Posted on 01/05/2012 10:21:11 PM PST by Libloather
“George Bush Pere was never a conservative nor considered one.”
Sorry, he was running as a continuation of Reagan in 1988...you can BET that he was positioning himself as conservative, which is why he won.
...but, of course, he wasn’t. And that ended his political career.
I won’t argue without anything you said, BECAUSE IT’S RIGHT!!!
I'm not saying to ignore the Evangelical vote anywhere (you gotta get your message out with the people who are most likely to be your base), just that it is good to engage younger voters, too.
Despite the crude characterizations, not all of Ron Paul's supporters are 'whackadoodles, neonazis, dopers, or code pink types', most of the ones I know are young, idealistic, and scared of living their lives in poverty because the government has spent the country into a hole.
I think those folks could be readily converted to support Santorum, but it isn't going to happen with the incredible rabid displays of spew I have seen on this forum lately. Give them clear evidence in a rational manner, and they'll vote for the next guy who is most likely to call for less government, one which lives within its means and Constitutional mandate. That isn't Romney or Newt, at least in their perception.
I'll grant these aren't the 'low hanging fruit', but in the end, he is likely to need those votes too to beat Romney (for whom the establishment fix is in).
So I'm not saying to ignore the Evangelical vote anywhere (you have to get your message out with the people who are most likely to be your base), just that it is good to engage younger voters, too.
Despite the crude characterizations, not all of Ron Paul's supporters are 'whackadoodles, neonazis, dopers, or code pink types'. Most of the ones I know are young, idealistic, and scared of living their entire lives in poverty because our bloated government has spent the country into a hole doing things it was never meant to do.
I think those folks could be readily converted to support Santorum, but it isn't going to happen with the incredible rabid displays of vitriolic spew I have seen on this forum lately. I can't think of a faster way to turn them off, and entrench their beliefs. (Anyone who remembers what it was like to be young and idealistic would recognize that, especially the 'young' part.)
Give them clear evidence in a rational manner, and they'll vote for the next guy who is most likely to call for less government, one which lives within its means and Constitutional mandate, or at least more so than the current iteration. That isn't Romney or Newt, at least in their perception.
I'll grant these aren't the 'low hanging fruit', but in the end, he is likely to need those votes too to beat Romney (for whom the establishment fix is in).
It goes beyond almost. The destruction of the American Family began in the '60s. My mother caught on right away and mentioned it to me. In her words, with the family in the way, the police state indoctrination would not take.
No totalitarian society (and recall then, the concept was on the order of Orwell's 1984) could exist as long as the family (and God) stood in the way.
Perhaps the Soviets started the process, it was one of the Communist goals of '63, but with or without them, the process has followers here in the US, and they have been forging ahead.
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.