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 ...
Ha ha, that’s a great answer. Yeah, you really got me in the crushing grip of reason with that one!
I’ve been on FR for 8 friggin’ years now, yet somehow it has survived despite my sinister fearmongering to try to make people vote against their principles. Fortunately they have you to save them from my devious plans!
You’re the one trying to get me to “stop fearmongering”....which really just means you want me to stop expressing my opinion on the matter. Cyberbullies like you are exactly why I rarely post anymore. Life is too precious for this nonsense.
Yeah, the concept of disagreeing in good faith seems to be evaporating from FR at breakneck speed.
Nov 6 Insanity Thread Ping...
Makes a lot of sense to me. Vote for former Democrat Goode, because Romney did some liberal things as Governor of Mass. a decade ago.
that's simply not true. He managed to slip some quite conservative jurists past the all Democrat panel that had to approve them.
No sale.
BTW, Reagan had been a Democrat.
/johnny
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely informing.
Yes, and as governor of California, he increased taxes "to balance the budget", and he also signed a bill allowing abortions in California. But no one here seems to hate him for these things.
He managed to slip some quite conservative jurists past the all Democrat panel that had to approve them.
***Then JimRob’s RomneyTruthFile needs to be updated. I would assume his information is more accurate than yours.
which really just means you want me to stop expressing my opinion on the matter.
***Bull shiite. Note the 2-way street proposal that I suggested for handling disagreements. Someone who wants to get others to “expressing your opinion on the matters” wouldn’t propose such an evenhanded approach that another CINO agreed with it.
So, back to your original question, “Is FR helped any?” Would FR be helped if you “stopped fearmongering”.... yes.
I think a catastrophe is a bit worse than a disaster...
If for any reason Bork Obunga should be re-elected, everything we've ever known will be gone. There will not be any pieces lying around four years down the road for somebody five or ten percent more conservative than Mitt Romney to try to pick up or put back together, it will be
What will ensue will be another dark age, one of those periods of two or three or four centuries for which no archaeological evidence exists and at the end of which, any humans who might still be alive come crawling out of caves and try to reconstruct how to make fire.
So, does this mean you didn't vote for one of our candidates in the primary?
There is nothing wrong with following the lead of people who ascend to leadership positions. I would have voted for Sarah or Cain. I did vote for Newt and wish any of them had won but they didn't.
Sarah was the Governor of Alaska, Newt the Speaker of the House, Michelle a Representative of Minnesota, Rick a Senator from PA, Cain a successful businessman who was willing to put himself and his family through hell to make a difference, Cheney and Bush were President and Vice President.
What have you or I done to actually make a difference? We sit at our computers and complain but they are the ones who are out there making sacrifices and trying to help. If you respect any one of them there is nothing wrong with following their lead.
“A WIN for Romney would indeed be a huge set-back for conservatism.”
Actually, the setback occurred years ago. Do you mean it would be a worse setback if Romney were to win?
Romney will sign the obamacare repeal when the Republican Congress sends it to him.
So we need Romney AND a Republican Congress to repeal Obamacare.
You must have seen my posts calling this economic disaster a “hundred year storm”. ;-)
—***Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Just how ignorant are you?—
One’s national. One’s a state policy.
And Romney has said it will be his first priority. Not that I believe him.
Notice I didn’t say it WOULD get the death of Obama care. Note the first word in my post was “if”.
No. I’m not very ignorant on this issue. I’ve said that our choice is akin to a jew choosing between hitler and stalin. The forward thinkers take the next boat to th UK. In my case, I moved from my 45 year home of Seattle to rural central KY last year. I’m looking from my second story windo at my chicken coup, goat pen, tractor and large garden as I type this.
The 40x80x12 building I’m getting ready to erect will have solar cells on the top and i just learned how to use my soil to store the water from the Kentucky rain I’m getting, again, as I type this.
I have lost ALL faith in the US government and consider it the enemy of both small business but also state and local government.
One’s national. One’s a state policy.
***The national policy is based upon the state policy. Apparently you are more ignorant than you realize.
And Romney has said it will be his first priority. Not that I believe him.
***If you do not believe him, why are you trying to convince conservatives to part with their conservative principles to vote for this lying POS?
No. I’m not very ignorant on this issue. I’ve said that our choice is akin to a jew choosing between hitler and stalin. The forward thinkers take the next boat to th UK. In my case, I moved from my 45 year home of Seattle to rural central KY last year. I’m looking from my second story windo at my chicken coup, goat pen, tractor and large garden as I type this. The 40x80x12 building I’m getting ready to erect will have solar cells on the top and i just learned how to use my soil to store the water from the Kentucky rain I’m getting, again, as I type this.
***What a bunch of stream-of-consciousness CINO bowlsheet.
I have lost ALL faith in the US government and consider it the enemy of both small business but also state and local government.
***Then don’t vote for a statist who believes the opposite of what you believe. And furthermore, don’t stir up discord among conservatives. Obama thanks you for your stream-of-conscious bs discord that you have sown so far...
—***The national policy is based upon the state policy. Apparently you are more ignorant than you realize.—
I’m thinking you are just trying to get a rise out of me with the “ignorant” remarks. ;-)
Yes. I know the history of Romney Care.
***If you do not believe him, why are you trying to convince conservatives to part with their conservative principles to vote for this lying POS?
I believe I was tho one that posited the idea that an Obama second term shackled to a republican congess may be the best option. The only downside, really, is Obamacare would not be repealed.
You call Romney a POS. However, we are all flawed. When voting for someone for president, you are looking for the person who is “leased flawed” for the job. The one thing we have to fall back on regarding Romney is that he has publicly said that his first priority will be to revoke Obamacare.
Which would you prefer, the one who publicly WANTS obamacare, or the one who, publicly, has said getting rid of it is his first priority?
***What a bunch of stream-of-consciousness CINO bowlsheet.
Opinions vary. ;-)
***Then don’t vote for a statist who believes the opposite of what you believe. And furthermore, don’t stir up discord among conservatives. Obama thanks you for your stream-of-conscious bs discord that you have sown so far...
I went on record as saying I would not vote for Romney unless something dramatic happened. The SCOTUS decision was just that.
Meanwhile, I just thought I’d mention that your argument style may need a little polishing up. You seem to default to bullying. That’s fine if you back it up with facts, but just throwing out those quick quips doesn’t do it. But maybe this is a sort of “chess game” for you and you are working up to some unforeseen “checkmate” move. :-P
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.