Posted on 12/26/2011 1:10:12 PM PST by neverdem
There seems to be a common line of demarcation separating two basic factions on the political right in the various skirmishes we have fought against Barack Obama, from their markedly different approaches to the budget battles to their differences in sizing up the GOP presidential candidates.
On one side we have the more moderate group, which is more cautious, less risk averse, less excitable, self-consciously pragmatic and more tolerant toward an establishment ruling class, even if not per se establishment itself. On the other side are those who perceive more urgency in our current national condition, are more adamant about adhering to conservative principles to reverse this catastrophe and reject the charge that they are recklessly purist.
Many from the first group have urged restraint and pragmatism in the budget negotiations, insisting it was too risky to force a government shutdown with Obama, that the big prize is 2012 and the best way to secure it is to avoid taking a hard line, which would hand Obama 2012 propaganda ammunition.
In each round of budget battles, with a spirit of defeatism and resignation, they warned against Republican brinksmanship, because they were convinced Obama would automatically win every PR victory. It was as though they had forgotten who'd won the 2010 congressional elections.
Obviously, they didn't believe Republicans could convince the electorate that they had the better argument, even though they were the ones drawing a line in the sand on spending, which was what caused the crisis. Also, they had no confidence that Republicans could persuade voters that Democrats were lying when they said that the government would actually default on its major obligations.
The first group seemed less outraged that the entire ruling class, including our GOP guys, allowed mere reductions in spending increases to be called spending cuts. Nor were they as troubled when our guys, instead of saying, "Sorry, folks, this is the best we can do under a dishonest socialist president," came closer to saying, "Hey, we've achieved a pretty good deal here in real terms."
This group assured us it was holding its major firepower for the 2012 elections. Yet 2012 is here, and they still seem reluctant to bring out the heavy artillery. They are giving their full-throated support to Mr. Caution himself, Mitt Romney, once again saying we can't afford the risk of putting our support behind someone more conservative.
It appears they believe that national elections are a zero-sum game with a fixed number of voters in both the Democrat and Republican camps, and that whichever candidate attracts more independents (who are always presumed, in this static analysis, to constitute 20 percent of the electorate) will win.
This reasoning strikes me as flawed because: a) twice as many people self-identify as conservatives than as liberals (this is different from party ID, but still); b) history invalidates the theory -- e.g., Reagan; c) no one really knows what the amorphous term "independent" means; d) with a president as extremist and destructive as Obama, independents are much less likely to fall his way, and more likely to be receptive to conservative ideas, because they represent the opposite of Obama's failed policies, and e) it discounts the various aspects of voter intensity: 1) certain candidates will energize their base more, 2) certain ones might alienate some in their base so badly they stay home, and 3) certain ones may scare the otherwise apathetic independents and even members of the opposite party to vote for the other guy.
The first group, generally speaking, is falling into Romney's camp, arguing that he is the safest bet and that we can't afford any risks, given the enormity of the stakes. I'm just not so sure. So many number-crunching Republican analysts said he was a shoe-in for the nomination in 2008, but their static analysis failed. Romney does not energize the base, especially the tea party, or anyone else for that matter. His appeal is not that he inspires, but that he supposedly doesn't repel. But in fact, to the contrary, he does repel a good number of conservatives, because they don't trust him in general and/or don't trust he's a conservative.
Ironically, many who've laid claim to sober, adult political analyses the past few years and have scolded others for their alleged harshness in attacking Obama are the very ones who have thrown caution overboard in their relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery of Newt Gingrich.
Though recognizing his weaknesses, I prefer Newt Gingrich over Mitt, and Rick Santorum and maybe Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann over both. But without hesitation, I'll vote for Romney should he get the nomination. Can the Romney supporters say the same about Newt?
Don’t freak out.
The only reason Obama’s approval is rising right now, is because the GOP are stupidly attempting to destroy each other.
At some point, one will win. Then the real contest begins.
If Romney doesn't get the nomination, his supporters will probably vote for Obama, just as they did in 2008.
Reread what you quoted. David’s first choice was Santorum. Newt was at best his 2nd choice and “maybe” his 4th. The only argument I hear against Santorum is “he can’t win,” which is always based on the circular logic that no body is saying he can win. In a year in which the majority of the one time leaders in the race were previously deemed unelectable for the then same reasons, and in when no real votes have yet been cast, the case against Santorum is incredibly weak.
Though recognizing his weaknesses, I prefer Newt Gingrich over Mitt, and Rick Santorum and maybe Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann over both.
I will write in my dog, rather than vote for Romney. If I am to have a socialist, I want one that is outed.
After a lot of back-and-forth on the subject, that’s the conclusion I’ve come to. If a socialist is going to take this nation down (and if either Romney or Obama get elected this is a given), let the left take all the responsibility for it. I don’t want even the name of conservativism anywhere near this coming fiasco.
I doubt that because they share a last name would automatically mean that they endorse the same person.
Rush will get behind the GOP frontrunner. He didn’t like McCain but in the end, urged his voters to pull the lever for him. I just hope he doesn’t try to launch another Operation Chaos. Maharushi dropped the ball on that one.
Like us, he is aware of the danger of reelecting the Kenyan.
God help our Republic.
Guaranteed, he would lose. I’d rather he lose by a HUGE margin than a moderate margin, to teach the #@&*%##!! GOP elitists not to force liberal Rs on us every again.
But I’m hoping that someone else makes it to the slot.
So do I, although Gingrich only looks 'conservative' next to socialist Romney.
MISread it ..however, I do not consider Santorum or Bachmann as even a possibility so that leaves...Perry and Newt. So far Newt is doing better in the polls so that would leave Newt or Romney. lol..okay I am looking on the bright side here.
Oh how I remember that POS Webb
There is a substantial portion of the Republican Party whose political identity centers around its ability to “work with” the Democrats. If the Democrats were totally defeated, this faction of the party would lose its political identity. Consequently, this faction of the Republican Party can be relied upon to oppose anything that would harm the Democrats enough that they’d be at risk of ultimate defeat.
The dominance of 'progressives' in the Republican establishment is fairly obvious. Unfortunately, the party has moved so far 'left' that a quasi-progressive, e.g., Gingrich, is legitimately labeled as 'conservative'. Thus the 'moderate'/'conservative' designations. However, like most FReepers, I'm well aware of the difference.
I am prepared to vote for any candidate, except Romney. And, unfortunately, I believe Obama will win.
I didn't post the 1st link as archeological chat because archeology in Jerusalem is politcal. This is a tough nut for the Muzzies to swallow because it undermines their claim of Jewish Israelis just being European colonists. This ancient seal is important to the Israelis' public relations argument to the rest of the world, IMHO.
Ancient seal found in Jerusalem linked to ritual
We Know More About Jesus's Birth Than Obama's Which Hawaiian hospital was Obama born in now?!
The Danger of a New Medical Care 'Bioethics'
State of Denial: How New York May Squander Its Energy Boom Junior Hamlet on the Hudson has to pick between the environazis and the people!
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah & Happy New Year!
Here’s the real truth, in my NSHO....
We’re lost. Most people in the country are naturally conservative, yet liberals elites run everything.
Tell me, what conservatives are out there to vote for, Republican OR third party????
None.
They’ve all been successfully attacked and killed politically (Palin, Cain, etc) by the elites or flipped to the liberal elite side (Nikki Haley, for example).
Face it folks, you have to be a liberal to be president of the United States. The elites, epsecially in Hollywood and the media, will not suffer a conservative to be successful nationally.
The cold, stark truth is 2012 is a bust for us. We either go with the RINO, or we’re stuck with Obama. There is no good choice at all.
I believe I am going to write in Palin; but that won’t be enough. My state will vote for the RINO over Obama, so I won’t be throwing my vote away, like some would say.
My prediction is Obama wins reelection. The RINO will not get the votes, and the Hollywood and media types will rip him to shreds anyway. We are SO screwed!
I can’t stand nor do I trust Gingrich. At all.
I'm not sure about that. I've posted articles about exit polls for 2006, 2008 & 2010. IIRC, moderates and independents swung 2006, and independents swung 2008 & 2010. Enter 20xxexitpoll as a keyword where xx is 06, 08 or 10. Check my posts and see for yourself.
Well, I made up my mind. I’m voting for Rick Perry, whatever the outcome. He is a strong conservative who never cheated on his wife. The guy may not the be the most polished talker of the bunch, but his core beliefs are sound and he is authentic. He is not perfect, but I like him the most of the weaklings we have running for the GOP nomination, and that’s it!
This is not some damned hillbilly state with the KKK running things (although maybe it is considering Webb won).
It is profoundly stupid for this state to be part of Super Tuesday but none of the people here get a shot at voting for their candidates.
2006 was controlled by people who don’t approve of Republican homosexuals.
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.