Skip to comments.Conservative-GOP marriage over?
Posted on 05/07/2012 8:59:54 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
It should come as no surprise that the Republican National Committee has been covertly supporting Mitt Romney throughout the primaries, as POLITICO recently revealed. It was the worst-kept secret in Washington
Reagan, the über outsider, called for a new Republican Party back in 1977. Reagan wanted the GOP to shed its country club, corporate boardroom image and become a genuine conservative movement, focused on the individual.
Reagans words threatened the status quo of the scions and heiresses of the country club and corporate boardroom set. The former California governor and his conservative followers were never accepted by these insiders
The Republicans desire for power is usually stronger than any desire for restraint by conservatism. It always seems to leave conservatives disappointed.
Many conservatives have, in fact, decided that their beliefs have become permanently inconsistent with Republicanism. This may be more apparent in 2012 than ever before. No offense to Romney, but he is the perfect nominee for the Republican Party in 2012 because he like the GOP has adopted a variety of positions over the years in order to acquire power. The Etch A Sketch comment was stunningly accurate.
The lesser of two evils argument is now settling over the landscape. Perhaps. The conservatives have no place else to go storyline is being pushed. Maybe.
On the other hand, some conservatives now view this election as a clear Hobsons Choice or possibly a Mortons Fork. One choice is bad or nothing; the other between two bad options.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed, though. The job of the Republican Party is to deceive conservatives into handing over their support. This does not mean that conservatives cant arrive at the conclusion that this choice is between the lesser of two evils.
But they should prepare to be disappointed.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...
“Sorry, but it is the GOPE who have handed us the devil by force feed”
No, Romney was upfront about his strategy being to divide Conservatives. His guy Adelson funded a zombie candidate for 6 weeks (after Super Tuesday). Yeah, Romney used his and Adelson’s money to implement his strategy but conservatives fell into line and ignored the obvious, plain fact that Adelson was a stalking-horse for Rommney.
Denial is not smart.
I’m too tired tonight. Ping to me, so hopefully I can remember to better reply tomorrow.
>”If we just meet them half-way, and be civil and tolerant, avoid any confrontation, even the media will start to come around.”<
I don’t recall anybody here saying that. I believe in being confrontational myself. That doesn’t require letting a worse evil prevail just to spite a lesser one, though.
“Its absolutely essential that Romney get stomped so that the party elites accept that conservatives and Christians cannot be taken for granted again.”
They still won’t get it - did they “get it” when McLame lost? No. They’ll always blame other things - BHO’s “likeability”, racism, etc.
If Romney loses, that means the most evil, destructive, illegal, America-hating (Islamist) “President” in our lifetime wins and our country loses - permanently. If that happens, a LOT of things will come to pass (very real, unimaginable things), but “the party unifying” will NOT be one of them.
I like Robb7’s thread from this weekend about a mass protest at the convention - we have a last chance to get a conservative nominee before it’s too late. Otherwise, I pray enough voters will still see the immediate threat of a “lame duck” (who’ll be anything BUT lame) BHO to our survival and vote against him and his diabolical, treasonous crew.
Exhibit A of that undeniable truth is 1964. I knew that America was taking the wrong path when Barry Goldwater was so soundly defeated. Thank goodness for Mississippi and a few (far too few) other states for bravely standing for Constitutional Conservatism as shown by this map from the 1964 Presidential Election:
I can only imagine how much better Our Country would be today had there been a President Goldwater. Among other things, there would have been a quick and decisive victory over Communism in Southeast Asia. And Ted Kennedy's wide open immigration act of 1965 would have stemmed the tide of illegals before it ever happened.
Gingrich was on Fox news every second day for more than a year, he certainly had ample opportunity to make his case.
Michele Bachmann had access to the Tea Party and all the support that implies.
Herman Cain had the support of the Republican rank and file for a time, raised ample money, and could not hold the support.
Rick Perry had the support of the Republican rank and file for a while and access to all the money he needed, and fell short all by himself with no help from the establishment.
Rick Santorum proved that if one perseveres and runs a truly courageous campaign he will be given a fair hearing but he simply could not convince enough Republicans that he was presidential timber.
On the other hand, darlings of the establishment had problems gathering traction.
Virtually no one was consistently denied access to the debates, each had an equal right to raise money, all had reasonable access to the media.
Was there perfect equality in all things at all times, of course not this is, after all, politics. But the process was substantially fair. Do not confuse anger at the result with unfairness of process.
Big deal...what SCOTUS decision in living memory has moved our society overtly to the right over the objections and efforts of the left?
People like you try to convince us losing slower is actually winning.
“We have no one to blame but ourselves. Until we learn to unite around a single candidate, they will defeat us. Taking over the Republican Party is the only real option. Taking our bat and ball and going home only guarantees the Devils win.”
You speak much truth and wisdom, HM.
s/act of 1965 would have stemmed/act of 1965 would have been stopped, thus stemming/
>By 2016 SCOTUS will be packed with Obama stooges for the next 20 years.
>You wont even recognize America then.
Not necessarily; the Justices can still be impeached.
In fact, it may not be impossible to remove them ONLY by impeachment; the good behavior clause obviously is violated when felonies are commited, and if they decide something clearly contrary to the Constitution it is a felony; specifically US Code Title 18, Sec 241 & 242.
We have a good portion of the Republican electorate that believes and lives by what the liberal media says about our candidates to a greater or lesser extent.....if the media says ‘this person is too polarizing” then we have so called Republicans call in to Rush Limbaugh saying “I heard on the news what they’re saying this about this person, I’m concerned Rush” or “we got to win and the way this candidate is getting beat up by the media might be too much of a distraction, we need to move on from them Rush”
If Reagan was alive now like after 1976, a good portion would claim that he is damaged goods and there is no hope for him, we need to move on”
Since none of the candidates have 'run' in my state (CA) I can only go by what others have said about Mitt's attack style- something McLame could have used against Teh One (he didn't even lay a glove).
If Mitt is the nominee, I'll look forward with glee at the nastiest attacks his attack dogs can throw at Zero and his stinking gang of thieves and liars. No one has ever been so deserving, ever.
Mark Levin did a show (5/3/2012) where he gives a mock speech that he'd like to have heard from Romney when he was addressing the millionaires and billionaires in Palm Springs. Radio Gold. If you haven't heard it, go to his site, click Audio, and download the 5/3/2012 show. I've got it on hard drive, flash drive, and my cell phone.
What you'll learn from this show is that those things we need to do in our current situation are things we aren't hearing from the Romney camp. Things like deeply held conservative beliefs that Reagan so easily championed.
At a time when the government meddles in so much of our lives and Bozo the Inadequate is hell-bent on even greater impositions, the words Mark spoke, if adopted by a candidate, would not only defeat Teh One but bury him in a landslide.
You know that many of us choose screen names that are meant to be cute and to somehow reflect an underlying reality. Can you actually imagine General Nathan Bedford Forrest supporting the Massachusetts trashbag? Even if he figured out that it is now the GOP rank and file who reflect the nobler sentiments in our society and not the Demonrats? I would bet that he would have long since taken to his horse, summoned his cavalry and obliterated the Robozombie. If you are a betting man, wouldn't you bet that way too?
Nicholas Black Elk, the Lakota pagan holy man or shaman turned Catholic missionary to his people, would have voted for no one persecuting the Catholic Church (and by necessary implication any other pro-life, pro-family church) and for no one so craven and low as to facilitate the mass slaughter (54 million and counting) of innocent unborn babies.
I have no doubt that my real life namesake would be on the same wavelength as I am. Can you say the same?
With all due respect, you will again fail to persuade enough people to vote your way in November and that will be your fault again because you are attaching yourself to a pathetic Robozombie candidacy that deserves to be beaten. You are a good guy. Robozombie is a useless cretin, every bit as much as Obozo, and (to conservatives) a major treasonweasel.
You know, when I have disagreed with you on occasions in the past, your arguments have had a certain maturity and common sense without abandoning principle. On rare occasions, you have persuaded me to alter my views in some respects. On Robozombie, you haven't a prayer of doing so. The GOP-E asked for it and now, with sufficient defections to None of the Above or to third party candidates, they will get it. In spades. They can buy the nomination but they cannot buy my soul OR my vote.
And I could just as substantively advise you not to confuse naïveté of the techniques of sociological manipulation for fairness.
Conservatives lost the primary when Sarah Palin concluded pursuing a presidential run was not the right course of action.
Fee, Fie, Fo Fum: I smell a planted axiom.
Do you mean "politics?"
As to general Forrest, I refer you to my about page and suggest that he might be more open to realism, especially at the end of his life, than the common understanding of his biography suggests.
At any rate I cannot imagine Nathan Bedford Forrest walking into a polling booth muttering to himself, "I'll show you, I'll kill me."
So That explains the unhappiness, grumbling and backbiting.
It’s a marriage not a love affair. :-)