Posted on 03/25/2009 5:58:14 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
ROMNEY: Cautionary tale of card check Mitt Romney Wednesday, March 25, 2009
** FILE ** Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney submitted a column to The Washington Times as part of the Reinventing Conservatism series. (Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times)
ANALYSIS/OPINION: (Part of our Reinventing Conservatism series)
In 2006, my last year as governor of Massachusetts, I vetoed a card-check bill that allowed public workers to organize if a majority signed union authorization cards as opposed to casting a traditional secret ballot. The veto was a gain for the rights of employees and employers to a fair election, but the victory was short-lived.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Conservatism is not evil, but it is telling that you equate criticism of the actions of a small subset of the conservative movement that you belong to with an attack on conservatism itself.
Your cluelessness regarding my philosophy and beliefs is indefensible given my obvious lack of brevity in expressing my opinions and thoughts on an ongoing basis.
Since I believe the average FR reader quite capable of discerning the truth from my posts, I will not rehash how your claims regarding their meaning are off the mark. That will be clear to the casual observer.
The moderates have been shown that picking a moderate for President doesn’t work. The conservatives likewise have been shown that dividing themselves amongst 4 different candidates, and wasting their time tearing down each other and excommunicating people for any minor deviation from the “purity” of the “conservative belief” as defined by themselves most certainly is a path to failure, not salvation.
But just as the moderates are too stupid to get the message, it appears some conservatives won’t get the message either.
Your MO on FR has always been to downplay and push back against conservatism, as you promote political moderation. There is no small subset of conservatives on this forum. FR is mainstream conservatism, with a hard edge. You don't like that. Too bad.
Yours is not the voice of reason. You're the voice of capitulation. As long as moderates like you find it necessary to visit this fine rightwing forum and spew your incessantly anti-conservative rhetoric, I (and others) will remain steadfast and in your face. Count on it.
Here I am going out of my way to hopefully better educate you about conservatism and your response is to be dismissive. I thought this was a debate between you and I, a moderate and a conservative. Since when do you run from a fight? Even one you’re losing. LOL
However, the conclusion that a third party is out of the question is not a healthy alternative for America's future. Just as it wasn't back in the 1850’s. Right now, the GOP still needs to do a lot of work, but there is no guarantee that the war between liberalism and conservatism will be settled anytime soon.
One thing is for sure. If the GOP wants to have any success in the near term, it must get away from moderate-centrist-liberal political policies and embrace conservatism, federalism and the Constitution. There is no room in the GOP for leaders from the center-left. That includes your precious Mitt Romney.
You can keep believing you have some history of my beliefs, but every time you call Romney “my precious” you show your ignorance.
Anybody who actually read what I wrote would know that I never supported Romney out of a love for Romney. We can argue over why I was willing to vote for Romney, and about the things for which I defended him, but that was about ideas, not about a person.
I find all the touchy-feely stuff pretty much humorous.
I won't bother to recap our debate. Anyone taking the time to read our exchanges will clearly see that your politics are out of step with Free Republic`s conservative agenda.
You began by juxtaposing --- maybe obfuscating is a better word --- the harsh treatment Romney receives from FReepers with some lack of resolve on this forum to address the issue for getting more conservatives elected. What BS! FReepers can engage in multiple issues at the same time.
What really has you so annoyed and upset, is Free Republic`s rejection of the liberal Mitt Romney's candidacy for president. Your feelings are hurt. All I can say is, either get use to it, or get over it already. Again. If Romney tries another run in 2012, look for the same opposition treatment from FReepers, one more time.
Fortunately for me, there is a "reply to" button, so anybody can go back and see what I actually said, and not have to believe your opinion of it.
I won't bother to recap our debate
You began by juxtaposing...
Right. the harsh treatment Romney receives from FReepers with some lack of resolve
I never questioned the resolve, just the tactics. I correctly noted that a lot of people are better at attacking people than providing an answer. As we continued, I noted that whatever those particular conservatives were trying to accomplish, judged by their results they were failing.
Your own statement that we haven't nominated a conservative for President in over 20 years, including this year when the field was wide open and this particular group of conservatives was in full-attack mode since 2006, shows that they are better at attacking others than they are at getting conservatives nominated.
What BS! FReepers can engage in multiple issues at the same time.
I am a strong proponent in the ability of people to multi-task. I didn't say the attacks distracted them from acheivement, I said the strategy of attacking was the wrong strategy for acheivement, and further that nothing else they did seemed to be working either.
Just when do you expect to see results from your particular strategy? Can we afford to only elect a conservative once ever three decades?
What really has you so annoyed and upset, is Free Republic`s rejection of the liberal Mitt Romney's candidacy for president.
Actually, as I have said repeatedly, I would support any conservative that the "purists" could manage to support. Of course, there are a few Freeper polls that belie your hypothesis, but that's not important. What upsets me is we nominated John McCain, and elected Barack Obama, and lost a dozen or more good conservative representatives in the process.
If Romney runs again, I (as I said at the start of this thread that you mischaracterize as a Romney love-fest), I suspect he'll do no better than this time, and get no more support than he did before. And I think it will energy the particular group of conservatives who do very well when they have something to be against.
I was just kind of hoping that, between now and then, some of these haters would find time to actually try to do something constructive, and to actually discuss the issues (like card-check).
Your feelings are hurt
Anybody reading your reply to my first comment would conclude that it is you who are reacting emotionally, wearing your feelings on your sleeve, with your hatred of all things Romney.
In the end, the funny thing is the laugh me and my buddies get whenever I tell them about how there are some conservatives who actually call me a "moderate" or "liberal".
Your feelings are hurt.
>>>>>... some of these haters... with your hatred of all things Romney.
SOP for you WillardBots. Kind of silly and juvenile. Control your emotions.
>>>>>Fortunately for me, there is a "reply to" button, so anybody can go back and see what I actually said, and not have to believe your opinion of it.
If we put it to a vote, you'd lose.
>>>>>Just when do you expect to see results from your particular strategy? Can we afford to only elect a conservative once ever three decades?
Wanting to elect conservatives who support the Constitution is not a strategy. Its a way of life. You can't hide from the truth. Your support for Romney didn't help matters. What it did do, was help to fracture the GOP. Fact remains, you see rightwing opposition to candidates like Romney (and Giuliani) as wrongheaded. As if moderates, aka. centrist-liberals, have something to offer America. Wrong! Promoting Democrat-lite candidates isn't my idea of advancing conservatism. That is not purism, its a fact of life.
>>>>>... the funny thing is the laugh me and my buddies get whenever I tell them about how there are some conservatives who actually call me a "moderate" or "liberal".
You mean "buddies" with mindsets like David Brooks, Chris Buckley, David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Stuart Taylor and Michael Steele --- bunch of clowns. You all belong in a circus.
>>>>>If Romney runs again... I think it will energy the particular group of conservatives who do very well when they have something to be against.
Like opposing lifelong supporters of liberalism. Like opposing an unprincipled, two faced political chameleon named Mitt Romney. Yeah, I agree. Conservatives know our ideology and philosophy is without question, at the top of the political world. As I explained to you, convincing others who have been brainwashed by the liberal establishments education process, along with their media cohorts constant drumbeat of bias reporting against the good guys, is not an easy task to overcome.
You moderates constantly feed that center/center-left agenda beast that dwells in the GOP. Conservatives have had enough of you Rockefeller Republicans. The final chapter for the GOP hasn't been written yet, but who knows. You just might get your way someday. Conservatives might decide to move on and start our own party. Leaving the GOP in the hands of folks like you. Then when you fall flat on your face, you won't have anyone to blame but yourselves.
Until that day comes, if it ever does, I'll continue to agree with this man:
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."
~~~ President Ronald Reagan
If the Freeper opinion polls were still accessable (and maybe they are, but I can't find them anymore), we'd see that at some point a majority of freepers actually supported Romney, so I'm not sure of what any vote on FR would turn up.
But I would love to have an opinion poll for Freepers, where the membership could vote on the "conservatism" of other members, and maybe usefulness as well. It would be revealing to see exactly which freepers are considered people to be read and considered, and which are not.
I have no illusion that I'd be high on the usefulness scale, but it could be eye-opening. Alas, we'll never know.
Anyway, I only care that everybody can read what I write and make their own opinions, so they aren't beholden to inaccurate interpretations advanced by other freepers.
That is why when we have debates, I like to quote my opposition, because I want to make sure I am responding to actual words said, not my interpretation of them.
It helps to filter out those who idea of a debate point is generalization and ad hominen attacks.
SOP for you WillardBots. Kind of silly and juvenile
There is a poetic feel to the term "silly and juvenile" juxtaposed with childish namecalling.
Wanting to elect conservatives who support the Constitution is not a strategy. Its a way of life.
EXACTLY. I agree. So, what is your strategy for electing conservatives who support the constitution? I find that chasing away people who will vote for your conservatives is a very bad strategy. But it is very important not to confuse goals with strategy.
Further, since you can't simply wish to elect solid conservatives and have it happen, we need to focus on other, broader goals as well. For example, in order for the conservatives we CAN elect to have the power to actually protect the constititution, we need them to be part of a majority coalition, and we need a president who, if not conservative, is at least on the same side of the aisle and therefore not obstructive.
So, you need a strategy for getting your conservative candidates into a majority coalition. Electing opposition party members who are not conservative in order to prevent the election of same-party members who are not conservative may be part of a long-term strategy to replace moderates with conservatives, if you can actually achieve that goal, but where you can't, it's simply bad strategy to impose minority status on your conservative representatives for no good reason.
So, whe is better for the country? Suffering through a McCain presidency, or an Obama presidency? If you believe Obama cannot cause any permanent damage, or that McCain would, it might be an easy question to answer. But I don't think it is cut-and-dried, and it's not a question of thinking McCain a conservative, but of judging what bad result has the least damaging outcome.
That is a great debate to have, but you can't have it if you simply decide anybody who doesn't agree with you is a liberal and should be ignored. I believe that there are solid conservatives on both sides of that question.
In fact, it's naive to think that the only question is "electing conservatives". I think most of us here at FR would love to wake up tomorrow and have a house, senate, and presidency all populated by majorities of people like Coburn, Sessions, and the like. I know I wish we could have conservatives in the presidency. And I'm not even one of those conservatives who says we NEED to pick moderates to appeal to others.
Your perception is wildly off the mark, because you fail to understand the nature of our disagreement. I'm not sure for example what candidate you would put forward that I would not support, but if you did have a candidate I wouldn't support it wouldn't be because they were too conservative for me.
In fact, I don't know if I've ever met a candidate that was "too conservative" -- although there are some candidates who some call "conservative" that I don't see as conservative at all, and therefore reject.
Frankly, you should check out the man who represents the 13th district in the virginia house of delegates. He is my representative, I support him, I work for his election, and I would imagine he is exactly the kind of conservative that some people find "too conservative".
You mean "buddies" with mindsets like David Brooks, Chris Buckley, David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Stuart Taylor and Michael Steele
I've got some e-mails from David Frum which would belie your notion of "buddy". None of the others you mention cross my radar of "conservatives". I do think that there is a sizable contingent on FR who found Michael Steele to be conservative, I happen to like the guy but wouldn't judge him as particularly "conservative" except relative to the state he comes from.
Fact remains, you see rightwing opposition to candidates like Romney (and Giuliani) as wrongheaded.
Fact remains, I find nothing wrong-headed in opposing a Romney candidacy. I think it is important for conservatives to evaluate a candidate, and to oppose those they find wanting. It was months before I came to the point where I was willing to include Romney on the list of candidates I would support.
However, I found a lot of the opposition to Romney to be based on misleading arguments, or opinions (which are fine) presented as facts. Further, I found some of the opposition, while factual, to be what i considered unpersuasive, and argued those points.
I know it bugs some people, but I'd even defend Pelosi against an argument that I found without merit. Debating whether a particular argument has merit is exactly what thinking people should do, and sometimes it seemed people were upset not because of the debate, but because the arguments against there position were to hard to refute.
Thus, for example, I could easily post the items from Romney's presidential campaign literature, and ask those opposed to him to point out which of his proposals they disagreed with. Frankly, there were some I disagreed with, and I welcomed that type of discussion, but nobody ever really took that tact, instead making arguments about whether we could trust he would do what he said.
I never tried to persuade anybody that they should trust Romney if they said they didn't. But I believe that the issue of trust is not a conservative/liberal point.
In all honestly, I can't remember any debate I've ever had with you, where we came away in agreement. Not one. You never give me the impression that you comprehend exactly what conservatism is all about. You seem to take a nuanced approach and push pragmatism as the essence of politics, not sound principles. You're not someone with firm convictions either. Hence my reasoning as to why I call you, a moderate.
You don't write like a conservative, or engage in discussions concerning traditional values and beliefs that made this nation great. You never quote famous conservatives of recent vintage, like Buckley, Reagan and Gingrich. Nor do you point to the teachings of the great conservatives of the past, like Kirk, Burke and Locke. Also, you NEVER mention the Constitution, federalism, states rights, or the Founding Fathers either. At least that is what I've gathered from my experiences with you over several years.
And you continue to show a complete and utter lack of commonsense when it comes to your ongoing defense of Romney. A defense that seems to rise and fall with the political tide, or your mood of the moment.
Btw. The arguments that most FReepers offer to criticize and attack Romney, aren't misleading at all. Mostly I've seen detailed accounts related to his long political history associated with liberalism. Along with short, pointed verses that get to the meat of the issues.
You're missing the big picture. On FRee Republic, we don't debate liberalism and we don't support liberals. As Jim likes to say, FR is not a liberal debate society. For you to continually challenge that basic tenet of this forum, serves no good purpose. In addition, FReepers don't take kindly to politicos who have last minute conversions. Especially, when those conversions come on the eve of a new campaign season.
At no time during the most heated periods of the GOP primary season will you find Willard leading any poll of relevance. From April 2007 onward, conservatives Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter received the most support from FReepers. After they dropped out, the primary season was, for all intents and purposes, over and done with for most FReepers. If Romney led any FR Poll question, it was an afterthought and irrelevant. Once McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, FReepers became energized and motivated once again.
Two more quick points.
Right now, the conservative movement is seeking good men and women to lead us at this crossroads in history. OTOH. The GOP must decide if its going to rediscover its conservative roots, or be relegated to another 40 years in the wilderness.
Finally. Michael Steele is a weak link and he needs to go.
From last to first. Steele just won the office. The conservative movement offered no coherent choice, once again, and to say now that we have to kick out the guy that won the position is, if sincere, still a useless afterthought. The time to fight for the new chair was before, and the way to fight was to find a single conservative that could win the position, and support him.
Instead, we once again seem to have split the conservative support among several flawed choices, none of which could garner enough support, and in the end Steele became, for better or worse, the “conservative” alternative to the status quo. Don’t ask me how, I’m not one of the people who got to vote.
The only time Romney led a poll was when every conservative had fallen by the wayside. That doesn’t make Romney a conservative choice, it just means that a majority of the freepers, like me, found him more acceptable than the alternative of McCain or a Democrat. I know many freepers disagreed with that opinion, but I don’t think that makes a majority of the freepers who did “liberal”.
I never quote anybody, or if I ever did it is a very rare occurance. I’m certain my ideas are shaped by others, but I voice my opinion, I don’t argue by appealing to authority. I could certainly quote from people who were respected here, and I could find quotes that support my positions on issues, but authorities can be wrong, and an argument should stand on merit, not on the quotes of a respected authority.
I don’t know if you ever argued against me in a case where we would agree, or if you ever read any threads where I debate things other than the Romney threads. In fact, I don’t normally remember who writes what, so my only recollection of your posting is from your posts in the Romney threads, of which a majority are little more than calling people names, which is hardly a debate tactic.
I have firm convictions. I believe where we disagree is on our opinion of how much power we have to force our convictions on others. We can only elect those who are willing to serve, and then only those candidates who can appeal to a majority will take their seat of power.
Could I win a game of chess if you gave me 8 queens? Sure, but my pragmatic side would point out that it is virtually impossible to get 8 queens, or to get 5 aces in a game of poker. You play the hand you are dealt, you deal in the reality of the situation.
But tell me — if you were able to pick the President — ANYBODY you want — who would it be? Who among the living in America would be Reagan Man’s perfect President? Don’t worry about electability (I don’t think you worry about electability anyway, which I think is another disagreement we have) — you are the only vote. Who is the candidate you want us all to support? It doesn’t have to be a person who ran.
I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged in a conversation where you participated that was about issues, rather than personalities. This thread, which was supposed to be about Card Check, contains nothing from you about Card Check — but I’m guessing you an I are in agreement against this proposal. Who knows, since your participation in the thread was to attack the man who was, I believe, espousing a position we would both agree with.
I do think for myself, so if you searched the internet for my writings, you would find some things where I don’t agree with the orthodox conservative position. But I have no idea in what manner you think conservatives “write” that I don’t “write like”.
I will say that there isn’t much point at FR engaging in debates about traditional values and beliefs, because who would I be arguing against? If someone does post something in opposition to the orthodox conservative thought, there are hundreds ready to respond.
So I do tend to show up when I am debating against the orthodox position. In my opinion, in those cases mine is the correct conservative position, but that is what a debate is about.
But when it comes to discussing politicians, that’s a whole different ball came. Politicians are not issues, they are people. I would never have supported Romney if he wasn’t largely pushing the conservative positions I believed in. Many didn’t trust him, but trust is not a conservative or liberal issue. I believed he would not renege on his promises made during the campaign, and I liked most of what he was promising. He once supported liberal positions, and I had no way of knowing whether he was converted or pragmatic — I simply decided that of all the candidates who had ANY chance of winning the election, he had the best platform.
Again, I was not alone in that assessment, many solidly conservative people who had the opportunity to meet with Romney personally came to the same conclusion. They could be wrong — nobody knows what a man will do once they have the object of their desire — but it is not a question of values when deciding the truthfulness of a man’s statements.
Still, all that said, if you were to delve through my substantial postings here at FR, you would find ample examples of my discussions of all those things you say you never see in my posts.
If you listed your top 20 conservative ISSUES, it would be interesting if I found fault with ANY of them. If I listed my top 20 conservative issues. On the other hand, If I listed the top 15 conservative items from Romney’s web page, but didn’t say it was from Romney, I wonder how many you would disagree with.
Seems like that is most of the time. Nothing like exposing yourself for the moderate you are. Thanks
Poor memory is no excuse and neither is failing to understand that history binds people together when they have a common cause. In all your bloviating, you still show no substantive connection with conservatism.
All your assurances that you're a conservative have been way off the mark and unconvincing. You show no interest in advancing the conservative agenda. You support continuing the hierarchical GOP agenda --- 'vote for the lesser of two evils, support a moderate today'. LOL Well, that didn't work with McCain, Dole, Bush41, or Gerald Ford and in the end, it didn't work well with Bush43 either. And it won't work in 2012 with Romney either.
If you read FR's homepage and was honest with yourself, you might ask, 'what am I doing here?"
"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"
That forum statement has nothing to do with moderation or centrist policies and its not nuanced. We FReepers work to advance mainstream, Constitutional conservatism. We don't engage in rhetoric or activities that undermine the traditional values and beliefs of conservatism.
Like the Founders and Framers, FReepers don't belong to any political subset. We are the loyal rightwing of American politics and we're sick and tired of voting for Republicans, who amount to nothing more than caretakers for New Deal/Great Society liberalism that has been so prevalent and dominant in America over the last 75 years. A trend that has been resurrected and placed back on a fast track by the current President and Congress.
>>>>>I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged in a conversation where you participated that was about issues, rather than personalities.
Most of my posts to you on this thread had everything to do with issues of conservatism versus moderation. Personalities are always part of politics. You're problem is, you make yourself the issue.
Actually, you make me the issue. Not that you have any knowledge of that issue, but it doesn't stop you.
I have no interest in discussing me, I want to discuss issues, but I have seen no desire on your part to discuss issues. Even this response ignored my questions to you on issues -- just as you have ignored the issue of this thread entirely. Nobody reading this thread would have any idea where you stand on card-check legislation.
If you ever want to actually discuss an issue, I'll be happy to do so.
Yeah right. Seems the biggest issue for you to discuss on this forum is the TV show, "24", starring that ultra-liberal and talentless actor, Keifer Sutherland. Maybe we should look at one of the 66 threads you posted in a little over 4-years as a member of FR, mostly having to do with Mitt Romney. That's about one whole post a month. Wow.
If you're not discusssing "24" or how great a president Romney would be, we can always find you taking sides with the gestapo tactics of Johnny Sutton against border patrol agents Ramos and Compean. I also found your desire to see Obama suceed, to be quite eye opening.
Think I pegged you wrong. You're not a moderate, you're a liberal. LOL
>>>>>... but I have seen no desire on your part to discuss issues.
Then you're either blind, or a big fat liar. My posts #215, #218, #220, blows that dumb remark out of the water.
Lets remember, it was your at post at #205 that caught my attention and got the ball rolling. And it was all about Romney too.
>>>>>If you ever want to actually discuss an issue, I'll be happy to do so.
That was my intention at the beginning with my response to your reply at #205. You're out of your league, bucko.... err, mister moderate. LOL
Would you like to take on the 24 ping list? Feel free to ask the site's owner to shut it down, if you think it is inappropriate. Maybe you'd like to go after the Hobbit hole as well while you are at it. Wonder if you have the guts to go after the South Park ping list as well....
Maybe we should look at one of the 66 threads you posted in a little over 4-years as a member of FR, mostly having to do with Mitt Romney.
53 of the threads I posted had nothing to do with Romney; 5 others were about filings for primaries which included Romney; 2 were posts about personal endorsements of Romney; 2 were posts about the issues from Romney's campaign; 1 was a Mark Levin comment about McCain which also mentioned Romney; 1 was a Rasmussen poll which included Romney; and 2 were newspaper endorsements of Romney.
I imagine that for most people, 13 out of 66 would not be considered "most".
I don't initiate a lot of threads. I comment in threads. I read threads. It's rare that there's a news story about an issue that some other Freeper hasn't already posted.
we can always find you taking sides with the gestapo tactics of Johnny Sutton against border patrol agents Ramos and Compean.
So, which is the "conservative" side of a discussion in which armed members of the government shoot an unarmed suspect in the back? Is everything black and white to you?
also found your desire to see Obama suceed, to be quite eye opening.
Obama is the President of the United States. I want the United States to succeed. How do you think he could succeed if he did not in the end endorse conservative solutions? I presume you actually believe that conservative opinion is correct, and that we only succeed through the application of conservative solutions. Which means Obama cannot succeed unless he adopts conservative solutions.
I certainly don't want the United States to be destroyed simply because I dislike Obama's politics. I don't want American jobs to go away, our military to be decimated, our victory in Iraq be turned into failure, or our standing in the world be ruined.
I even wrote an opinion column explaining my position: To Succeed as President, Obama must Fail
Then you're either blind, or a big fat liar. My posts #215, #218, #220, blows that dumb remark out of the water.
You do realise that in 215, 218, and 220, you never once discuss an actual issue? What do you think "issues" are? You discussed politics, you discussed quotes, you discussed moderate, liberal, but you didn't discuss any issues. Issues are things, like gun control, religious freedom, abortion, stem cell research, where there are sides and people can apply conservative principles to determine how an issue should be dealt with.
Here is your entire text of post 215: Conservatives like winning elections. We just don't believe surrendering our principles in achieving that objective. 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.
Care to explain to the readers here what you think is the "issue" you discussed in that post? Winning elections? governing as conservatives? Good things, but not issues. CWA? You mention it, but you certainly didn't discuss the issues involved in CWA, like term limits (are conservatives for or gainst term limits?) fiscal responsibility, open government, being fair to the minority (how many conservatives are for giving the democratic minority power?)?
Lets remember, it was your at post at #205 that caught my attention and got the ball rolling. And it was all about Romney too.
Let's see the entire text of 205: 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.
Your response was to suggest I wanted Romney in 2012 (I should have thought the "strange reason" and "suffer" would be clues). A good response would be to articulate a plan for electing conservatives, but your response was nothing of the kind. I know you WANT to elect conservatives. I just don't see you telling us how you will achieve that goal. You failed in 2008, and blame everybody but yourself for that failure.
That was my intention [discussing issues] at the beginning with my response to your reply at #205.
Let's see your entire response to 205, found in 207. There is NOTHING in this post which discusses an issue: Still ingratiating yourself to anti-conservative posters and causes, I see. 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.
I think most Fred Thompson supporters were dissappointed that they failed to get Thompson the nomination. A few like you apparently thought it was a victory that you "got rid of" other nominees. Most of us think that an Obama presidency was a failure of conservatives in 2008.
Anyway, once you remember what an issue actually is, if you want to discuss one, go right ahead. In the meantime, don't hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back for failing to elect conservatives.
>>>>>... once you remember what an issue actually is, if you want to discuss one, go right ahead.
That's the best you can do? No wonder you get your clocked cleaned so often. LMAO
>>>>>Would you like to take on the 24 ping list? ... the Hobbit hole ... the South Park ping list as well....
No, I don't have time to be concerned about the juvenile fantasies of people like yourself. My point was, the most important and the most relevant issue to you on this forum in 2009, so far, has been the TV show "24". Its where you've made the greatest number of posts and where you've placed your greatest effort. A TV show is your idea of how best to spend your time on conservative Free Republic. Sorry, I'm not impressed.
>>>>>I imagine that for most people, 13 out of 66 would not be considered "most".
Okay. So, you had 14 other posted threads of your grand total of 66 threads posted in the 50 months you've been a member of this forum, attributed to one other single issue. What is that issue? I suggest you set up a dictionary add-on in your browser and use it. You'd be amazed how much you will learn.
>>>>>I don't initiate a lot of threads. I comment in threads. I read threads.
Right. You're just a lazy poster and not interested in contributing threads to the forum. You'd rather cherry pick threads posted by others. Ones that tickle your fancy and contain irrelevant political subject matter like, "24", Hobbit hole and South Park. Lets not forget, the unprincipled, two-faced political adventures of one Myth Romney.
Btw, I will always give Border Enforcement Agents the benefit of the doubt, at all times. Especially when the government officials involved have abused their power and placed the integrity of a well known drug smuggler, over law enforcement officials, who took an oath to defend American sovereignty. I was proud to join about a quarter million Americans in signing a petition for the pardon of Ramos and Compean. Bush should've pardoned them. The Presidents decision to commute their sentences was the next best thing. The fact that commutation pissed off the Mexican government was fine with me. My guess is, it pissed you off too. So be it.
And your explanation about why you want to see Obama succeed is convoluted at best. You should have your own show on msnbc. They'd love you.
Also, it was the GOP that lost in 2008, not conservatism. Rush, Hannity, Levin and other rightwing pundits made that crystal clear. As did many FReepers, myself included. Since you're not a conservative, I can understand why you can't grasp that simple fact. The GOP is the party apparatus. The conservative movement represents the ideology aspects. Someday, conservatism may entail both party and philosophy in one neat package. That will leave you holding up the moderate-liberal end of the GOP. Good luck with that.
You aren't very good at judging what other people are thinking or feeling.
You didn't raise any new issues or contribute to the debate
I had to spend some time correcting the errors in your previous post.
My point was, the most important and the most relevant issue to you on this forum in 2009, so far, has been the TV show "24". Its where you've made the greatest number of posts and where you've placed your greatest effort.
In case you didn't understand, the "24 Live" thread is a live thread for the show "24". It's a thread where conservatives can get together and pretend they are watching a show together. While there are a LOT of posts in such a live thread, they do not take any time, they are written in real time while the show is on, and are like comments made to someone sitting next to you watching the show. I spend one hour a week writing posts for the 24-live thread, the same hour I spend watching the show, which apparently strikes the fancy of some conservatives here at FR.
Okay. So, you had 14 other posted threads of your grand total of 66 threads posted in the 50 months you've been a member of this forum, attributed to one other single issue. What is that issue?
That's an interesting question. 15 of my threads are posts of my opinion column, but each column dealt with a different issue. I've never had a dictionary on my web browser, so I don't know how that would help. It didn't look to me with a cursory glance that any 14 of my threads were on any other particular topic. I'm pretty sure the 13 "Romney-related" topics were the most I did on any specific topic, with the Iraq War probably being the 2nd most. There may be even more dealing with the Webb-Allen 2006 Senate race since I live in Virginia.
I also had some vanity threads, most notably the "sick and tired of 'I'd hit it'" thread, and my christmas light vanity thread.
Right. You're just a lazy poster and not interested in contributing threads to the forum. You'd rather cherry pick threads posted by others.
You've been here a long time, so I would have thought you understood that we are supposed to try to use existing threads for discussions, not generate additional threads. It's not "the Freeper who dies with the most threads wins". It's certainly easy enough to post links to articles and excerpt them -- that's why we get so many duplicate threads. Your belief that commenting on a thread posted by someone else is "cherry-picking" is kind of bizarre.
The fact that commutation pissed off the Mexican government was fine with me. My guess is, it pissed you off too. So be it.
You should probably not quit your day job -- you won't make it as a mind-reader. I was quite satisfied that they had their sentences commuted, and would not have complained if Bush had reviewed the case and decided to pardon them. But I did not object to them being found guilty either. If we start picking and choosing when to trust the criminal justice system, the rule of law means nothing.
Also, it was the GOP that lost in 2008, not conservatism. Rush, Hannity, Levin and other rightwing pundits made that crystal clear.
You sound like the knight sitting on his butt with his arms and legs chopped off, yelling that you'll chop off the guy's kneecaps. Conservatives did not win in 2008. If we had, we'd have President Thompson, or President Hunter, or President Palin, or fill in whatever conservative YOU wanted to be President.
Conservatism is not dead, and Conservatism isn't a "losing philosophy". But CONSERVATIVES did not achieve their goals in 2008.
I'm surprised to see you mention Rush Limbaugh as a conservative given how much support he gave to Mitt Romney. Curious how you attack Freepers for making the best of a bad situation, but seem to give a pass to Rush who encouraged us to do so.
The conservative movement represents the ideology aspects.
The conservative movement is made up of people who hold to a conservative ideology and seek to apply it to our daily lives, our government, our society, and our communities. It is not a mutual admiration society, it is meant to be a force for action and results.
There is a debate raging about how we best achieve the conservative results we all want. I do not know if a Romney nomination would have acheived conservative results. I do know that what we got in his place achieved nothing, and cost us not only the reigns of power, but some good conservative congressman and senators as well in the process (along with some moderate/liberal ones as well, no big loss there).
I am not content to hold the "correct" ideology while the world collapses around me.
Your responses are typical for someone off in his own world. Nothing wrong with watching TV. However, you felt the need to defend the inordinate amount of time you spent this year, discussing issues related to a fantasy TV show --- "24" --- that have nothing to do with reality based issues of political conservatism. If being part of the pop culture-airhead mentality turns you on, have at it.
As for you correcting errors, that is a total falsehood. You agreed to having posted 66 threads and that 13 had to do with Romney.
>>>>>I'm pretty sure the 13 "Romney-related" topics were the most I did on any specific topic,
So what is your problem?
Then you felt it was necessary to give me your opinion on what is and what is not, an issue. Now I know. You're of the opinion, that "Winning elections?... governing as conservatives?...[and the] CWA?" aren't issues. They're just "Good things". Whatever that means. LOL
I raised several relevant issues, in turn, you made yourself the issue with your predilection for fictional debates/discussions centering around "24", along with "Hobbit hole" and "South Park". At least that's what you posted to me.
I agree with you, duplicate threads on FR serve no good purpose. But that is a far different issue, then not posting your own threads in favor of cherry picking subject matter that appeals to your strange interests. Face it, its lazy.
On the issue of Ramos and Compean, you're talking out both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, if Bush pardoned Ramos and Compean, that would've been okay with you. OTOH, you didn't object to them being found guilty either. Hmmm.
>>>>>Conservatism is not dead, and Conservatism isn't a "losing philosophy". But CONSERVATIVES did not achieve their goals in 2008.
True, we conservatives didn't attain our objectives in 2008. But I never said conservatism was dead, or that it was a "losing philosophy" either. The blame for the GOP losing in 2006 and 2008 falls squarely on the shoulders of Republican insiders and their penchant for embracing political moderation.
Finally, Rush never endorsed Romney for POTUS and he never called him a conservative. Why so many talk radio hosts backed Romney had more to do with their hatred for McCain and Huckabee, then it did with their acceptance of Willard as a viable candidate. After all, Romney finished in third place.
I say, no more RudyMcRombee's. PERIOD!
>>>>>I am not content to hold the "correct" ideology while the world collapses around me.
That is the difference between a principled conservative like myself and you, an unprincipled moderate. Carry on, if you must.
There are some who believe R&C saw a weapon, and therefore were justified in firing. There are some, like the jury, who did not believe that. I have no way of knowing the truth, I can only evaluate all the evidence and make a judgment. And when I evaluate the evidence, I see enough reason to believe they shot an unarmed man. Part of that evidence is that the prosecutors who reviewed the evidence, the jury that heard the evidence, the judges who oversaw the process, and the President and his staff, all found it reasonable that the men were guilty.
If the jury had aquitted them, it would be evidence that the facts presented weren't persuasive. If Bush had pardoned them, it would be evidence he found something compelling in their story. IF the appeals court had overturned the verdict, it would be evidence there really was a problem with the prosecution.
So in fact my statement is about the process more than some personal opinion of mine. Personally, I wish they were not guilty. I wish there was evidence Davila was armed and dangerous, and that the shooting was justified.
I've got a good track record around this forum when it comes to exposing parsing moderates like you.
I think the moderator comment was indicative of your track record.
As for you correcting errors, that is a total falsehood. You agreed to having posted 66 threads and that 13 had to do with Romney.
I didn't "agree", I corrected your error, in which you claimed most of the 66 threads were about Romney.
You're of the opinion, that "Winning elections?... governing as conservatives?...[and the] CWA?" aren't issues. They're just "Good things". Whatever that means. LOL
Winning elections and governing as conservatives are not issues. And typing the acronym "CWA" is not a discussion. We win elections so we can deal with issues. We govern as conservatives because that is how we will deal successfully with issues. Issues are gun control, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, card check, protecting the unborn, cutting taxes, ending the death tax, stopping the global warming alarmists, oil drilling, building nuclear power plants, opening up ANWR, making government more open and transparent, appointing strict constitutionalist judges, protecting personal freedom, ending the misuse of emminent domain -- those are issues. "Winning an election" is an event. "Governing as conservatives" is a process.
the Contract With America dealt with issues. It is what made it successful. Is there something about an issue in the CWA that you wanted to discuss? Term limits? Are they conservative or liberal? That's an interesting discussion.
Finally, Rush never endorsed Romney for POTUS and he never called him a conservative.
Right on the 1st, wrong on the 2nd. Not that Rush has the power to declare people conservative or not. Rush of course never "endorsed" anybody, but it was clear he had candidates he liked more than Romney, as most of us did.
But you clearly understand the concept of the "lesser of two evils", as you say: "Why so many talk radio hosts backed Romney had more to do with their hatred for McCain and Huckabee, then it did with their acceptance of Willard as a viable candidate."
For many of us, support for Romney, or Huckabee, or even those who did actually support McCain, it seemed we were all doing so more for what the alternatives were than because of a real love for a particular candidate. Thompson was the closest thing to a candidate I didn't feel I was "settling" for, but he had his ideological flaws in addition to his political ones.
Don't get me wrong, I know there were people even here at FR for whom Romney, or Huckabee, or Guiliani, or even McCain WERE their first choice and their "positive choice". I wasn't one of those.
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.