HA/KS's Link
From the link: Colorado has dramatically slashed funding to its program granting driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants – making it almost impossible for any new applicants to receive an appointment before 2016.
As a result of the cut, only one DMV office in the state is now able to offer driver's license appointments to the estimated 150,000 undocumented immigrants who are eligible to apply. The next available appointment is in March 2016.
Republican state lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee voted twice last week not to approve the necessary $166,000 the Division of Motor Vehicles needed to continue running the program at five of the 56 DMV offices in Colorado, according to the Denver Post.
I can't recall anyone advocating staying home. Can anyone? I'll be at the polls at every opportunity, voting for conservatives.
We have progress being made on the conservative front across the country, yet here, plenty of folks here are whining because they are not getting 100% of what they want. Obama is running around trying to create negative issues for the 2016 republican candidates. The leadership is trying to avoid that. Shutting down the government has been tried in the past, and each time, it's been the Acme dynamite kit for Republicans.
I wrote here some time ago that as long as the GOP does not have a veto proof majority in the House and Senate, their ability to reverse things is limited as long as the Marxist from Chicago is in the White House. Their options are limited. It sucks, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was in 2009, where they had big majorities in both houses, and we got Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and other abortions passed.
The progress will be made at the state legislatures, at first, where things can get done. This isn't one hour photo, instant oatmeal work. Whining about the "EGOP" isn't getting a damn thing done. Some of you need to listen to Sean Connery's speech from the Rock about the prom queen.
This TOO MANY is also called ‘the majority’ and that tends to be how elections work and all. There just happen to be far more liberals and moderates in the country than pure bred conservatives. So you need to find compromise on shared values to advance your agenda at all. This ‘take my marbles and go home’ plan leaves some people wondering if you lost them….
The Republicans have a platform.
If someone with the title Republican has a voting record that mirrors the Democrat platform they don't get my vote.
Any questions?
It would be great if everyone would vote who best supports their beliefs rather than who they are told can win by the MSM.
" target="_blank" class="button">gflight's Link
"Yeah. How's that working for ya?"
Great locally. We have a super majority in both state houses.
Not so good on the national level. I was all pumped up about the republican majorities and they have been bowing to 0 like he did to the Emperor of Japan.
As far as Reagan, I was young and believed the propaganda back then....
At least be honest about it.
Calming me a progressive is a symptom of your delusion, dude. When you can show me reported cases of advancing your agenda by losing elections, you might have an argument. But that's not how it works. No football team is copying the Oakland Raiders of 2014 this offseason either.
Stayed home.
Perfect candidate.
Ball and go home.
You EGOPs should learn to troll more effectively.
All these old tired straw men.
You EGOPs wouldnt have to resort to this if you didn't ban the extreme libs who are even left of you.
Is it because they get your goat and I always fall for the EGOPs Troll bait?
I have no interest in hearing about President Warren or Clinton for 2017-2021.
When you ask how is that working for you you might look in the mirror and ask how the last cantidates have worked for you. You pushed them off on us and you seem to want to continue down your rocky path of failure and every time you stump your toe on one of those rocks you blame the ones that stayed at home because of your lousy RINO cantidates instead of blaming yourselves and the GOP for nominating them. Just try Bush or Christy on us and see where you get again.
God bless, Steve
There..No harm done!
The candidate CLOSER to representing my beliefs, both fiscally and socially was...
C. Gary Johnson
Ask a libertarian leaning person to only select from two choices really?
Now you can throw in the next absolute..
a vote _____ is a vote for 0
The establishment republicans and their defenders have more talk of third party politics going on right now than I have ever heard since Ross Perot.
This is going to end in disaster for all of us. Buckle up.
Yippee!!! Wow, he must have influenced a lot with that 1%.
Elvis could get more than 1% of the vote, and he's been dead since 1978.
Only Libertarian presidential to get over a Million votes and more than doubled Paul and all because of Romney.
520,000 was the highest ever recorded prior.
Highest third party as well.....
Not including Elvis of course 8^( Really?
So, if you want to blame the man behind the curtain, fine. Just don't think you're fooling anyone who knows how the game works.
Ted Cruz. Go!
Who is my supposed handler BK?
I don't believe anyone that posts on these threads stays home because there are local elections to consider as well.
The people engaged in politics may leave president blank, the other voters just follow there handlers and propaganda like the hub bub over that good Walker video. Walker, Paul, Cruz I would donate if nominated..
For the record, at this point only Crispy or Bush would lead me to vote for other than Republican (remember Romney is out)
God bless, Steve
That's exactly what republicans do. They stay home during the primaries and cry like a little baby because some rino won and he's now running for office, then they stay home a second time.
We need a Camo Coalition to offset the rainbow coalition.
Or else, what you are saying is that everyone else does so.
I say people because not all are low info voters even though their data comes from one source.
Go with the flow, pick the winning team, go along with friends. Many reasons why people are easily convinced by others rather than coming to their own conclusions.
Even people on this site who are engaged in politics post easily debunked propaganda all the time and others believe and support it without facts.
We can only develop courses of action by gathering data and if cnn is your only source or the EGOP line is your only data they essentially become your handler.
I would vote for a wart on Romney's big toe if that were my choice over ANY Democrat that's offered!
We can try a couple election cycles with that strategy, and then throw in a few I-told-ya-so's at the end. What's good for the goose, and all.... :-)
Thanks for your support. That is why I voted Libertarian last time.
I many times supported Republicans because I am more a small "L" Libertarian and while I fit the "L" party better I always went with the more likely winner.
Maybe I should rethink supporting the "R's" at all.
I know it wasn't directed at me but isn't....
"Anything else is childish behavior akin to pouting in the corner because your cookie had one less chocolate chips than Johnnie's cookie.
Good grief, grow up."
Isn't that comment the epitome of childishness?
Playing on personal emotions/opinion rather than fact?
It’s exactly that kind of polarizing rhetoric that guarantees the failure of your goals, as sure as staying home or voting “other”.
It is a verifiable truth that the country consists of left, right, and center voters… and that the end result of any presidential election is going to be some combination of left/center or right/center. Demanding that either far left or far right dominate, ensures the opposite will happen. If you don’t see that for the truth it is, then there really is no hope for your cause.
There is a little, the Liberal Romney bowed out and he was MSM's front runner. Now if Pot smoker/hash seller Bush and Crispy Creme will drop out we will be done with the Mod Dem insurgents.
I am afraid however that is not likely to happen since the EGOP is currently scared and trying to get a unified EGOP candidate to run against the rest of Conservative America. They will poll Bush and Crispy for a while and another will drop at their insistance so no one gets "Beat Up" before they run against the Democrat. Then they will change some more party rules and Viola, another moderate lefty...
You Reagan Dems need to go back to the Democrat party instead of trying to change the Republican party.
The winner of the presidential election will either be the far left with some appeal to the center, or the far right with some appeal to the center.
I hope the right side wins. But you and those of a similar mindset here are espousing a far right with no moderation at all. And that is a plan doomed to failure.
You love to state here (correctly I think) that the moderate republicans will not win without the far right on board. Fine. But you never admit that the far right cannot win without the moderate republicans on board. That strikes me as hypocritical at best, and foolhardy to the point of destructive at worst. And you seem to be OK with that too. Which, quite frankly, is the most disturbing part of this whole debate.
We can always trust the moderates will compromise and defend just because there is an R we see it everyday...
Once out of the primary the candidate can move center. The left pretends their far right wherever they stand anyway..
God bless, Steve
Maybe they'll listen next cycle.
No, I don't use the term teabagger, as you apparently do. Boy, some of you really resent people who try to get you to think outside of your comfort zone. Facing the reality of the product of the establishment's war on conservatives is too much for some I guess. This is obviously what the establishment wanted, you guys should be happy.
How about instead of beating that dead horse some more, we agree to consider what happens from now going forward a source, bk?
Would you consider it a source if in the next 2 years the republican legislature approves amnesty for illegals, with no factual evidence of the border being closed?
Would you consider it a source that the republicans have no intention of actually opposing the socialist agenda if in 2 years we are still trying to find a way for working Americans to pay for the healthcare of the rest of the U.S. through government confiscation of their wages?
Would you consider it a source if Obama receives token resistance from the Republican Party and it's leaders as he wipes his rear with the Constitution by writing law and changing it as the words come out of his mouth as he has done with Obamacare?
Will you consider it a source when there are absolutely no repercussions for breaking the law by not consulting congress in trading a deserter for 5 terrorist leaders, providing aid and comfort to our country's enemies?
When you declare war on the wrong people, sometimes war is exactly what you get.
Making chit up is not a source. And trying to hide behind that. or hiding behind changing the subject, is not being honest.
Actual, real evidence that would be persuasive in a court of law will get my attention. Hand waving and complaining about Romney's nomination in 2012 won't.
troy, he doesn't want to understand, he doesn't want to consider any other view, he's got his mind made up. Just like Kyle, push him out of his comfort zone, push him into a corner it's difficult to defend from, and he says "sources please", he all of a sudden has a very faulty memory of history. You could post 1,000 sources/links right in this very thread and he would ignore them. Don't waste your time, it's just a diversionary tactic.
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
People with proof cite sources. People without proof wave their hands and become indignant.
You're a poor salesman for your cause, Troy.
I'm not the one making these claims. You guys just assert them as truth, and expect people to believe them. Good luck with that in the next election.
I knew who Romney was, and know who he is. That being said, I knew who Obama was, too. Romney was and is a better man, who would have been a better president. That does not make him an ideal choice. Nor does my predicting a Romney win change who he was. But putting the straw man up about Romney reinforces the weakness of your argument. It changes, and changes.
I didn't declare victory. I simply denoted that you don't provide proof, other than "go search the internet.". That's not proof in the arena where I work, nor anywhere else.
I have proof that I can get you $8 million dollars from some guy in Nigeria. Go search the internet and you can see the emails. Good enough for you, not good enough.
Speaking of which, just for funsies, I recently spent some time looking back through the Bowsite archives to the time period of the 2012 campaign, and it was quite interesting to see again all the highly confident predictions of a Romney victory against Obama that were being spouted on here in the form of polls and personal predictions. How very wrong some people here were, including, I'm pretty sure, some people on this thread. They want us to take their sage advice and do it all over again the same way.
Also worth noting, that the combined evangelicals/conservative block did not field a candidate in 2012 who could have or would have done any better in the general election. Is that even in dispute? The overriding false claim here is that Romney lost the election simply because he was too far left. When in reality the loss in 2012 would have been even greater with any of the candidates who were running to the right of him.
Maybe 2016 will tell a different story with Romney out, Bush hated, Cristie bumbling in the spotlight, and Paul getting wrapped up in conspiracy vaccine claims... GO WALKER (as long as he is not Mormon, right?)
I didn't vote for Romney for the same reasons I didn't vote for Bob Dole and John McCain, or were they Mormon's also? I won't be discussing this topic with you further until you go back and find even a single specific instance where I said I wouldn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. Until then, please kindly shut your pie hole.
By the way, I voted for Santorum in the Ohio primary. He is a devout Catholic. It would take way more time than I have right now to detail all the areas of disagreement I have with the Catholic faith. But I voted for him because I was voting to elect a Commander in Chief, not a Pastor in Chief, and because he much more closely represented my views on the issues than did Romney.
No, let's not do that. That's way too close to the actual reason to fit our new "adopt the democrat agenda" strategy.
joshuaf stated over, and over, and over that he didn't like Romney because he was a liberal. Whether Romney being a Mormon added to his dislike of him as a candidate is immaterial, but that was seized upon by establishment defenders, and they ran with it. I myself didn't care if Romney was Mormon, or Methodist, or Baptist, Catholic, or Mennonite. I didn't like his candidacy because he is a liberal. But since he was our liberal, I did the good republican thing and voted for him anyway.
And now, since I will not repeat the same scenario, with what I think will be the same result, I am open to insult, derision, and dismissal by my good brother republicans.
"the question is whether you could vote for a mormon as President under any condition. Not Romney. Could you vote for a mormon as President at all? Its a simple question. What is your answer?"
Yes, there were a lot more conservatives that won election in 2014. The missing link in your claims is the correlation between your alleged strategy, and the success of the conservative candidates. Hint: There is more than one variable. (And if you want to argue that, I know the Taguchi method...)
You're arguing that conservative candidates can win elections. Wow...... apparently you missed when I wrote about Cory Gardner winning the Senate here and Ken Buck winning the house.
How about trying to prove that letting the Democrats win elections makes Republicans elect conservative candidates in the primary That's the leap of faith you keep making.... that losing repeatedly begets winning.
We have Exhibit A for that strategy: McCain vs. Obama did not produce a conservative candidate for 2012. Instead we got Romney. Now, you're worried that losing big with Romney may give us Bush. I'm not seeing the progress here at the presidential level.
But instead, because you can't make your case, you just get angrier. And now, insult my profession as well.
Sorry that you guys are so petty that you would do that.
If we all agree that drastic change needs to happen within the republican party, which one would you say brings that about? I guess I am taking for granted that none of us want the republican party to be more like the democrat party, if I'm wrong feel free to say so.
I really don't care - vote for whoever you want, for whatever reason you want - its only the awkward denials and misleading half-truths that I find repulsive. Just don't think you are so slick that people are actually being fooled. Its quite clear. Romney could have been the Cruz/Palin love child of conservative glory and you would STILL not have voted for him simply because you think he prays to the wrong god.
Well, guess you'll just have to be unsatisfied, because I'm telling the 100% truth on the subject, like I always have. The more telling thing here is how difficult it is for you to understand how someone could see Romney as a Liberal politician, based on his past record.
I didn't vote for Dole, McCain or Romney because they were LIBERALS in Republican clothing. Talk about a dodge, you keep ignoring the fact that my position has been very consistent on not voting for Libs, you just want to make this all about Romney to try and fit it into your preconceived notions. Guess what? If Jeb Bush is the nominee, or Chris Christie, I won't be voting for them, either. George Pataki, either. Possibly some others. Any idea whether any of them are Mormons? You think the reason I didn't vote for Jon Huntsman was also because he is a Mormon?
Get over yourself.
Not how you voted in primaries, or how liberal Romney is, or how you feel about Dole or McCain or Huntsman. You will talk in circles and dance around semantics all day rather than answer a simple question. And what you are trying so desperately NOT to say, really says everything about you. I don’t need to…
IMO, the trick in the Republican world, other than "suck for luck" is to work the primaries. That's where expending shoe leather and money gets the most bang for the buck. You find, recruit and support strong conservatives. In Colorado, the state folks term limit out after 8 years, so there is always turnover, and you can make quick progress.
Nobody here can find one word where I claim that a solid, principled conservative can't win, or shouldn't win over a more liberal candidate. Romney wasn't even my third choice for 2012, but he was the survivor. I would happily support a good conservative. Ron Paul was not it.
In the US House and Senate, things run slower because there are no term limits, and their seniority system is entrenched. But when the bench is populated by mostly conservatives, so will be the first team.
In the presidency, a principled conservative can still win, provided that person can get through the primary process. I said years ago that Scott Walker would be a contender. And he is...... will he be the nominee? Way too early to tell.
Letting the Democrats win lets them set the agenda, and manage the committee assignments, decide which bills get voted on, nominate judges, etc. That has huge value to getting your message institutionalized. The damage done by Obama will take years, if not decades, to fix. The only agenda advanced by the GOP losing is, unfortunately, the Democrat agenda.
Hackbow, your comments are not worthy of a substantive response.
If the roles had been reversed in 2012 and Romney held Santorum's views and Santorum had held Romney's views, I would have had no problem voting for Romney as the "more" Conservative of the two. That wasn't the case, though, was it? I keep telling you and you just keep on willfully misunderstanding what I say, I suggest you go find some q-tips and clean that wax out of your earsbrain. I VOTE FOR THE MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE THAT I FEEL MOST CLOSELY REPRESENTS MY VIEWS ENOUGH FOR ME TO BE COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR THEM. Those are my only criteria, not what religion they are, how tall or short they are, what color their skin is or how "electable" the GOP Establishment thinks they are. Period. Mitt Romney never made my cut, nor did people like Rudy G. and multiple others I can't even recall now.
I don't care to smear evangelicals or anyone else. But I do expect grown-ups to be able to read and answer a pretty simple question, without evasive nonsense. This particular questions is now asked and answer, and [thankfully] closed.
Except that's exactly what you've done, over and over again. You've smeared them and you've tried to smear me, despite me telling you over and over, ad nauseum, both in 2012 and now, exactly why I wasn't voting for Romney. You just chose not to believe me. That's a you problem.
"The 2014 election gains at the state levels across the country were historic." I find it interesting that a person who keeps saying that it is time to teach the republicans a lesson says that. Which is it? The current strategy is a disaster, or conservatives are growing stronger in the party?
BTW, how many of those conservatives were winning in blue states?
In the last month, 1860 articles about how republicans cannot win without moderates (I am not convinced, but just counting links doesn't prove a thing)
Not offended, just aggravated when disparaged and or insulted for no good reason. I think we all tend to take this debate a little more personally than we should, on both sides. When a conservative posts up his intention not to toe the party line and why, invariably the sideways comments start, and it goes tit for tat from there. I believe that conservatives are out there trying to get republicans to understand the gravity of the situation, and the republicans can't understand how conservatives could possibly consider them to be as repulsive as democrats, and resent the implications. For my part, I apologize for any undue harsh words. I'm not here to make enemies of mostly like minded people, but I will give as good as I get. Anyone who was around last cycle knew this was coming. We are all passionate about this country, but have very different ideas about how to make the necessary changes.
And you didn't answer my question.
HA,
The success of conservatives at the state and federal level is proof that we are doing exactly what you have repeatedly said conservatives should be doing. The fact that the republican party has not put an absolute smack down on party leaders and bureaucrats who fail to embrace the tea party and conservatives, their principles, policies, and ideals is proof that the republican establishment is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It is further proof that change will only come at the hands of a catastrophe, as it always is with big government. The planes don't stop until one goes down.
You did not address my point about Walker in the other thread. He is proof that a passionate conservative who truly believes in conservative principles can have tremendous success in blue states. His surging popularity comes directly from the fact that he is a fighter. People don't even know all of his positions, but they know that he stands in direct opposition to the socialist democrat agenda, and has succeeded doing it. The argument that you most often make is that we must do the exact opposite of that. For the life of me, I cannot understand why.
BowSniper's Link
I do not know how precisely people apply the term evangelical, and who here would classify themselves as such... but are they among those advocating staying home to teach one group or the other a lesson per the title of the thread? Are they some of the millions who stayed home in 2012 and threw the election for Obama? (see link)
And yes, I would still chastise those who play word games rather than answer a simple question - that group is still pretty smear worthy on any side of the issue. :-)
'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
This thread was titled by HA/KS who is by and large on your side of the argument. Staying home is the oft abused strawman for not doing the party's bidding, no matter how many principles you must sacrifice in the process.
Feeling justified chastising someone for voting, or even not voting if their principles dictate, is more a reflection on you than on those who you berate. An honest, principled person might take a moment to contemplate why that person considered themselves to be in a position where they could not in good conscience vote for your preferred candidate. A zealot will chastise away, and plod right ahead with no consideration that they may in fact be cutting their own throat.
Did he just happen to come along when people in WI were getting fed up and ready for a change? I think not. Who carried WI in the presidential election?
romney got more votes in WI than Walker ever has. Obama won a higher percent of the votes than Walker ever has.
In which direction? You have to first distinguish between those things that would move the GOP to the left versus moving it to the right. There is a wing in the GOP that thinks the only way to deal with free lunch promises is to provide our own free lunch promises. And that is a failure, because if I'm going to go for a false promise, I will go for the first guy that does it.
Losing to a far left candidate will move many to the left, not to the right, as they try to win the next elections.
Winning advances your agenda. Even Romney, not the most conservative of candidates, would have done that on many issues, primarily economic. And promoting work and productivity would create more work and productivity, good for all of us. And on occasion, the country would backslide into liberal corral dust, where the next purveyor of hope and change promotes a free lunch, and those who do not study history will be doomed to repeat the errors of the past six years.
So, the lowering of taxes, lessening of regulation, etc, would result in a greater probability of more conservatives to run, and win. Remember my prior stuff about winning the primaries? That's the minor leagues to call up players for the future. If all you have is semi lefist doofuses at the state level, that's what you'll have running at the national level.
We've made serious progress on the gun issues since I started working on them in the early nineties. Illinois even has concealed carry. Illinois! We can do the same thing with other issues.
The only chance we have at recovery instead of collapse is if the republican party completely changes it's present course. I believe this is the only way it happens. Democrat policies eventually lead to ruin as we are witnessing with the current president. The only chance I see for our future may be a short term catastrophe for the republicans and the American people, but if we come away with a republican party that has a clear direction, and renewed resolve to oppose the democrat agenda at every opportunity, and a return to the conservative principles and policies that brought the party back from the dead in the first place, we all win.
No, two candidates that are not as conservative as you would like. Not as conservative as I would like either. To call either a liberal is a stretch at best and dishonest at worst. Both hold a mix of liberal and conservative positions.
You think they were not elected because they were not conservative enough. I think they were not elected because they did not have the ability to inspire voters to have confidence in them, failed to take the battle to obama, and ran very poor campaigns.
Too many people believed the negatives propagated by the leftist press.
Leftist voters voted in a block for obama. they never got confused by the negative press. Oh wait, there was no negative press on obama.
No, not a stretch, and to say otherwise is dishonest. From socialized medicine, to gun control, to unconstitutional restrictions of free speech, to shutting down coal power plants, to tax increases, to the expansion of the power and scope of government, to open borders, these men were liberals. Unabashed, unapologetic, undeniable liberals.
We find it so ridiculous and dangerous that Obamalama and his administration refuses to label islamic terrorists what they are, and to identify these terrorists as the enemy to America and Americans, but we play footsie with identifying liberals when they advocate and promote liberal policies. The first step in defeating your enemies is recognizing who they are. Don't be fooled by the R after their name.
"1. You say "The republicans have nominated 2 liberal candidates..." as if they are some secret society that just chooses candidates. Those candidates were chosen by actual voters in a primary process. "The republicans" that you speak of are US, whether we want to admit it or not."
The "republicans" that I speak of are some of US, whether YOU want to admit it or not. Bachman, Perry, and Huntsman were out after Iowa and New Hampshire (January 10). Why would we allow 2 states that historically do not vote republican to affect the republican primary? I don't care if the candidates who dropped out were liberals or nazis, states that do not vote republican should not affect the field of available candidates in the republican primary.
Santorum suspended his campaign April 10th. Gingrich suspended his May 2nd. Paul stopped campaigning May 14th.
The Arkansas primary was May 22nd. The Texas primary was May 29th. Exactly how much input does the republican party think just the people of Arkansas and Texas feel they had in selecting the republican candidate? I don't know if Arkansas or Texas were among the states who wanted to move their primary dates up, but I do remember when it went on that the states floating that idea were conservative republican states, and the party vigorously crushed that idea.
You can't tell me it is an accident that the first 10 primaries, the most critical of the process, includes states like Minnesota which hasn't voted republican since 1932, and Iowa, and New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, and Washington, which rarely vote republican.
Once we address that, then we can get into which of those early primaries are "open" primaries, allowing democrats to pick our candidate. The party has no or little choice in this, but as we saw with the states who wanted to move their date up, they sure have a say as to whether they seat their delegates.
I'm not in favor of open primaries, but the order of the primary issue is a red herring. A good candidate will get support in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as Texas.
I thought we had settled down a bit in the derision, but if you must. I think it is the epitome of chickensh!t to make guarantees, and then not follow through with them. So I'm going to ignore your posts until you post up the positions that Ted Cruz has taken that I have bloviated and railed against, you know, that childish whining, stomping my feet, staying at home thing that I do. You GUARANTEED you could do it, if I recall. You haven't done it.
In 1980, Bush won 3 of the first 4 primaries, winning Iowa, Puerto Rico, and Massachusetts. Reagan won #3, New Hampshire, then ran the table with VT, SC, AL, FL, GA, and IL.
If that order were applied to 2008, Huck wins Iowa, McCain wins Puerto Rico and New Hampshire, Mitt wins Massachussetts, McCain wins Vermont and South Carolina, but then Huck wins Alabama, McCain Florida, Huck wins Georgia, then McCain wins Illinois.
So McCain wins 6 of the first 10, but Huckabee wins 3, and Mitt the republican stronghold of Massachussetts.
If applied to 2012, Paul wins Iowa, then Mitt goes on a run of PR, NH, MA, and VT. Newt wins South Carolina, Santorum wins Alabama, Mitt takes Florida, but then Newt takes Georgia, and Mitt comes back with Illinois.
I don't think McCain nor Romney look quite as strong after the first 10 primaries if they went on Reagan's order. At the very least, It would have made for a more competitive process instead of a coronation.
Had the order of the primaries been different, money, and emphasis would have been arranged differently. You can't just assume the same party would have won the same states. Well, you can, but not with a high degree of validity.
"A competitive process with different final results in 2012? Or no...?"
I'm pretty sure you actually read the posts, maybe comprehension not so much?
Probably wouldn't have made too much of a difference, but it could have affected 2008 some anyway.
This means that I believe the final results probably would have been the same, but there could have been some effect in the 2008 election.
"Where do you stand on vaccines AR? Cruz is a texas guy and texas now mandates kids get vaccines."
My kids had to be vaccinated before they could attend daycare, 15 and 17 years ago, with more in kindergarten, and yet more as they have progressed through school. I have no real problem with it. I should say, if the children of illegal immigrants do not have to meet these same standards before they are allowed to attend public school, I would have a real problem with that. Considering the open border policy that the democrats have instituted with their republican cohort's enthusiastic support, we are going to have a lot of dead kids from preventable diseases if there isn't some mandate. This wouldn't be a problem if republicans or democrats respected, upheld, and defended the Constitution which they took an oath to do. If we had the stones to charge and try for treason those politicians who crap on the Constitution, some of these problems would take care of themselves.
"AR - where do you stand on US Presidents being former illegal drug users? Cruz recently admitted to smoking pot when he was younger. Did you have an opinion on this behavior when Bill Clinton and GW Bush were similar pot smokers?"
I have stated here before that I made these same mistakes when I was young. I think in the world we live in today, this is completely understandable. Admitting it is an honest admirable thing to do, especially for a politician. Telling stupid lies like "I didn't inhale" is much, much worse than the act itself in my opinion, and speaks much more to the character of a person. Admitting that you were a stupid kid, like probably the majority of people these days isn't a deal-breaker for me.
I have much more of a problem with US presidents being lying liberals, who ignore the Constitution and the right of men to live free, and without fear of a government set on running their lives.
Just like you get to make the determination that those who didn't vote for a candidate that they decided didn't represent them, their beliefs, their principles or their ideals, are responsible for both of Obama's terms, right?
I mean, it's not as if it is the responsibility of the majority of the party who nominated someone who they had every right to believe would make millions of people feel exactly that way, right? You know, it's not as if the exact same thing happened four years before or anything. How could they know, right?
It's high time that republicans got the message that they can no longer take conservatives for granted. Instead of declaring war on conservatives, they may want to find a way to embrace and adhere to some of those words they don't comprehend in their platform, and make some space for us in that big tent they keep inviting liberals to.
Anony Mouse's Link
While we thought we sent a message by electing Republicans in 2014, obviously we were self deluded. I thought the message was to use the powers of Congress to stop an imperial Obama.
It is early in this session of Congress and it seems that the Republican Rollover Caucus will continue to do business as usual.
What lesson will the Republican Party teach me?
Another reason we desperately need a constitutional amendment to mandate term limits!
I think its fine that McConnell allow the nomination to go to a full vote, rather than play the same games as Harry Reid. Let the whole chamber vote, and the majority better oppose this horrible Lynch for answers about illegal immigration!
Take names people. Vote out anyone who supports Lynch.
You have pretty much spent this entire thread hurling insults at those who won't sacrifice their principles in the general election this time, and I am one of those people. Forgive me for responding to a challenge that sounded for all the world to have been issued to the collective "you" that you had been berating.
You speak of entitlement, yet berate those who have a Constitutionally protected entitlement to vote for a candidate who they think represents their principles, standards, beliefs, and policies. Odd. We aren't insulting you for voting for liberals, if that is what you believe. We are just telling you what the results will be. Maybe that's the rub. Republicans didn't appreciate us telling them what the results were going to be in 2008, or 2012 either, but you can't dispute our accuracy.
Yes, actions (and inaction) certainly do have consequences. I think that has been the conservative point all along. If the republicans nominate yet another liberal for the presidency, the consequences will be yet another loss. We are trying to get you republicans to avoid those actions, so we can all avoid those consequences. I said before in another thread, we conservatives don't play the tune, we just dance to the music.
We have been thrashing each other back and forth for a couple of weeks now with those on your side of the argument making the case that conservatives should accept and support a liberal republican nominee if need be. I understand that it may not be the preference of some of you, crap it may not be the preference of any of you. You may even choose to believe that it isn't the preference of the republican party. Where we really part ways is that should a liberal republican get the nomination, the nomination should be seen as acceptable, and be supported by conservatives and republicans alike.
I don't pretend to speak for anyone except myself, but I think the biggest part of the dust up here is conservatives saying that it is in fact not acceptable, and will not be supported in the voting booth or anywhere else.
The fact of the matter is, even if I am the only conservative on Bowsite who feels this way, you guys know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be millions who feel exactly the way I do, and maybe millions more this cycle since the establishment republicans will not let go of the myth that the winning votes are in the squishy middle even at the cost of the millions of conservatives who comprise their base.
Truth be told, I think some of the rancor we have seen here is that many of you republicans can plainly see that the party establishment is stubbornly headed in the very same direction it did in 2008, and again in 2012, and recognize that in reality, you yourselves are impotent to stop it. The anger, frustration, and disappointment is because you know where this train stops.
I would have thought after the discussions in 2012 we had around here, which were eerily similar to these now, that many more would have seen the light. Remember them however you'd like, but know that for two cycles running now, those on your side of the argument ended up wrong, dead wrong. Those on the conservative side predicted exactly what was going to happen, whether they voted republican or not, and were stunningly accurate.
You have one million dollars. You can use that to try to make a difference in one US Senate election. Or ten state senate elections. And with the ten state elections, I've just expanded the conservative base.
Or just complain that the senate candidate is not conservative enough, and vote for some guy that will get 1.3% of the vote. And then complain that the game is rigged while you are at it.
It's not hard math.
The press played to the GOP party and even people on here denied his quotes against assault weapons and defended him IN THE PRIMARY (remember he is the only one that can win? How did that work out).
He was forced down the NON-LIV's throats and those people told the party with their votes, Homey don't play that....
FYI, the only time I voted for Romney was the 2012 general election. So, sorry, we don't fit into your nice little narrative. And I've written at length about the problems with "country club Republicans" so calling me an EGOP person is disingenuous.
The videos from 2012 only showed me that there was an angry mob of Ron Paul supporters. Nothing else. You may not like hearing that nor others, but that's all it means to someone objective.
Conservatives can't fix establishment republican mistakes by sacrificing their principles in the general election. Calling the primary the compromise between conservatives and republicans serves your purpose, because the compromise means the establishment gets what they want, every time. The result has been embarrassing defeat, 2 cycles running now. It is up to the establishment and their defenders whether they want to make it 3. Those are facts, no misrepresentation necessary.
The establishment republicans have long since stopped listening to conservatives about what they want, and what they will not accept. It is up to you guys to let them know they are headed for disaster yet again.
Is there anywhere that you would draw the line and say that you aren't voting republican in the general?
Romney had the best chance in 2012 of beating Obama, but a few million voters decided they would rather LET Obama win (to teach everyone a lesson) than to support Romney (and teach republicans a lesson)
The only lesson I hope was learned is that this was a stupid idea. The dems didn't notice because they think they won on better ideas and national support to ram their socialist ideas down our throats, at least according to the final vote tally. The republican establishment didn't learn anything because they are still going to field the candidate that wins the primaries and who appears to draw the largest national support. And the SHATRAL crowd (Stay Home And Teach Republicans A Lesson) apparently learned nothing at all and think its a great idea to do again.
If this time around we happen to nominate a great conservative candidate, these SHATRAL people will be thumping their chests as if their dopey invisible protest made a difference. Ha! Its really just a matter that in '08 and '12 they had crap to offer as a candidate to be their standard bearer. In 2016 the picture looks better so far. But its simply due to the candidates' qualifications, and not the subsequent hissy fit.
See, everyone in the republican party knew that having republicans and conservatives united behind Romney was a fairy tale. Listen to yourselves. Not a single one of you claim that Romney was your guy. Why? Because he was and is a liberal. So the republican party made the calculation that they could throw away the conservative vote, and pick up enough liberal votes to win, which is exactly what they did with McCain in 2008, making the same calculation. It didn't work out either time, did it? Yet you expect conservative support, for doing it again a third time as if it will work.
It absolutely astounds me that some of you expect conservatives to be accepting, even friendly toward a republican party which has successively calculated that they don't want or need conservative support. And now, instead of realizing where their bread is buttered, they are intent on tripling down on their absurdity. And the vilification of conservatives continues, as if we had a say.
NEITHER apparently had enough solid support to beat Obama, but Romney ALWAYS polled as the greatest chance.
Romney was my guy in 2012 because from among those running, I liked him best overall. I liked certain things about each candidate, I even like the 9/9/9 tax idea… but I thought Romney provided the best overall package to deal with the fiscal situation and world affairs. And I like the combination with Paul Ryan as VP – again for our grave fiscal situation. But that was then, and this is now. Walker appears to be the best thus far for me in 2016 ….
Remember, to win the general the candidate needs to earn conservative support, but NOT in a way that loses moderate and independent voters in even greater numbers. Because the liberal dems will be totally united behind their one person. Only some reasonable coalition of the remaining groups can possibly defeat them.
Spike – the far right branch of the republican party needs to have a say in the matter, but can’t also be deaf to everyone and everything else. The dems are united and consistent with NO LESS than 40% of the vote even in the worst of times. The other 60% is up for grabs and is divided some way between independents, moderates, and a republican party split among fiscal vs social conservatives (which is really what its all about, right?). Go too far to the right and you loose the middle. Go too far middle and you lose the right. Neither is the perfect solution, but only one group is demanding all or nothing. That might be principled, but it’s certainly not smart.
To top it off BowSniper gives us the reason the party was behind Romney from the start.
"The idea behind Romney in 2012 was that he would pick up the largest combination of blue dog democrats, independents, moderates, fiscal conservatives, and some small part of the far right. The calculus was that while Romney might lose some evangelical and strict uber-conservatives… a guy like Santorum would lose an even greater number of blue dogs, independents, and moderates. In the end there is some total number of votes – and in every study/poll/survey taken nationally, the Romney combination was predicted and tested to yield more votes than going with Santorum."
This was the reason for the tampering in Iowa's ballots and announcing it for Romney before the votes were counted. Because of past Primarries they knew the liberal had to win Iowa or he was done and he was their only hope.
The people pick my ass.....
May I ask you when the republican party has EVER been successful relying on the middle?
Just jump right in there, any of you. This is pretty much the stated strategy. There should be some evidence somewhere of past success, right?
The reason Romney is staying home.....
The Fix looks at recent national polls and finds Mitt Romney “performs worse than he did in 2012 among almost every demographic tested (for which we have comparisons between the two polls and his 2012 showing). And that’s a comparison to an election that he lost.”
“He beat President Obama among independents by five points in 2012; he now trails among them by eight or nine points, depending on which poll you choose (we prefer WaPo-ABC). He won whites by 20 points in 2012; he now leads by just four or five points. He won males by seven points; he’s now trailing by 7-12 points. And on and on.”
That is yet another one of those patently false straw man arguments like demanding 100% purity, and abandoning candidates because they are wrong on one issue.
Reagan was demonized as a warmongering right wing hate-minister, the same as any other conservative has been for decades. Tell me one thing Reagan did in the primary or general election to pander to liberal votes. Beyond George Bush being picked as VP, I can't think of a thing. And that was to keep liberals IN HIS OWN PARTY from revolting.
Certainly you aren't making the case that republicans were RELYING on the squishy middle to elect Reagan, are you? You know that is laughable.
BowSniper's Link
Spike - I think those 'demanding all or nothing' was every conservative who did not vote for the republican party guy in '08 and '12 - because you GOT Obama as the result and that is OPPOSITE from heading in a 'conservative' direction. If this year turns out any different, its not because of some non-vote protest, its only because the candidates are better this time around. There was no real conservative candidate capable of winning nationally in 08 and 12. Period. Ron Paul might be a fine doctor, but he is a disaster as a presidential candidate (Bradley Manning being the least of his many problems)
Tell me what Reagan did to pander to liberals in the primary or general election please. You want to make the case that republicans relied on the squishy middle to get Reagan elected?
As with the other thread, since demanding 100% purity, and abandoning conservative candidates because of one wrong position is so common, you should be able to name some names. Let's have them. Candidates abandoned, or Bowsiters demanding 100% purity. This should be easy.
You might want to check the math. Unless you contend that appox. 3.5m republican conservatives refused to vote at all AND all 1.5m who voted for third party candidates were rebellious conservatives, that seems a bit of a stretch considering these numbers and their effect on electoral vote tallies.
I think this is the oft repeated mantra that needs to be proven or debunked. On the surface, I see it almost certainly debunked and have stated so on several occasions. It appears more likely that Romney was unelectable in 2012 and I suspect the same was true in 2008.
2012 General Election Presidential Results for all Candidates.
-Barack Obama (Democratic Party) – 65,909,451 – 51.02%
-Mitt Romney (Republican Party) – 60,932,176 – 47.16%
-Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) – 1,275,950 – 0.99%
-Jill Stein (Green Party) – 469,572 – 0.36%
-Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) - 122,378 - 0.09%
-Roseanne Barr (Peace & Freedom Party) – 67,359 – 0.05%
-Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) – 42,995 – 0.03%
-Tom Hoefling (America’s Party) – 40,609 – 0.03%
-Jerry Litzel (independent) – 12,895 – 0.01%
-Jeff Boss (independent) – 12,895 – 0.01%
-Randall Terry (independent) – 12,895 – 0.01%
-Merlin Miller (American Third Position Party) – 12,895 – 0.01%
-Jill Reed (Twelve Visions Party) – 12,032 – 0.01%
-Richard Duncan (independent) – 12,032 – 0.01%
BowSniper's Link
Natty - here is an article talking about the millions on disenfranchised uber-conservative and evangelicals that Romney lost in numbers. And as you know, its not a popular vote - its a far lower number needed to win key swing states, which changes the whole electoral count in the end. The only person that tries to determine a win based on popular vote numbers is Al Gore.
How odd! That is precisely what we told you guys in 2008, again in 2012, and are telling you that you're on the path to pick the same guy in 2016! The only difference being that we know with 100% certainty that we were 100% correct in 2008 and 2012 while you guys busy yourselves making pronouncements about who can and can't get elected with absolutely nothing to back them up!
I've asked repeatedly for examples of how this tactic has worked, and have seen not one example. Certainly none in the presidential elections.
By definition, there is nothing to back up the results of an election before it happens. One can only look at data, and examine trends, to make an educated guess. Whereas, looking at the past is considerably simpler.
Every past poster is 100% accurate. Big deal.
The link also describes 7m democrat voters not showing up. The results are still the same.
Of course, the electoral vote is the determining factor BS. Show me the breakdown of popular votes into electoral votes that give Romney or McCaint a win electorally. It's your and other EGOPers claim, not mine. I just find your contention iffy at best. I don't see anything in your link to support your claim based on the math, unless I missed it.
What apparently went wrong in 2008 and 12 was a candidate that neither appealed to a large enough majority of moderates or conservatives.
No, I have not been given an honest answer. Repeating nonsense does not make it more believable.
Anony Mouse's Link
I won a bet in 2012 that Ron Paul wouldn't win one state primary. A good man here paid up.
Are you trying for the 2014 Bodac award or what?
This whole thread, and several before it has been about you guys buying into the republican party needing to veer left if they want to win the presidency, and conservatives handing you guys your hat at every turn, because your strategy, although wholeheartedly backed by the republican establishment, is a bunch of crap. It didn't work in 2008, when conservatives told you that McCain was too liberal to be supported by the base, even with the Palin VP pick. We were right, he lost because going after the idiotic liberal policies might alienate the liberals that you guys were so banking on to bring you the win.
It didn't work in 2012, when we told you that Romney was too liberal to be supported by the base, and by that time the establishment republicans had not only decided they didn't want or need their conservative base, they were in fact at war with conservatives. Those on your side of the argument were wrong again, because you can't out liberal a party full of liberals. It was a stupid strategy to begin with, but there was no convincing you guys.
Now here we are in 2015, and conservatives are out in force telling you establishment guys the absolute absurdity of going down this road again, and surprise surprise, you'll have none of it. Your only vision is one of co-opting the liberal democrat ideals to pursue liberal votes that you'll never get.
Conservatives are at the point of realizing that the reason for this is that the republican establishment in fact don't believe a damn bit of what is in their own platform. The platitudes found there are for the rubes to buy into, while they govern however they please. Unfortunately, at least for me that makes establishment republicans bigger pieces of crap than the democrats. They say they are liberals, and govern like socialists. Today's republican establishment say they are conservatives, and govern like liberals.
You know it, and so does everyone else. I has been the establishment republican strategy for a long time now. Denying it now isn't fooling anyone. It has been exposed in the last couple of weeks as the absurd and disasterous strategy it always was. I would want to distance myself from it too.
These people are not our overlords. We have allowed them to play this brinkmanship game with us until they believe they can do whatever they want, with our continued support.
I believe that millions of people are standing up and saying no, you can't do whatever you want, and still enjoy our support, and I believe it is the only way we save our country.
As well as bringing the GOP further left. People copy what wins, not what loses.
I agree with KPC on your claim of the quotes. I don't think you'll find much, if anything. You won't find any from me, either. You'll find some folks saying that the GOP needs to win over moderates or independents, but not much else.
Spike - "Show me where any country in the world has ever gotten more conservative by voting for more progressive candidates each time!" America in 2008 and 2012. If the country had voted for either McCain or Romney, America would unquestionably be 'more conservative' by some degree than under Obama. Debunk that!
If blaming conservatives makes you fell better, by all means continue. It has been the establishment response for many years now.
Not owning up to your statements and pronouncements all these years and admitting the failure of your strategies is expected at this point. It's also why conservatives are here telling you you're doing it all again, and will garner the same result.
Show me where I said the GOP needed to nominate a liberal. Go ahead.
Hint: you'll have more success looking for where I said a principled conservative, like Reagan, could win a national election.
Or you can keep making crap up and believing it. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.
There was real data that said Romney was going to wipe the floor with Obama too. If you don't believe me, just ask bad karma, HA/KS, NvaGvUp, and others. You may well be right, but it proves nothing, just like the polls and pronouncements of Romney's victory.
Some will recognize this for what it is, some won't. I was once on your side of this argument, just as steadfast in the notion that we must support the republicans no matter what. It takes longer for others. Some will realize after the next election if it heads the way I fear. Some never will. I know I couldn't be convinced until it hit me.
It's obvious that you don't understand this, but it doesn't make it any less the case. I don't lie, but if it makes you feel better to call me one, knock yourself out.
I've stated many times that I don't have the answers. I'm just a fat boy from Arkansas. But I have recognized that doing what we did in 2008 and again in 2012 isn't the answer, and I am going to do something different. I don't think I'm alone.
If the strategy of the Republican party is to shove people like Walker and others aside and push the Bush then I will not support their candidate or actively engage in trying to get votes for him. Period, end of story and final answer. Cummings your answer does not equate because even though Reagan was a moderate when we see him looking back it did not have the ramifications that being a moderate Republican (so called) has today. That said I have pinched my nose and voted twice for moderate Republicans. I cannot be blamed nor can a lot of others that are being blamed for Obama. I do not believe for one minute that Obama won the last election. I think he stole the election somehow. Where I live I have only seen a couple of people that voted for Obama the second time. Most that voted for him the first time were ashamed of themselves/
God bless, Steve God bless, Steve
IMHO, the bigger issue than who the GOP ends up running in 2016, but what they do and how they act in the time running up to the election.
They were given both houses of Congress in 2014 because of the excesses and overreach of Emperor Obama who has ignored the Constitutional process of our governance.
Congress has powers that can counteract the President. The next two years will show whether the GOP has the backbone and fortitude to stand up not only to the President, but also his allies in the media.
Should they fail to do so, and allow Obama to govern with is phone and pen without an honest fight, why then would it matter just who they run? By 2016, Obama can well have fundamentally changed this country that any opposition party would be completely irrelevant.
Obamacare would be fully embedded. Borders no longer relevant. And the drain on our economy by welfare mandates would make this country just another Greece.
Conservatives are and have been all but begging the republican party to drastically change direction. We have been met with derision, dismissal, and even declared war upon. What constitutes the republican party at present is unacceptable to me and millions of others. They are not worthy of support. Nobody is trying to teach a lesson, they are demanding change.
I held my nose and voted for McCain. I voted for Romney in protest. I am here now, telling establishment republicans that unless they change drastically (meaning nominate a candidate that a conservative can stomach) I will vote for someone other than the republican candidate. The conflict here is that you guys want to insult and impugn conservatives for demanding change. If we are ignored again, the liberal republican candidate will lose again. I thought you guys wanted a republican to win?
Here's you a crazy little scenario you guys can all beat me up over. After Hillary's first term, if the republicans still refuse to return to their conservative roots and nominate yet another liberal, I fully intend to vote for Hillary or whomever the democrat incumbent is.
I have voted in every election, local, state, and national, special, primary, and general since 1988. Over that time, and in all of those votes, I believe I have voted for a democrat twice. The direction the party has taken has led me from disliking my vote, to voting for them in protest, to possibly voting for a third party candidate, and should it continue, voting for Hillary. I don't think I will have to worry about it beyond that, because by that time we will have either collapsed, or the Republican Party as we know it won't exist. I won't be doing this to teach them a lesson. I will be doing this because they are part of the problem, and not the solution. At that point, the only solution most likely will be collapse and rebuild.
The demanded change is up to them. I am no longer a republican. It is up to you guys to push the party to live up to their platform. They stopped caring what conservatives had to say long ago.
I'm not even saying they will win with a conservative, but if they lose with one, they will lose being true to themselves and the people who comprise their base. Republicans have abandoned them.
"Well isn't it just as disingenuous to claim that you must nominate a conservative that appeals to liberals if you want to win? Let's be honest."
That's your claim. I'll bet $100 that will go to the Arkansas Bowhunters Association vs. $100 that goes to the Colorado Bowhunters Association.
Show me where I wrote that, and not some mealy mouthed "That's what you meant when you wanted Romney to win" crap.
You have three days from today at 5 pm Mountain time.
But before you do, consider that I'm the guy who wanted Fred Thompson in 2008, and Herman Cain in 2012, before they both flamed out.
Nonetheless, put them on the table, or admit you are making stuff up.
Anony Mouse's Link
2016 isn't that far away. The GOP controls both the House and Senate. What message will they send?
Edited: this is the correct link, but the FCC rules to give government control of the Internet is also an issue that must be addressed.
http://weaselzippers.us/213448-obama-regime-issued-up-to-5-5-million-work-permits-to-non-citizens-without-congressional-authorization-in-shadow-immigration-system/
We know for a fact that Nva, and BowSniper voted for Romney in the primary, as they said so. BowSniper said Romney was his guy from the beginning. I'm sure they aren't the only ones. What individuals did and how they voted in 2012 really matters little in this debate. What the party did in 2012, and is doing again this cycle is what is important.
AND IN THE SAME POSTING "I am here now, telling establishment republicans that unless they change drastically (meaning nominate a candidate that a conservative can stomach) I will vote for someone other than the republican candidate."
Please tell me the difference between staying home and voting for a candidate that will not win a single electoral vote? Millions have done this every election and it has accomplished?????
Like I have stated before, I think there may be people posing as conservatives who are intentionally spreading discontent among conservatives and other potential republican voters just to disrupt any potential effective opposition to the democrats.
Don't fall for it.
The primary difference in not voting and voting third party for me is that not voting is simply not an option. I feel like we have very little input in how this country is ran as it is, not voting just makes that worse. Voting for a third party candidate if need be is important to me in that I want the republican party to know the number of votes they are missing out on since they abandoned conservatism.
You have been around here long enough to know that I have had real problems with the direction of the republican party since before McCain's nomination. Back then, I still believed they believed in conservative principles and ideals, but my eyes were opened. They then lost me with the Romney nomination, although not my vote.
I wouldn't put anything past democrats in the way of fraud and misrepresentation, but I assure you, my discontent is real and I need no help with it. I don't have anyone in my ear.
I want more than anything for the republicans to return to their conservative roots, nominate someone the base can support like Walker or Cruz, and defeat the democrats so soundly that they disband their entire criminal scumbag party. But if the republicans continue with their push left, and adoption of liberal policies and principles, I want them to lose, and lose badly. It's really our only hope for a future with liberty and the freedom that we cherish.
You guys have a real problem with someone standing up and saying they will not support this, nor the republican party. When someone posts up the evidence of the direction the party is headed, you guys attack.
My only "agenda" is to get the republican party back to it's conservative roots. If they fail to or worse refuse to, I want them to fail miserably, because they are frauds and imposters, representing that they are conservative, when all they have done for years now is work so suppress, dismiss, and defeat conservative candidates, policies, and principles.
You guys are going to do what you want, just as I will. If the party continues down the path it is on, it will lose the presidency once again, with your full support. You will again defend the failed strategy, and blame those who made it clear that they would not support the party in that direction.
The worlds economies are obviously being propped up by the world banks,mega banks and the fed,the sociopaths running the show have,through greed killed true capitalism and democracy,it seems most that have posted here fail to see where we are heading as a planet,Reagan is never coming back no matter how much these candidates riding unicorns promise.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. To really throw a monkey wrench into the grand plan of those pulling the strings we need to stop playing their game and massively protest ALL of washington and hold those who have destroyed our great country accountable for their crimes or we will, as a nation continue lose everything.
I believe republicans have to abandon this strategy, and radically change their direction in several areas if they want to have actual success in fixing the problems that this country faces. I will not support them in any if they don't make these changes. If that opens me up to insult and derision from you and others, so be it. But don't expect it to be taken lying down.
Now the party leaders in congress in the last week made statements that the vote to repeal Obamacare was simply to appease conservatives, I'm guessing because they really don't want rid of it, which really did nothing but make conservatives look bad since the party really doesn't agree with their beliefs, but the party sends me stuff like this wanting donations.
If it doesn't come through in the picture, the email is addressed to "all-American conservatives.
But we're the ones called disingenuous.
Do you think Jeb or Walker has a better chance of coming away from that with victories to tout and money men offering support? Now, a conservative may be able to overcome this, but they start in the hole, don't they?
If we are to consider the primary the compromise, and support the winner no matter what, shouldn't everything that can be done, be done to prevent some candidates from starting in the hole?
I can understand that you advocate this, but it is a rigged system to produce a candidate that won't defeat the democrats in the general at present. It didn't work in the previous 2 elections, and won't in this one either. Insulting people for not supporting the product of this deeply flawed system won't help your case with conservatives.
In choosing a nominee for the 1988 election democrats held 7 of the first 8 primaries or caucuses in states won by Reagan. Yet, they still nominated a very leftist candidate. Your logic does not follow.
Your right. What difference would it make, the end results are one in the same.
""Either way, you have made it interesting and helped me solidify and fine tune my arguments in favor of freedom.""
No! You have Only fine tuned your abilities for coat tail riding and self-bolster. I will give you Kudos, you have expanded the definition of Unicorn Fart Dreams and Fairy Dust Delusions of Grandeur.
KPC you never cease to amaze me. Always come out eventually with some type of contention! Why must u on an issue like this?
"GOP leaders lied, cheated and stole the nomination for the Liberal Romney."
Yes, and Elvis is alive an well in Arizona, alien bodies are hidden in a vault in Area 51, 9/11 was an inside job, and a thug cop shot Michael Brown in the back while he was surrendering with his hands up.
There was some shady crap that went on the last time around. Everyone knows it right? Either way cant we all just be nice? We are all R or I so lets align the best we can instead of being rude or condescending and in the end nominate the candidate we can all get behind.. That's the only way to really win.
I'm out!
romney 10 million Santorum 3.9 million Gingrich 2.7 million Paul 2.1 million
59 million voted for romney in the general election. that is 40 million more than voted in republican primaries. Maybe they should have gotten involved in the primary process? 40 million stayed home from the primaries to teach who a lesson?
Yup, it was a small committee behind closed doors that decided who would be the candidate. I am still mystified as to how they controlled so many voting booths and kept the voters from voting how they really wanted to vote.
But in 2008
McCain 9.9 million romney 4.6 million Huckabee 4.2 million Paul 1.2 million giuliani 0.6 million Thompson 0.3 million
60 million voted for McCain in the general election. Where were they during the primary elections?
For every primary participant, TWO stayed home. No matter who won ANY primary, more than enough stayed home to change the outcome.
You want a conservative candidate? Get involved early in the process instead of waiting until it is over and complaining about the results.
If it were up to me, I would probably also change the order of primaries, but no one person gets to run the system. George Washington REFUSED to allow them to make him king. I gave the example earlier where the democrats nominated a liberal even though the early primaries were in states carried by a conservative in the last election.
It is not the order of the primaries. It is not some secret "EGOP" committee. It is million of people who vote and even more millions who do not vote who determine the outcome of elections.
Maybe you can tell me how someone from Arkansas can involve himself in the Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Michigan caucuses in any effective way to make a difference. I'm at a loss.
Volunteer your time and resources,they are always looking for volunteers to make phone calls, go to meetings etc..
Do not be fooled by dem shill's, you will know them by the malarkey and self indulgent blather he spouts.
I honestly feel this argument about early voting states is lame. The candidates are looking at ALL 50 states from the start and adding up those they think they can win for a total number of delegates. It doesn't matter if the early states all go moderate, because the conservative states still get to vote and someone is polling and tracking how those states will finish. The problem is not the sequence of states, but the QUALITY of your candidate! If the strong conservative guy those years had enough support to win some later states, he would have stayed in the race. He only got out of the race because EVERY poll in EVERY state had him losing and it was determined to be a waste of time and money. You have got to take responsibility for your own standard bearer and if the strong conservative guy those years was a poor candidate, then he loses. Its OK. Face up to it, and support the rest of the electoral process.
NOTE - that does not mean the conservative platform or its message is bad. Not at all. It just means that particular candidate in that year was not the right one to advance the cause. And if you and a few million like minded supporters get your feelings hurt if you preferred guy doesn't happen to win (by HIS fault, not yours) then don't just run off and pout. Everyone should vote in every election to the very end, and always vote to put the more conservative person in office. In the last two election cycles, it was the person OTHER than Obama.
When you go into this with "your favorite guy" or nothing, we all get something... and its Obama and he brings with him Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Sonia Sotomayer, Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano, Elena Kagan, David Axelrod, and a whole host of other scumbags now entrenched into every corner of Washington and enacting policies that may never go away!!!
I for one have been asked to sacrifice my principles and vote for a candidate who does not share my beliefs one too many times. All for the privilege of losing to the democrats? We all know that is what is going to happen. You can flog the conservatives about it after the fact, but that doesn't get the election back, does it?
I have to wonder what principles republicans have to sacrifice in voting for a conservative. I can't come up with much after reading the platform.
Ridiculous, this is still going on after 270+ posts?
Stay home teach the republicans a lesson summary, opinion by gflight
I don't stay home and "R's" aren't bright enough to learn a lesson anyway.
I don't give a dang about the Republicrat party and they don't give a dang about me.
I won't get on a team, I will vote for who I think is best for the job, let the cards fall where they may.
As a conservative with libertarian leanings I will not vote for a Romney, Populist/Moderate; Crispy, Moderate; Bush Moderate. Not going to happen.
Enjoy this monster thread that takes me minutes to open and Have a Great Day.....
As someone said "I'm out!"
What principles do moderate republicans have to sacrifice in voting for a strong conservative? It depends on the candidate right? If it’s a terrible candidate like in 2008 and 2012 that speaks poorly and makes little sense, then we would have to sacrifice intelligence knowing he can never win.
In 2016 the strong conservative candidates appear thus far much better than the moderates. That is a win/win for BOTH sides of the argument running throughout this thread. But let’s not pretend the egop blew the last two elections by pushing through a moderate. The problem was not the weakness of the moderate message, but rather the weakness of the more conservative candidate himself.
If those polls don't take into account the millions of conservatives who will not vote for a "moderate" candidate, then using those polls is deluding yourself into believing your guy can win, when he can't. I believe this has been the case in 2008 and 2012.
No dispute on #2
"But let’s not pretend the egop blew the last two elections by pushing through a moderate. The problem was not the weakness of the moderate message, but rather the weakness of the more conservative candidate himself."
It is so easy to see this from the other side of the argument, isn't it? Doesn't the fact that the "moderate" republican lost the last two elections prove that in reality, the opposite is true?
You are playing games mixing apples and oranges to avoid facing up to the problem. A poll asks everyone who they would vote for, such as which republican primary candidate they prefer, or nationally comparing each candidate against the likely competition. Strong conservatives are included in these polls with everyone else. It is not the same information as actual vote results, where your millions of strong conservatives might later decide not to participate.
In other words – sticking just with apples - your guy’s numbers DO SHOW in the polls, and none of these polls showed a great amount of support for Huckabee or Paul in the primaries, even when compared to a more moderate guy like McCain or Romney. Does that mean the moderate message was great, or that the conservative candidate was bad?
But more importantly – and the part you keep avoiding by trying to throw oranges into the mix – is that the polls ALSO provide real numbers showing how your particular preferred candidate would likely have performed in the general election. So in 2008 for instance: the average result of Huckabee vs Obama head to head was 36.2 to 52.8!! (note – McCain faired about 10 points better 45.6 to 52.9. The democratic position was rock solid, and the republican vote count varied by candidate – with McCain performing best, and still not good enough) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_huckabee_vs_obama-516.html
It was not the egop overlords secretly holding Huckabee back, it was Huckabee. We were left with a moderate like McCain because as bad as that might be, he was still a better candidate nationally than what the strong conservatives were offering that year.
Same thing in 2012 though Santorum was stronger that Huckabee. Polls had Santorum 42.4 to 50.2 losing to Obama (note – Romney scored about 5 points better than Santorum 47.2 vs 51.1 – again better but not good enough to win.) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html
So you can bitch and moan about McCain and Romney being failures as if it was a problem with a moderate republican campaign and policy… but the REALITY is that the strong conservative candidate would have performed worse. The problem is not the message, it’s the messenger. And using the past as an example of how this ‘stay home or vote other’ argument is going to make things better for strong conservatives is nonsense. The way to make things better for strong conservatives is to run a better strong conservative. Period.
Look, if you haven't figured it out in 2008, 2012, or in the debates we've been having here, you need to recognize that conservatives aren't really big on "go along to get along", especially these days. Knowing that, and seeing that it is apparently no sweat for establishment republicans to be adults and vote for the nominee no matter his politics, shouldn't it be easy for everyone to get behind a conservative, push him or her through the nomination, and then see what happens in the general?
The most accurate polls ever are the elections themselves.
"to teach the republicans a lesson."
Did you miss this part?
They won't vote for "moderate" republicans because it is a sacrifice in principle and ideology. They won't vote for them because moderate/liberal policies are in direct opposition to conservative policies. They won't vote for them because they do not feel that moderate/liberal politicians represent them.
BowSniper's Link
AR said “Didn't work out very well, did it?” Again – what is the point of stating the moderate lost, without admitting that the stronger conservative was only going to lose by a larger margin??
I get that the “conservatives aren't really big on go along to get along” as you said over and over again. We get it. Its also been referred to as an all or nothing approach, or even childish behavior. Whatever you want to call it – it’s a forever no win situation. The conservatives here claiming they won’t back a moderate of any size shape or color. And the conservative candidates thus far have not yet been strong enough to gain nationwide support.
And Obama is literally laughing all the way to the apocalypse. Congratulations.
Because you are using polls that were proven to be incorrect as the basis for your argument. We had poll after poll posted right here on Bowsite showing Romney winning. They were wrong.
"The conservatives here claiming they won’t back a moderate of any size shape or color."
You left out a very important part. "for the third cycle in a row, after losing the previous two."
Ron Paul never polled over 10% before or after the "demonization." He never won a single primary. The only way he could get delegates was by the caucus process where a candidate with a small but fierce following can exaggerate their support by turnout at the caucus.
He did win amongst democrats who were crossing over to vote in the republican primary. Why did leftists want him to win the nomination?
"Apparently you have some comprehension issues also."
"at least get up to speed with what's being said, and by whom"
Oh I'm up to speed alright and yet again you throw out another condescending comment and bring comprehension issues as you see them into the debate. You do so in a way that's just... well you! I guess that's ok too... But... Who the heck wants to read this stuff like that anymore? Aren't we all about sick and tired of division that shows up in this particular form? Especially on this kind of an issue? Is it even needed or helpful is the real question? It's like it's impossible to have a convo without eventually there being harsh words or insults thrown out there. Ar has even said he's been insulted.... There is Condescension for sure. Its no wonder America is so screwed up. Everyone is so quick to pop off nowadays. Myself included at times.
I just don't like a certain style at times that's all man. I largely avoid you now because you seem quick to add contention to certain threads. Not saying I haven't done exactly the same in the past to certain specific members. But a thread like this one kinda has some merit to me but it shows the real issues we face as Americans. No one really wants to move off their spot
I have read the entire thread and know who said what b4 I posted. I didn't speak to your position on a single issue here per se' if that's what you thought I meant. I spoke more to your tone that you seem to be using at times. The rest of my post was a generality of what we need to do.
"Seriously, if you are going to pop into a thread to make negative comments"
I didn't make a negative comment Kevin. I pointed something out I see. I see it all over the place especially when it comes to politics. Its rampant nowadays...If you take that as negative to point out that you add contention to a thread at times then so be it. It was not my intent to have you read it as such or in a way to be negative toward you. It was more to maybe make you aware.
"That's all I've EVER said"
I suggest you read what other things you have said in this thread. Its certainly not "all" you have ever said. You just said that too. I largely agree with your stance on the main issue in this thread if that's any consolation.
Now...I'm out!
Edit. I'm going to be honest and leave this here, but Hammer, good post. This is the last from me on this one.
I think that a lot of primary voters were looking for someone who hadn't spent the majority of their adult life in government.
2.1 million voted for Paul. Why didn't the rest vote for Paul? Some probably realized that he was an unelectable nutcase and voted for whoever they thought could win.
Anony Mouse's Link
Good thing too. Otherwise you wouldn't have anyone else to incorrectly blame for your EGOP losses.
What we need is a candidate who believes smaller government is better and that government overreach and excessive multi-national corporate influence are problems needing reigned in so the most powerful economy in the world can do what it does best and start creating more businesses and businessmen with an eye on the same goal of smaller better government, less overreach and more individual liberties. Ah, nevermind, that's just the way nut cases think. Just ask a liberal.
Maybe DHS can sell some surplus ammo and fund themselves? Us sporting shooters could use some inexpensive bulk ammo.
Anony Mouse's Link
Why?
Because the press says so.
Your second link points out the problem, and suggests a solution that should be tried. We will not know whether or not it works until it is tried.
You know the old saying "never pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the gallon."
The other thing that probably needs to be done is that the republicans need to play the same game as scroungy reed and pass things in the senate with a simple majority. I am not sure of the long-term implications of that, but trusting the dems to ever play honest is just as foolish as thinking that communists or muslims will ever honor a treaty.
You can know the rule, and exploit them, without being dishonest or sleazy. And they need to bring the tough votes up before the Senate. Let's make these folks commit.
At present, they control both houses and could very well do unto the Dems as the Dems have done to them.
Failing to bring important issues to a vote, we get the Boehner teary eyed smile and submission/acceptance with the excuse, "Well, we tried. We really tried."
Anony Mouse's Link
Anony Mouse's Link
Anony Mouse's Link
UNBELIEVABLE: Obamnesty Extended to Allow In Relatives Of Illegals By Peter Brimelow
Senator Jeff Sessions‘ statement on new USCIS “guidelines” allowing amnestied illegal immigrants to bring in relatives:
“One of the President’s most shocking unilateral actions is his chain migration program for the relatives of illegal immigrants. Guidance issued yesterday from USCIS declares that many illegal immigrants’ foreign relatives may legally join them in the U.S. Under this decree, the Administration is allowing the Central American relatives of those covered by the President’s amnesty order to come to the U.S. as ‘refugees’ or ‘parolees.’
In effect, the President’s answer to the ongoing run on the border is to order government officials to transport many of those same individuals from Central America into the U.S. with lawful paperwork and guaranteed access to federal benefits.
This government-ordered amnesty chain migration will impose enormous costs on federal taxpayers and jobseekers, as those who arrive as refugees will be able to receive automatic federal benefits. We must be taking action to reduce the incentive to enter the country illegally. Helping illegal immigrants bring their relatives here as refugees only provides further incentive for illegal immigration. More broadly, we must be taking steps to curb the flow of unskilled labor and help families already living here—whether past immigrants or U.S.-born—find good jobs, good schools, and thriving communities.”
[NOTE: The U.S. currently admits 1 million permanent immigrants each year along with 70,000 refugees and asylees. According to Gallup, Americans want to see record immigration reduced, not increased, by a 2-1 margin.]
Anony Mouse's Link