AMEN AND AMEN!!
Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Duncan needs to show he can win an office outside of his district before I’ll support him for national office.
Romney’s supporters try to paint him as a politician who has “come to see the light”, when it’s obviously clear the only light he sees is the one that he believes will most likely help his political career.
It’s not as if someone can’t change their mind, or come to understand concepts of law, or conservatism better, but when that change deals with a WIDE variety of issues, and it correlates with a new direction in one’s career how could someone take that seriously?
Besides, his actions speak way louder than words... By their fruits... Romney’s fruit is rotten...
LOL...
Indeed...
You want jobs? Conservatism is the only political philosophy which leads to job creation.In every instance, on every issue, Conservatism offers better answers with more freedom and less governmental intrusion and control.
You want Liberty? Conservatism is the only political philosophy which embraces personal Liberty.
You want security? Conservatism is the only political philosophy which offers security while preserving your Liberty.
The irony is that we have no standard bearer. When people promote Duncan Hunter, my eyes glaze over for the simple reason that out of 43 people who have be POTUS, only ONE had no executive experience and was only a congressman.The fact that Warren G. Harding was the only senator to defeat any other candidate than another senator, and that no one who is more than 14 years past their first being elected to statewide office without being elected to national office has ever been elected POTUS didn't stop McCain from running and it didn't stop an incredible number of primary voters (albeit not all of them Republicans) from wasting the nomination giving it to him.
We must have two things:
- A "conservative" candidate for POTUS. Scare quotes around "conservative" because liberty actually isn't conservative at all; what we want to conserve is dynamism and freedom within our inherited constitutional framework. We want to conserve low tax rates because income taxation becomes attempted slavery long before the rate reaches 100%, and we want to limit government debt because dollars are debt - and if the government becomes less creditworthy our dollars lose their value and don't trade for much in the grocery store (and the old "we owe it to ourselves" fraudulent dodge is even more embarrassing now when everyone knows we actually owe it to China).
Our presidential candidate must understand economics well enough, and be articulate enough, to explain why socialism is the road to serfdom. And s/he must have serious executive experience, no legislators need apply.
- A vice presidential candidate who understands the role of a VP candidate - to eviscerate the impostures of incumbent and his surrogates, including wire service journalism - and will not shrink from it (as the otherwise estimable, even redoubtable, Jack Kemp did in 1996). In 2012, that person almost has to be black (or a woman named Ann). Journalism is inherently populist flattering of the public, which is precisely what socialism is. So there is no possibility of a meaningful victory in '12 without candidates who are able to live in the heat which that kind of kitchen inherently entails.
Well said, Jim... Well said, indeed. And, thank you.
ahem.....there was fair warning once before, I can’t find your old post, but this at least helps:
Free Republic was infested
Submitted by EV on Sat, 05/26/2007 - 16:25.
Free Republic was infested (and has been for years) with many posters who pretend to be conservative, but are really liberals, if such labels have any meaning at all. Such posters tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution, think gays should have some legal rights, are unwilling to deport illegals and secure our borders, think there should be some separation between church and state, and refuse to recognize the life begins at conception, and are blind to the Declaration’s promise to protect LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus Jim Robinson was right to ban them all, or run them off, and purify Free Republic. True, a bonus was that many of them supported Guiliani, but the supporters of Romney and Fred Thompson need to go too, because those guys are just as liberal as Giuliani, while pretending not to be, which makes them even worse. They epitomize the twim evils of liberalism and fake conservatism.
The Republican party is damaged goods, and awaits a candidate of courage to emerge that can rescue it from the pit of liberalism into which it has fallen.
http://www.observer.com/2007/free-republic-purge-conservative-web-site-bans-giuliani-supporters
Duncan needs to get elected Governor someplace and serve a term, to have credibility as an executive. By 2012, Palin and Jindal will have a full term as gov under their respective belts. What other good conservative Republican governors do we have?
This is the same plan Mitt Romney is bragging about today.
Jim,
It certainly makes sense to do whatever possible to keep Romney from winning in primaries. But what do we do if, say, Sarah Palin makes the presidential nomination and in spite of protests she chooses Romney for veep, looking at his financial whiz side? Do we just turn our back on her and wish Obama four more years?
the rank and file nation wide primary voting republican did not know who Duncan Hunter was. (you know most people don’t watch the sunday shows...)
the man needed exposure he never got. He needed to make a name of himself and he didn’t. before the primaries, people said WHO?... now that the elections are over people still say WHO?...People knew who Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 were.....
in the last election people knew who Romney, Giulinai, McCain, Huckabee and Thompson were (unfortunate that Thompson did NOT have fire in the belly). Most of these were liberal republicans, with the exeception of Thompson.... No One Knew Who Hunter was(well not enough people did).
Right now people know who Jindahl an Palin are. They are the ‘conservative’ future unless someone else steps up and gets some EXPOSURE.
Everyone should have the same legal rights regardless of any deviant sexual behavior or lack thereof.
I keep telling myself that every election. Respectfully, my question to you is when do we stop betting on a lame horse? The Republicans are drifting further away from conservative principles and making more compromises and it's not getting any better. They just aren't getting it.
I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that, Jim.
Thank you for making it crystal clear for those who may not “get” it, though.
Thank you, jellybean!
A Fred bump backatcha!
Let’s look at the other side. What can we do to encourage the liberals to field a spoiler?
If Sarah Palin is so tone deaf that she chooses that charlatan as a VP, her credibility as a conservative should be seriously questioned.
I certainly hope NOT!
By the time my primary came around, I had to vote for Hillary. ;o)
“Team Mitt Inc.” bloggers are paid to “pretend” to be one of us and spread the Romney “Myth”...
They will not go anymore willingly than anyone else who loves their job...
Excellent point.
As far as I can tell, there are 4 types of Mitt Romney supporters:
1). The astroturfers. As you said, they are persistent.
2). Moderates who like to fancy themselves Conservatives. They sincerely may not understand that Romney's big-government ways isn't how Conservatism works. I sense that they are the smallest group of supporters.
3). People who like Romney primarily for religious reasons. These folks will be the ones most apt to accuse others of anti-Mormonism at the drop of a hat. They will never understand that you don't like him for political reasons and will never be convinced that you aren't anti-Mormon. Don't argue; you can't get through to them.
4). People who admire Romney primarily for his looks and other equally superficial reasons. They talk about what a "moral" family man he is, what a "great" job he did with the Olympics, what a nice family he has, etc.
Some of his supporters fall into more than one category, but they all share one thing: they are completely incapable of defending Romney's liberal history, and they have to attack his critics as a result.
Romney's supporters use obfuscation, misdirection, accusations of wrong doing (if you don't like him, you don't like Mormons; you're jealous; you aren't giving him a fair chance 'cause he's changed, etc.) because they can't admit that he's a complete failure as a Conservative.
Romney's inability to run on any sort of decent record means exactly one thing: He has to move the goalposts in the GOP. To be successful, he (and his followers) have to change what "Conservative" means. That's what this "rebranding" garbage is all about.
Republicans and Conservatives have to make it clear right now that Mitt Romney will always be utterly unacceptable.
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.