“The “they” in 1979 were the ones who said a “real conservative” like Reagan couldn’t win.”
Got that. You are missing the point again though. Mr. Reagan was conservative AND charismatic. If the latter characteristic is absent, it’s over. Two of these qualities are better than one, but the necessary one is NOT conservatism in order to be elected . . not in this culture.
“You’re not making sense again.”
Used car salesmen sell cars. That’s what we got in ‘08. If we want to get rid of Obama, that’s what we need to win this. Your mistake is not seeing the reality of our voting public as it is. Hoping that more voters will see it the “conservative” way is a huge leap of faith. Which will insure that we get Obama back for another term. I don’t want that more than settling for a less than perfect candidate.
The best in the new year to you . . hopefully, it will be the beginning of a new administration as well.
And Mittens is NOT conservative and is NOT charismatic. But here you are shilling for him anyway. I'll take conservative and not charismatic over Mittens. They said Reagan couldn't win in 1979 because he was too conservative. That was BS then just like saying a conservative can't win today, charisma notwithstanding.
Voters are going to vote their best interests. Hope and Change has delivered 9% unemployment and a host of other problems. Voters don't need to know that the alternative is conservative. All they need to know is that it is an alternative to something that isn't working. It takes someone who can communicate. Newt is an excellent communicator. It remains to be seen with Santorum. Perry, not so much.
Now, please go back to your earlier post and tell us the real reason FR is opposed to the election of Mitt Romney. If it isn't because he's not a conservative, what is it? Are you accusing your fellow conservatives of some hidden bigotry? You really need to answer the question after making such an accusation.