Replies

.......The only difference between him and the new dictator-select is the color of their skin. He and other RINOs of his ilk that have laid to waste our strengths over the past 15 years ARE the biggest enemy to the Conservative movement and the Republican party, and they must be completely and thoroughly exposed for what they are...

Okay, let's say I believe everything you said before this comment, and including this comment. But then I read this comment of yours:

I have some worries amongst FReepers supporting Gov. Jindal of LA. He’s not a bad Governor, but he’s made some needless mistakes and some are supporting him simply because he’s of non-European ancestry and think that’s what is needed to battle a dictator. Folks need to step back and look at their candidates actual records. Even Sen. Coburn jumped the shark on the bailout and let a lot of us down.

Who, what, where and when are we supposed to sign up to support the next viable candidate? Listen.....I'm not trying to be disrespectful, here. I can appreciate that FR posters have passions FOR and AGAINST certain candidates. I am more concerned that we have a plan for the future. You never responded to my comment about the RNC primary process. The DNC totally revamped their primary process last year and got O. We are still working with the initial states of Idaho with a caucus that can be manipulated and New Hampshire (Hello?!) to start the unveiling of the next Rep. Pres. candidate. After that, how many states were given the next chances to select the Rep. nominee who either have few electoral votes or can't deliver a Rep. Pres. vote? That's a big problem in my book.

Neither of those posts contradict each other. I had critical problems with several of the candidates that stepped up to run for President. Two were failed Governors (the one from MA, and the one from AR), another was essentially a policy liberal Democrat but yet with a successful run as Mayor of NYC (at least with respect to cutting the crime rate, but that’s not something that necessarily translates to being President since he was still wrong on so many issues, but at least he wasn’t being a hypocrite and lying about what he stood for), and an antagonistic pro-illegals RINO squish Senator from a southwestern state who was far too old to run (and who himself came close to offering himself as a running mate to the DEMOCRAT nominee for President in 2004). I’m saying we’ve got to pay close attention to the ACTIONS, not the words of those we’d support for high office. They can lie to us just as easily as anyone else.

Aside from Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, none of the candidates could claim to be successful Conservative leaders with the core values with a straight face. We had our best and brightest Governors take a pass this year (people like SC Governor Mark Sanford, who had a stellar record in DC and in his home state; Rhode Island’s Don Carcieri who actually, unlike his MA neighbor, governed like a Conservative in one of the most Democrat states in the country and won reelection in a horrible year, 2006; NE’s Dave Heineman, another great Conservative Governor who boldly and courageously refused to get out of the way for the RINO establishment choice and pro-illegals squish Rep. Tom Osborne, a revered sports figure in the state, and prevailed; SD’s Mike Rounds; or even MS’s Haley Barbour).

The media, of course, when it came time to selecting running mates offered up mediocre choices, including the also-rans and people like MN’s Tim Pawlenty, who presided over a complete collapse of his state party. No surprise they went absolutely hysterical when Gov. Palin was chosen, a fairly solid Conservative who had taken on her party’s establishment and beaten them and saved a Governorship that was all but certain to return to the Democrats in 2006. I didn’t consider her a name for President simply because it was a bit too soon for her to run, but as a choice for VP, it was a bold and stellar pick, the only good thing McCain did during his entire embarrassing campaign.

I’m sorry I didn’t respond to your comment about the primary process. Yes, I would say the current process is an epic disaster and must be completely revamped (along with the election cycle itself — I talked to a Democrat supporter last week and the one thing we both agreed on, probably something a huge majority of Americans would agree on, is that we need to tighten up the schedule. These having to declare years before the election Presidential races and having the actual campaign cycle itself from the first primaries through the general election are ludicrous. We need to return to having Spring primaries running through the Summer (not Winter through Spring, where we can often see who the nominee is going to be more than half-a-year ahead of time)).

IA & NH as the first states need to go. I don’t have a firm plan for what the best idea is for a primary system, I’m willing to listen to any reasonable ideas, only that perhaps we might go to regional primaries and have a points system based upon the actual Republican performance of a state. The more Democrat a state is in a Presidential primary, the less pull they should have on the outcome. NH and IA aren’t even Republican states anymore. IA has only voted GOP once for President since 1988 and NH twice. They should have minimal say in the nomination choice until such time as their percentages and support for the party improves. It may bias the process to Southern and Midwestern states, but so be it, that’s where the base lives. I also say unequivocally that the primary system should be CLOSED. No people from the opposite party flooding in to determine our party’s choice. It may be fun to screw with the Democrats, but in the end, Operation CHAOS got us nowhere and they still took the election.