Skip to comments.Blue state Republicans should NOT be the Presidential nominee
Posted on 06/01/2011 9:45:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
2012 is an election of direction, will we recommit to our original economic, political and social values, or will we accept Obama's "Hope and Change"?
I would offer as a premise the concept that social values are the core of the American government. One of the most important original motivations bringing pilgrims to America was freedom of Religion. People came to the new world to find a place to practice their faith in God. This motivation was so important that all colonies required potential candidates for public office to be a member of a church! In New England, the first property tax adopted to build a public school cited reading the Bible as the reason for the need for building a school! It was a faith in God which anchored all other decisions in the New World.
In 2012 our nation faces squarely a decision and that decision is slanted towards socialism. Obama care has already passed. Any successful repeal of Obama Care will require not only the election of Republican Presidential candidate committed to its repair, but an overwhelming win at the polls by conservatives. We will need sixty plus Senators committed to repeal. And we will need an overwhelming majority in the House. To get these kind of numbers, we will need an exceptional Republican candidate who is not only committed to repeal of Obama Care, but is in possession of a clear vision of a new America, one based on the original foundations of Christianity, constitutional government, and capitalism. This new president must have a deep faith in God, and a understanding of the relationship between individual liberty, self-responsibility, and a domestic free market. The federal government must lose responsibility for important segments of our lives including education and health care.
Blue state Republicans CANNOT be the national leader we need. To be elected to an important position like governor or US senator, or mayor of New York City, in a blue state, a Republican had to forfeit many, if not all social values. In addition, the successful Republican candidate had to make an accommodation with unions, organized labor, and the media influencers within the blue state. Almost by definition, the successful Republican in a blue state had to be a RINO (republican-in-name-only). Blue state Republicans had to lean towards abortion, towards green environmental activists, pro--homosexual causes. While Blue State Republicans might be slightly more conservative than their Democrat opponents in the Blue state, they are the left wing of the Republican Party, One example would be former New York Governor George Pataki who defeated liberal icon Mario Cuomo! Pataki did it, in part, by promising New York citizens a Death Penalty. Once elected, Pataki, a former New York State Senator, crafted a Death Penalty which passed both Houses, and was signed into law. But it was a Death penalty which could NOT BE implemented. The result of Pataki's Death Penalty...not one murderer was executed! Not one. And then it was repealed. Pataki talked tough. But like Rick Perry, he was a wimp.
A blue state Republican might ...and I say might, have a chance to carry his/her state, but if elected, he could not set a new direction. Instead, he would work to implement a less expensive Obama Care.
While social values must be the foundation of our new direction, money is the avenue to manifest the new direction. For this we need a balanced budget amendment. The Republican House can help move our nation towards the new direction now, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless there are real, current cuts, and a defunding of the implementation of Obama Care.
As we go through the primary process, first check where the candidates come from. If they come from the north east, the west coast, or other bastions of blue states, cross them off your potential candidate list. Like Mitt Romney, the author of government health care in Massachusetts (the home state of the Kennedy's) the blue state Republican politicians have already sold out.
Blue state people are Marxist lite.
That would get rid of a ton of candidates. We can say good bye to Santorum, Rubio, Duncan Hunter, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, John Kasich, Bob McDonald, Scott Walker and that is just who I can name off the top of my head. How would it work? All the states that voted for the Democrat for President the previous campaign would be ineligible. It seems unfair to blame a candidate for the stupidity of their constituents. I think this would be a really bad move.
What about Rick Santorum? His social values are impeccable.
He lost his last election in his own state, didn’t he?
Over a social issue. Remember Terry Schiavo? It was a Blue State after all. This was not the intent of your posted article. The writer was saying that Blue State GOP’ers sell out their values to win in these states thus making them junk for POTUS. Rick never sold out.
You missed t-paw. Bachmann I would give a pass to. She has not sold herself out to get her seat. the 6th is about as rabid conservative as they come.
I was at the local goodwill shopping for deals. Someone had donated a Obama HOPE poster (not a spoof the real deal) it was framed and 3.99...
Couple days later the frame was gone and what was left of the “hope” poster was kinda rolled up and stuck on the shelf.
No one in the 6th likes Zero but they are importing the welfare (section 8) by the bus load.
We have so many issues to deal with. Dividing ourselves over red/blue states is not worth our time. Not to mention endanger our own cause.
Congressman Hunter is/was (depending on which one) a Congressman elected by a single district.
Ok so one of my examples is not correct. Duncan Hunter jr. isn’t running anyway.
Any candidate who puts his "social values" above Constitutional conservatism immediately disqualifies himself from 90% of conservative votes.
When the Constitution is upheld, first and foremost, conservative values of all types are upheld.
When people try to govern or legislate their particular "social values", the Constitution is subverted in favor of one segment of the population above another segment, and therefore pushes the country in a non-conservative direction.
"Social" conservatives have cost us election after election over the past forty years, and have delivered the USA into the hands of hard-core communists.
Congressmen don’t count.
Only liberals are against social conservatism.
I did not say that I was against social conservatism. You wrongly inferred that.
Using social conservatism as a leading political platform is a proven losing strategy.
So what is your point about Rick? I cited him as blatant example that proved this article worthless. The writer should have just titled it: “Why I Hate Romney and Christie”. I would have agreed with that. Santorum is one of the few solid Conservative guys in this race.
It wins, and it advances Americanism and the American way of life, advancing it in campaigns, party platform and in the standard by which we choose our canidates is how conservatives fight for America, we don’t need two parties which are Democrats, and Democrats lite.
Rick is probably a nice guy, wonderful family man, and a credit to his Sunday School. That does not make him a good potential political leader. His “social values” are his personal, family, and community business. They are not qualifications to preside over a Constitutional republican government.
RINOS from Red or Blue States need not apply.
If you want to fight social conservatism then you have a Democrat party and a nation wide left, and nationwide media, that devotes itself to that very mission.
You won’t convince conservatives and traditional Americans here, to become liberals.
Anyhoo, going by this theory that we should only run nominees from states that always vote GOP for President...
Unacceptable: McKinley (Ohio), Teddy Roosevelt (New York), Taft (Ohio), Nixon (California), Reagan (California). Coolidge (Vermont) might also make the list, though I suppose you could argue that 1920s Vermont was safe Republican
Accceptable: Landon (Kansas), Goldwater (Arizona), Dole (Kansas), G.H.W.B. (Texas), G.W.B. (Texas), McCain (Arizona)
You can’t make a coherent point?
So what you are looking for is a strict adherence to the Constitution period. Absolutely no other attributes. A Ron Paul man, are you? The Palin tag line is just for cover since she is one of these dreaded social Conservatives.
Maybe you could direct a dullard like myself to what a True Conservative looks like.
California used to be Republican, don’t know about your other examples.
>> the successful Republican in a blue state had to be a RINO (republican-in-name-only). Blue state Republicans had to lean towards abortion, towards green environmental activists, pro--homosexual causes. While Blue State Republicans might be slightly more conservative than their Democrat opponents in the Blue state, they are the left wing of the Republican Party <<
Using this article's logic:
Duncan Hunter, Michele Bachmann = RINOs (they got elected in heavily Democrat states, nevermind the fact not every region of their states are liberal)
John McCain, Jon Huntsman = Conservatives (elected in some of the staunchest GOP states in the country, therefore they must govern that way, right?)
Yes, the coherent point is, take your anti-conservative evangelism to the Democrats, they love that ‘let’s all drop, all that social conservatism’ message.
“To be elected to an important position like governor or US senator, or mayor of New York City, in a blue state, a Republican had to forfeit many, if not all social values.”
That part you have correct. Adherence to the US Constitution, swearing to uphold and defend the US Constitution, is primary to being qualified to preside over the USA. That is the oath of office.
There is nothing in the oath of office about pretending to be a better religious fruitcake than the other guy.
California was never a Republican state, at best it was a swing state back then. Ronald Reagan was Governor in between the two liberal Democrat Brown’s (Pat and Jerry). Nixon, the homestate favorite, won by less than 1% when he ran for President in 1960, then lost it big time when he ran for Governor of California two years later in 1962.
As others have noted, people like Rick Santorum (not to mention my own former Senator, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois) were elected U.S. Senator as unapologetic social conservatives. They didn't forfeit any social issues. Ditto with Governors, like Don Carceli of Rhode Island, who was a socially conservative Governor of the one of most Democrat states in the nation from 2002-2010. This is another article repeating the silly myth that "only RINOs can win in Democrat states". Note that it never works the other way around. Kathleen Selibus was elected Governor of the strongest GOP states in the nation, Kansas. According to this article's logic, she must therefore be a social conservative and national Democrats shouldn't nominate her for anything. But of course the rules for GOP candidates running in the opposition's turf will NEVER apply to Democrats in GOP turf.
When California Republicans were winning most Governorships and a 9 out of 10 Presidential streak, that was Republican.
Nixon and Reagan were not good examples for you, I don’t know about the others that you used.
The vast majority of your type vote liberal, whereas the vast majority of full conservatives vote conservative of course.
Anti-social conservatives, and the anti-religious, are OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERALS.
My point was that Congressmen are not included in the writer’s position.
You've proven yourself quite incapable of discussing anything coherently, so you just throw labels around, hoping something will stick. You are perpetually wrong.
Really dude? You are going to call people like Reagan who was a social Conservatives along with Palin, Rubio, Toomey, Santorum, DeMint, et al a bunch of Religious Fruitcake Pretenders? Isn't there a Libertarian chat room somewhere waiting for your input on Ron Paul's campaign run?
I don’t understand how you can know nothing about how voter groups separate into which party they vote for in regard to their connection to faith and social conservatism, and who the constituency is of the two different parties.
There is a great difference between political conservatives who have "social values", and the fraudulent "social conservatives" who tend to use any means, political or otherwise, to advance their fraudulent snake-oil sales.
You obviously belong to the latter group, or you lack the discernment to differentiate the true from the false.
At what point did I ever bring anything like that up? Who exactly wants to do this? You keep shifting the argument with these non sequitors because you either have no idea what you are talking about or you have very poor communication skills. Getting back to Santorum, he has a full record of Conservative achievement. He has a very solid foreign policy vision and sees the threat of Islamofascists. Being right on the Life issue is not his only plus.
Your last two posts on this thread are gibberish,I don’t know what you are trying to say.
Perhaps. If he wants the votes of the 90% of commonsense conservatives, he would accentuate his conservative achievements, and not come out of the gate babbling religious snake oil, none of which has anything to do with governing conservatively.
Florida is not a blue state. It elects 95% republican.
Florida is not a blue state. It elects 95% republican.
Florida gave Obama the Presidency I would say at best it is purple. Plus it has 50 percent Blue Senators.
Is that really the question? The answer is clear: no.
That’s a logical question in my mind. Conservatives seem to want a 100% pure candidate. I would love nothing better. But if we don’t have the numbers to pull off the win, what good is having the perfect conservative nominee? Obama is destroying the United States of America. I will vote for just about anyone over him. This election in particular should be primarily about the economy.
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
President Davis, CSA
Jersey, your post explains why the article’s premise is sound.
But it doesn’t show depending on how he combs his hair.
>>>>Your last two posts on this thread are gibberish,I dont know what you are trying to say.
Because your mind is closed to anything beyond social concerns. Once you hear the magic words to satisfy your needs, your brain turns off. Being socially conservative is not enough. That’s the point you are missing, or dare I say deliberately ignoring.
I notice that you didn’t try to explain his posts, what did post 37 mean for instance.