Posted on 01/17/2012 5:46:32 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
It would be wonderful to rally behind a solid conservative with charisma, with the intellect and oratorical skills to effectively articulate and defend a consistent conservative philosophy. But as Ann Coulter pointed out, Ronald Reagan isn't running this year.
So we're left with this lot, every one of whom is flawed in one way or another, from Gingrich's environmentalism (to the point of appearing in an ad with Nancy Pelosi), to Michele Bachmann's running a campaign so inept that her entire New Hampshire staff quit (as, by the way, Gingrich's senior staff did, too) and the Tea Party, whose values she purports to represent, urged her to drop out.
The question really boils down to priorities, and precisely because we don't have a Ronald Reagan running this year, we're left with an either/or choice: Should the priority be standing on principle, or should it be defeating Obama? I suspect that the Romney Denialists fall into the former camp and I freely admit that that's a respectable strategy. It was, in fact, the strategy in '64 and we all know what happened: Goldwater got creamed -- but it set the stage for the conservative resurgence and Reagan's election in 1980.
It also enabled LBJ to enact Medicare and Medicaid. Those contemplating staying home on Election Day rather than vote for Romney might want to consider the virtual impossibility of repealing either program today and then decide how much they relish the prospect of trying to repeal ObamaCare if Obama is reelected and his signature "achievement" becomes equally entrenched.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Try reading more carefully. ‘Stealth Romneybots’ was what I wrote. Do you consider yourself one of the Romneybots? Did I write that you were a Romneybot? Prickly feelings do not serve you well.
The sad fact is that it is the ideas Obama represents which must be defeated, if future generations are to live in liberty.
To accomplish that task requires a candidate who can speak so passionately and authentically of America's founding ideas that a majority of individuals will be convinced of the badness of the ideas and vote against the man they may possibly like as a person.
Minorities, especially, need to know that America's founding ideas are the ideas which offer them individual liberty, opportunity, prospects for success and prosperity, and escape from an existence which is the product of "other" ideas which lead to dependency and slavery to government.
The conservative candidate in 2012 who seems most likely able to articulate the ideas of liberty to generations who've probably never heard them before is Gingrich, warts and all.
“My only principle is in selecting the candidate most
likely to beat obama”
Me too.
I won’t do anything to help Rom get the nomination but
if he is then I will do whatever I can to get him elected.
And if Rommie gets elected then I’ll take my poll vaca-
tion in 2016 if needed, after evaluating his record and
weighing other options.
Am I tired of voting against a candidate (read Obama)?
You bet! But if it ends up being the only game in town
then point me to the voting booth.
“If the GOP doesn’t want a conservative candidate, conservatives will be happy to run a third party conservative candidate in the general election.”
Has it occurred to you that the GOP-e might be hoping for that to happen?
That what the democrats want, not the GOP.
“But our top priority of all should be defeating Barack Obama, even if Mitt Romney is the candidate we run.”
Yes! We must support Menshevik collectivists in order to thwart Bolshevik collectivists!
By the way, I reject utterly and with absolute contempt whatever your definition of ‘we’ is. I am -not- part of your ‘we’.
“Reagan broke through, but he worked to take over the party from the precinct up too. Conservatives were able to agree on him. So what needs to be done: All the conservative Republicans need to get out there and become precinct chairmen/women, and vote for conservative leadership in the party.”
You’re absolutely right, but that’s not what is happening. Traditional conservatives are so enthralled with the circular firing squad that they’re going to end up marginalizing themselves.
Some other folks have taken the Reagan strategy and are running with it. But they aren’t traditional conservatives.
“At least be intellectually honest. This is not DU.”
Intellectual honesty would recognize that Romney is a distinction without a difference.
This is not DU, and persistent, lickspittle party whores will not stampede the people here to vote for hemlock over arsenic.
“That what the democrats want, not the GOP.”
Of course the democrats want that. But I might politely suggest re-considering your premises regarding how the GOP-e sees the election salting out, and what victory might look like from their perspective.
So the GOP doesn’t care if they lose there base, the bulk of there party? They have already lost most of us, read all the threads. 1 in 10 will vote for mitt and the rest of us are walking. People who try to control the masses will eventually be found out. If the RNC want to win, which I doubt, they will start treating Romney like they did the conservative candidates.
Only thing to do is pray that God helps bring forth candidates with a servant's heart, intelligence, and reliance on Divine providence to restore our Nation, and people worthy of the bounty provided by God.
excerpt “from Gingrich’s environmentalism...”
There is no longer any reason to continue with this lie. Newt has has testified in the House stronger against GoreBull Warming than I have seen ANY of the other candidates speak against it.
People who are still putting this charge out against him are lying - they know the truth - they just hope no one else does. I expected more form the American Thinker, but I guess when you’re in th tank for the RomBot, anything goes.
Here is Newt testifying - in his best plain language - in the House...in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related
Oh, BTW, RomBot on GoreBull warming in 2011 and wont’ back down- anyone asking him about this?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56580.html
Oxymoron. Romney will lose, period. Even Obama's people are admitting it now, they are slavering on themselves, waiting for Mittens.
Get a clue. Running "None of the Above" would be preferable to running the cipher Romney.
Stop the defeatist garbage.
Never, EVER sell out!
BTTT.
The RNC types saw the returns from 2006 and 2008 -- they were branded on their foreheads. That's what the Party gets, doing things their way.
Contrast that with 2010, with the Tea Party leading and Sarah Palin out there working for GOP candidates.
And still they insist that the proles come 'round and Come to Daddy? Hell no!
She said she won't run.
Still, I hope she changes her mind .... or that Someone changes it.
“Never, EVER sell out!”
Kapos will never understand. They were born to sell out.
“So the GOP doesn’t care if they lose there base, the bulk of there party?”
I don’t think that the traditional conservatives at this point make up the majority of the party. Where is all this support for mitt coming from? While you could argue that it’s crossover voting, I think that’s just denial.
I think the GOP-e has had enough of what they view as a noisy rabble and is willing to watch the noisier ones simply leave. They believe, and I think that they’re correct in this, that if they run someone like mitt, the bulk of self identified conservatives might grumble, but they’ll vote for him.
While I have no doubt that the bulk of FReepers won’t vote for mitt if he’s the nominee, I don’t that’s particularly reflective of the GOP base. Zotting RINOs isn’t an option in the real world.
In my view, there are three broad ideological groups wrestling for control within the GOP. You have to get two out of three in order to win. The GOP-e, nominally led by mitt romney is one. The traditional conservatives, who really don’t have a leader is the second. And the smallest and newest is the libertarians who are of course led by the Paul faction. (Full disclosure: I’m a supporter of the Paul faction) While I would prefer that traditional conservatives get with the Paul faction and make a deal, I don’t think it likely. Traditional conservatives can’t seem to agree on a nominee amongst themselves let alone broker a deal with the other elements within the party. I think it more likely that the GOP-e and the libertarians will come to a deal.
Politicians are only relevant when they are spending other people’s money. When there is no money it doesn’t matter...
In some ways it could be argued that a Mitt Milquetoast presidency would be worse than another Obamby admin. More harm has been done to this country by a liberal Republican President with a amicable Republican led Congress than with a divided government, i.e. a donkey President and an elephant Congress.
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.