCain, it would not have mattered.
Evangelicals are not the monolithic voting block their detractors like to believe. I supported Thompson, I have a friend who supported Huckabee and another who supported Romney.
Anybody who tried to push the Slick Willard Romney Candidacy, when anyone who wasn’t a complete buffoon could see that he was a charlatan and a phony, has only themselves to blame. Fred Thompson was not a perfect candidate, but given the choices, do the math.
The margin of victory for Thompson was stolen by a bunch of pseudo-conservatives who either were enamored with Flipping Mitt’s looks or were already so wedded to other candidates that they couldn’t do anything but deride the most conservative and electable candidate who came along.
The sour grapes Rhetoric of the MittWits here on FR are a prime example of the former. Grow up. Next time try supporting an actual conservative.
Oh, but he TOLD us. We should have all INSTANTLY dropped FRed and done exactly as HE told us to!!
*Rolling Eyes*
Not true. There were three big liberals in the race, some were better in certain areas than others but they are all liberals.
Now, the RINOs who have been saying for the past year that conservatives have "had their foot on the neck" of the GOP for too long and didn't want abortion, homosexuality and the Second Amendment to be issues this time around have gotten EXACTLY what they were asking for.
You wanted a RINO, you got one. Sorry it couldn't be the RINO you were hoping for, but it was "his turn" and that's how RINOs do it.
(P.S. If you require links to where FRiberal RINOs have made such statements, I will be happy to provide them.)
If you were the “Political Genius” you claim to be you would have known from the get go Romney had issues with two major factions in the base and never stood a shot on the national stage.
You eye witness “testimony” was worth a bucket of warm spit against what dozens of others saw.
Of course I know it was an “unbiased” opinion...
You Mittbots and your rock star that you all fawned over to the point of drooling are responsible for where we are. If not for his money that artificially inflated his stature (i.e. purchased popularity) he would have been an political asterisks.
Damn, just damn.
Or should I say you just noticed.
Some political genius he is, backing a man who should never have run with his liabilities.
Indeed.
Looking back at Mitten posts alone make me LMAO. Love above Conservatism.
Damn, just damn...
For all of us.
For all of us.
As am I. And a lot here insist he didn't run a good campaign and generated contributions. Yet they ail to see how the media, and yes the RNC, did not give him the national exposure their top 3 got, with their names on the news night after night. When Hunter held important Press Conferences, even those related to his position on the Armed Services Committee, the press was mute. There was not a night that went by, or a day for that matter, that the choices of the media were not all over tv, and talk radio. Seldom did the public, who don't read FR, hear the name Hunter. And I put it squarely on the fact that he is strongest on the Border, while most of the rest are feeding us lip service on the border. And Hunters position on China.
Trying to liven things up around here I see!
Did you really think you were going to defeat them by supporting Duncan Hunter? And did you really think Hunter was going to defeat Hillary or Obama?
***Yes, as a matter of fact I did. The key to the strategy is the MSM. All of the RINO “frontrunners” were propped up by the MSM and DEPENDED upon the MSM to continue to show them in a positive light. We all know what the MSM will do once the nomination is done — they’ll turn on the republican and, of course, catch a bunch of idiot RINOs by surprise. But the MSM would never give Hunter positive propping, so when they turn, they’ll end up with something worse than BDS, basically CDS Conservative Derangement Syndrome. Once they build themselves into an anti-conservative frenzy, they start looking like the fools they are and even mainstream America can see it.
Antoninus’ strategy was critically flawed, because he didn’t consider who could defeat the greater enemy, the democrats.
***The democrats don’t realize that the bulk of America is more conservative than they are, and when that majority sees someone they agree with getting called names and subject to outright lies, the majority breaks for the conservative. Just like what happened with Reagan, Bill Sali, Proposition 187, etc.
I looked for a candidate running on a Reagan pro-life conservative platform who could defeat Rudy and win in the general. That candidate was Mitt Romney.
***The 2 problems with Romney were his Road-to-Des-Moines conversions to conservatism and the fact that the bulk of his support came from mormons who were trying to legitimize their POV.
Because he sought and received conservative support, Romney would have had to uphold the conservative principles he ran on, or risk losing conservative support and a second term.
***He quit this week because he didn’t receive that conservative support. Conservatives didn’t trust him. Voting for someone holding to hold him accountable to loosely held beliefs is a losing strategy, and that 2nd term would be an invitation for him to show his real self, like Jorge has.
Now we have a candidate, who has many times over stabbed us in the back, and who will win the nomination without us, though he will have to court us to win the general. But McCain won’t be nearly as beholding to conservatives as Mitt, additionally because his health might not permit a second term. Furthermore, his candidacy is far more risky than Mitt’s because he will not have a prayer if the democratic nominee is Obama, and he will have a harder time defeating Hillary than Mitt.
***When it gets down to McCain vs. Mitt, I have no dog in the race and it matters little to me who wins. Neither had my support, and I came to a decision not to even vote for McCain. I had not yet decided on whether I would vote for Mitt, and now I don’t have to.
I’m proud of my choice. It was the right one, and in the end, most conservatives followed. But unfortunately it was too late.
***I’m proud of my choice. I don’t have to twist myself into a pretzel like you Mitt supporters do.
After they left it basically became a “beauty contest”.
***At that point I had no dog left in the hunt. I had to decide for myself if I could even put on the clothespin and vote for any of the remaining candidates; I certainly couldn’t support them. So I concluded I could vote for Huckabee ( he got an oblique nod from JimRob also) because at least he’s a socon; I decided I couldn’t vote for McCain; I never really did decide on Romney and I don’t have to.
Once there’s no conservative in the race it’s either wear a clothespin or write in a republican (100% republican ticket, so the RINOs will be happy).
Unfortunatly, as part of that process, conservatives have to be willing to support some pretty non-conservative candidates in the general election if our conservatives can’t win the primaries. Otherwise, our talk about “party loyalty” to the moderates when we want them to support our conservative candidates that they don’t really like will be seen as crass opportunism.
***I take care of that by being up front about my lack of party loyalty. I expect RINOs to be upfront about their RINOism and FRiberals to be upfront about their liberalism, so it’s only fair that I be up front about my lack of loyalty. And that is reflected on the first page of Free Republic as well: “We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity.”
The point of a party is you battle in the primary, and together you promise to support whoever wins, in the hope that it will be mutually beneficial.
***But if the choice ends up antithetical to someone’s belief system, I do not expect them to vote for the nominee. For instance, if someone’s big thing is WOT, and we push forth some candidate who’s good on other stuff but kinda weak on the WOT thing, that’s a compromise for them; but it’s different than if we push forth a candidate who is ANTI-WOT and all that it entails, we then shouldn’t expect the WOTers to vote for such a candidate.
If conservatives abandon all the nominees that weren’t our pick, well be no better than the “RINOs” we have screamed about who said they were republican, voted in our primaries, but when they didn’t win would run off and be 3rd-party candidates, or stay home, or even endorse and work for the democrat.
***I disagree. There’s an entire spectrum of what you say, from “abandon all the nominees that weren’t our pick” because they weren’t perfect (I don’t agree) to “abandon nominees that were antithetical to our beliefs” (which I do agree), so your statement is simply too all-encompassing.
Until a majority of the people in this country are conservative, we are going to have to vote for some moderate republicans in the general election.
***Nope. If you want to explore this further, I’ll go there, but you might want to look through this thread:
THE GOP DOESN’T WANT US- SO WHAT’S NEXT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts
I independently verified that Mitt is a good man, and the genuine article. He did have very bad advisors, which is not unsual for a first time national candidate. Judging by the vote count, his advisors did way better than those who helped Fred. And those advisors were paid to shield him from attack dog conservatives like some around here, so to some extent, they thought they were doing the right thing. You guys may hate my posts, but I know the truth first hand.
The venom displayed to me does nothing to advance our common agenda. Cut me some slack, people, I did stop Rudy.
Well I’ll give you a thumbs up, if only because you blame voters, not the MSM.
I’m sick of that as an excuse for why [fill in the blank] didn’t win the nomination.
More like the American Idol age.
I don’t treat party loyalty as sacrosanct, but I do give it some deference. I agree that there are lines that can be crossed by the party, or individual members. I was NOT going to support Tom Davis this year because of what he did last year with the democrats and the war.
Fortunately, he resigned.
I don’t know if I could have voted for Giuliani.
But McCain I can live with, even though I dispise some of what he’s done. It not easy, and a good VP pick might make it easier, but I’ll likely vote for him, for all the reasons some people have been actually supporting him for the last year.
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.