I don't think so.
Romney the flip-flopper:
Posted on 01/24/2008 9:47:43 PM PST by Graybeard58
The 2008 primary election process has clearly been unfair to conservative candidates, and here's why. Several liberal and moderate/independent states chose to hold their primary elections and caucuses early, all wanting to be first — so they said. But look at what has happened as a result. Conservative candidates like Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have been drummed out of the race by breaking their bank accounts in non conservative states before the rest of the country ever had a chance to vote for them. Is this what we call "fair and democratic elections"?
These are supposed to be national elections, not independent state elections. By allowing some states to hold primaries before others gives those states the advantage to propel or retard the individual campaigns depending on the political landscape of those few states. As we are now seeing, when liberal and moderate states hold early elections, conservative candidates have no chance of ever making it into the general election or winning the presidency.
If we are ever again to have fair elections in this country, then primary elections are going to have to be standardized and held on the same day in all states, if everyone is to have a chance to participate in the election process. Either that or there is going to have to be a media blackout until everyone has had a chance to vote. Election returns are not allowed to air until the polls are closed. Does it make any sense that we should be seeing election returns from other states before we even have a chance to go to the polls? I don't want a few small states deciding who we can vote for in the party primary elections.
We hear so much about voter disenfranchisement these days but nobody is talking about the disenfranchisement of conservatives to vote for candidates who share their views. If your favorite candidate is purged from the race early, then where is your right to vote for the candidate of your choice? "Write ins?" In most voting methods today there is no provision to write in a candidate's name, and even if there were, what chance would he have of winning? Most voters are going to vote for a name printed on the ballot. This year we have seen the largest disenfranchisement of voters in history, and they are all conservatives.
Did this occur by chance, or was it planned from the start? Considering the ambitions of George Soros and Billary Clinton to gain and hold power over the country by any means necessary, by hook or by crook, I can't dismiss the possibility that this was no accident. Yet the Republican leadership will never challenge the legitimacy of elections or the likelihood of voter fraud on the part of the Democrats. It's almost as though they are willing parties to election corruption.
Now the media wants us to think that John McCain is the frontrunner for the Republicans in spite of fact that he is the most liberal Republican in the race. McCain will never be elected president, the conservative base simply will not vote for him. Most of them would rather vote for Ron Paul who may be a conservative alternative on a 3rd party ticket in November, or they will simply not vote at all, just as they did in 2006. Why go to the polls to vote if no one you like is running?
The purpose of voting is having your voice heard and counted for the candidate of your choice; not about electing a political party that no longer represents your views. We are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils in America. What's the point when it's simply six of one, and a half dozen of the other, both choices bad? Voters who feel disenfranchised will simply throw up their hands and say "why bother?" McCain would be preferable to the Clintons or Obama only on the issue of national security. On most other issues, there is virtually little difference.
Liberal economic policies have dominated Washington ever since George W. Bush was elected. The government continues to pump worthless money into the economy just like they did this week with the cut in interest rates, which only makes the problem worse. The economy should be controlled by the free market, not the government. This is just another example of the Communism that has been taking over America.
Every time the government does something to influence the economy, it just gets worse. That is the same thing that destroyed the Soviet Union. Eventually it just went bankrupt trying to control the Russian economy and "take care of its people," just like the Democrats are campaigning on right now. Problems only get worse when government gets involved. The government is the problem, not the solution.
The economy has to be allowed to flow freely and seek its own level, influenced only by the marketplace. Anytime the government interferes with that using what they call "stimulus," it causes more inflation and our money declines in value, resulting in only an artificial and temporary fix. The real fix is to let the economy seek its own market level, not pump it up with artificial stimulus just to make the numbers look good on paper.
Yet, the American voters are still too ignorant to see it and continue voting for these liberals in both parties who are driving the country straight into Communism. The Democrat plan of dumbing down America over the past couple of generations has been successful. It's too late now to re-educate the people, because it has become too widespread. I'm afraid we have already lost the country. We have tried to warn them for decades but they wouldn't listen. They insist on asking what their country can do for them, rather than what they can do for their country.
With our money becoming worth less and less, and our products dependent mostly on foreign trade, even Washington spending more money to keep 'the people' alive won't help; it will all just be worthless. Bush and the Congress should have seen this coming years ago but ignored it. They all invested in their own survival by giving our money to special interests and pork vendors who they expect will pay them back personally after the crash of our economy.
With Fred Thompson now out of the race, I'm almost ready to switch my support to Ron Paul and throw them a real turkey. His foreign policy is a disaster but he's a strict constitutionalist and will veto every bill the Congress tries to pass that includes unconstitutional spending, which is just about all of them.
Of course, Paul won't win the elections — no way, no how. He will likely run as a 3rd party candidate, splitting the Republican Party in two because the Republican Party no longer seems to represent real conservatives. I don't think Paul is the right man for the job but I would like to see some of his policies regarding constitutional government established in Washington.
I'm starting to think now that this may be the time for a mass exodus from the Republican party and the right time to form a 3rd party of conservatives, but without the antiwar, anti-defense, blame America first attitude of the Paul Libertarians.
It doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the Republican Party, they had their chance. Every real conservative who speaks out seems to get thrown under the bus just like moderates do in the Democrat party. Remember George Allen, Rick Santorum, and Tom Delay? Many of us hoped that Republicans would have learned their lesson from the 2006 elections. That being that "you can't beat the Democrats by trying to be like them." Instead, the Republicans have become the Socialist party, while the Democrats have become the Communist party. I've had enough of it.
There is a chance that Romney can hold Republicans together but not McCain or Huckabee. Nor can Giuliani, but he will probably be next to drop out if Huckabee doesn't beat him to it. Romney is going to have problems with some Evangelicals who won't support him on religious grounds, and conservatives will not support or vote for McCain. There is little chance we can win in November. The Republican Party has destroyed itself by trying to be like Democrats.
There is the possibility that the Republican party has been corrupted by Democrats crossing over to vote for Republicans in the primary in order to accomplish just what we see happening. It could all be part of a plot hatched by George Soros and the Clintons to do just that. It's something to consider. Otherwise, I just can't make any sense out of the way the Republicans are voting today. Where have all of the conservatives gone? To their graves? Or were they all waiting to vote for a conservative in the states that now will not have that opportunity?
A mass exodus from the Republican Party, now on the heels of Thompson's departure, would send a clear message to the party leadership that they have gone astray and are on the verge of collapse if they don't come back to the conservative base. In the meantime, even registered as independent voters without party affiliation, we can still vote against the democrats and for the Republican candidate or anyone else we choose.
Conservatives are loyal to their values and beliefs, not to a political party. The Republican Party no longer shares those values and beliefs and no longer deserves the support of conservatives. I will reregister as an independent voter until I see a third party emerge that represents my beliefs. In the meantime, I consider myself just another disenfranchised conservative voter.
State with the winning Super Bowl team goes first, runner up second. Winning college teams go 3 and 4.
Just kidding. It’s fun to make up rules for the whole world like Greybeard does! I thought I’d take a shot at it.
Don’t I? You think Fred Grandy is conservative? Chuck Grassley? How about a whole host of Midwest “conservatives” looking for a gub’mint handout? These people in Iowa voted for a tax-and-spend, illegals-loving, kids-dog-hanging Clintonite. Period.
Thanks so much for steering my mind into a completely ridiculous direction. I’m now picturing primaries in some sort of “bracketed” format, office pools, March Madness, etc.
The large majority of candidates money comes from Corporations. Big business will not give money to politicians who will work against them. The people of the US are screwed when money buys the politicians and all the media coverage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q03&cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=Q03&cycle=2008
Vote for Fred; he’s still on the ballot.
There is a not unrealistic chance that this will be a disputed convention -— and Fred could very well become the consensus choice -— especially if he has some delegates.
I have a question: Since Fred is still on the ballot here in TN, what would happen if he actually WON the TN Primary?
and what if it wasn’t just TN? what if he won 2 or 3 states on Super Tuesday?
Wouldn’t the media HAVE to cover that? would it send a message to Fred to get back in? (or atleast state that he is open to being nominated if nobody has the needed amount of delegates?)
Just curious since I am contemplating voting early here in Shelby County.
President FRed Thompson
:)
Looks like we are headed to a brokered convention in Sept so FRed could get the GOP nod there if he had a lot of delegates...
On the ballot he has umpteen great TN folks running for a delegate spot and he should have the same in the states where he is on the ballot..
FRedHeads love FRed enough that they would stick with him if it looks good..I hope.. :)
fingies and toesies crossed...
Duncan for VP or Sec of State etc...
This year has glaringly illustrated the lop-sided game of primaries/caucuses..
If 22 states can agree to have the primary on the same day then 50 states can...
Disenfranchised ???? The last REAL American citizen/voter, please turn out the lights...
OK, here's the deal. Fred Thompson never made any claims other than to be a solid, adult, and rational candidate. The very sort folks claim to want. And he ran as a solid, rational adult.
And yet he couldn't get traction -- the conventional explanation being that he refused to shove roses and chocolates up the arses of the Republican voters.
Well, Fred was in the right on that one. If Republicans need to be wooed like fickle cheerleaders, they deserve the STDs they catch from every fake lounge-lizard who catches their fancy.
Republican voters are the problem. They need to grow up and get serious.
Unless, opf course, you wanted to vote for a conservative...
Wyoming is a liberal state?
No one will ever know just how much support candidates like Hunter & Thompson really had.
Being forced out for a lack of funds doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been the best man to be President.
(& imo this is wrong)
I would like to see all of the primaries held on the same day.
Sorry the other 90% of us don’t live up to the standards of the FredHeads. Of course the Paulites think 95% of us are wrong. Sigh.
Along with Fred’s “reasonable adult” stands as you call them was he lethargic campaign, lackluster fund raising, inability to connect with voters, 5 year out of politics, refusal to work for votes in several key early states, etc....
But I’m sure you are right. These are actually all the fault of voters, and none reflect on Fred whatsoever.
Why in the world would a brokered convention pick someone who finished so poorly in a number of contests. If we have to choose, I say choose among the leaders, not the losers.
I don't think so.
Romney the flip-flopper:
The only effect of that would be handing more power to the media than they already have to pick winners by selective coverage and spinning.
The staggered system is the only one that allow lesser known or less well funded candidates to have a shot.
This years surprise winner: Mike Huckabee.
The Media were already for a McCain vs. Rudy race last year. Your poorly thought out all-states primary would have ensured that's what we got on Everybody Tuesday.
UGH! Try again.
If Republicans can't find themselves a good candidate, blame the Republicans, not the candidates.
I say: Fred ran a crappy campaign. He had good positions but articulated them poorly. He didn't do well in the debates. He entered the campaign too late, and didn't start raising money early enough. He didn't contest early states, the critcal way you overcome a lack of money and name recognition.
My claim is that if Fred had only campaigned as diligently as Romney or Huckabee or even McCain he'd still be in the race. Instead he ran a terrible campaign. Guilianni is the other big underperformer in the race, for some of the same reasons. He ignored the conventional wisdom. (Not a good conservative thing to do, usually). He was wrong. He could easily have finished high in New Hampshire. The "all in" in Florida strategy never made sense. But, that at least was only one big error.
Fred made many errors and in the end it was reasonable for voters to decide that he didn't look organized enough to be POTUS.
In my opinion it had nothing to do with his positions on the issues. I don't think most GOP primary voters are looking for give-aways. I don't think most of the other GOP candidates have promised give-aways. (Though Romney did go there in Michigan about reviving the auto industry. And was savaged for it by many.)
We voters probably deserve blame for some stuff, but Fred's exit is not one of those things.
TO WHAT??????
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.