Posted on 01/18/2011 9:34:34 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
From which we conclude what?
"Come to Daddy, you conservatives -- give it up, and come and lick the hands of your betters!!"
Something like that, what you had in mind? Mittens, I bet.
I've said this exact same thing. Palin is the candidate for whom I will get out and walk precincts and make phone calls....even in Cali!
The damage that will cause our country will be insurmountable for Obama...IMO
Bingo! (period...dot! I just couldn't resist that stupid old Biden quote to Condi Rice)
____________________________________
Don't you feel a bit small when you have to make stuff up?
Tell you what...instead of making stuff up how about you post a link to any of my posts that support romney for potus...I'll wait while you look.
Do not try to put words in my mouth. I am always clear...but for the lesser minds among you I'll say it again...imo palin does not have the experience to handle the toughest job on the planet. Two terms as mayor of a town smaller than most colleges and half a term as governor of a state smaller in population than many cities and even more counties doesn't cut it.
And, nothing she has done since quitting her last elected position has contributed to the skills needed to run this country.
[Thee] I'll say it again...imo palin does not have the experience to handle the toughest job on the planet.
Awww, c'mon .... how's that different from what I "put in your mouth"? You're knocking Palin for time-in-office, as mayor or governor or whatever. Admit it. You're zeroing in on the Romney metric, the One Reason Why Mitt Would Be a Better Choice Than Palin.
You support Mittens, don't you? Admit it.
...how about you post a link to any of my posts that support romney for potus.....
How about you just tell us how you really feel, instead of dancing all around and trying to be clever and oblique and subtle and stuff?
And, nothing she has done since quitting her last elected position has contributed to the skills needed to run this country.
There, you err. She's been grappling quite effectively in a death-match with a hydra-headed Enemy of the People of the United States in the form of the left-wing MSM and their corpocratic sponsors. How would that be different from what the next Republican President will have to do? You know that, whoever it is, the 'Ratmedia will try to tiger him down relentlessly. They have shown that they will leave nothing undestroyed in the GOP if they have their way.
...but for the lesser minds among you .....
Hey, low blow. Both my minds are equally brilliant!
______________________________________
You're a cross dresser, aren't you? Admit it.
There as much evidence of that as there is that I support romney for potus.
Here an opportunity for you to grow as a person...deal with that which has been written rather than that which you want to have been written.
Do not try to put words in my mouth. I am always clear...but for the lesser minds among you I’ll say it again...imo palin does not have the experience to handle the toughest job on the planet. Two terms as mayor of a town smaller than most colleges and half a term as governor of a state smaller in population than many cities and even more counties doesn’t cut it.
And, nothing she has done since quitting her last elected position has contributed to the skills needed to run this country.
Tell ya what — YOU tell us (apparently we’re not bright enough to judge for ourselves) who YOU think might be a better candidate among the dozen or so in the Republican stable right now? Surely, if Sarah ISN’T the one, you have some udeas as to one or two who MIGHT be...?
“I won’t call you an idiot. That would be hate speech.”
Why do you hate idiots? They can’t help it, you should pity them.
You’re right. they did get the J20 however.
However...they may remain “disgruntled” enough....
My point was that there is no percentage in trying to nominate the conservative candidate least objectionable to the left. More than 40% of the electorate won't vote for any conservative. For that group all the fine distinctions we make between a Tim Pawlenty, a Sarah Palin and a Mike Pence make no difference. Elections are fought over about 15% of the electorate which is composed of people who have no ideological orientation and blow with the prevailing wind. Appealing too those people is a simple matter of speaking forcefully and making sense. If they're dissatisfied with the status quo they'll vote for any challenger with a coherent message. If they're satisfied they'll vote for the incumbent pretty much no matter what. Splitting differences with the left, the kind of politics Reagan derided as “pale pastels,” doesn't net you anything, either from your hard core opponents or from bewildered swing voters.
The point of this discussion of election dynamics was to observe that no Republican will crack the hardcore anti-conservative vote and that nobody is more likely to bring swing voters our way than Sarah Palin. Polling at midterm is always discouraging for a visible and vilified Republican because the crucial 15% of the electorate tends to gravitate toward the lowest common denominator of media opinion between presidential elections. But good campaigns change all that.
Nobody on our side speaks more forcefully and makes more sense than Sarah. It follows that she is probably our best bet for making the conservative case to the only voters who count. If they're happy come 11/’12 she'll lose, but so would any other Republican. If they aren't happy she'll win, which is more than you can say for some of her GOP rivals.
I hope my meaning is clear now.
I have really tremendous respect for John Ziegler; I listened to his show on KFI pretty regularly and thought him right up there with my top picks: Rush, Levin, and Elder. And while I was disappointed when I heard him voice his opinion that she shouldn't run, I once again found myself REALLY respecting and admiring his candor. In fact, my regard for Ziegler is so high that knowing he felt that way (back then) about Palin made me seriously re-assess my own take on her, though it remained the same (I think she's a gift to the GOP and America and that she has as good a chance, if not better, of winning than any other potential GOP candidate I can think of).
THANKS, 2DV, for posting this. THANK YOU very much! FReepers like you make this site what it is.
What few advantages Romney would bring are outweighed in big measure by the harm and damage he would do long term to the true limited government conservatism that is America's only path to success and freedom. Romney has a long track record of betraying limited government conservative principles; with him representing what being a Republican means, Americans seeking an antidote to big government Democrat party politics will reject the Republican party and scatter their votes to the wind on sundry "third" parties.
YOU are the enabler of damage and harm, Once-Ler. Not 668, not me, not any of us who reject Romney because we understand that the long-term sabotage he would wreak on the GOP would have at least as bad, and probably worse, consequences than an Obama presidency, especially one hindered by a GOP majority in Congress.
You are extremely short-sighted, Once-Ler, and that's only human. But you are also extremely hostile and intellectually deceitful when you conclude that anyone who refuses to vote for Romney is therefore an Obama "enabler."
I'll tell you what "enabled" Obama -- decades of Republicans, and I did my share of it, voting ever and ever further left, left, left, for moderates big-government Republicans out of fear that the Democrat would be worse. It pushed the "center" so far left that it made Obama possible.
Voting FOR the likes of Mitt is what enabled Obama, buddy. Some of us have woken up. It's time you did, too.
I don't disagree that Mitt sucks. He is my last choice, just like McCain in 08. Based on the 2008, 2000, 1996, and 1992 primaries, conservatives don't appeal to a national electorate. We may have to choose between Mitt and Obama in 2012. Either the GOP nominee, or Obama will be President. If the GOP nominates Mitt, I will vote for Mitt. I prefer Mitt over Obama. I believe no President could be worse than Obama. You prefer Obama to Mitt, and you admit it in your post with the word "worse." I don't know why you are getting so hostile. Look in the mirror and embrace your Obama lovin' self.
rat - It's the new conservatism.
You are extremely short-sighted, Once-Ler, and that's only human. But you are also extremely hostile and intellectually deceitful when you conclude that anyone who refuses to vote for Romney is therefore an Obama "enabler."
I'm trying, I'm trying to get away from that language. I've covered politics for a long time, but I'm trying to get away from that kind of language. Thanx for taking the time responding with a passionate, well written, and thoughtful defense of your opinion. We disagree.
Enlighten me, please. Who were the conservatives who ran in the 1992, '96, '00 and '08 primaries?
Hint: Pat Buchanan doesn't count. There was never a chance he would win the nomination -- he was running as a gadfly.
Fred Thompson doesn't count either -- since he obviously didn't want the job enough to work for it.
Fact is, a credible conservative hasn't competed for the GOP nomination since Ronaldus Magnus.
That's because there are so few to compete. You can probably count the number of conservatives in the US Senate on one hand. Conservatives are not attractive to a national electorate. We can barely muster a few statewide elections.
We need a farm team to build a pro team. Conservatives need more Governors and Senators that can be seen as viable Presidents. Conservatives for the most part don't win statewide races, we win tiny little gerrymandered congressional seats. A winning conservative has to be charismatic to attract moderates, without sin to meet conservative voter standards, and politically savvy to navigate the MSM minefields. A rare combination.
If we can only succeed by supporting the unobjectionable, why bother?
A US Senator represents a whole state. A conservative Senator must vote in line with his constituency or he will be replaced next election. That is not a strategy, it's the truth. You want a strategy? Convince a majority of voters to your point of view, and they will elect a Senator or President of your liking. Finding the right candidate to make your unpopular views palatable is not a strategy that will win often.
rats and moderates outnumber conservatives. A conservative candidate must appeal to enough moderates to get a majority of voters. The rats are harder to persuade than moderates. The moderate voters have already rejected conservative ideology. If they agreed with conservatives, they would be conservatives, not moderates. Moderates are motivated by greed and fear among other things. Moderates desire liberal handouts, but they fear rat military surrender and economic incompetence. Each moderate vote picked up by the GOP is worth 2 conservative votes. A DINO will often become a RINO (+1 GOP vote -1 rat vote=net+2). Fighting for a conservative vote will often cost a few RINO votes when the GOP is forced to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, instead of fixing a pressing problem in the eyes of the voters.
I am to the right of a majority of voters. I supported B1 Bob Dornan and Alan Keyes in 96 and shook both their hand at the 95 GOP state convention in '95, but I've moderated my views over the years of conservative election failures. I'm assuming you are to the right of 95% of the voters, you may even admit it...lots of Freepers proudly proclaim it. From your perspective, I am a ProLife ProGun ProGod ProSoldier ProBusiness RINO for Palin...meaning liberal. From my perspective(If you would let Obama be re-elected) the GOP is wasting its time courting your vote.
Thanx for your reply and an opportunity clarify my opinion.
You assume too much.
Yes, I might be to the right of 95% of the voters.
But I would never accuse a Palin supporter of being a RINO.
Moreover, I actually voted for McCain. Hated doing it. But did it, nonetheless. And I would vote for Romney -- if he were the GOP nominee. Would hate it. But do it, nonetheless. Because, as with McCain, he would be the better option.
I voted for Perot in '92. Learned my lesson. A "protest vote" doesn't accomplish squat.
Plus, I'm all in favor of incrementalism -- edging to the right whenever you can. If that's all you can do...
But what about "stealing a march"...when you can?
'Rats and moderates may outnumber Republicans. But I'd contend they don't outnumber conservatives. In fact, a majority of people self-identify as conservatives. Only about 20% self-identify as liberals. Reagan's success effectively confirms this construction.
As a political philosophy, conservatism is actually constrained by its association with the Republican Party. The party itself has to be dragged kicking and screaming toward a conservative candidacy. Don't misunderstand. I'm not arguing third party. Instead, I'm arguing a conservative ascendancy in the GOP -- a goal we've been working toward since '64.
You want a strategy? Convince a majority of voters to your point of view, and they will elect a Senator or President of your liking. Finding the right candidate to make your unpopular views palatable is not a strategy that will win often.
Oh my, yes. Couldn't agree more. It's essential that we convince a majority of voters to "our" point of view. And, based on their own self-identification, they represent a fertile field.
What about the MSM? Yes, they've been a problem -- a major problem in propagating conservatism. But their influence on public opinion shrivels daily. The time may now be ripe for a conservative candidate to actually run against the media -- to use them as a foil.
A winning conservative has to be charismatic to attract moderates, without sin to meet conservative voter standards, and politically savvy to navigate the MSM minefields. A rare combination.
And, at long last, we have such a candidate in hand. For the first time in over thirty years.
Let's take advantage of the opportunity...and steal a march.
A couple of things. First, this guy had a very similar attitude to mine about her running. And, like the author, I told her that, although I’d vote for her if she ran, I think she shouldn’t and could do more good in the role she currently plays.
Secondly, also similarly to the author, I am coming around to the idea that I think she SHOULD run.
There is one thing he and I disagree on, however. He says, “Would she win? Probably not,...”. I am beginning to think she would win. And the reason is due to things like what I see in this thread:
Systemic global crisis - 2011: The ruthless year, at the crossroads of three roads of global chaos http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2659926/posts
IOW, by the end of this year, I don’t think we’ll recognize this country. Urkel will be performing in a completely different world, and one much worse than the one we are in today, just as the world today is worse than it was last year, only the difference will be far greater.
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.