Posted on 01/04/2012 2:42:58 PM PST by Syncro
IOWA SHOWS REPUBLICANS DETERMINED TO BEAT OBAMA
January 4, 2012It's been a mixed week for Mitt Romney's campaign. On one hand, Romney won Iowa, but on the other, he was endorsed by John McCain.
Until the first actual votes were cast Tuesday night, it appeared as if some elements of the Republican Party were becoming the mirror image of a liberal mob.
The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."
Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.
And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus state like Iowa.
But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.
The reason the Iowa caucuses rarely produce the party's eventual nominee is not because Iowans are wacky white Christians, as some in the media have claimed, but because caucuses are ridiculous ways to choose a presidential candidate. It is a process that empowers the pushy and loud, much like a Manhattan co-op board meeting, but, unfortunately, not like anything envisioned by our founding fathers.
Instead of arguing for hours in public with partisans in order to cast a ballot, voters are supposed to put on their shoes, fight off the Black Panthers on the way to their precincts, vote in private and go home.
So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won. Read More »
You do know, don't you, that it was Bob Dole's turn ..... what, you begrudge a good, hale-fellow Rotarian Republican his turn ... ?
But your last point is, I think, a good one: Ann is being driven by a hitherto-unrecognized (by me), but very strong, social-affinity bias that cuts across her stated purpose of bringing real conservatives to political power, in order to undo the social and economic damage of 80 years of liberal beavering away at bringing East Germany to America.
I stopped reading her column four weeks ago.
I stopped reading her column four weeks ago.
"Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he's good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He'd be Ted Kennedy if he didn't believe in God."
Just wow. Coulter has gone off the deep end.
I did read that. Well, if voting for the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarks in general disqualifies Santorum as a fiscal conservative despite his representing PA, then I never EVER want to hear that Romney should be excused for saying or doing X because he was in MA.
You asked Blackelk whom you shouod vote for. All three of us have taken the same jouney. I backed Palin because she is a game changer who would have directly challenged the Establishment in the right way, forthe right reasons. Shewould have certainly forced a realignment.
Then I went to Cain, despite misgivings about 999 because of his positions and persona. All along, Ithought Santorum was just as principled. In light of the big picture, an endorsement of a lefty pub Sen in exchange for two SCOTUS votes, general pattern of earmark support as senator from a NE state with two big cities and a big loss to Casey Jr in a Dem wave year in a Dem state isn’t that bad. 2006 now seems so very long ago. Vs Perry, I think Santorum’s conservatism is reasoned and structured, wheras Perry’s is prmarily of the heart (which isn’t a bad thing, it is just better to have both)
As far as electBiliTy is concerned, no one has mentioned that Italian-descended Italian Americans are proud of their ethnic heritage, and like it or not, it influences votes. I remember a Greek deli owner who wouod have fit in fine with FR, but Dukakis was Greek, so he backed the Greek. Santorum will bring in votew fron unexpectedurban/suburban centers for the same reason. The fact that he is clean of mob connections unlike Pelosi and ferraro’s families, is an added. onus and speakz well of him.
From that we can only conclude that if Coulter didn’t believe in God, she would be Meghan McCain.
The iportant one was "most improved,", Santorum.
Thanks!
You and others of the same ilk will never be able to shove Free Republic's head down into the sand.
Oh and thanks for the zot/banning suggestion for me.
That's been tried before, and all of the misconstruants are hanging out in the ether now.
Oh, she will read it here, guaranteed!
Plus I ain't too good at twitter.
Coulter did not say **we should kill all Muslims and convert their countries to Christianity**, she said "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christainity"
Just setting the record straght, and she is 100% correct. Now that is a solution!
There aren't many that actually hate Romney.
Most posts are about his policies, which are not conservative, and should be exposed.
Be careful about broadbrushing a group.
Dr. Zoo has done a dissertation on The Eye of Jaundice, Critical Prejudice and it's Effect on Posting at FreeRepublic.Com
It may be out of print...
Oh BTW, Dr. Zoo is a muze uzer. (That's a good thing)
That would be...ummm....errr....
Hmmm, not much that means anything.
Romney/McCain = McCain/Romney
“reason prevailed. Romney won. “
I wouldn’t consider that evidence of reason’s triumph.
I have been here since 1998, first as Zevonfan, then due to a login problem in the early part of the 2000s as my current handle, Zevonismymuse. Whatever you think of my opinion it has nothing to do with a lack of familiarity with FR and Freepers. I don't care who you support but I am a little surprised that you think the priority is "to promote conservatism in order to defeat Romney." I would think the objective is to promote conservatism in order to defeat Obama and the threat to Liberty over which Obama presides.
I didn’t mean to imply that you haven’t been around for a while. I wqs just describing a “here we go again” feeling that, in my opinion calls for a stronger response.
The war is for a conservative restoration. Dispatching Romney and Obama are battles in that war. I am of the opinion that a Romney nomination and/or election means critical disenfranchisement of conservatives for the foreseeable future, making the fight against Romney of the same importance as the fight against Obama, in some ways moreso.
That is my opinion, and my posts reflect that.
I didn’t mean to imply that you haven’t been around for a while. I wqs just describing a “here we go again” feeling that, in my opinion calls for a stronger response.
The war is for a conservative restoration. Dispatching Romney and Obama are battles in that war. I am of the opinion that a Romney nomination and/or election means critical disenfranchisement of conservatives for the foreseeable future, making the fight against Romney of the same importance as the fight against Obama, in some ways moreso.
That is my opinion, and my posts reflect that.
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.