Posted on 03/03/2013 10:10:39 AM PST by lowbridge
Some of the 47% voted for Romney. But not as many as would have voted for him before he equated low income workers and retirees with welfare moochers who have no sense of personal responsibility.
Some religious conservatives (including me) understand better than anyone that people wth our worldview are greatly outnumbered and only going to be more so in the very near future, until we’re no longer here and no longer a factor anyway. We’ve known for a long time that this time was coming.
Huh? Not Mitt Romney, outside of his cult he doesn't do anything that doesn't benefit him, and even that cult work is related to maintaining his position of power within the cult leadership, and to help him become a God when he dies.
Some people forget that Romney is going to become a God and be worshiped.
The solution to a problem is not denying the truth of it. Sure it turns some away. And it it turns enough away then we have to admit America is over and that it. Because the truth of that is that enough people WANT to be lied to, not be Americans..
Sad, but that’s reality.
Loaded, leading, straw man argument question. No, that is not a "simple" question. You assume (incorrectly) that I think, or propose, that the GOP claim to accept things it opposes just to win. That is not what I meant nor what I said.
For the record: The GOP should not accept things it opposes "just to win". My argument is that there are too many people calling themselves conservatives that will not vote for anyone or anything not as "pure" as themselves. They are not willing to take small, incremental steps towards their goal; it's all or nothing.
So for now, the rest of must accept nothing because of the "purists" intransigence. Actually, it's less than nothing, as the stay-at-home-because-my-guy-didn't-win-the-nomination crowd continue to give us a Democrat win, election after election.
Set a goal and then make realistic steps to achieving it and forget this all-or-nothing approach. It doesn't work.
Or don't know a lie when they hear it. They'll brush anything off to obtain 'the prize'. And that is 'deceptions' goal.
Romney ran against the pro-life party platform and ran pro-abortion ads, he supported homosexualizing the military and Boy Scouts, and gave America homosexual marriage and Romneycare, he was the anti-republican.
That is a pretty big departure from what most people associated with the GOP.
But the very true statement that 47% do not pay federal income tax does not mean that 47% lack personal responsibility. Making enough income to pay federal income tax is not necessary for a person to be a moral, responsible citizen.
When candidates try to build a coalition, this is one group they need. When people talk about the Reagan coalition, this is one group they're talking about. When they say that you only have to win over conservative voters, they're wrong if they think you can leave this group outside the tent and still win.
There just aren't enough hardline freemarketeers and aggressive budgetcutters to win elections. Call them Human Events conservatives after the weekly that (very tellingly) ceased publication this week or Paul Ryan conservatives. There just aren't enough to get to 50%.
Even Reagan needed some unconservative Northern Democrats to win a mandate. And those in Romney's 53% (assuming his numbers are correct) who vote Democrat have to be made up for somehow with downmarket voters who are less enthusiastic about markets.
I suspect a lot of actual Huckabee voters did go to the polls for Romney, but the next group down the list, say, blue-collar White voters in Ohio, didn't give him the support he could have had if he hadn't made the comment.
Not loaded or leading. But it is the one question none in your camp will answer. Quite telling.
“Pure”?!?!? Heck, I’d settle for “Mediocre” at this point.
No, but right about that number do indeed lack morality/responsibility. May not be causal, but the end result is the same.
Look, I'm not here to defend Romney. He wasn't my first choice. Don't think that we would have had no power to affect the decisions made by a President Romney, unlike with the current resident. But I do believe the economy would have been a whole let better with Romney in the WH than what it is going to be for the next four years with Zero. And I believe we have you and people like you to thank for that.
Do you people get paid for using the word “Purist” in posts?
Because the opposite of purity is corruption and logic dictates if you advocate moving away from ‘purity’ than you by default support it’s opposite, moving toward corruption. And that’s logic 101, not a straw man.
So please justify that small little philosophical incontinence.
Then I guess Romney should not have let the consultant class McCainites run his campaign into the ground and not present a clear alternative to the Obama radicalism.
He ran a overtly cautious, unprincipled campaign that allowed the left to trash his character and paint him with any brush they wanted.
Until Republicans learn to FIGHT the media, FIGHT the vile left, FIGHT and present CLEAR, CONSISTENT, CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES with PASSION — we are never winning again.
LOL. I do not have to “justify” anything to you. I answered your “question. Please believe what you want. Just be prepared for many more Democrat election wins.
“Don’t think that we would have had no power to affect the decisions made by a President Romney, unlike with the current resident. “
Yup. We have all sorts of ‘feet to fire’ power over the Congress and It would surely have kept Romney’s liberalism in check too. Just like Bhoner. He fears caving in and has been a staunch Conservative since Romney lost...forever even!
Oh wait....
Yet here you are doing just that, and lying about conservatives giving us Obama, you guys gave us Obama by finding a creature that could lose an election that couldn't be lost.
You are currently fighting for more Romney's on this thread by defending him and attacking those who refuse to support him, the question is, have you and yours managed to destroy the republican party for good, is this embracing of the democrat agenda, a permanent situation or can we Reagan conservatives defeat you.
Already your team has started efforts to Romneyize the 2014 election and to counter the incredibly successful grass roots tea party gains.
But you DO have to justify that kind of mentality if you consider yourself conservative. Not to me personally, but as a whole. If you think you can be whatever you want on your sole say so, there are people who think their boys are girls who would agree.
I am ready for permanent dem wins because so few conservatives have the balls to stand behind their conservatism and will cave for the promise of the almighty ‘win’.
Boy look at what you won. Bhoner’s congress is living proof of conservative compromise....so sure...let’s do more of that.
“I say hopefully 2016, we have a better choice, but I think are chances of that are low.”
Heh.
It’s probably going to be Chris Christie or Jeb Bush.
Take your pick!
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.