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.