I believe cruz will be the republican candidate. I suspect his strategy is to delay entering the race - and a good one at that. He is not worried about funding from the republican "donors", a.k.a., liberals.
If Romney isn't honest with his personal friends, how honest do you think he'll be with the rest of the country? Just thinking out loud here.
Anything that takes votes away from Bush is a good thing.
I remember when the thinking was "Anything that takes votes away from hilary is a good thing."
Be careful what you wish for.
I consider romney to be in a tie for the least desirable republican candidate (with bush, christie, Et al), though he would still be 100% better than ANY democrat I have heard mentioned.
Have you never changed your mind on anything? If so, does that mean you were lying the first time?
I think Romney is a good man and a great businessman. He'd have made a far, far better President than the clown we have now.
That said, I hope he does not run. I'd much prefer Cruz, Walker, Jindal, Perry or even Paul over Mitt.
I concur with NVA on romney.
The fact remains the he, nor any other liberal republican has a chance of winning the general election. That probably won't stop the republicans from nominating one. I forsee a long season of butting heads with some of the pillars around here, but what do I know, I picked Oregon!
I stand by my previous statement. Romney would have been an order of magnitude better than Obama. But I want a conservative, and freely admit that would be twice as good as Romney. I don't have to compromise anything.
Seems the "He is better than a Dem" excuses for Romney are already starting.
No substance, No reason he should be president.
What would gun control look like?
What would Health Care look like?
What would immigration look like?
It would look like a little different version of shiite.
Who can disagree?
Romney would have only had one term like Bush senior and Hillary would already be president....
To do that, a business has to produce a quality product people want, at a good price, provide good customer service and stay innovative - if something works, make it better, if something doesn't work, fix it or pull the product off the market.
If you're the governor of a liberal state like Massachusetts, what your 'customer' wants is likely to be far different than if you're the governor of a conservative state like Wyoming. I suspect Romney would have done things considerably differently if he'd been the governor of Wyoming than he did as governor of Massachusetts.
If Romney were POTUS, I know he would not be as conservative nor as focused on restoring limited government as I'd prefer. But I'd be willing to bet he'd be a lot more conservative than many here think he'd be.
Most of us here believe Reagan was the best POTUS of our lifetimes. Certainly I believe that.
Yet while Reagan was a huge success in doing two of the three things he set out to do - win the Cold War and get the economy rolling again, he was a major disappointment on the third - reining in the growth of government.
That third goal is a very important goal to almost everyone on the CF. Yet if you held Reagan to the same standards you hold so many other potential GOP candidates, you'd call him a RINO and refuse to vote for him if he was running again.
Yes, he's a good businessman. Yes, he's a decent person.
But he's also proven that he DOES NOT have what it takes to kick a$$ and take names, and in a Presidential race you need to do that. In politics the good guys finish last.
We need someone who will smell the blood on the water and then go in for the kill, with no hesitation.
That's not Mitt.
I also heard a comment that, "He will have to run to the right of Jeb Bush. But even if Romney does that he's STILL far to the left of everyone else!"
Jeb Bush no way, Christy, Not even. Santorium never,. But Romney, Not perfect but palatable. Plus his wife and family are great people. I doubt it would be her first time to be proud to be an American.
God bless, Steve
I just hope to heaven that it's NOT Romney because he doesn't stand a chance!
I think you're wrong.
Several polls over the past many months have asked, "If an election was held today, who would you vote for? President Obama or Mitt Romney?"
Romney came out on top in every one of those polls by a significant margin.
Hillary is Obama without the supposed charisma and much lauded, but non-existent, oratory skills. She's intensely dislikeable, to boot.
The other factor is the "I didn't get the candidate I wanted so I'm taking my ball and going home" voter, many of who are present here. Last time Romney got even LESS votes than McCain do in 2008! The lack of participation by the "base" was the reason for this and this HAS NOT changed, in fact it may even be worse now. The "lack of interest" factor will have a big impact of Romney is the guy IMO.
The only thing we can hope for is that by 2016 Obama will have screwed things up SO bad that even the dunce vote (you know, the people who only vote in Presidential year elections, and who don't know who they will ote for until the step into the voting booth...)will want a real change.
But I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
So did Obama.
The apathetic and the "I'll take my ball and stay home" crowd therefore, are why Obama won re-election.
That's the facts, Jack!
Romney may not have been what you and I wanted him to be, but he is NOT a 'liberal.'
Gun control...check
Climate change...check
Same sex marriage...check
Tax increases...check
Cap and Trade...check
Government health care...check
Immigration...check
Abortion...check
Must have forgotten who this guy is over the last few years, Hillary is more to the right than Romney. Heck Ted Kennedy would give him a run for his money when comparing conservative values.
A vote for Hillary will be voting for the conservative if he gets the nomination.
Please document and post your sources.
Which you just kept calling me a liar about after I met your challenge of documenting and posting my sources.
My solution for you is called Google, type two words "Romney" and "Liberal" and articles from the National Review, Wall street Journal, Forbes, and the Heritage Foundation will populate.
NvaGvUp,
Please document and post your sources that he is a Conservative.
Maybe just one?
I will always remember that with proven evidence in your face you called me a liar to back a liberal.
You have been using the same tactics since I first came here in 1995.
Let me ask you again as is your own tactic....
NvaGvUp,
Please document and post your sources that he is a Conservative.
Maybe just one?
At least he isn't a libertarian!
Please document and post your sources that he is a Conservative.
Post some "facts" for the other bowsiters benefit.
Campaign promises and liberal votes are the facts.
No conservative record.
"Mr. Kennedy’s strong debate performance in late October in Faneuil Hall also caught Mr. Romney off guard. On Election Day, Mr. Romney lost, 58 percent to 41 percent. Later, over dinner with Mr. Malone, he lamented that he had failed to define himself."
"Well, I’d put it another way: he hasn’t been very successful in defining himself to voters," Axelrod said. "And he’s left himself vulnerable to a whole range of questions that I think people are asking about him, and whether he’ll be the kind of advocate for the middle class, an advocate for their interests in this economy that they're looking for in this election."
Obama defined Romney and won an election Obama should have lost.
Romney would be the only way Hillary could win in 2016....
If Romney is not a "liberal", then he should be one of the top box-office draws in America because he did a darn good job of acting the part when he was Governor of Mass.
gflight, myself, and multiple others here posted enough links pointing to Romney's liberal policies to sink a ship, during his previous 2 runs. Kyle either ignored them or stuck his fingers in his ears and said "I'm not listening". And now he has a very "selective" memory about them. I guess getting old really sucks, huh?
Kyle, there is a "search" feature here on Bowsite, maybe you heard? Maybe you should spend a little time figuring out how to use it and actually read some of those links that were provided for you years ago, before you come in here as the Romney shill saying all the same discredited stuff you said in his previous 2 runs.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Romney does run. And Christie too. The two of them and Jeb can have a battle royale to split the liberal GOP primary votes. Romney has proven, by even thinking about running again, that he has an even bigger ego than I already thought he did.
sleepyhunter's Link
It's happening, and you guys are going to do it again, aren't you? Nobody can say the republican party didn't earn it's fate.
Just yesterday I saw a graphic where some outfit had ranked a number of potential candidates on a liberal/conservative continuum. They used some formula that included their positions on issues (possibly past actions too?) and who is donating money to them. It is a new outfit, so I do not know how reliable they are. Since I do not see Paul as all that conservative (libertarian and major waffling lately), it could be a libertarian leaning site (just conjecture).
Paul was the most conservative (at nearly 100% conservative) with Cruz just slightly behind him. Sanders was the most liberal. On that scale, all potential republican candidates were far more conservative than any potential democrat candidate.
romney was not the most liberal of the republicans, but was nearly so. It seems that they had maybe a dozen republicans on the list. romney and bush were in the same range (don't remember their relative places).
If I run across it again, I will try to post it.
This is in line with what I have always said about romney. He is far better than any democrat, but a far cry from as conservative as I would want.
One thing that is missing from current politics is the chance for a candidate to learn and grow. I agree with the above statement that core principles should not change. However even on Bowsite we have seen a remarkable transformation of at least one person.
"You have been using the same tactics since I first came here in 1995."
How does that work? I didn't get here until 1998-1999 or so.
tb, pot/kettle
I won't speak for gflight, but there were many pointed discussions surrounding both of the last two republican nominations and subsequent elections. There were hard words both ways I know, with Nva and others always defending Romney. I can't speak to every word, but gflight isn't too far off base in my eyes. FWIW
I hit CF and others about the same time and I was learning about black tails and Elk on the other forums since I had not hunted out west before.
I just got back from Korea and a friend convinced me to bow hunt for longer season and the fact my gun was on the east coast.
You also had to pick either bow or rifle for each animal and couldn't do both.
Once I left there I just stayed on cf and lurk around Missouri forum from time to time.
No worries. I generally can't even remember what I had for breakfast, or even if I had breakfast. ;^)
When you sacrifice principles for victory, you have neither.
Even if the eGOP nominates what they consider to be "conservative", the debates will put a "romney-taint" on them and the party will again campaign and move further left.
This is true. Last debate in 2012, Romney snatched defeat from the jaws of victory right before our eyes in real time, and he even let himself be owned by that Obama fluffer Crawley. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. It was like a world class boxer taking a dive in the last round.
I sincerely hope he's not the nominee.
You will never, ever convince me that Romney "is just as bad/worse" than Obama. Never, ever.
Tell me the truth...you would sit on your hands again knowing FULL well that it would give us Hillary as our President? Really?
We have control over the legislative branch and you would dilute that power by having us get another radical Democrat for President?
You can rationalize it all you wish, but that is EXACTLY what will happen...again...if you guys take your ball and go home again.
With a Democrat at the helm we have ZERO/ZIP/NADA chance to change anything. With Repubilcan we also have a tough battle but at least there's SOME chance. That's better than zero!
CORONADO, CALIF. As the leading GOP prospects for the White House ramp up their national outreach, Republicans unveiled plans Friday for a primary season aimed at keeping the nominee unscathed and ready to take on the Democratic candidate heading toward Election Day.
Said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, "We're not going to have a circus."
However, buzz that 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney was considering a third campaign built throughout the RNC's three-day meeting, culminating in his public confirmation of that during the closing banquet Friday.
"I'm giving some serious consideration to the future," Romney told more than 200 party activists, leaders and former aides.
Bush 4.x
Christie X.X
Issues:
Immigration
Big Government
Obamacare
Islamic terrorism
Global warming
2A
Common Core
2008...2012...
And after a strong message sent to the GOP last November, can anyone really see any real change in where this country is headed?
gflight's Link
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/01/18/mitt-romney-quite-simply-doesnt-get-it-and-shouldnt-run-for-president/
"Going back to Ronald Reagan’s two landslide victories in the ‘80s, if the strategy of handouts is “proven” then it’s presumed that it’s worked for quite some time. Why then did Reagan win by so much despite offering voters less than Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale?
Liberal historian Richard Reeves lamented during Bill Clinton’s presidency that “Reagan, in fact, is still running the country.” Clinton himself said that “the era of big government is over,” with a Republican Congress oversaw spending declines, yet he won two national elections in landslide fashion."
Second, we CAN NOT put up extreme right leaning people like Cruz or we lose again. Sorry but the days of extreme left/right candidates is long gone.
I think Romney can win if he's up against Hillary or another, rich white candidate. Her age and the voters weariness of having the SAME people in the WH has been made apparent in recent polls. People want someone new.
Whatever we do the VP has to be an energetic minority. We have to only peel about 5% of the minority vote our way to win.
The days of big wins are behind us this election will be 55-45 range. So it's how do you win the middle and some of the minority vote. That's how you win the election in 2016.
Oh by the way, Ted Cruz is a minority. Think maybe he wouldn't pull a few more minorities to vote for him than usual for the GOP nominee?
'nuff said.
Yeah, because the republicans nominating an actual conservative never works. LOL
"Sorry but the days of extreme left/right candidates is long gone."
President Obama would like a word with you.
joshuaf's Link
The above is a good article about a speech Cruz just gave to a Tea Party conference.
But on the same token I just cannot for the life of me see how NOT voting and then winding up with Hillary shows anybody anything.
Ar Troy not sure what your conservative definition is but we have had a conservative run for president for the last 35 years.
Again, the ONLY reason Romney lost was because of the minority vote. THE ONLY REASON.
If Republicans, which I have been all my life, can't figure out how to change the dynamic with that group. We will continue to lose until we do. It is just a mathematical fact.
BTW I know the woman who was just hired to run Hilary's advertising campaign. She's one of the best in the biz. Hope whoever we hire is also the same caliber.
And again, Cruz is a minority, latino. He will draw extra minority votes without even trying.
Yes, Romney lost minorities. But the Obama spin machine also made sure he lost enough of the middle class. The "take my ball and go home" wing of the Republican base guaranteed an Obama victory.
The establishment spends so much time, energy, and effort going after the squishy middle and dismiss the fact that so many Americans who just don't vote are just as likely to be conservative, very conservative, and the party gives them no reason to come to the polls. Quite the opposite in fact.
Wait, what? Maybe the media played that fact up to a strong degree, but let's be real here, Romney IS an "out of touch aristocrat". He has every right in America to be that way, but let's call a spade a spade. And I'm not talking about because he "sent jobs overseas". Romney never could connect with the average, ordinary American voter, and it had little to nothing to do with the fact that the "media" portrayed him in that way. It had almost everything to do with the facts of Romney's life and how he came across to the average voter, in debates, speeches, etc.
And to your point, Joshua, Romney is no more out of touch than Obama. But the dem spin machine won that one.
bad karma's Link
The Republican turnout was down. In 2004, 62 million voted Republican. *n 2010k 60 million. In 2012, 57 million.
Any way you do the math, that is lower than it was in 2008 or, even worse, 2004.
And yet somehow this is not connected to the candidate that the republicans produced. The answer is right in front of you.
It's a nice bit of fiction to believe that people hang on the wishes of the power broker types. But the people went to the voting machines, and voted amongst many different alternatives, including Ron Paul.
It's not my fault they voted the way they did. But if you want to delude yourself, go right ahead.
The hard sell of Romney/McCain being the only "electable candidate in the field started early, as it will this cycle. We are already being treated to claims of how "extreme" Cruz is. Right on schedule.
By Lloyd Marcus
From Marcus' essay:
"...I confess. With 5 minutes left in the championship game, Russell Wilson's third interception, and Seattle two touchdowns behind, I turned the channel, assuming that Green Bay won. Upon turning back to the game, I was shocked to see Seattle ahead by one point. Seattle ultimately won the game in overtime and is going to the Super Bowl. During his post-game interview, Wilson said despite that three interceptions and the score, they simply kept fighting.
Watching the game, I watched Seattle blow numerous opportunities and make mistakes resulting in turning the ball over to their opponents five times. Wilson admitted that he did not play his best game. Still, he kept encouraging his teammates to keep fighting and believing that they would win.
Please note that Wilson did not waste energy verbally beating up receivers for dropping balls, nor did the linemen stop blocking for their quarterback after he threw three interceptions. They stuck together, laser-focused on defeating their nemesis, the Green Bay Packers, rather than each other.
Brother and sister patriots, I hate it that we are so quick to kick a courageous patriot to the curb who fumbles the ball during an interview or is targeted by the Dems and MSM for standing up for conservatism.
Shame on you folks who ran to the tall grass away from Sen. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, claiming they are simply too toxic. These two patriots are among a handful displaying the character and guts to fight for us at their peril. Is this how you treat your friends? And then you whine about Obama acting like our king, with no one out there attempting to stop him. Well, you cannot have it both ways. Whoever takes on Obama is going to be trashed by the Dems and MSM.
Have you noticed the pattern? Anyone on our side who strongly pushes back against the left or does not let the racist stupid inmates run the asylum, we are told is toxic and must be kicked to the curb lest we suffer sure defeat. We have seen it happen with Cruz, Palin, and others..."
My mother is generally fairly perceptive, but I still remember her letting CNN convince her that Newt was the scum of the earth.
bad karma's Link
But the voters have the power to pick someone else.
Santorum got 40% of the votes and 25% of the delegates
Romney got 35% of the votes and 54% of the delegates
Gingrich got 13% of the votes and 0% of the delegates
Paul got 12% of the votes and 20% of the delegates
It looks like romney and Paul got delegates without getting votes to earn them.
THAT is why it is SO important to start the work from the ground up in every state - probably even more so in states that are decidedly blue and will never be won by a republican.
Maybe only states that voted for a republican in the last election should get to have a say at the convention (or 2-3X the delegates at least)
Iowa- Last voted republican in 2004, the only time it has gone republican since 1984.
New Hampshire- Last voted republican in 2000, the only time it has gone republican since 1988.
South Carolina- Last voted democrat in 1976.
Florida- Has voted republican in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections.
Nevada- Has voted republican in 2 of last 6.
Colorado- Has voted republican in 3 of the last 6.
Missouri- Has voted democrat in 2 of the last 6.
Minnesota- Last voted republican in 1972, and has only voted republican 3 times since 1932.
Maine- Last voted republican in 1988, and has not voted republican in the last 6 elections.
Arizona- Has voted democrat in one of the last 6.
So, with the exceptions of SC, AZ, and MO, why in the world would the republican party not be at the forefront, clamoring for different states to set the early tone in the primary? And just the opposite is true? The party threatens states who vote republican with not counting their primary if they want a voice? What?
Bingo.
I'm not sure what the solution is but one part of it is to give everyone an equal shot. There has to be a way for a dark horse to captivate the base, but still filter out the folks that need to be filtered out. I'm not a political strategist in that fashion.
WRT the other thing, one problem that Romney had, and the GOP in general, is that they let the Dems define the agenda. Far better is that you are always on the attack, and you let them react to you.
God bless, Steve
And if Hillary wins, don't blame Romney. The votes are mostly cast before ANYONE even prints the ballot. 40% democrat no matter what, 40% republican no matter what. While the general election gets decided by the last 20%. Period.
And of that 20% - women will lean towards Hillary, the minorities all lean democrat, those in the unions lean democrat, and those receiving government checks will vote democrat. Not to mention the illegal aliens and dead people who somehow manage to vote!
If you want the blame game, don't blame Romney being too in the middle. Nothing else has any chance. Tonight Obama is going to steal more from the 1% to buy more votes from the other 99%. Its a strategy that is hard to beat, with so many personally benefitting and even less paying close attention!
That is total BS. How can you guys not see that you are helping the leftists spread their message of discord amongst the potential opposition. Romney is probably not nearly as conservative as most would like, but on a scale of 1 to 100 he is at the very least in the 50-60 range and hilary is no more than a 10. On top of that is the character issue. If you cannot see the difference in their characters, then you probably lack judgment on a lot of other issues.
"WRT the other thing, one problem that Romney had, and the GOP in general, is that they let the Dems define the agenda."
For the most part, the agenda is defined by the popular press and entertainment media. I have stated repeatedly that the dem candidate gets free publicity and positive portrayal of the candidate and their leftist positions worth probably more than all actual campaign spending combined.
One of the frustrations of the RP crowd is that nobody heard him. Why is that? Because the leftists control the media.
I believe there are hundreds of thousands of votes on the conservative side that the republicans must not want. Millions have been spent, political careers sidetracked and ruined, and good people have been demonized by their own party, going after that magical 20% that the establishment sees in the middle. How is that working?
HA,
It's my opinion that Romney is much closer to Hillary than he is to Ted Cruz politically. Just my opinion, but I think many would agree. I believe that given the right circumstances, Romney would say it himself.
Running Romney or Bush are 2 ways they could snatch defeat from probable victory.. Romney cannot win.
16 Reasons Why Hillary Will Win in 2016
I would absolutely agree with you on that, and I think Romney has the record as Governor to prove it. Heck, what was Hillary's signature "goal" that she never achieved when Bubba was President? Government Health Care. Romney got that one down pat in Mass.
Romney...typical politician: will say/"believe" whatever is most politically expedient.
I don't remember it quite that way. In 12' Romney had a slight advantage leading up to the storm but predictions of a landslide? McCain never really stood a chance. Anyone with a brain saw that one coming.
Now there is a diff right now. In the recent poll it was a landslide. Obama lost massive support. I think it was in the 30's and Romney was in the mid to higher 50's. I think the only person more disliked than Obama is Hillary.
Romney would crush any D candidate after what's went on IMO. That doesn't mean he is the best candidate for the position but imo I think he would win easy this time around. The D policies have been shown to be dangerous and not very productive. Not that the R are any better but the US is ready to shift the other way for a few years in another fruitless effort to change things.
Jack,
Yeah maybe he is flip flopping but I have realized something the past 8 years. No matter the candidate they all lie out their arse. Every single one has. They all flip flop or take one for the team. Right down the line bar none no exceptions. Romney only gets the play and bad press cuz he is the big swinger on the block. Go after each one the same way and they are all a lying POS. Cant think of one who isn't. If he isn't its only cuz no ones looked close enough. So I guess vote for the least lying scum bag is the way to go
I remember many, many threads from that time. I was among a few being disparaged and dismissed for my thoughts and opinions during both campaigns. We took quite a lot of heat for telling what turned out to be the dead on truth. Many didn't want to hear it then, just as they don't now. Not a time I will forget easily. I don't think I'm the only one who remembers all the polls and predictions.
BowSniper's Link
You have some dream that an Uber-conservative is going to appear and galvanize the half of the country that sits out each election. But the half that sits out every election is still split the same way! Your Uber-conservative would bring out just as many to oppose him keeping the national balance about the same. There are just as many disenfranchised democrats and independents (probably independents most of all!) that choose not to vote because of the crappy two party system. Its the independents that swing each election. And those running far right or far left are simply going to lose them.
We need a slow steady turn to the right after Obama. Turn too sharp too fast and you are going to sink the ship. And through the madness of extreme ideology, you are probably kidding yourself to think that is OK too....
Palin has strong conservative principles too but became a joke on the big national stage. And she quit the governor position she held before even finishing the term, because she couldn't take the heat. Love what she has to say, but in no way is she fit to be President. I say we keep an open mind to anyone sitting right of center (whether a little or a lot) and really spend some time picking the best candidate. Your guy (whoever that is) should be viewed on their own merit, and not simply because you hate someone else.
My point was that we should not write off Romney so quickly just because he is initially considered 'not conservative enough'. Lets see how he does stacked up against the other front runners. I like the Romney that kicked Obama's ass soundly in the first major presidential debate. And he turned out to be quite right after all, on the sticking points in that big second national debate!
Good luck.
At the time, we were reminded by one of the CF's political experts of DICK morris' prediction, ad nauseum. It was fun. :)
That being said, part of the complaint at the time was that Romney was too nice to go for the jugular. I have no information that says he has changed. Therefore, I can't believe he can win anything against a Democrat.
Romney is old news. We need someone newer, and with a killer instinct. That suggests to me a Cruz, Walker or Perry, with the governors getting the first look because of executive experience.
Explain?
John Kerry also won Independents against GW, and lost the election.
Romney lost because the Dems have broken the country down into small groups, and win each small group by promising things we cannot possibly afford.
Dems also won the black vote 93/6, the Hispanic vote 71/27, and the Asian vote 73/26. What is your guy offering to each group that would return better results?
The Dems in 2012 won women 55/44. What will your guy do to gain a better share next time against Hillary no less ?!?!
The Dems win the under $50k income group by 60/28 (HALF of the entire country). What does your guy propose to draw a greater share of that group?
My point is you can bash Romney (or any candidate) all you want if it makes you feel better about your personal ideology. But unless your preferred guy can make a better case that more people ACTUALLY buy into with real votes, its a dream machine going nowhere.
BowSniper's Link
Its a matter of degree. Right of center is the sweet spot. Too far right and you lose votes.
BowSniper, so what you're telling me is that you're now prepared to retract your above statement from a previous post? Since it is obviously wrong in light of the fact that Romney won Independents decisively and still lost the election?
I never said my preferred candidate would win a higher % of Independents. I also didn't say it was necessary to win the election, as you strongly implied.
Chasing our tail with blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and women will get us just what we got the last two cycles. It has been proven now twice.
You wrote "I never said my preferred candidate would win a higher % of Independents. I also didn't say it was necessary to win the election, as you strongly implied." So you are an expert in what you are NOT saying, and never addressed my questions above.
How are you going to increase the number of votes in the categories I listed, because there aren't enough angry white men in the tea party to win it alone.
And yes Hackbow - I think winning is the goal. Someone is going to win the Presidency, and this extreme ideology of all-or-nothing is going to leave you with exactly that... nothing. You aren't driving any damn buggy if you never win the keys. And I'd rather not have Hillary driving, with all of us locked in the trunk.
I favor a strategy of winning the election with the most conservative person capable of winning. Period. Explain to me (and those noble Paulites) how not winning furthers your cause?
You can't just keep beating "the base" drum and hoping for the best. The other side also has a base. And again, the middle remains larger than either base!
Additionally, your "base" is more diverse than just white men making over 50k. Or is that one trick pony what you really plan to ride to the promised land?
I listed numerous demographics that played a part in the 2012 loss. You are unable/unwilling to explain how you would do better in any of those categories. And not doing better, is only losing to a greater degree.
And while Cruz won (once) in 2012 with 56% of the vote, that is nothing special in Texas. The other republican senators in Texas won within 1% of that number or more in EVERY election since 1990. I like the guy, but its too early to be trying to win by attacking everyone else.
Who do you support and what makes you think he can win the general election... other than a warm fuzzy feeling he gives you and some ideological hate for all things Romney.
We have hard, un-equivocal evidence that your guy cannot win the general election. You are the one working from feelings, not us. Your warm fuzzy tells you the republicans must again head left (because it has worked so well before) while we have the facts that when the republicans nominate a conservative, or someone the base thinks is a conservative, we win!
But more importantly - what makes you think your guy would somehow do better than Romney? I hope he can deliver, I just say I have not seen it yet. Nothing special in his election results in the ONE election he won. No governor experience. No national debates to vet his position on the issues. Its easy to be throwing jabs from the JV bench surrounded by sycophants, making votes that have no chance of passing and therefore taking no risk.
Like you all dodging the questions about what demographic numbers he will win compared to those he will lose. Or some poll, any poll, that shows him doing well against Hillary.
Again I hope he can. He would have my vote at this point. I am just saying that is far from certain and its waaaay too early to be destroying the other candidates we may need, if the Cruz train takes a wrong turn. If your guy is good, you wouldn't have to stand on the competition to be heard.
"President George Herbert Walker Bush ran as a strong conservative, ran to continue the third term of Ronald Reagan, continue the Ronald Reagan revolution," Cruz said. "Then he raised taxes and in ’92 ran as an establishment moderate—same candidate, two very different campaigns. First one won, second one lost. In 1996, you got Bob Dole; 2000 and 2004, you have George W. Bush; 2008, John McCain; 2012, Mitt Romney. And what does the entire D.C. Republican consulting class say? ‘In 2016, we need another establishment moderate!’ Hasn’t worked in four decades. ‘But next time will be the time!’"
Later on in the story, Toobin questioned Cruz's theory.
"Cruz’s historical narrative of Presidential politics is both self-serving and questionable on its own terms. Conveniently, he begins his story after the debacle of Barry Goldwater, a conservative purist whom Cruz somewhat resembles," wrote Toobin. "Nixon ran as a healer and governed, by contemporary standards, as a moderate, opening up relations with China, signing into law measures banning sex discrimination, expanding the use of affirmative action, establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and signing the Clean Air Act. Reagan’s record as governor of California included support for tax increases, gun control, and abortion rights, so he sometimes appeared less conservative than his modern reputation suggests. George W. Bush won (if he won) as a self-advertised “compassionate conservative."
Toobin also suggested Cruz's prediction a conservative Republican would have a strong shot at the White House "has not evoked much fear in Democrats." He quoted one anonymous "Democratic senator" who described Cruz as the Walter Mondale of the GOP. Mondale, a Democratic former vice president, badly lost the 1984 presidential election to Reagan while running as an unabashed liberal.
"We all hope he runs," the senator said of Cruz.
BowSniper's Link
And the kind of person who says (anonymously, of course) that Cruz is the "Walter Mondale of the GOP" is the same kind of person who is shocked - GENUINELY SHOCKED - that "American Sniper" is rolling every other movie at the box office this week. It's like the quote from one lefty media member to another lefty media member, "I don't know how GW Bush won, I don't know anyone who voted for him!".
Never a good idea to take political advice from your political enemies. They don't exactly have your best interests in mind. Also never a good idea to let the Leftist media members - primarily on both Liberal coasts - set the narrative about something or someone they know nothing about and couldn't possibly understand.
The "moderate" GOP Presidential nominee being the most "electable" is a farce, it's an utter falsehood, proven time and again.
As far as the Clinton Cruz poll. How many people at this point in the game have heard of Cruz, Clinton? Clinton has name recognition. Give Cruz a campaign on a national stage for a year and things could look vastly different. Poles are for fishing and nothing else.
BTW, I and my entire family voted for both McCain and Romney. Won't happen again for any of us, so whatever.
Yes, there is overlap among those categories, but no matter how you describe a particular group, why would any of them vote for Cruz in greater numbers than they did for Romney? Its not just about the 35% group of 35% staunch conservative Cruz brings in greater numbers, because the country is far more diverse than that, and that much larger number of '65% everyone else' needs a reason to vote for Cruz instead of the Hillary. Its a simple question. And the answer must be horrible for you to avoid it so doggedly.
Romney infamously said that he lost 47% of the vote before the election even started. Are you saying Cruz would have a different result, and why? Or are you saying no one can know anything (other than YOU) because you seem to only know you are right when its comes to the unknown.
If you say its impossible to know how one group would vote in any election, then your whole premise of Cruz doing better than anyone is ridiculous when there is no data to support anything.
Jim in Ohio had another question you avoided above. Would you ever vote for a Mormon? Not just Romney but any Mormon. Is that what this is all about?
The polls in October, 1980 had Carter at 45% and Reagan at 39%. Actual election results a few weeks later: Reagan 51%, Carter 41%.
I say no one knows yet, Its far too early. And a long ugly primary tearing our own players apart is a terrible approach. Romney doesn't have to suck for Cruz to be great. Let Cruz be great for his own merit, not because of Romney's failings.
And I say its a numbers game. Who can claim otherwise?? Other than your own core team (35% by the demographic I provided above) is there any reason to believe he brings any other group? If not yet, then its OK to be honest and say so. As he takes a greater role in center stage, please share accolades that will appeal to a broader range of voters. I just don't believe we can win doubling down on the 35% core conservatives without having a wider appeal.
Seriously too early to declare anyone dead. So lets not. It only helps Hillary. And its a reasonable question to ask what broad appeal the players have.
Joshuaf - if Cruz is going to be playing your game of pretending not hear any question you don't want to answer, then its going to be a short race. If you can never vote for a Mormon, have the courage to say so. I think Jim from Ohio hit the nail on the head.
I don't have a clue how all those different demographics will vote in 2016, and neither do you. Did you know how many Democrats would vote for Reagan? We know what Romney pulled with them in 2012, and it wasn't good enough. Not sure why you think he could do any better in 2016. I have a very strong gut feeling that Cruz will pick up millions more votes from Conservatives - right off the top - than Romney could muster. He will also most likely siphon off some of the hispanic vote without even trying, by virtue of his own ethnicity.
The 2016 election isn't going to turn on what Romney said about Benghazi or Putin, or any foreign policy issue, for that matter. Any average GOP Joe off the street was smart enough to know the same thing. I'm supposed to vote for Romney in 2016 because he was "right" about Benghazi and Putin - like tens of millions of other Americans? THAT'S the catalyst that's going to put Romney over the top in 2016? Give me a break....Don't quit your day job to go into the political analysis field.
On Romney:
"If only there were a stronger conservative that had a real chance of winning the general election. But there isn't. And there is no one on the battlefield that has a better chance to beat Hillary (at this time)"
On Palin:
"Love what she has to say, but in no way is she fit to be President."
On whomever our preferred guy may be:
"But unless your preferred guy can make a better case that more people ACTUALLY buy into with real votes, its a dream machine going nowhere."
And then you say:
"AR - you are doing exactly what you are saying not to do. Can't you see that? You are saying its horrible to claim your guy can't win, as you claim Romney can't win."
And for the cherry on top:
"Seriously too early to declare anyone dead. So lets not. It only helps Hillary."
So if what we are doing is helping Hillary, who are you helping? The people who want to resurrect Romney from the ashes?
JoshuaF - Yeah, I get it that a stronger conservative would bring out more of that 35% base. I know that your crowd exists, I am just shocked how they survive in the modern world with ideas like not voting for a guy you think is too liberal so that the someone who is FAR more liberal can win. And I keep asking what your guy brings to the table to get a chunk of the remaining 65%, but you only go back to ideological monologues.
The latino vote will be based on Cruz's immigration platform, not the color of his skin. And to think that the 2016 election will not turn on any foreign policy issue is naïve and dangerous as ISIS expands, Yemen falls, and Iran continues to move towards a nuclear bomb. In the end, you now admit that you are going by a gut feeling with no real statistical information at all. Great. Glad we got finally got there.
The one guy you specifically do not want excluded is the one who is a proven loser. And the reason you don't want him excluded is that he is a centrist, democrat-lite, liberal republican. It means I ain't buying what you're selling.
Am I being unfair to say Palin has no chance? Or Bush? I think that is just being honest based on the national appeal of each. But if you think otherwise, please elaborate. I think Christie, Paul, Huckabee and Cruz still have a national audience willing to listen to them make their case, detailing their various positions on the wide conservative spectrum.
I am not saying a strong conservative could not do that, but it would need to be someone who could articulate themselves in a way to broaden their reach beyond just staunch conservatives. The people in your own camp are the easy customers, its everyone else that is the tougher sell. A real conservative will have to deny a path to citizenship without losing the latino vote. And will have to cut 600 billion from the spending (plus whatever tax cuts you add to that) to balance the budget... without losing those voters that were benefitting from that money. He would have to get rid of Obamacare and offer an alternative that does not drive away those depending on the ACA program. And be willing to commit ground troops abroad to defeat the threats we face, to a public weary of war. And boldly support so-called assault rifles because that is what the Constitution protects, even though it might drive away the soccer moms.
Conservative principles are well known, and its easy to grandstand in your own small arena. Selling those same ideas on the national stage, telling people its going to hurt personally, but getting them to join along anyway takes a special kind of person. Obama has the most un-conservatives ideas EVER, but he keeps rolling along almost unstoppable because he sells those shitty ideas to the voting public in a way better than the conservative opposition has been able to counter.
You see, conservatives are supposed to readily bite the bullet, concede that whomever the liberal republican is will be a vast improvement over the democrat candidate, and throw their back into the job of getting them elected. Problem is, they don't get elected, even when the base all resigns themselves to hold their nose and vote for the liberal.
Even so, at no time are the establishment republicans expected to concede that their pet liberal candidates just aren't successful, hold their noses in the primary and vote for the candidate that actually believes in the ideals and principles laid out in the republican platform, consider that candidate equally as exponentially better than the democrats can produce, and put their backs into the effort to get a candidate they aren't particularly crazy about elected.
It is a one way street with establishment republicans, and has been for decades. It is only getting worse, and I've had my fill of it. I voted for McCain in protest. I voted for Romney only because I promised myself that beyond that election, I would never allow the republicans to put me in that position again. And here we are, hearing the same arguments, the same rationale, and the same backhanded comments from many of the same people, because I and many others aren't going to sit quietly by as it happens once again.
We aren't going to make it very long as a country in the direction we are going, and the establishment republicans want to head the same direction only slightly less, and slightly slower. They are steadily pissing away what I think are some of the last opportunities we are going to get to save this country, and I will not help them do it.
I have consistently said, then and now, that I wouldn't vote for Romney because he wasn't a Conservative. And I didn't. I didn't vote for Bob Dole or John McCain, either, for the exact same reason. Did I somehow miss the news that they are also Mormon?
Its a simple question. What is your answer?
You got the wrong idea about me I think as evidenced by your post. I'm about as conservative as they come and would like nothing more than to see an honest true conservative win. However it aint gonna happen IMO and if it doesn't and its between a Romney and an Obama like candidate I will take Romney every time.
Yeah sure I will get blasted but those who think The lesser of two evils is no choice and you just stay hm are fools. We are getting 8 years of evidence to prove that.
IMO it had far more to do with people staying home than the idea that he is somehow not conservative enough.
There are a lot of folks here that I've had disagreements with about the state of the republican party, that I deeply respect and view them as every bit as conservative as myself. It seems that HA and I are regularly at loggerheads, I've had pointed discussions with several others as well. I don't see you or most of the people I cuss and discuss with here as less conservative, less patriotic, or not as concerned as I am about the direction of this country.
I highly respect most of you willing to put your thoughts and opinions out there for myself and others to take shots at, and fully expect the same from everyone else regarding some of my nonsense. I'm not here to judge the conservative bonafides of anyone. I'm here to learn from people I genuinely respect, and share some of the crazy opinions I've managed to develop over the years. I am just in a different place than many regarding the republican party. I understand and respect the desire to keep socialists out of positions of power, I just see creeping socialism within the party and refuse to support it in any way.
Romney will lose again.
If you wish to keep conversing you should compare foxnews ratings to votes for conservatives.
Or even more touchy is how John Smith "borrowed" Morman rituals from freemasonry and many masons and Christians will never vote for a Morman.
At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a "D" behind their name. But put an "R" behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.
Me personally, I just won't vote for a Democrat even if he puts an R next to his name. Romney is a liberal, has attacked our Constitution and ell will freeze before I would ever vote for that POS....
Religion is delicate matter in the political world, and to be honest, I was one of the first to mock Romney for his Mormon beliefs and 'magic underwear'. It all seems so bizarre to me, and unsettling for that very reason. However, as the campaign progressed I never heard Romney pushing his personal faith on others or wearing it like some technicolor dream coat. It was just his personal belief, and it does not appear to get in the way of his political duties, so in the end it was OK with me and I gave him my vote.
Some people think Palin is still great for some reason, and yeah she made a fantastic speech at the republican convention. But there is more winning the Presidency than repeating the conservative mantra. You also need to be able to handle tough questions from a hostile media and to have enough general knowledge and intelligence and exhibit Presidential bearing under pressure before the American people (all of them) trust you with the nuclear football. Remember back to Ross Perot -- There is no one with more intelligence, leadership, and honor than his VP nominee Admiral Stockdale - but he was a disaster in one debate and sunk the entire campaign in seconds. Done!
This isn't a one dimensional contest only about who can be the most conservative, its about electing a leader who can earn the respect of world leaders like Putin, and cause terrorist leaders to think twice before testing American resolve. And to reverse the decay and financial burden crippling our country. Obama has cleverly divided the country into pieces that he can buy and control. And there is no way to reverse that without hurting feelings and pockets. Doing that requires a special leader who can explain why and get people to willingly commit to the cause. I am just hoping such a leader steps up soon...
Plus, if Obama adds 10 more million illegal mouths to feed and scams some way to get them voting, the gravy train might never be reversed. Bankruptcy and economic collapse are not a game to be toyed with... and its madness to presume a utopian conservative society is what would come out of the ashes. Lets just hope it never gets to that.
Romney doesn't have to be the nominee this time, and maybe he shouldn't be... but I think at this point in the game he should remain in the running as a legitimate contender while the other candidates test and prove their mettle. Cruz certainly has my attention and I hope he can build a platform and broad following as discussed above.
We are ready for it, but who is going to step up? Perry tried and fell flat on his face in his first major debate. Gouliani tried and found no one wanted to listen. Cain tried and got caught with Cosby-itis. Paul tried and lost it with a swing at isolationism (and some praise for Bradley Manning). Bachmann tried and quit after finishing 6th in Iowa, and some campaign finance allegations.
This election stuff isn't easy. You can’t be great by just saying the other guy isn’t. We need another great communicator! Someone who can communicate the conservative agenda as well as Newt, with 1/4 the words and none of the baggage.
Huh? WTF? Barkeep? Is this a joke?
A message that is even 50-75% positive, but is backed by a person with the character to stick to it and make it happen, then we have something. A person with a 100% correct message, but not the character to stick or means to make it happen is worthless - at least politically speaking.
There are no conservative credentials to bash. I gave anyone on this thread the opportunity to identify them and no one could.
So I pose the same offering to you Bowsniper....
Please document and post your sources that he is a Conservative.
Maybe just one?
And he would end Obamacare at the federal level and return the power to the states.
He also declared that the word "marriage" refers only to an institution between a man and a woman.
FROM : http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Issues.php
So that is a quick 3 since you asked. But I am not trying to claim that Romney is a conservative beacon, or that he is definitely the guy we want to run against Hillary in 2016, or that he doesn't change positions all the time on issues. I am just saying when stranded in the desert, don't eat the horse you were last riding until you have a new means of transportation to get out of the damn desert.
When someone better steps up and answers the tough questions, survives the media assault without terrible skeletons falling out of the closet, and inspires the nation with complete coherent sentences.... THEN I will be glad to give Romney the boot !!
BowSniper's Link
You didn't mention the flip on marriage...
"Romney’s position on the issue of marriage has undergone an evolution over the course of his 18-year political career, reflecting his personal struggle over the issue – although, for the record, he insists that his stance has always been the same, and cites the changing definition of the term ‘gay rights’ as the source of the misconception."
We have a Republican Congress because of 0.
Republicans have fought against gun control rather than supporting things like background checks even though they almost did after Sandy Hook.
We got stuck with health care when odds were Romney would have supported the Dem Congress on that.
We would have Republican amnesty like Reagan implemented.
Republicans have not fought 0 on progressive things they wanted..
Not showing up is NOT forcing anything to happen. You are kidding yourself. Instead, the dems are just winning over and over again, and are LAUGHING about it. Did you hear Obama at the state of the union laughing about winning twice?
If Romney had won, Obama would not have been laughing. And he would not have been leaning over to Putin's buddy whispering how he can go easy on them after winning the next election. There would not have been a global muslim apology tour. That stuff ought to piss you off more than the republicans selecting a weak candidate.
All anyone sees is the Democrats winning elections. They don't care how. And don't care about acronyms like EGOP, whatever that is. They want power and you keep handing them the keys.
And really - what makes you think some conservative utopia would come out of a disaster? It could just as easily be socialism, sharia law, or never come back at all.
jack
Isn't it crazy to see what the party has done to what were formerly good, faithful republicans? I think there are more of us every day. Wish I knew how this plays out in the long run. Have to rely on the fact that what is right, is right, and not always painless.
Couldn't the same thing be said for protest votes which let the Dems win? That is "allowing" them to control government. That was giving implied consent for Obama to have a second term! Again - these protest votes in the general election do more harm than good. Actually MORE harm that you claim would have been done by a weak republican.
Hope we don't have to go down this road again, and that a solid conservative can earn the republican nomination. Its a long race. And I hope our best guys don't burn themselves out wasting critical money tearing each other apart for two years.
I hear you man. I really do. My position has always been to do what we can do to change this at each election and particularly the state a local. It's a slow process unfortunately.
Then when push comes to shove and a real effort is being made but we still end up with a choice and its a Romney versus Obama style candidate that we are far better off going with the obvious choice. What gets me is the complete and utter nonsense of some I have seen write that Romney and Obama are the same guy blah blah blah.
A protest vote is clearly worse for the country in the short term, because it enables a guy like Obama to win the Presidency (TWICE). The consequences of a radical left-wing socialist will be felt for decades! Roughly 10 trillion added to the debt, civil unrest throughout the country from race baiting, radical islam spreading around the world encouraged by the apology tour. Our friends alienated and our enemies emboldened.
The idea that we can come out of this for the better with a strong conservative leader is a possibility, but far from assured. The country could just as easily be destroyed and never come back. This is serious business, much bigger than all the fun commiE and EGOP and RINO name games might imply.
Its all about doing everything we can to nominate the best conservative candidate that can win the general election. And in the general election, to vote for the most conservative choice of the people actually running. Do that for a few cycles, and maybe we can slowly turn this sinking ship in the right direction... both literally and figuratively.
In my opinion we are well beyond declaring hollow victories because our candidate is not quite as liberal as the other party's candidate. At some point we have to decide if we want a future for our children or not.
The US president is the leader of the free world. Our children on your path will ultimately face the same future as the children of Ukraine, Libya, Yemin, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt and every other country that dissolves from the earth without proper US leadership.
Assigning blame to conservatives for leadership such as Obama and Hillary is in reality establishment republicans and their party absolving themselves for turning their backs on the very ideals and principles that made the party a viable alternative to the socialist democrats and the destruction that their beliefs bring in the first place.
Ignoring the fact that the American people have several times rejected the notion of liberal/moderate republican candidates is simply further proof that the party as it stands has deeply held beliefs that conservatism is not the answer to the country's problems. I reject these beliefs, and any party which propagates them. Expecting my support for the current direction the republican party is headed is beyond ridiculous, in my opinion.
Blaming conservatives for what results from the establishment's almost complete rejection of conservative ideals, principles, policies, and candidates is equally ridiculous. The party establishment is calling the shots, they must deal with the consequences. Of course, if you can successfully point fingers and blame some else for your disaster, that works too. Right up until the collapse.
No one is expecting your enthusiastic support for the current weakness in the republican party. The question is how voting for neither of two apparent choices has made any positive impact. At all...
What was accomplished (other than ensuring Obama a second term)? How long might we have to wait for the protest vote strategy to yield results? Describe in some detail how far down you are willing to let the country go before you expect things to get better.
Numerous items seen blogjogging the last couple days that the eGOP is again going to abandon any real attempt to fight either amnesty nor Obamacare. Yet, the only reason that they won the last election was a very loud message of
The NDCP/eGOP loves the votes for their promises but will guarantee submission.
I see the Republican Party as the political equivalent of the Detroit Lions...
BMB
I'll preempt the calls that I want a democrat victory, and that I don't care about what happens to this country, by reminding those who would make the charge that it is this very same tactic that democrats use on republicans. They scream that limited government means you want to rape the environment, starve old people and children, and start WW3 at the first opportunity.
Boehner is a complete failure in any conservative measure, yet the tea party can’t even wrest control of the House from him. How are they going to take control of the entire government? How many generations is this master plan of yours expected to take?
The thing you fail to acknowledge, is that with each democratic win during your protest/no- vote campaign, the Dems spread their government dependency wider. If during Obama’s term (that you enabled) the Dems add 10 million illegal aliens to the citizenship and voter base, what happens then?? Once the takers become a sizeable majority, they will vote themselves endless handouts and collapse the system. Even though you are right about the conservative agenda being smarter/better, you may never get a chance to prove it simply because of the stubborn (petulant?) way you approach the process.
And as I have said numerous times without answer – what makes you think a conservative utopia would come out of the ashes??
Which is pretty much precisely what conservatives are trying to get the establishment to realize. Every time you move left you lose. Move right, you have a chance. If moving left is more important than winning, enjoy your losses. Many of us are no longer interested in hollow victories.
"How many generations is this master plan of yours expected to take?"
Well, it entirely depends on how long it takes establishment republicans to realize that their only path to victory and power is by being the conservative alternative to the socialist democrats, instead of as much like them as they think they can get away with. It could happen as fast as the next election, or it may not happen at all.
"The thing you fail to acknowledge, is that with each democratic win during your protest/no- vote campaign, the Dems spread their government dependency wider."
The bewildered, even horrified posts by establishment types coming to the realization that many conservatives are now willing to sacrifice elections in order to save this country tells me that in fact, the opposite is true. The Romney nomination was proof positive that the establishment is perfectly willing to throw elections to keep conservatives out of power, why is the establishment surprised that conservatives are willing to play their game?
"(that you enabled)"
The establishment republicans have turned themselves inside out declaring war on conservatives, demonstrating that they run the show, but when it results in disaster, the conservatives enabled it. We don't play the tune gentlemen, we just dance to the music.
"If during Obama’s term (that you enabled) the Dems add 10 million illegal aliens to the citizenship and voter base, what happens then??"
I have to laugh. You do realize that it is the establishment republicans and the chamber of commerce that is doing everything they can to make sure this happens, right? It's the conservatives and tea partiers that are trying to stop it. I guess when it happens, you can always fall back on the tried and true "(that you enabled)" right?
"stubborn (petulant?)"
Pot, meet kettle. We conservatives apologize for actually expecting republicans to believe the stuff in the republican platform. Being honorable makes you kinda hard to make deals with sometimes.
"And as I have said numerous times without answer – what makes you think a conservative utopia would come out of the ashes??"
And as has been addressed many times, this is a straw man for you to beat the crap out of, and has no basis in reality. Find someone who is predicting milk and honey in the aftermath of the collapse. Nobody is predicting utopia of any kind. There is nothing on the other side of your assertion.
Its hard to win on a national level in todays America with a Ron Paul style candidate or a true conservative.
I disagree with the notion that the last midterm was because of true conservatism but rather it was a bit thrown in there on big issues that matter and that's about it.
Give the country a half a chance and they will continue to vote left. Pisses me off too but that's the way I see it.
A better (sane) course is to push for the most conservative person to be the nominee in every race, and to always vote for the more conservative person in any election from among those running with any chance to win. Picking losers and going down with the all-or-nothing uber-conservative ship is pointless and counter-productive.
This next election we have a chance once again to have a conservative nominee, if a good one steps up. Great!! But lets say for the sake of this thread – that we wind up with Hillary vs Christie in the general election. And no one in the third party position that can gain even 5% of the vote. Its Nov 8th 2016. Do you vote for Hillary, or Christie, or the 3rd party nobody, or not vote at all.
Please explain your vote in terms of how you see that actually advancing the conservative mandate you speak of….
You somehow think that you get to define "progressive" and "conservative" for all of the voters. The voters have been voting and electing candidates every election. the fact that a majority of the voters do not see it like you do does not give you the authority to single-handedly change the process.
I consider you "progressive" on some issues, so according to your standards, you cannot receive my vote.
BowSniper has written a thoughtful argument and you guys dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because only you get to define what is right?
Where in that bunch do you find limited government, less intrusive government, and a return to the Constitution? We are supposed to see the present republican party as a viable path to these things? I see no evidence of it. Just the opposite in fact.
Again...there was a LOUD message sent last November and the party is in its usual mode of auditioning for a a serious role, getting it and then becoming clowns when they come on stage.
Just a few headlines/links from Hot Air aptly provide the data:
New Romney strategy emerges: He’s going to “rebrand himself as authentic”
Boehner on defunding DHS: Maybe we’ll, uh, sue Obama over executive amnesty instead
Cross party appeal: Mitt wraps up the critical Nancy Pelosi endorsement
What exactly was that message? I thought so too, but apparently not.
Alaska elected a republican senator and also passed three leftist ballot initiatives
Kansas elected all republicans, but allowed more gambling
Nebraska voted republican AND a minimum wage increase
North Dakota voted to keep killing babies
Florida voted for more pot AND environmental regulations
It doesn't sound like a conservative vote to me at all.
There are a relatively small number of states or representative districts where the above issues were the difference in the vote. How many actually campaigned on those issues and have reneged? Maybe less than you think.
HA's post is no different than the party emails you get, telling you how the must have your support to stop Obama, Pelosi, and Hillary, and how ready they are to stop the democrats at all costs. Then as soon as they are in power, they go about maintaining the status quo, and working to suppress the rubes who actually thought they meant what they said. That is what the republican party, and establishment republicans are. That is what they expect, almost demand that we conservatives support.
And how many ultra conservatives voting 'other' or not-at-all allowed this to happen? How many evangelicals who refused to vote for a Mormon as if this was the middle ages?? Should we stone Romney for praying to the wrong god now??
Stand on principle and count the votes during every primary in every state. Great! May the best man win. But just remember in the general election, they are also going count votes... all the votes left right and center... and it might not be the best man, but the WORST woman that wins.
The strong conservative message is right, so perhaps its time to blame the messenger. And not the other camp that just happens to do better in each election. Blame your OWN camp that banks so much on principle that they forget the necessity to deliver that message in an intelligent, coherent, and believable fashion.
Then, their flaws are shown in the general election. And they lose to Democrats. The TP is in its infancy, and needs to learn to vet candidates better.
FYI, Cory Gardner is my new senator. And Cynthia Coffman, wife of US Rep Mike Coffman, is my new attorney general. Look them up. Both solid conservatives who ran through the primary process. Gardner was picked for it, and Ken Buck backed down, going for the House spot. Both Gardner and Buck won as a result.
You don't know the game and it shows.
"The primary is where you can exert the most influence."
Not to interrupt your usual condescending demeanor bad karma, but maybe the game is confusing you. I think conservatives, myself included, understand it all too well, and it is making you establishment types very uncomfortable. Chin up old boy. You guys will have the illegal immigrant vote to replace us soon.
The reality is that influencing a primary is a lot cheaper, and on a faster track, than the general election. So, a tactician can make a much bigger impact more quickly. The general election is where the big money comes in. But I understand that you'd rather throw crap from the bleachers than win the game so I get where you're coming from.
So, influence can be had for money, but not for chairmanships, or removal of chairmanships, or appointments to committees. Got it. I'm sure I'm too dumb to understand this also, but don't the majority leaders decide where party money goes also? I guess that money doesn't count, because I don't understand the game.
I understand that you want to steer this discussion to a more personal level. I would want to change the discussion myself if I had no better arguments than your side can produce.
I think a solid candidate will dictate the performance, more than any perceived conspiracy to stop them. But I think we can agree that we need to see a very good candidate before we declare what obstacles are in his/her way
A primary election is much smaller than the general election. The majority leaders have their money spread around a lot further, and lot of donors don't donate for primary elections. A lesser known candidate can win a primary with an order of magnitude less money than a general election. I've seen state primaries here won for peanuts.
Once the candidate wins the primary, he has to convince the powers that be that he's go a serious chance of winning to get the big money. The Dems have the same problem.... their big money didn't go to candidates that were dead in the water, either. Just because someone is a Tea Party candidate doesn't mean that person is a good candidate..... O'Donnell, of "I'm not a witch" fame, or Akins, come to mind.
If you want to be a chairman, or get appointed to committees, step one is to win the damn election to get there. Losing an election gets you a seat on a Lazy Boy recliner, nothing more.
You're arguing a different point, for reasons that only you know.
It shouldn't take someone with the charisma and communication skills of Ronald Reagan to overcome the obstacles their own party puts in front of them, before they can even start on the democrats. It discourages good conservatives from entering the fray in the first place.
You don't even have to be paying close attention to be aware of the attacks the establishment republicans have perpetrated against conservatives over the last several years. You all know it is true, whether you will admit it or not.
"A primary election is much smaller than the general election. The majority leaders have their money spread around a lot further, and lot of donors don't donate for primary elections."
And yet somehow the money they do spread around lessens their influence, rather than making it greater, not to mention the committee appointments, and chairmanships. Right.
Keep complaining instead of doing. It accomplishes nothing, but apparently gives you some form of perverse satisfaction.
No, that's a pretty easy one Captain Obvious. What apparently is very difficult to understand is the concept that the party and the party leaders can just as easily swing a primary with money, appointments, support of other legislation, and thousands of other ways that can bring success or failure to a politicians career. This is where you came in making incoherent statements on both sides of the issue, followed closely with personal attacks.
Spike - More and more people are bailing on the republicans?? I thought republicans just won landmark sweeping elections and now control the most house seats in 70 years, AND the senate?!?!
Then within 2 months the republican establishment and their leadership surrendered on every issue, even ensuring that Obama controlled the budget for the rest of his term. Republican leadership right now is quietly working on amnesty, proposing legislation designed to allow them to proclaim the border secure so they can proceed turning illegals into voters, having already secured funding for Obamacare.
Voters are not bailing on candidates who at least claim conservative principles and ideals. Voters are bailing on the republican party, the republican establishment, and their surrender monkey leaders. It took me so long to get it, maybe some of you will shortly after the Hillary inauguration.
Hackbow, pick 10 conservative agenda items, and the percent of Americans who would be conservative on all 10 would probably be well under 25%.
Using your 60% argument, how do you explain the steady march of the leftist agenda when they only get a small percent of their items passed in each congress?
The fact is that if a true conservative ever gets elected, the people will turn on him faster than you can imagine.
If every single republican (left, moderate, or conservative) ALL voted together to repeal anything Obama likes, it STILL wouldn’t happen. The only one stopping any real turn towards the conservative right is Obama – and your strategy of letting him win is the main thing preventing the very things you are complaining about now.
I just don’t get how that can strategy make any sense to you. I understand not wanting to vote for someone on strict principles, but NOT when that action has an even worse effect on advancing the principles you are standing behind! Like giving an alcoholic unlimited booze thinking he will finally get sick of it. No – he will more likely just get dead.
Then within 2 months the republican establishment and their leadership surrendered on every issue, even ensuring that Obama controlled the budget for the rest of his term. Republican leadership right now is quietly working on amnesty, proposing legislation designed to allow them to proclaim the border secure so they can proceed turning illegals into voters, having already secured funding for Obamacare. "
There is a description of this:
"THE GOP IS SHEEP IN WOLVES' CLOTHING." Act fierce to get the vote, but fear to use the responsibility given to them.
When do you think its better for conservatives to start fixing things - at 8 trillion deficit, 15 trillion, 20 trillion, 30 trillion????
I am all for sending things to Obama to force his veto, and I think we will see this soon, but he still vetoes and the bill you want still gets shut down.
Then what?
Your plan always gets to the point of what we should do, but never addresses what will happen next.
Funny how we never hear it worked in the year X, well, no, it's not funny. It's tragic.
Right now, we're less than one month into the new House and Senate, much less the state legislatures, and the chronic b**** and gripe crowd has declared things a failure.
Yet, you have no plans for anything other than repeated failure. Forgive me if I don't see how that is a good idea but I don't do peyote.
Own it.
Anony Mouse's Link
1) all that big dollar establishment pull goes to Bush and they try to steam roll him across the finish line (in which case I bail - no Bush for me)
2) The name Bush drags too much baggage and all that support goes up for grabs, and we have real open republican primary with many possible winners.
Walker/Cruz 2016?
Buckhunter, you must spend too much time at the kos.
Kochs contributions are dwarfed by leftist power brokers. Being libertarians, I doubt they are big Jeb supporters. though come to think of it, Jeb does look a lot like a libertarian on issues such as immigration.
"Top Democratic donors say Hillary Clinton is building a money machine so large and so impressive that it will smash previous fundraising records, intimidate rivals, and crush the eventual Republican presidential nominee."
The influence of the Koch brothers is a leftist myth. They come in somewhere in the mid 20's on the list of top donors. The top 10 is dominated by labor unions (mostly public employee unions) that almost 100% donate to democrats.
Kochs donate far more to humanitarian causes than to politics.
HA/KS's Link