Posted on 03/11/2012 11:35:23 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
An Internet friend responded to my recent email re. Romney's past tilts to portside by observing that we have no choice but to support him if he is the nominee. While I want Obozo to go away ASAP, as of this writing, it's not looking all that good.
My somewhat expanded reply follows.
The Obama smear machine will tear Romney to shreds. Here's the narrative:
MR's past and current positions are similar/identical to mine. You gonna vote for a rich, white pubbie over the first black president? A rich, white pubbie who was born with a mouth full of silver spoons who makes snap bets for 10K on TV and tells unemployed workers that his wife drives "...several Cadillacs..."? You gonna vote to send me away after I hiked your welfare benes? (Almost 50% of Americans are receiving those benes.) And the Dem's will make sure ALL those supporters will get to the polls and, along with millions of illegals and the departed, vote early and often. (It's the Chicago Way.)
And because the choice is between Obozo and Obozo lite, a lot of the less committed and uninformed otherwise conservative voters may sit it out.
We need a clear CHOICE. We don't need the establishment GOP favorite shoved down our throats by the same Beltway jerks who, according to Palin, REFUSED to allow her to expose Obozo's marxist past in '08. That situation is but more evidence of the truth of some gallows humor popular with fellow cynics that the Dems want socialism NOW while the pubbies are content to wait a few days. The bad news from '08 is that the GOP establishment has become impatient.
With the MSM covering for Obozo again and the bulk of the electorate either ignorant of or supporting the dismantling of this nation, we've got trouble right here in River City.
I'm not sure this fight can be won -- or even worth the effort. It now seems that fight will almost certainly move to a new and more "kinetic" level. This WILL get ugly.
All that said, I and many of those I know will NOT allow these treasonous criminals to steal the birthright so many others died to defend.
I guess we'll see you at the polls. If that fails, it's on to the barricades (figurative or literal) to carry on the fight the other side started.
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods,"
Sure. After we’ve thoroughly discussed non-negotiable American principles.
Then I’ll be happy to discuss the less important matters you raise.
“Stand by and let Zero get another term?” “Take my ball and go home?” Sorry, you’re way off base. I’m doing neither.
But I’m also not supporting the most liberal Governor in the history of the United States, just because he has an “R” by his name.
Much work ahead. I’m *for* class warfare. Not Obummer’s, but first, We The People vs the Marxists, and then WTP against the entire remainder of the Political Class. An *awesome* amount of work ahead. I hope to live long enough to see the end of it.
“Don’t stay home. We are working to provide a principled conservative alternative.”
If you mean a third party...I would give it serious consideration. However, I WILL NOT vote for a libertarian because they are not conservatives. Nor will I vote for anyone third party that is not “pro-life”, “pro-morality”(opposes the continued homosexualization of culture and law), “pro-2nd”, pro-Israel, and pro-national defense (no isolationist crap or friendliness towards Islamists - and NO cuts to the military’s size or pay).
So, IF the “principled conservative” doesn’t have those views - they won’t get my vote. I don’t oppose the “tea party” view of getting the government to be under control and spend within its means....but that is not what I’m primarily about. Of course, fiscal sanity is extremely important, as is getting the economy moving. However, a booming economy while American moral values go down the toilet is useless in my thinking.
“I continue to contend that Newt is the only one of the 3 capable of making Obama’s campaign, pure misery.”
While I like Rick as a morale conservative, I agree that Mitt is the best at fighting Obama in a general election. Also, I know that even if Mitt loses, he will have so enviscerated Obama during the campaign that Obama will be a total lame duck before his 2nd term starts. He will be a political enuch that can’t get any of his goals done. So, it will buy 4 years of more or less neutrality.
Well, gosh, our party meets every single one of your criteria, in detail.
http://www.selfgovernment.us/platform.html
Nope. I'm not going to do jack for that lying psychopath.
What I need to do is keep donating to Newt's campaign. Should he get the nomination I will gladly vote for him. Should Little Ricky get it, I will pull the lever for him. I will even grudgingly pull the lever for Paul.
If Mitt gets the nomination, then Conservatives MUST write in Sarah Palin's name on the ballot.
“This election is about more than the presidency.”
Amen!
JUST SAY NO TO B.O. [my virtual bumper sticker.]
“I continue to contend that Newt is the only one of the 3 capable of making Obama’s campaign, pure misery.”
Amen.
“Then I’ll be happy to discuss the less important matters you raise.”
The “candidate” dictates to voters what he will talk about?
The candidate will not describe his qualifications?
You are pissing into the wind, with an attitude like that.
No. You and I just disagree about what constitutes “qualifications.”
And besides, I’ve made myself available to any question anyone cares to ask twice a week for the last four years. That’s besides the dozen years of posting I’ve done here at FR.
Look, if you want formal degrees, I’m not your guy. Maybe you should consider Obama. He allegedly went to Hah-vard and Columbia. If you want business success, go with Willard. He buys and sells companies and souls and “conservative” organizations and political parties and delegates as a vocation.
But if you value rock-ribbed, no-nonsense, never-back-up, never-back-down, proven Reagan conservatism - pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-border security, pro-national sovereignty, Peace through Strength - more than those things, you might consider what we’re doing to restore principled government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Have a nice evening.
― G.K. Chesterton
“Well, gosh, our party meets every single one of your criteria, in detail.”
It certainly is a step in the right direction. However, it isn’t strong enough on morale principles. While I would like to allow a live and let live practice towards homosexuals....it doesn’t work. The practice is every bit as abhorent as abortion...and needs to have government sanctions against it...not just the denial of marital status.
I don’t like extreme federalism, it just creates often dangerous differences between states. It was federalism, IMO, that led to the Civil War. Obviously, there are things that belong at the state level, but too often this creates great problems when a U.S. citizen moves from state to state. So, IF federalism causes heroin use in one state, this is wrong. There are laws that need to be enforced in all 50 states...drugs are one.
Also, I consider the attempt to eliminate income tax is a very bad idea that will only serve to weaken our military by defunding it. It is too simplistic a stance. It won’t work.
I think you’ve misunderstand us, both in terms of our stance vis a vis sodomy and other moral wrongs, and our position on what constitutes true federalism.
And we simply disagree with you about the income tax. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception. Read Hamilton in Federalist 21, in which he makes the case for direct taxes rather than indirect taxes. He nailed it, and almost everyone in our party agrees with him.
In my last post “misunderstand” should be “misunderstood,” of course...
“And we simply disagree with you about the income tax. It is fundamentally flawed from its inception. Read Hamilton in Federalist 21, in which he makes the case for direct taxes rather than indirect taxes. He nailed it, and almost everyone in our party agrees with him.”
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the original intent of the constitution was to avoid an income tax. So, I don’t have to read Hamilton. However, it WAS ALSO their intent that as things changed the people could ammend the constitution to change things with changing times. Thus, the constitution was ammended to allow income tax when it became necessary. This wasn’t done by a court or some other body other than the people. The constitution was properly modified by ammendment, as per original intent. Thus, what Hamilton thought is no longer relevant...the constitution was properly modified by the people, as per the proper process. I HATE sales taxes and other types of taxes. Does our income tax system need tweaking...yes..but it is preferable to taxes of goods and services. While I am not adverse to tariffs, you cannot run a country solely on that. You cannot have a strong military without the taxes to fund them. Also, for every sailor/soldier/airman/marine in the field, there must be a whole buncy of support troops and civilians employees to keep them working. A knee jerk hatred of “big government” can hurt the military structure of this country. That is one flaw of Tea Party type thinking. Now are there other areas of government that could be cut...yes of course. However, once again, I don’t like that there are such extreme differences in as I move from state to state. So, I see the place for a strong central government with the “evil” of federal employees....that is what makes us a country instead of just a union. The key is to keep them in check and limit the scope of their power. It has been my personnal experience that STATE employees can be as bad or worse in implementing odious rules and regulations. Hench, a state (even county or city) can be just a tyranical (or worse) as a central government. Often times the “county” governments are the most corrupt. Therefore, I am not an advocate of decentralized government (AKA Federalism) on the major issues. Certain things should be legal, without impediments in all 50 states...i.e. the right to keep and bear arms. Conversely, certain practices should be illegal in all 50 states...i.e. Abortion, Homosexual marriage.
You say the platform is misunderstood by me on the Sodomy question....but I have read it.....it is vague. IF the intent is to suppress sodomy, then it needs to be clear.
I will say this about your proposed party. IT IS BETTER THAN A ROMNEY REPUBLICAN ONE.
It was not our intent to put every jot and tittle of public policy and law into our platform. That’s how you end end up with 60 page documents everyone ignores.
I know very few conservatives across the land who agree with you about income taxes versus consumption-based taxation.
In fact, during our convention, a good friend, a wonderful conservative gentleman, tried to modify our platform to accommodate an income tax. He couldn’t get a second, much less any votes.
But, in any case, while the elimination of the federal income tax remains part of our platform, and I strongly support keeping it so, this matter is not among our non-negotiables. To take your position is not a violation of either our Affiliation Agreement or our Leadership Pledge.
It falls into this category of things which are certainly debatable:
From the Preface to our Platform:
“However, we also believe that there is room for debate over prudential policy matters within certain parameters of fundamental American political thought and a framework of ordered liberty. We seek a return to an approach to government that facilitates that respectful and necessary debate, but that never compromises the moral premises that made this country great.”
http://www.selfgovernment.us/platform.html
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.