Virgil Goode was a former lib Dim who now claims to be a paleocon. Thanks, but no thanks. Gary Johnson was a great governor, but his foreign policy was too much like RuPaul’s, which no sane individual finds palatable.
Here’s the thing you fail to understand: Third party candidates simply can’t win. It’s useless to even try and voting for a third party candidate is taking your vote and setting it on fire.
As Ronald Reagan said:
“Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people? A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of Conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
We don’t need to become paleocon wimps like Pat Buchanan. We don’t need to be moderates like Romney. We don’t need to be a bunch of Jew hating 9/11 Truthers like RuPaul and his Stormfront Troopers. We need to be Conservative Republicans. As history has shown with Coolidge, Reagan, and Gingrich, it’s a winner, and an unstoppable one at that.
Yeah, right, whatever. Maybe you should look at their records rather than Republican talking points. That's what a Conservative would do. And whatever you think is beside the point, as I didn't vote for either one.
The only thing here that is funny (and it is downright hilarious) is your apparent distaste for Goode's 'lib dim' history, while at the same time being a good little republican, and actually voting *FOR* one who is unarguably far more liberal than Goode has EVER been. IOW, Goode is, and always has been, FAR to the right of Romney... Yet you would rather vote for Romney?
ROTFLMAO!! That's just the ticket. Keep on voting those liberals into power in the Republican party - that's gotta be the best way ever to stop those liberal democrats! [/sarc]
Here's a clue: 'Democrats' are not the enemy. LIBERALS are! The fight is Conservative v. Liberal. HOW IN THE HE!! do you expect to win that fight by turning the Republican party even MORE liberal? How do you possibly strengthen Conservatives by voting *FOR* liberalism?
Again I will declare that liberalism is not winning on it's own merit - it is winning because THERE IS NO OPPOSITION! *NOTHING* OPPOSES IT! And whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the GOP is a bunch of mewling cowards bent upon groveling compromise?
Here’s the thing you fail to understand: Third party candidates simply can’t win. It’s useless to even try and voting for a third party candidate is taking your vote and setting it on fire.
Statistically true, but not true in fact. The 'Bull Moose' party won. and so did the Republicans in their infancy. And better to set my ballot on fire than to vote *FOR* a liberal who has, for all of his history, been opposed to Conservatism and Reagan particularly.
I will lend my support to the Republicans no longer. EVER. And there are MANY like me. That is why the Republican party is shrinking. It has been hemorrhaging Conservatives for decades. All those folks will inevitably wind up somewhere, and I will state without reservation that I will see the rise of a Conservative 3rd party within my lifetime. And that party will be the end of the Republicans.
And if I am wrong in that, it is of little matter, because I would far rather lend my shoulder to that weight, and strive for that end, than I would to continue to vote for the compromise of everything I hold dear.
As Ronald Reagan said:
Yeah, right - Too bad Republicans don't DO what Reagan said. And having revealed that you know what Reagan said, Why the he!! would you compromise those principles he spoke of in voting Romney into power? Don't you see that you are directly in opposition to what he said? Because IF Republicans actually DID stand on principle, they would have no problem keeping folks like me in the fold. And, I might add, Reagen left the Democrats for just about the same reasons that I left the Republicans.
We don’t need to become paleocon wimps like Pat Buchanan. We don’t need to be moderates like Romney. We don’t need to be a bunch of Jew hating 9/11 Truthers like RuPaul and his Stormfront Troopers. We need to be Conservative Republicans.
First of all, Romney is no 'moderate'. the Bushes are Baker Moderates. Romney is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and he has always been so.
And secondly, The Buchananites and Paulites were part of the Reagan Coalition. It is a telling thing that big-tent NeoCons want everyone but them - They are demonized for a reason: They represent the very principles that would fetter the NeoCons. What you describe is NeoConservatism.
Reagan Conservatism is not 'one monolithic thing'. Reagan Conservatism is composed of three distinct factions that do not agree. Their interests are diverse with respect to each other.
Of those factions, I am a SoCon... I am more concerned with Social Conservatism than anything else. But I am more than that. As a Reagan Conservative, I look to vote those socially conservative principles... But rather than voting for Huckabee, as the lion's share of the Christian Right was happy to do, my vote is tempered by concern for my fellows in Reagan's Coalition.
I picked Hunter instead, because Hunter not only stood for those native SoCon principles I need to see, he also stood for every principle that my fellows needed to see too.
That isn't quite right - I studied those factions years ago, and came to adopt true Conservatism - That being that I carry all the principles of all the factions inherently. I believe in all of them. I am a rock-ribbed Reaganite. But the point I illustrated remains, as do those factional conservatives. and they ARE conservatives, even though they only adhere to the principles of their particular faction... That they are of any faction of Conservatism makes them Conservative.
THAT is what the 'big tent' was when it was first coined. It was about bringing all those conservative factions under one mantle... one big tent. It was about compromise between conservatives, not the compromise of RINOS. And that compromise between conservatives was *not* a compromise of any principles.
NeoCons are interested in compromising principle. They may allow all conservatives on the bus, but in order to ride the bus, they must give something up.
On the Reagan Coalition bus, Conservatives ride for free. They need not give up anything. And since a Reaganite is driving the bus, representing all of the principles of all of the factions, there is no 'back of the bus'... Every faction is driving the bus.
Which bus are you on?