Posted on 08/06/2013 6:41:37 AM PDT by shove_it
I would call him no excuse for some clown who looks like a used Lexus salesman to have people with guns put me in a cage for not doing business with his campaign contributors.
The incumbent only has to campaign.
The GOP nominees slashed each other up for the entertainment of the press and the opposition for at least two years and up to the convention.
There should be one or two candidates at most by the beginning of the election year. The GOP leadership should concentrate on selling their candidate for the year before the election, not selecting them still.
This is only a criticism of the methods not the substance of candidate selection.
All of your points are valid...
Anybody who goes back to the same old “Republican strategists” again and again deserves to lose.
Romney lost cause we are a center-left nation. Clinton is going to win in a walk in 2016 cause we are a center-left nation. The DEMOGRAPHIC ship has sailed folks. They have the numbers.
And seeing his ticket-mate, Paul Ryan, now embracing amnesty, homo-adoption, and Obamacare,
___________________________________________
Ryan was handpicked to be a Son ofv Willard..
Willard has always supported the various AMNESTY Bills..
“We cant send them all back”
and
“We must find a path to citizenship” Willard 2007ish
Willard is for “homo-adoption” and said soo last year...
“A gay couple who are in a loving relationship shuld be allowed to adopt” Willard 2012
Willard is the father of ObamaCare When he was the gov of MASS he signed RomneyCare, $50 abortions and all..
Last year w2hen it was pointed out that the Fed gov was paying for 1/2 of RomneyyCare in MASS he gleefully said “Yes it’s working right. Thats how it was set up. Half of the costs from the MASS taxpayers, half from the other taxpayers” Willard 2012
In other words regardless of which state you live in you arte already paying for the first version of ObamaCare for the residents of MASS...
So dont be surprised by the Ryan you think you are seeing for the first time...
Willard would not have chosern a REAL conservative...
He cant stand us...
he called us “Crackers” duri ng hois “gritsy cheezy grin” campaign down South here..
Do you think the uber liberal or as he refers to himself “moderate progressive” Willard would have left a genuine Conservative as his heir to the White House throne if something would have happened to him or as the next one in line after his term or terms finished in 2016/2020 ???
Hardly ...
that would be like expecting Obama to urge Democrats to vote for Governor Palin in 2016 over Hilary...
It aint gonna happen...
I could not disagree more.
The candidate should not be named before Labor Day. Of the year the election is in.
And what you you call a person who doesn’t bother to purchase health insurance, walks into a hospital, receives care and treatment, and then leaves the taxpayers stuck with the bill?
___________________________________________
An illegal alien...
and your boy Willard wouldnt let the LEOs arrest them while he was gov of MASS..
Willard had sanctuary cities and knowingly hired illegal aliens himself to do the grounds of the governors mansion...
Indeed, my suspicions should have been aroused just by the mere fact that Ryan was somehow deemed an acceptable choice by the Romney/GOP-E contingent. At the time, Ryan was being sold as the “conservative” balance to the ticket. As much as I despised and distrusted Romney and his crew, I probably did buy into the selling of Ryan, at least to a certain degree... even though it wasn’t enough to ultimately get me to give the ticket my vote.
Now seeing Ryan demonstrate his true colors, it reveals the sheer level of all-out duplicity on the part of the 2012 GOP campaign. Just like the bald-faced betrayal by that liar Rubio. End result? For me, I now have such a monumental distrust of anything and everything from the GOP, I don’t even have the words to describe it.
Romney had sanctuary cities? No I don’t think so. They were in place long before he became governor. I don’t think they were his idea. Nor was same sex marriage, that was put into place by the MA Supreme Court. Not saying Romney was perfect....far from it. No politician is. But Romney did promise to get rid of Obamacare on day one by granting all 50 states a waiver from Obamacare. He did promise to cut tax rates significantly across the board. He did promise to greatly expand oil and gas drilling on federal lands, increase offshore drilling, drill in Alaska, and offshore and allow the Keystone Pipeline to be built. He did promse an all of the above energy policy including the development of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear resources. He did promise to turn over programs like Food Stamps. Medicaid, and other welfare programs back to the states. He did promise to build the fence and enforce our immigration laws. He did promise to rein in discretionary spending and reform entitlements. Had all of these things been accomplished we would have a very robust economy by now. Most people wanting full time jobs would have found them. There would be a pro-business attitude in Washington. Not saying that Romney was perfect-—no politician is. We live in an imperfect world and politics is inherently a messy and dirty business-—as RR once said, the world’s second oldest profession. Romney was not perfect. Yes Romney flipped flopped on a number of issues as all politicians do. BUT HE WOULD HAVE MADE A VASTLY SUPERIOR PRESIDENT TO THE MARXIST DICTATOR WE’RE STICK WITH NOW. Our choices in this world are never perfect, but there can be no doubt that Romney would have had the economy turned around by now assuming he had a sympathetic Congress working with him. I don’t expect much from politicians these days, but someone with a business background who understood how capital is created and jobs are created and that taxes and spending need to be kept to a minimum would do just fine right now. We needed a job creator, not a community activist. The people in this country have lost their minds voting for Obama.
Romney campaign’s failure to make a conservative out of Mitt Romney........
1) None of the other candidates was any more likely to win. Some ideal candidate who wasn't in the race might have been able to win, but one can't nominate somebody who doesn't actually exist.
2) Was there really some massive pool of conservative voters that didn't go to the polls? Wasn't it more the case that non-voters didn't trust either party and didn't have strong commitments to any ideology? Again, we can imagine a candidate who could have appealed to non-voters. Romney wasn't it, and neither were the other candidates. Some years parties just aren't lucky.
3) Isn't it the case that a candidate who could have gotten the nomination and won the election would also have been denounced as not being a true conservative? Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Huckabee or whoever. Say Romney was the worst of all of them and the most liberal, but still, the candidates with the experience and appeal to win tend to be dismissed as sell-outs. Maybe Palin is an exception, but it's usually the fringe candidates without a chance of winning who are seen as the real conservatives.
Romney did not have the appeal to win.
But governors tend to be portrayed as sell-outs -- Christie, Pawlenty, Daniels, Barbour. It's usually Representatives or people from outside of politics who are seen as "true conservatives."
Say Romney couldn't have won. Say he was the worst and the most liberal of all of the governors who could have run. Still, the others get labeled liberals or RINOs or sell-outs as well.
Conservatives cannot allow the quasi-liberal honchos running the RNC to keep selecting pale imitations of a Democrat as the Republican presidential candidate. Granted, that winning in '08 was a steep hill to climb for a Republican candidate afetr eight years of George W. Bush being vilified in the mass media. However, the nomination of the very liberal John McCain (I spit on the ground as I mention his name) was a tacit admission that the GOP was ceding the election to The First Black President, he being so historic and all.
By 2012, Obama was weakened by the continuing bad economy and his many failed programs. Obamacare was an easy target. So, the RNC does what it can to give multimillionaire Mitt Romney the nomination. For a while, I thought he had a ghost of a chance. Then I saw his campaign style on TV and realized that this guy, for all his positive qualities, was going to lose. Romney's RINO status was just as frustrating. 'Romneycare' was an albatross and his stiff demeanor (that he tried hard to overcome) was a detriment. I'm sure Mitt Romney would be a better president than Obama but that's like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger was a better governor than Gray Davis.
I admit that on conservative websites such as FR, the bar for what constitutes a 'real' conservative is sometimes set unrealistically high. I also believe that some folks will never find any politician 'conservative' enough and of course we have the trolls, spreading division. That having been noted, I believe a conservative politician that doesn't waffle but holds to conservative positions on the big issues - with a smile, a la Reagan - can win the 2016 presidential election. The problem is that those folks are few in number (conservatives always seem to do all the compromising when sparring with Democrat legislatures, interest groups, etc.) and those few are not necessarily ready or willing to run for president.
Today, we have RINOs such as Chris Christie and, Lord help us, Jeb Bush being touted by the Karl Roves and the leftmedia as real strong possibilities for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Like many Freepers, I've seen this movie before. The GOP nominates a governor who has one or two conservative attributes and he (or she) 'runs to the right' in the primaries. Then, if he (or she) wins, he (or she) suddenly finds all kinds of agreement with the Democrat so as not to appear 'extreme' (translation: conservative). Voters, being given little choice, opt for the actual Democrat while conservatives 'stay home' - and fume.
This is why conservatives rally around Governor Sarah Palin and would crawl over broken glass to vote and support her, if she ran for president. She is a bona fide conservative, not a pale imitation of a liberal Democrat and she is not ashamed of her views, despite years of ridicule and defamation by the liberal media. That is character. However, the RNC sees Palin as a liability and would move heaven and earth to stop her from winning the 2016 presidential nomination. This is the sad state of Republican politics today. No wonder conservatives are mutinous.
Politicians or public figures who are most satisfying ideologically are often those who have already decided -- when they're thinking most clearly -- that they won't ever get elected president. They've already decided that they'd rather be right than be president. When one of those politicians does decide to go for the White House, they usually and predictably lose. Reagan was the exception, but he was very much an exception. Candidates like him don't come along in every election.
Still, it is a two way street. Politicians have to do their part as well. I don't get why Chris Christie is picking fights with whole wings of his own party. Maybe that's his sign that he'd rather be a champion of his own ideology than move up to the White House. Or that he prefers picking fights to winning elections.
I sure wish that you would post again.
You are one of the finest men that have ever been at FR.
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.