Posted on 05/18/2011 7:00:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Unfortunately, there are some FReepers who refuse to consider "electability."
Articulating conservatism increases someone’s “electable” status, despite what the elitists think - that one must be “pallatable” to the “moderates”.
(And with the exception of Gingrich and Paul, there are no Southerner candidates in a party allegedly captured by the South.)
Right. Herman Cain is from New York City? The writer is a jackass.
“Electability” got us a nominee last time around named “McCain.” Remind us how that crap worked out.
Since he doesn’t mention Herman Cain it’s obvious that he is ignoring him or thinks he doesn’t have a chance. Personally, I could vote for him
Then there are Freepers who allow the state run media to define who’s ‘electable’.
I considered electability with John McCain and didn’t support him in the primaries for a host of reasons, that included. I was proven right.
I wasted my vote on the party nominee.
That won’t happen again.
1. I’ll not vote for anything other than a conservative.
2. I will vote for some conservative over a party nominee who isn’t pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, and pro-America.
Winning.
You are wrong. It got us McCain because the LSM pushed him on to us.
WE MUST NEVER MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE
OK, let me put the following Achilles Heels for each candidates who have signalled their intention of running.
Perhaps you can refute or correct me.
ACHILLES HEELS (ADD YOURS HERE and/or REFUTE ME ):
Mitt Romney : ROMNEYCARE ( unrepentant ). Need I say more?
Newt Gingrich : Talks a good conservative game but when push comes to shove, shows his RINO colors.
Supported pro-choice liberal Dede Scozzafav in the NY-23 GOP Congressional race over Tea Party candidate, Doug Hoffmann. When Dede lost, she turned around and ENDORSED the Democrat.
Let’s not forget Newt’s attack on Paul Ryan’s budget as “right wing” social engineering and his support of a “variation” of the individual healthcare mandate. ‘Nuff said
Mitch Daniels : Pro-Amnesty, Uncomfortable with defending social conservatism. Weak on foreign policy.
Tim Pawlenty : Supported Cap and Trade.
Ron Paul : Foreign Policy nut case, sure to evicerate the military. Said that killing Osama Bin Laden was not necessary. Wants tolegalize Heroin and Prostitution ( need I say more ?).
Herman Cain : Against auditing of the Fed. Articulate on many things but NOT foreign policy (some say he also tried playing the reverse race card but I have no proof of this ).
Michelle Bachmann : A pork-bareller for her district in Minnesota as a Congresswoman.
Ric Santorum: Supported the liberal double turncoat, Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the PA Senate race.
Ric Perry : Pro-Amnesty. Mandated STD vaccine of Gardasil for Girls in Texas Public Schools (some say his ties with the drug company, Merck are too deep ).
That’s the playing field of those who have made their INTENTION known.
Anybody have their PERFECT candidate?
“You are wrong. It got us McCain because the LSM pushed him on to us.”
Who are the arbitors of electability? Who defines it if not the MSM? Of course they pushed that lying sack of crap on us, because they KNEW it would divide the party and allow an easier Obama victory, but they used “electability” to do it.
The comments on that thread are interesting.
I keep reading and reading and reading on all of the “potential” candidates and I still come down on putting my support behind Cain unless Palin announces.
The rest just give me a feeling of “UGH!” I could vote for Bachmann and out of the Romney-Newt-Daniels-Pawlenty crowd, I may be convinced to vote for Daniels.
My vote isn’t about me. I will vote for the GOP nominee because either the Democrat or the Republican will win in 2012. Any vote that isn’t for the GOP is complicit in Obama’s success. For me, voting is not about making me feel good about myself. Instead, it will be a choice that I will probably once again describe as the lesser of 2 evils. But what’s new here? When has it not been that? 2012 will be my 10th presidential election and this time for me, stopping Obama is the most important factor in the election.
It looks like you have a beef with every candidate. You might as well stay home, because there will be no candidate you will be 100 percent satisfied
Kinda like the Democrats and Independents getting behind an unknown entity, just because he's Black and an obvious way to dismiss the past 8 years. Yeah, winning as the be-all, end-all of campaign logic works well, doesn't it?
Nope. I’m voting principle this time. I’ve done it the other way around for quite a while, and I’m done with it.
Voting for an unelectable, moderate rino is just as complicit as anything else. McCain was a loser and I knew it from the beginning. I wasted my vote. I could at least have stood up for my principles.
My hope is to encourage a king-maker, conservative party that will have the option election-to-election to throw in with a conservative republican or to go their own way.
The Pubs cannot win without the conservatives. They need to have that hammered forcefully home
LLS
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.