‘Like I said, run a moderate again, lose again. PERIOD.”
You live in a dream world — haven’t you noticed that a “conservative” can’t even get the GOP nomination.
What makes you think he/she could win an election where people of the entire political spectrum vote?
People should remember the Reagan quote on the art of compromise:
“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.
“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.
I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”
You sound like a classic Kapo republican.
I hate to tell you but your little fascist friends on the left might give you some crumbs for a while, but in the end, you’re just a particularly stupid target.
Compromising with Socialists begats more Socilalism. Take your losing theories and MOVE OUT of the US. The problem is YOU, a-hole. You and Barry Soetoro are one in the same, losers.
Reagan never compromised to the point where he became indistinguishable from a Democrat, like the parade of RINOs who've followed him.
When Reagan said 'compromise', he meant it in the true definition of the word - not the bastardized concept it's become. The modern Republican party has rolled further left than the Democrats of Reagan's era - all in an effort to appease the hard core left, and to try to win favor with the gimmedat class. They've abandoned all principle, and are now little more than the reverse side of a perverse coin.
"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.
You don’t remember Reagan well, but Mitt Romney does, Mitt left the party because of Reagan, Mitt’s father ran as the anti-war liberal, against Reagan for president.
Mitt didn’t vote for Reagan and presumably didn’t vote for HW Bush in 1988, since Mitt was supporting ONLY democrats, and FUND RAISING AS A DEMOCRAT AND VOTED DEMOCRAT IN THE 1992 PRIMARY.
Mitt returned to the GOP in October 1993 and ran as a dedicated advocate of the homosexual agenda and for abortion, he ran as a dedicated pro-choicer who came from a family of courageous pro-abortion promoters from before Roe v Wade, He ran on Romneys as PIONEERS OF PRO-ABORTION COURAGE.