Posted on 12/26/2011 1:10:12 PM PST by neverdem
There seems to be a common line of demarcation separating two basic factions on the political right in the various skirmishes we have fought against Barack Obama, from their markedly different approaches to the budget battles to their differences in sizing up the GOP presidential candidates.
On one side we have the more moderate group, which is more cautious, less risk averse, less excitable, self-consciously pragmatic and more tolerant toward an establishment ruling class, even if not per se establishment itself. On the other side are those who perceive more urgency in our current national condition, are more adamant about adhering to conservative principles to reverse this catastrophe and reject the charge that they are recklessly purist.
Many from the first group have urged restraint and pragmatism in the budget negotiations, insisting it was too risky to force a government shutdown with Obama, that the big prize is 2012 and the best way to secure it is to avoid taking a hard line, which would hand Obama 2012 propaganda ammunition.
In each round of budget battles, with a spirit of defeatism and resignation, they warned against Republican brinksmanship, because they were convinced Obama would automatically win every PR victory. It was as though they had forgotten who'd won the 2010 congressional elections.
Obviously, they didn't believe Republicans could convince the electorate that they had the better argument, even though they were the ones drawing a line in the sand on spending, which was what caused the crisis. Also, they had no confidence that Republicans could persuade voters that Democrats were lying when they said that the government would actually default on its major obligations.
The first group seemed less outraged that the entire ruling class, including our GOP guys, allowed mere reductions in spending increases to be called spending cuts. Nor were they as troubled when our guys, instead of saying, "Sorry, folks, this is the best we can do under a dishonest socialist president," came closer to saying, "Hey, we've achieved a pretty good deal here in real terms."
This group assured us it was holding its major firepower for the 2012 elections. Yet 2012 is here, and they still seem reluctant to bring out the heavy artillery. They are giving their full-throated support to Mr. Caution himself, Mitt Romney, once again saying we can't afford the risk of putting our support behind someone more conservative.
It appears they believe that national elections are a zero-sum game with a fixed number of voters in both the Democrat and Republican camps, and that whichever candidate attracts more independents (who are always presumed, in this static analysis, to constitute 20 percent of the electorate) will win.
This reasoning strikes me as flawed because: a) twice as many people self-identify as conservatives than as liberals (this is different from party ID, but still); b) history invalidates the theory -- e.g., Reagan; c) no one really knows what the amorphous term "independent" means; d) with a president as extremist and destructive as Obama, independents are much less likely to fall his way, and more likely to be receptive to conservative ideas, because they represent the opposite of Obama's failed policies, and e) it discounts the various aspects of voter intensity: 1) certain candidates will energize their base more, 2) certain ones might alienate some in their base so badly they stay home, and 3) certain ones may scare the otherwise apathetic independents and even members of the opposite party to vote for the other guy.
The first group, generally speaking, is falling into Romney's camp, arguing that he is the safest bet and that we can't afford any risks, given the enormity of the stakes. I'm just not so sure. So many number-crunching Republican analysts said he was a shoe-in for the nomination in 2008, but their static analysis failed. Romney does not energize the base, especially the tea party, or anyone else for that matter. His appeal is not that he inspires, but that he supposedly doesn't repel. But in fact, to the contrary, he does repel a good number of conservatives, because they don't trust him in general and/or don't trust he's a conservative.
Ironically, many who've laid claim to sober, adult political analyses the past few years and have scolded others for their alleged harshness in attacking Obama are the very ones who have thrown caution overboard in their relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery of Newt Gingrich.
Though recognizing his weaknesses, I prefer Newt Gingrich over Mitt, and Rick Santorum and maybe Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann over both. But without hesitation, I'll vote for Romney should he get the nomination. Can the Romney supporters say the same about Newt?
Hat tip to okie01!
Thanks again!
The “ruling class” is destroying what is left of our “opposition party”. They simply care more about their taxpayer-funded paychecks (along with lobby perks) than they do about the country. Yes, David is far too kind to these featherbedding RINOs.
If David Limbaugh prefers Newt...could this mean Rush does too?
Romney’s accomplishments:
A pro-abortion Reagan denier, Romney crossed the aisle to promote abortion, gay rights, gun-control, liberal judges and advocated for and actually installed a socialist healthcare system (RomneyCare) which became the model and impetus for ObamaCare. He saddled his state with unnecessarily higher healthcare costs, busted budgets, busted Republican label, liberal activist judges, tax payer funded abortion, first in the union gay marriage, gun bans and individual mandates against the previously free citizens, complete with tax penalties for non-compliance.
Oh, yeah, and he saved the Olympics (but kicked the Boy Scouts out due to their clean and wholesome policies, ie, no homosexual scout masters).
Not even a moderate record. Romney is a liberal progressive, possibly even to the left of his ideological twin and ally, the late Ted Kennedy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU
NO ROMNEY, NO WAY!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
The GOP elite are progressives like the Clintoons, both Roosevelt’s and Obama..
OH! and the Bush’s, Juan McLaim, Dole, Romney, nOOt, and probably Perry..
The TpCaucus caught on to this.. ALL others have not..
except the democrats most of them... (they do know, you know)
The democrats know who is a progressive and who IS NOT..
Most republicans don’t even know there is a thing called “progressive”..
Until they do... they are “screwed”..
The GOP Elites need to to take off the gloves and go after the Kenyan before it’s too late. How many football fans have witnessed a prevent defense lead to a defeat.
my tagline
good question by David Limbaugh, “Though recognizing his weaknesses, I prefer Newt Gingrich over Mitt, and Rick Santorum and maybe Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann over both. But without hesitation, I’ll vote for Romney should he get the nomination. Can the Romney supporters say the same about Newt?
Would BET the Romney rinos would NOT vote for Newt. How refreshing that David prefers Newt Gingrich. Glad to be on the same team as Thomas Sowell and David Limbaugh
Good question - and I think we know the answer may well be: no.
I basically concur with Limbaugh's views of the two elements of the Republican party ('moderates' and conservatives) and his choices for Republican presidential nominee (Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich, in that order). Like David Limbaugh, I'll (reluctantly) vote for Romney should he win the GOP nomination but with very low expectations and a feeling of hopelessness that conservatives can ever overthrow the quasi-socialist Republican establishment and seriously address our nation's corrupt congress and it's (bankrupting) spending addiction.
Regardless of how this election turns out, I am done with the GOP.
Going along to get along with the socialist wing of the GOP is over for me. They are killing the constitutional republic.
There is no opposition with them in power. Romney will not get my vote because he will increase the speed of America’s downfall. He has never done nothing but Marxist social political correctness and economic socialism/fascism when in power. I expect more of the same. May as well keep the Marxists in one party.
FU
FU
FU MR
Pond Scum and another dirty dog with mange...
You should be more clear on that. I thought I was going to smell ozone. FU MR should have been first. And FU BO for good measure.
bttt
“Ironically, many who’ve laid claim to sober, adult political analyses the past few years and have scolded others for their alleged harshness in attacking Obama are the very ones who have thrown caution overboard in their relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery of Newt Gingrich.”
This has not gone un-noticed. Voting for Mitt is voting for the status-quo. GO NEWT!
If Romneypuke is forced on us, he WILL lose. Many will just not be able to stomach voting for a liberal, and plus the media will drag out stuff about Mormons as though their lives depended on it.
Guaranteed, he would lose. I’d rather he lose by a HUGE margin than a moderate margin, to teach the #@&*%##!! GOP elitists not to force liberal Rs on us every again.
But I’m hoping that someone else makes it to the slot.
The Republican party does not consist of conservatives and moderates. It consists of moderates and progressives. The conservatives in seats of power are very few, as opposed to the voter base, where conservatives are the many, the moderates and progressives are not even 50%.
This kind of thing LOSES THE PARTY BASE, so even if Romney gets the nomination, he will fail to get Republican votes in Virginia.
That will give the majority of the Presidential votes to Obama.
The first rule of politics is YOU MUST KEEP THE BASE ON YOUR SIDE. You never give them an excuse to skip over your name on the ballot, or, in fact, just stay home. You certainly don't want them to vote for the other guy!
Last time the Republicans lost the base in Virginia we ended up electing James Webb ~ a crazy man.
Yeah both Rush and his bro are correct but...Gallup today has Obama now at 47% approval. All of that for a two-week public relations tax cut,. Yikes, the Stupid Party is going to allow this Socialist monster to be re-elected and Paul or some other dope will run as a 3rd Party to cement the Dem victory. Gosh, a Happy New Year????????
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.