Posted on 03/25/2009 5:58:14 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
Amen.
I don't know. Why don't you ask the Mods?
Because the poster of the reply you're alerting us to has a perfectly clean rap sheet...
Unlike you...
:(
If we for some strange reason have Romney around again in 2012, and he somehow manages to win the nomination, I guess we’ll just have to suffer.
What always amazed me was how much better so many here were at attacking Romney than actually articulating a plan for getting conservatives elected.
It’s easy to be against something, much harder to make something positive happen.
FWIW. She has been promoting and defending Romney, so contrary to the opinion of others, her rap sheet is not perfectly clean.
For your information, getting rid of liberal deadwood like Romney and Giuliani, was a major priority most FReepers relished in the last election cycle. It was especially pleasing for us FredHeads. I doubt 2012 will be any different, if Willard decides to run.
Boy you hit the nail on the head. It should resonate through the conservative halls right now too as a call to the masses. 2010 is just around the corner and we can't afford to lose this time.
I would have preferred electing someone like Thompson. And judging by the FR polls, I don’t think “majority” is the proper term.
But I do think that the reason we couldn’t find a conservative everybody could support in 2008 was partly because too many conservatives were too busy making sure they purged the party.
We sure took care of the northern liberals though. Now its time to work hard to replace them with something other than the liberal democrats who now hold every national office in New England.
Or we could keep fighting last year’s battles.
It’s odd to see so many Freepers who seem to like card check just because Romney said he was against it.
This is why the founding fathers supported the idea of anonymous political speech — they knew that if they put their names on their good ideas, otherwise sane people might reject them simply because of who was saying it.
As with your precious Willard, I don’t believe much that spews from your keyboard. Like I told you before, you’re full of bull. Something tells me I’ll be fighting you and your ilk for quite sometime.
Something tells me you’ll always find something to fight other than the enemy.
It’s easier.
You support Romney for president... you are the enemy!
It’s April of 2009. I don’t support anybody for President.
When we start up the next season, I’ll support the most conservative candidate running who has a chance in hell of winning.
And if past is prologue, conservatives will spend their time fighting over the various types and incarnations of “conservative”, rather than actually working to win an election.
Democrats always nominate a liberal as their nominee for potus. Aside from Reagan, Republicans always nominate moderates. Ike was a good President, but he was just a caretaker for the New Deal. Bush43 was no conservative and a huge disappointment on domestic policy agenda.
Other then Reagan halting the march of liberalism during the 1980`s and Newt's CWA Congress holding power and governing as conservatives for 4-5 years in the 1990`s, the GOP moderates have had little success in stopping the liberal establishment from getting what they want imposed on America.
Conservatives will continue to fight liberalism.
For all I care, you can continue to roll over at the feet of moderatism.
That about sums it up.
So, why do you think it is that, after the success of conservatism under Reagan, conservatives have failed miserably at getting a conservative the nomination for President, while the liberals seem to have no trouble getting their choices nominated?
Do you think this is the fault of moderates, or the fault of conservatives?
The Democrats haven nominated all liberals since the end of WWII --- Truman, Stevenson, Kennedy, Johnson, Humprhey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.
During that time the US has moved further and further leftward. You wonder why? LOL
Unlike the Democratic Party, which is basically filled with 99% faithful liberals. The modern Republican Party is about 60% dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Another 25% are staunch fiscal conservatives and 15% are liberals --- or what we use to call, Rockefeller Republicans. The later is where you'll find most of the neo-cons.
Its that moderate, or centrist constituency that runs the GOP from their lofty perch high above us rightwing commoners. They've been choosing who gets the bulk of the party support and the financial backing to run for the nomination. That wasn't more evident then in the last election. Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter represented serious conservatism, but could never gain widespread support. Giulaini and Romney represented the liberal wing, while McCain and Huckabee represented the more moderate wing of the GOP. And what happened? The party was torn apart. If it wasn't for Sarah Palin, McCain would have lost as bad as Goldwater did in 1964.
Conservatives who believe in supporting a strict agenda on all issues and adherence to the Constitution, don't ever get the proper representation from the GOP party elites. AKA.: The Powers That Be. Eventually, the only answer is for conservatives to form a party of their own. One that advances OUR traditional values and beliefs, along with OUR core principles and convictions.
Just as Reagan did in the late 1970`s, we conservatives need to tell the moderates, if you want to join us, fine. Otherwise, there is no room for a center/center-left policy agenda in a "Conservative Party". And there is no room for liberal candidates like Giuliani and Romney, or moderate candidates like McCain and Huckabee. They may be able to serve in some capacity, just not as President or Vice President.
I figure if the Democrats can unite behind a liberal-socialist agenda for the last 75 years. Conservatives should be able to unite behind an agenda based on the Constitution and more in line with the Reagan policy agenda of the 1980`s and Newt's CWA agenda of the 1990`s.
The GOP has a serious leadesrhip void. Until we find someone who has solid conservative credentials, serious political skills and strong leadership abilities, the GOP will not win back the Presidency or the Congress.
So, blame whoever you want. You know where I stand.
Your response sounds so defeatist. If the problem is that the United States is simply a leftist country, then what difference does it make? Conservatives can simply blame the leftist tilt of our party and the country for our losses, and accept our permanent minority status.
I don’t buy it, because I don’t believe the country is leftist, in fact I don’t think a majority of the country is anything.
If I am correct, what we need is another Reagan, someone who can positively articulate conservative principles in a way the resonates with the majority of the country who have no real ideology of their own.
But it is up to conservatives to find, nurture, correct, and present this new conservative leadership. Instead, I see conservatives shooting each other in the back at every opportunity, writing off every possible representative whenever a single flaw is found, and generally making it unpleasant for everybody in the process.
If I were a new Reagan, I don’t think I’d have much interest in appealing to the new conservative base, because they are unreasonable, intolerable, and toxic. The only acceptable course they tolerate is isolation and alienation. For a candidate to get the support of these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, they must demonstrate their fealty by taking actions and making statements that will earn them the animosity of all those the conservatives find “unwashed”, meaning they must essentially make themselves unappealing and unelectable in order to get support.
This is folly and absurdity, but it amazes me how many very bright people don’t see this — just as it amazes me how many very bright people think you can win elections by rejecting a majority of support.
Purity is a wonderful thing. And yet if we refused to drink anything except 100% pure water, we would be dead. Likewise, if the purist conservatives refuse to accept anything but what they perceive as pure, 100% unadulterated conservatism, they too will be dead.
Your belief that the liberals are 99% in charge of the Democratic party, that every democrat elected is liberal, and that 15 percent of the republican party is liberal is ludicrous to me. I’ve spoken to many democrats who are liberal who have the same reaction to members of their party as you have to most republicans.
Really. Well, your overall response sounds like you chose to ignore what I posted in favor of your usual forum sermon, "The Evils of Conservatism". LOL You're not fooling anyone, mister moderate. Your ongoing cheap pot shots at conservatism are noted and well documented for all to see.
Also, I haven't given up on the GOP, just yet. Simply making it crystal clear what I believe might transpire in the next decade or so, should the liberal establishment continue gaining ground within BOTH major parties. Anyone who can't see the leftward shift America has taken in the last 75 years, or the strides that center-left policy has made since the 1960`s, is living in the outer limits of the twilight zone.
Look, if you want to ignore the facts, if you want to ignore history, I can't stop you. If you think there isn't a reconstituted liberal Rockefeller-wing within the GOP, then what explains the promotion of liberal Republicans like Giuliani and Romney in the last election cycle? If you think the Democratic Party is not populated by 99% liberals --- maybe its 97% or 98% --- then what explains them nominating liberals for president since the end of WWII?
Some more facts.
40%-50% of Americans choose not to vote, for whatever reasons. Now that is defeatism. Many of the remaining Americans who do choose to vote, don't pay attention and therefore, are not well informed. Most conservatives and traditionalists blame this on the public school system advancing a politically correct leftwing agenda. Its easy to see why so many Americans have gained a liberal minded political conscience. Especially with younger Americans falling prey to the constant liberal drumbeat from all aspects of society covering the last 45 years.
In addition, you can't overlook the Independent voters. Available data shows they constitute 25%-30% of all voters. These are the voters who swing elections for either of the two major party candidates. They are what GW Bush called, "compassionate conservatives". They live their lives as conservatives, but don't believe they can tell anyone else how to live. A tough nut to crack, for the party of "no". Make that the party of "right", if you know what I mean. Appeal to the Independents and you'll have their vote for a generation or more. Reagan understood that.
Reagan also understood for the GOP to succeed, its social and fiscal (economic) wings must stayed united and the moderates must have no voice in any decision making. Reagan talked about this in his run up to the 1980 election.
For anyone interested, you can read about what Reagan had to say in two speeches he gave in the 1970`s: The New Republican Party, 4th Annual CPAC Convention, February 6, 1977 and Let Them Go Their Way, 2nd Annual CPAC Convention, March 1, 1975.
Reagan was crystal clear and so am I. He believed in the Constitution, Federalism and conservatism. And he was a highly successful two-term Governor and President.
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.