The GOP-e has co opted the possibility of a real conservative thinker in matching Ryan with Romney. Romney may wind up ruining the possibility that Ryan would eventually be a conservative standard bearer.
Time will tell and we’ll be watching carefully no doubt.
"Art is what you do with a system's excess degrees of freedom."
America needs a vocal, VERY loud Conservative to
speak up CONSERVATIVE principles every single day.
Today. Yesterday. Tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Mr. ROmneyCARE HIDES.
Fast and Furious - he hides.
Congress increasing the budget again - he hides
DOJ erasing “equal justice under the law” - he hides
Congress failing to defund RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE - duh
Obama’s lack of documentation - he slides and protects
Obama, and in return Mr. RomneyCARE’s taxes are now the
“issue”.
EVERY SINGLE ISSUE OF CONSERVATIVES IS MOOT with MITT.
Thanks for tolerating me for the past 15 years!
Yes! He sure nuked Sodom and Gomorah and that was after he wiped out the whole earth because man's thoughts had become continually evil!!!
"As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the son of man." (Genisis) (Bible, for all you "freedom FROM religion types that are undoubtedly lurking)
By the way... That's pro- (HETRO) marriage. When he said "be fruitful and multiply he wasn't talking about populating the planet with preeverts!!!
Well even 1980 was touch and go this far out from election day. Reagan was polling very close to Carter right up to the last week before the election. It looked like a dead heat, much like this 2012 election does now. Romney may yet win by a large "Reaganesque liberty loving landslide". We just don't know yet. And if Willard pulls it off it might be even more amazing than what Reagan did considering the demographic changes this country has seen.
But Romney was languishing in the weeds. Why? Because the world knows it's all a lie
Huh? Is this some kind of conspiracy theory? The world knows what's a lie?
We lost in the primaries Jim. Face the fact that the conservatives in the race just weren't very strong. Romney won because our preferred candidates were lackluster. Period. I'm not happy about it either, but folks just gotta get over it. Romney is what we've got and he is a heck of a lot better than Obama. Since when do we have some expectation that our general election candidate is going to be anything impressive anyway? In most of our lifetimes ONLY Ronald Reagan was worth truly getting excited about - and even he didn't cut government at all or follow through on many of the conservative policies many hoped for.
So count me with all those RINOs like Palin, Gingrich, Cheney, West, Coulter, etc who have endorsed Romney for the sake of our future.
“Any truly conservative Republican candidate would already have this thing in the bag.”
There were too many “truly conservative Republicans” entered in the primaries, and in hindsight that wasn’t smart, or effective.
But those candidates individually decided to enter, not some mysterious “gop-e” power in the sky.
If conservatives expect to do better next time, they must do better at the basics of politics; namely strategy, tactics, fundraising, policy positions, persuading voters.
But meanwhile, this game is underway, with the two teams and players now on the field.
Bump for later!
If Romney and Ryan win and GOP House and Senate candidates do well, they will have a mandate for entitlement reform and the political capacity to carry it out. Add in tax reform and rate cuts, regulatory reform, the development of domestic oil and gas resources, more assertive foreign and defense policies, and an economic recovery, and the Romney administration will look an awful lot like a return of the Reagan years.
Moreover, unlike the Reagan era, there will be a Republican Congress with a VP heir apparent who is even more conservative than the President. I am not an optimist by nature, but I am full of hope these days.
Principles and values and morals are not disposable and to be simply tossed aside when inconvenient. Either one has them or they don’t. To say one thing and do another is hypocrisy no matter how it is rationalized.
The opposite of an elitist is a populist.
Reagan was a POPULIST.
I do not blame Reagan for being a populist.
Harry Truman was the son of mule trader and even though he was a bean counter for the Pendergast machine , he was a populist which made him a better man than that elitist snob Thomas Dewey.
When Reagan voted for Truman and not Dewey, he got it right and Reagan was an Eisenhower Democrat and did not vote for that elitist snob Adlai Stevenson, Reagan got it right again.
Reagan was a UNITER because there were a large group of voters who were proud to call themselves Reagan Democrats.
There were no Daddy Bush Democrats.
There were no Bwilly Clinton Republicans.
There were no Jethro Bodine Bush Democrats.
There are no Barry Hussein Obama Republicans.
And there will be no Mittens Romney Democrats.
Reagan was a populist and he could unite parties and ideologies.
Ivy League clowns like those guys name George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barry Obama are elitists to their very core.
Ronald Reagan was a Midwesterner who graduated from Eureka College and Harry Truman never graduated from college but both were populists who never cowtowed to the Rockefeller Republican elite or in Truman’s case the Roosevelt socialist elite.
Conservative and liberal are terms of art used by the propagandists on those cable news channels like PMSNBC and Faux News.
Populism is for real and all the populists showed up at Chick-fil-A last week to support the First Amendment Freedom to Freedom of Speech.
8 posted on August 14, 2012 by cripplecreek
He's much beholden to Romney for making this effort to get Ryan out the way!
When Romney's current and former staffers and close friends get done with Ryan, he'll be a gelded Vice President as well.
It's the same old same old with the GOP-e. They must be purged NOW ~ not later!
32 Aug 14, 2012 by muawiyah (Since 1998)
Support a FReeper for President - TOM HOEFLING aka EternalVigilance @Post #83