"Failing to get the nomination" is a bad test when the system is being manipulated; if you'll recall, there were retroactive rule-changes to the GOP primaries [for at least one state] which, in the incident I'm thinking of, were made to strip Ron Paul of delegates (in favor for Romney) to send to the RNC.
I had a bit of a discussion w/ newnhdad about the 'conservative purity'/Romney-loss [link]:
There were plenty of people on here and other websites and boards that claimed ideological purity by either not supporting Romney or just throwing a vote away on a candidate that had no chance to win, just to send a message.Now I'll put in my disclosure: I have come to hate and despise the Republican party. Fast & Furious in particular drove home that they are in no manner concerned with upholding the law, doing justice, or doing anything that would "rock the boat". The dirty tactics pushing Romney (Mr of-course-I-support-abortion-in-the-case-of-incest-and-rape-and-the-mother's-health [code meaning "for any reason"]) just as the Republican party officially added "not even in the case of rape or incest" to its official anti-abortion plank shows one thing: the GOP will say anything, but do nothing [or even the opposite]. I hate them because they are liars, and thieves [they have stolen my liberty, if nothing else], and statists.Ok, you have to understand that a rejection of Romney is not a plea for ideological purity -- but a plea against homogenous ideology as Obama.
They are both socialists, and Statists.Indeed, the primaries and Republican National Convention were dirty -- with "democrat-style" manipulations:
The teleprompter incident, where the 'result' of the votes appeared before the vote had finished.
The bus-driver incident, where an entire delegation was forced to miss the rule-change vote.
The proposed rule changes themselves, which showed the statist/totalitarian heart of the GOP's elite.
The retroactive rule-change in the primaries to deny Ron Paul supporters delegates (and gave them to Romney) because they successfully rules-lawyered delegates.Are those the sorts of things we want in our leadership? Are those things even what "conservatism" is about?
If by 'conservatism' you mean "keeping things the same", then yes, it is what conservatism is about.Well, the message was sent, loud and clear. Too many people on our side were none to enthusiastic in opposing Obama because Romney would “destroy the party”.
That was doomed to happen: the republican party stood for nothing, and so fell.
Well, you know what, Obama is destroying the country with the aide of people that sat on their duffs because Romney was a mormon, his hair was too nice, he appeared to polished, he didn’t attack Obama enough, he was too rich..
None of that is why I did not vote Romney; I did not vote for Romney because he is the same as Obama: a socialist. Ideologically the only difference is that Romney is a Fabian-socialist (incrementalism) and Obama is more of a holistic-actor.
People need a daily reminder of how idiotic it is/was to sit at home and do nothing when we had the opportunity to end this full out assault on freedom and liberty.
Really? When I was in the Army, in `08/`09, it was made perfectly clear to me that there would be no challenge of Obama's qualifications; this has been borne-out across the civilian-world as well. Those in power have no respect for the Law (see LTC Lakin's courts martial), and this will not likely change with mere elections. (Even if we got a 'good' President, the congress has no problem passing contra-constitutional laws [see the NFA and GCA], and the courts have no compunction against allowing it [see Wickard, Raich, Kelo, and/or Affordable Care Act]).
More of us were pumped up to buy a friggin chicken sandwich than we were to elect a man that would lead us in a much different direction.
NO! ROMNEY WOULD NOT PUT US ON A MUCH DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE MOST HE WOULD DO IS MAKE SUPERFICIAL CHANGES: A KINDER, GENTLER (MORE ACCEPTABLE) TYRANNY.
If you don’t like what I have to say, fine but please don’t tell me to stop.
I've not told you to stop; but your whole argument for a socialist is disgusting.
They changed the rules after the fact in the Michigan primary as well.
>> The Michigan Republican Party (MRP) Credentials Committee voted 4-2 last night to give Mitt Romney both of the state’s at-large delegates, State Policy Committee Chair Mike Cox told MIRS today.
Cox was one of two “no” votes on the committee which met via telephone, along with attorney Eric Doster The “yes” votes included GOP National Committeeman Saul Anuzis, a Romney supporter, and MRP Chair Bobby Schostak.
That would put the delegate split at 16 for Romney and 14 for Rick Santorum, after each candidate won 14 delegates apiece in those divided by Michigan’s 14 congressional districts.
As MIRS first reported on Wednesday, the MRP was delaying a final decision on the delegate split until after consulting with attorneys.
Cox said that according to the MRP rules, Santorum and Romney should each get one of Michigan’s two at-large delegates based on their take of the popular vote.
“I supported Mitt, but the vote was clearly wrong,” Cox said of the Credentials Committee. “It’s kind of like Third World voting. We published rules and then we voted to change the rules.”
He said he expects the Santorum campaign to file a complaint with the Republican National Committee (RNC).<<
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2012/3/1/163521/7207
I sure as hell don’t want to hear about purity when I supported 3 different candidates through the last cycle. (Bachmann, Cain, and finally Santorum) Moderates are the most lock step ideological purists there are.
Wow. Very well said.