Posted on 08/03/2012 1:26:47 PM PDT by Bratch
Don’t buy the doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives telling you, “this is the most important election in history.” A loss for Mitt Romney would not necessarily spell long lasting disaster for Republicans, nor would it be the death-knell to conservatism. In fact, it’s possible a 2012 loss could lay the groundwork for a stronger Republican party and conservative movement.
Elections are almost always seen as urgent and morally imperative. But sometimes major victories can only come in the aftermath of what appear to be devastating defeats. John Kerry‘s loss in 2004 laid the groundwork for a Democratic takeover in 2006 and 2008, and Jimmy Carter‘s defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976 paved the way for the Ronald Reagan in 1980. In other words, it is a mistake to assume losing a presidential election is a permanent defeat.
“This should be the most important election since 1980, but so far it is not,” says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. “Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle postulated the ‘great man’ theory of history, and indeed this was true with Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and Reagan. But history has not summoned forth great men in 2012 and in fact our history today is small.”
This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I’ve got friends here that are going to vote for Romney because he’s got an (R) or because they are scared.
I don’t propose we zot them.
***I don’t think we should zot them either, until they cross the line. JimRob needs to establish that line.
Such things as saying, “so you’re gonna vote for Obama” or “a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Obama” or “this is iciocy/lunacy/insanity, OBVIOUSLY there’s only a choice between evil1 and evil2” or “give up your principles” or half a dozen other things.
It is time for all the ‘it’s ok to lose this election’ crap to end. I do not like Romney. I do like America. I do not want to see a second Obama term. That would be an unmitigated disaster.
Do you need a refresher? The President makes Judicial appointments. Unless we have a Senate majority of non-RINO conservative senators, we will get what we diserve if Obama is making those appointments.
There are many other differences...do you want four more years of Obama’s ‘Czars’? They are doing terrible damage to this country. And there is NO Congressional oversight.
Do you want more ‘Executive Orders’ that undermine the Constitution...that undermine all that America is supposed to be...that was laid out by the Founders for those of us to follow?
Think Keystone pipeline...think Gulf drilling...think all that this president does, has done and will do more of if he is reelected. Total disaster. The Chinese are about to lock up the oil that would have been ours if the Keystone pipeline were built (on schedule).
It is not about a Mitt Romney loss. It is about a Barack Obama win. Do not let it happen.
Folks are also scared. I can't be scared ever again. Personal experience knocked that crap out of me.
Time to offer the balm of loving kindness, and a firm hell no, I'm not voting against my principles.
This too shall pass. Like all the other times.
I'm tough enough that I can shrug off the attacks. I know I'm not voting for Obama. I know I'm not voting for anyone that enabled abortion in their legislative history.
I don't mind being called an idiot, or insane because I stand by not killing babies.
Deep breath and move forward. ;)
/johnny
I proposed to JimRob that he establish that line for the sake of peace on both sides. His response seems to be... zotting Rogue Yam. Maybe you can make sense of it where I cannot.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2905011/replies?c=403
To: wolfcreek
Nothing has changed about my principles, ethics, or my relationship with God but you sure couldn’t tell it from the way I’ve been treated here lately. Why?
***My guess is that JimRob doesn’t want to open another heart-wrenching bugzapper thread. So he allows the RINO squishes to bash conservatives.
If it were me, I’d post a boundary establishing thread that draws the line for both sides. If you have decided for yourself to vote for Romney, that’s your own choice that we disagree with. If you’ve decided to write in a conservative, that is also your own choice. Each Freeper makes their choice and the choice is respected
But if you try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs on this conservative website to get them to vote for a librul like Romney, you’re a librul and you’ve crossed the line. Similarly, if you call the Romney voters something like ‘squishes’ or ‘cowards’ or CINOs or ‘libruls’ then you have also crossed the line. Anyone who crosses the line gets one warning, then a timeout.
Seems like a simple way to keep the peace during such a troublesome time that the choice is 2 babykilling libtards.
368 posted on 07/11/2012 8:30:11 AM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It’s A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
________________________________________
To: Kevmo
If it were me, I’d post a boundary establishing thread that draws the line for both sides. If you have decided for yourself to vote for Romney, that’s your own choice that we disagree with. If you’ve decided to write in a conservative, that is also your own choice. Each Freeper makes their choice and the choice is respected.
I called directly to the top for this several months ago, as soon as it became clear that Romney was pulling away with the nomination.
I was told pointedly that there would be absolutely no room on FR for those who thought supporting the GOP nominee was best for America.
Then there was the so-called “truce” that was utterly ill-formed and incoherent and failed to address any of the real issues at hand.
Now here we are, doing what we’re doing.
Oh, well. At least we’re making the DUmmies, the commies, Team Obama, the rent-seekers, the moochers, and the jihadis happy.
403 posted on 07/11/2012 11:08:13 AM PDT by rogue yam
To: rogue yam; Jim Robinson
Well, this is interesting. We’ve got a RINO squish agreeing with a hold-your-ground Conservative agreeing with eachother on how this situation should be handled on Free Republic.
540 posted on 07/11/2012 5:03:37 PM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It’s A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/~rogueyam/
This account has been banned or suspended.
Do you need a refresher? The President makes Judicial appointments.
***And Romney’s record on judicial appointments has been completely librul. Your point is?
BTW, have you looked at Romney's judicial appointments at the state level?
As far as congressional oversight goes... you need to talk to congress about that. Republicans hold the House. Damn shame that conservatives don't.
/johnny
Used to be that. Sore Loserman, "Get Out Of Cheney's House!!", Swift Boaters, Rathergate.
Now it's mostly just keyboard warriors fighting a neverending round of Electronic Circular Firing Squad.
I bet there are DU regulars reading this thread and laughing their asses off.
There won't be any peace until December, if things work as they have in the past.
Just live with it, try to not take stuff personally, and never give in to the go-along-to-get-along.
/johnny
There won’t be any peace until December, if things work as they have in the past. Just live with it,
***For the sake of conservatism, that is just plain stupid. We don’t have to do it the same way we always have. Look at the damage done to conservatism just because such a stupid policy is in place.
The answer is to open up such a thread. Good fences make good neighbors.
It just doesn’t make any freeping sense. Why allow it?
Very true. I remember those days well, especially the aftermath of Sore Loserman. That was FR at its very best.
Though, to your second point, I’ve read that Baraq has problems with his base almost as big as Romney has with his. Since I wouldn’t pollute my computer cache by visiting DU, I’ll take others’ word for it.
Excellent question, indeed, why?
Maybe you can ask the PTB, or perhaps simply make a list of those you deem not sufficiently pure, and post it, and petition to have at least those people removed?
Worth a try, give it a shot.
What have you to lose by trying?
Possibly it’s a false dichotomy, but it’s quite likely it’s not.
The “only” grassroots conservative I can see who would have a fighting chance is Sarah Palin. The presidency is in her hand, if she wants it. She has said she does not, for whatever reason. “Alternates” like the loon Ron Paul will do nothing but ensure that the US is a goner.
Now, feel free to debate how “conservative or not” Romney really is. I saw, recently, someone pointing out that part of Romney’s record as a moderate was something he couldn’t do much about: he kept vetoing liberal bills, and his own administration kept overturning his vetoes. And that his efforts although unsuccessful speaks quite loudly on what is in the package. I think the whole thing was here, and in other comments by Jeff.
http://www.jeffhead.com/Romney2012.htm
Maybe you can ask the PTB,
***I already did. Didn’t you read the post to JimRob where me and Rogue Yam agreed?
the post to JimRob where me and Rogue Yam agreed?
that’s post #304 on this thread
So, I thought, wow, what a wonderful idea, making a list of those who are less qualified, not true conservative, those with less conviction than you, KEVMO (!), and then work to erase them from here.
What would be the downside of that?
So, tell me, did you already work out such a list, or is this merely conjecture, a pipe dream, on your part?
But if you try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs on this conservative website to get them to vote for a librul like Romney, you’re a librul and you’ve crossed the line. Similarly, if you call the Romney voters something like ‘squishes’ or ‘cowards’ or CINOs or ‘libruls’ then you have also crossed the line. Anyone who crosses the line gets one warning, then a timeout.
I assume you were the author of that statement?
If so, how does that jive with what you wrote later?
Don’t be a putz.
Read post #304. It was an approach where a diehard conservative agreed with a squish RINO on how to handle the disagreement.
Is it that difficult to get you to read ONE freeping post? Why go immediately into derision mode?
If so, how does that jive with what you wrote later?
***It jives fine. What is the point you’re trying to make? Or is it going to be like this all the way through with you, like pulling teeth to get you to say what you mean or to get you to read one post?
So by your own roolz you need a time out? Is that what is going on? Or are you exempt?
So, then it IS going to be like pulling teeth to get you to say what you freeping mean.
Why do you even bother? Do you purposely misread everything you read so you can waste other freepers’ time? Or are you stupid? Perhaps you’re just embarrassed because you just now realize that what you’re criticizing is almost the exact opposite of what you thought it was? Or are you just too dense to realize it... even with all this prodding?
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.