>>>>>... 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.