Conservatives and Romney work at working together

Google News/AP ^ | June 9, 2012 | Laurie Kellman, AP

[svcw]

Now just when was that Romney stopped being a liberal?

[MaxFlint]

There are enough intelligent Conservatives right here, at Free Republic, to turn America around, if we simply use our intelligence, rather than our anger.

We couldn't get a conservative nominee for president in the Republican party. What makes you think we can turn the country around?

Based on the election results the majority of Republicans are not FR style Reaganite conservatives. Some are moderates, a few are libertarians, a much larger group are people who don't like high taxes but don't care about abortion or homosexuality one way or the other, and the remainder are Reagan conservatives and social issues conservatives. Because the more balanced Reagan conservatives (who combine social and fiscal conservatism along with supporting a strong national defense) can't agree with the purely social conservatives they haven't been able to nominate anyone since George W. Bush, and even he was weak on fiscal conservatism.

In congress one thing we need to remember is that there are states where only a moderate or liberal Republican can win. We should not campaign against people like Scott Brown or Olympia Snow if they're the nominee. Sometimes that's the best you can do.

I will grant you one thing, if a strong conservative leader came forward he could move the country to the right the way Reagan did, but that means getting in the arena with a well financed, professional campaign. Complaining and arguing here won't do it.

[MaxFlint]

Now just when was that Romney stopped being a liberal?

When he decided to run for president. It's one of those amazing coincidences.

[altura]

I agree with your estimate about Romney voters.

Your assessment of the sentiment of the country is probably about right also.

I do think that people are moving right on abortion more than you do.

On gay rights, a lot of people don’t care that much. I don’t.

On the military, I think most people want America to retain a strong military presence and retain leadership in defense.

This is all muddled up with a general discontent with American military action in countries where we are going in without a clear purpose or where we have no national interest.

I personally am against interfering in middle-eastern countries. If we take the side of the rebels, the next thing we know is the rebels become the oppressors.

I really wish we would get to a position with our oil resources where we could ignore the middle east.

We are a sympathetic people and it’s hard to ignore suffering but there’s really not a dam thing we can do in those uncivilized countries with that peculiar oppressive religion.

On the other hand, the disaster of the Obama administration and the financial troubles have definitely moved people to the right on many issues.

[Ohioan]

He had clearly moved to the right in the debates--both in content & in tone (the latter, in contrast to the somewhat hysterical Santorum)

Those Conservatives who feel a need to keep insulting Gov. Romney, rather than quietly & logically stating the reasons why he should keep moving to the right, are certainly not helping in that direction.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

The problem you describe is largely because of George W. Bush & his mentor, Karl Rove, who had Bush chasing after previously developed voting blocks, rather than trying to actually lead people to reconsider their past conditioning by a Leftwing media's definition of the issues.

Bush's policies were not only fiscally not Conservative; his foreign policy was basically a revival of the Dean Rusk policy of the 1960s, which was a disaster. His social stands were almost as far Left. (Making a show of defending traditional marriage, hardly offset the Bush White House "leadership" on related issues--such as reversing his Attorney General's decision in 2003, to stop the celebration of "Homosexual Pride week" in the Justice Department, etc.)

William Flax