Skip to comments.Vanity: Time to stop being down in the dumps and start planning for 2014 and 2016
Posted on 11/06/2012 8:52:31 PM PST by Sola Veritas
OK...so Obama has won reelection. It will be bad, of that there is NO doubt. However, good can come from this.
Well the main thing that needs to be worked on is the ground game in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. How do these states that are so dominated at the local level...at least in OH and FL...by Republicans, and yet keep electing a Marxist to the White House? That just should not have happened once, let alone twice.
I wish I could, windflier.
I can’t sleep. I laid in bed, turned out the lights, all that, then...got up again :(
Well at least stop demoralizing the troops, would ya?
I’ve planned all along for this. It starts tomorrow.It won’t be anything harsh or violent. It will be effective with the useless folks of my immediate vicinity
“The same thought crossed my mind tonight. This is ultimately a spiritual battle, and considering liberals’ treatment of the Church, I can see where this is heading.”
Exactly, gay rights and contraception rights are not the strategy...they are the means by which they will attack our Christian Churches and try to destroy them...They are under the influence of evil. Just as the Nazi’s and Communists were last century the modern day liberal is today. Pope John Paul ll thought so as well.
Ah, alright I will do my best to STFU now. I know I have radiated considerable negativity so far tonight. Sure wish I felt better than I do ><
The dems were painting Romney as a rabid right winger and got away with it.
Save you ammo, everyone should have had enough practice by now.
There may be other steps, but I do not see that whimpering Boehner doing anything to upset his golf buddy. We sent them in in 2010 to stop him, and they have done nothing. They hold meaning hearing after hearing. The bluster for what few cameras they can get in front of. Then it all goes quiet again. We have had a border agent, an Ambassador, 20 plus Navy Seals, and Special Forces, and how many regular Soldiers because of his changed in the ROE’s, are now dead because of the direct incompetence, or actual malice of this administration, and NOBODY cares.
Those of us engaged enough to be on a website like FR make up about 1% of the population. The other 99% are more concerned with who’s on Dancing with the Stars this week.
The State media will only tell them what the glorious leader deems appropriate.
We're all hurting tonight, Chris, but we've only got two choices. Collapse, and accept Obama's 'brave new world', or buck up and fight it.
As bad as I want to give up at this moment, I've got four young children and a wife who are relying on me to stay strong and make it go right, despite this enormous setback. There's no way in hell I'm going to let them down, no matter what.
Some of the finest Americans who ever lived, bled and died to bequeath this awesome country to me. I won't let them down either, by succumbing to this political defeat.
Thank you for those strong and patriotic words, Windflier.
I do feel collapse tonight, I can’t deny that, I think even my physical posture resembles it.
But buck up and fight it is the only possible response, although I’m not quite sure how at this point. Only thing running through my head this evening are rather extreme thoughts, surely all of these ideas would fail. I’m just a little lost as to what the next step is, this is tough.
They can use a variety of methods to attack any conservative who appears to be a threat (see Sarah Palin or Gingrich); either by "journalistic front", or suppression/misquoting, picking a fight and setting them up by misquotes, or ridicule.
So the GOP has learned *never* to stick their necks out and resist.
The true measure is how many are employed in the body of the people identified as ready, willing and able to work. Obama has brought young people in this country down to the level of Greece ~ 53%.
And everybody clippng coupons isn't a 'taker' ~ think about that for a moment ~ we have a huge number of people who simply live off the accumulated capital built up by themselves, or their ancestors. IRS has tried to count them in the past ~ without a lot of success since an active investor looks very little different than a coupon clipper from the standpoint of tax payments. Roughly, there are a good 10 million millionaires (people earning a million bucks or more per year) ~ with dependents, and on the average they have 3 or 4 dependents just like everybody else, so that's 30 to 40 million people who are millionaires and possibly simply coupon clippers.
My guess is the coupon clippers probably reflect the population at large when it comes to identifying some as retirees and others as active participants in the economy.
So, how do you want to define those people? Are they working or are they taking?
You come up with hard statistics based on agreed upon definitions we can talk, but this idea that 84% were working back under Ronald Reagan is too ill defined to discuss rationally.
We needed a winning candidate ~ somebody decided we weren’t going to get one and that’s how things ended up.
Also might note the Mormon sponsored candidates continued to lose outside of their intramountain fastness.
So, who were they? Well, there's the obvious guy, Romney, but several of the Senate candidates got there thanks to financing that helped move aside some high seniority senators who would have otherwise competed with Orin Hatch ~ who became, with their removal, the seniormost Republican Senator, and if you have that exalted position you have more sayso on who will be committee chairmen than any other senator.
Well, no worry there, they didn't follow up by financing the guys they'd pushed in the primaries ~ rather like an ore carrier in a high wind cut loose from its moorings on the Great Lakes, ploughing through all before it until it crashes on the rocks.
They'll have to learn to look ahead 3 or 4 steps to get this outside politics part right ~ it's not enough to control who gets to be the candidate, you must support the candidates you put in place or they lose!
I certainly never passed up that opportunity ~
Remember, if you've got a grievance worth having, it's worth pursuing it, even into the dirt!
That's all great matters of government philosophy are to him ~ partisan bickering.
No heart in that.
We, as conservatives, allow ourselves to be fragmented by having a variety of definitions of what a "true conservative" is, and looking to fill our candidate spots with whomever checks off the right boxes on a list of policy positions, regardless of what kind of candidate they would make.
To extend on Bill Buckley's famous "vote for the most conservative candidate who can win", my revision reads "vote for the candidate most able to put a conservative agenda into effect". This encompasses a wider look that the Buckley rule, in that we are not just looking at "electability" (though that is a factor) but also at expected effectiveness once in office.
Effectiveness involves getting a conservative agenda enacted, which means getting Congress to go along with it (typically by convincing the public, and have Congress follow in order to keep their seats). To this end, you don't need a "true conservative" who either can't get elected or can't get anything accomplished once in office, but an "80% conservative" who can win and who can lead will move the general direction of the country the right way.
But that may mean having to compromise on a core issue or two in order to get the rest of the package. The whole "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude of the "pure conservative" crowd is not helpful.
Now, what I mean by someone who can effect a conservative agenda is someone who fits -- as closely as reasonably possible -- the following criteria:
Using the recent primaries as an example, Romney certainly doesn't fit the bill well -- his conservative instincts are questionable at best, and while he has government and business executive experience, his agenda while in office was shaped by the legislature, not enacted in spite of it. There's also a lot of doubt that he was able to be convincing enough to sell his message to the public (admittedly, after the first debate, it looked a lot better, but then he drifted back toward milquetoast at the end).
On the flip side, Newt Gringich was likely the best fit overall, even if he wouldn't be the fist choice on most of the individual bullets. His biggest drawbacks on that card are his lack of elected executive experience (though admittedly, Speaker of the House is pretty good for a non-executive) and the lack of winning a statewide election. His conservative credentials weren't perfect (though far better than Romney's), but he also had a strong track record of shaking things up and getting things done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.