Also such talk radio luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Katz, Jay Severin, and Sean Hannity, all heard on Boston Talk Radio WTKK 1200 AM. (Glenn Beck is also on the roster, but I don't hear his show very often, so don't know what he's been saying lately.)
So, it's impressive that Mitt Romney gets the endorsement of leadership caste Republicans?
What I most admire about Rush is that he is unquestionably a most solid and principled political conservative, and yet he is not a dogmatist about it. Rather, he is a political realist.
A dogmatist rarely moves beyond the approved "text." A political realist, however, understands that politics is the art of the possible. That is, he is aware that a dogmatic position by itself cannot transform political reality, that a dogma as an end-in-itself is pretty sterile as a means of effecting political change. I believe this; and the history of Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this. He understands you have to work within the context of on-the-ground political realities, illuminating problems according to core principles, but not reducing their solutions to simple, pat, one-size-fits-all dogmatic answers.
In other words, a text — no matter how sublime — that is not transformed by lived experience guided by core principle does not actually bear much fruit. This involves the (humble) recognition that we "ordinary" people can do little by our own efforts to shape the political environment, but must participate in it anyway, just as we find it. This is directly analogous to the idea that "faith without works is dead." If that makes any sense at all....
This is a wonderful speech and all, but I can't help but smell in it the foul stench of fear and surrender.
Further, it's something of a straw man. See, what you're trying to do with this is build up the false dichotomy of "pragmatic conservative" versus "wild-eyed extremist." The "pragmatic conservatives" (such as, presumably, yourself) are willing to accept political realities, while "wild-eyed extremists" who aren't supporting Romney (i.e. the people who disagree with you) are just trying to destroy this country through their fanaticism and intolerance.
Complete and utter nonsense, every last word of it.
Sorry, but conservatism is not a living, breathing document, no matter how much you would like for it to be. It's really NOT okay to support pro-life yesterday, but pro-abortion today, even if doing so means you get to dodge the "dogmatist" label. It's not okay to want conservative economic solutions yesterday, but then to go along with the status quo of "progressive" taxation, more social spending, and more government control of the economy today, just because this will get you a pat on the back from the GOP-E.
I have seen nothing yet to actually suggest that Mitt Romney will be good for the country - and really, that's what this *should* be all about. You screech and scream about how bad Obama is - and he is - but you have been unsuccessful in making the case that Romney would be effectively better. You really have. You have failed in that effort. Simply accusing people of lying when they bring out facts about your chosen candidate, while having become an unfortunate FReeper pastime for the past couple of years, is not convincing. Accusing people of religious animus toward him because he's a Mormon doesn't make a solid case for you. All it does is further convince us that you really have nothing substantive to offer to us as far as making a case FOR Romney. I mean, you can get all the thumbs up and rah-rahs from Jeff Head and rogue yam that you could want - but it still doesn't make the case.
What's doubly galling about all this nonsense you've given us about this false dichotomy between "dogmatism" and "political reality" is just HOW inutterably false it really is.
Either conservatism works, or it doesn't. If it works, then go with it. If it doesn't, then we all might as well stop stumping for it, and get on board the progressive gravy train. Nevertheless, conservatism CAN and DOES win - ESPECIALLY in the current political climate, the GOP could have ran any one of the conservatives in the primary and have won with him or her. Perry could have won. Gingrich could have won. Even Bachmann could have beaten Obama. We don't NEED a progressive like Romney to "tack to the centre to win." So now, we enter an election where we could have one of the best opportunities to roll back the Left and start instituting real conservative changes - actually moving back to where we need to be instead of just slowing down the slide away from it - and we've wasted it on an absolute loser of a candidate. Sure, he may beat Obama - but it may end up not mattering that he did.
Political reality IS conservatism, BB. Reality is not subjective. Either something is true, or something is false. Getting government out of our lives will lead to greater prosperity and freedom. Opposing the gay agenda will protect the morals and safety of the nation. Opposing abortion will save little babies' lives. Standing for the Constitution will preserve our liberties. These are all POLITICAL REALITIES. Ones that Mitt Romney has consistently been on the wrong side of until he realised he needed to put up a different public front back in 2007 when he started running for President.
And frankly, BB, if you don't understand these things, or if you think that the Constitution, economic freedom, protecting the right to life, and so forth are just "dogmas" to be tossed away when your chosen candidate doesn't support them, then we ARE very different...and you are NOT representing political reality.
Let's ask you some other questions about political reality:
Will Romney do anything about the TSA, VIPR, unconstitutional searches, etc. And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?
Will Romney get rid of the unconstitutional czars that Obama has set up? And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?
Will Romney get rid of the unconstitutional and liberty-invasive portions of the PATRIOT Act? And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?
In short, what real evidence do we have that Romney would govern any more constitutionally than Obama has?
People on hear screech and moan about whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not and whether he is constitutionally eligible for the office he now occupies. But really, why do we care, if we're just supposed to go along with a Republican who, while perhaps born a citizen, has shown no real concern for that document any more than Obama has?
Seriously - if it's "dogma" to stand for the Constitution, to stand for freedom, to stand for economic liberty, to stand for protecting little babies from having their heads pulled off by a legalised murderer, then you may count me as a "dogmatist," whether or not Rush Limbaugh approves.
On this basis, I'd hazard the guess that Massachusetts may be a swing state this year.
Talk about losing touch with political realities.
All your talk reminds me of back in 2008, when FReepers were desperately assuring one another that New Jersey and Pennsylvania were in play, and that we were going to take Michigan because "there are a lot of McCain/Palin yardsigns around."
Anywise, I have to say - probably the worst long-term result of Barack Obama's tenure has not been the tanking economy, or Fast and Furious, or the czars. It has been to totally and completely emasculate conservatives through fear to the point where they will willing, nay enthusiastically support a complete and utter progressive, just because he isn't Obama.
You know, if everybody who claims to be a conservative would actually vote for and support Virgil Goode, he'd have a strong chance of winning. The only thing keeping this from happening is the narrow-mindedness, the inability to think outside the box, the institutionalisation to the Republican Party, that plagues the thinking of too many conservatives. "We're scared. We don't want to take a chance. Nobody knows who he is. He doesn't have any money." All things that could change in three weeks, if people had any sense about them.
That right there, BB, is the "art of the possible." THAT'S thinking outside the approved text.
The approved text says "Go with the RINO if he's nominee because we all have to rally around him to win." THAT is non-thinking. THAT is dogmatism.
I'll close with this question for you, as well as for everyone else on the thread - putting aside all arguments about relative support levels, IF Mitt Romney and Virgil Goode had an equal chance of winning, WHICH one would you rather see win? This ought to be an interesting gauge of just how conservative our FReeper population really is.
This is Groundhog Day all over again.
Because of endorsements, because of VP selections, because of hinted cabinet members, because of potential justices, conservatives should vote to go backward in the hope that they’ll go forward.
As someone has said, Romney is a “consensus builder”. So, if a majority can be found only with conservative votes, then Romney will make a conservative decision.
The flip side: If a majority can be found with a combination of liberal democrat and rino votes, then Romney, a liberal by DNA, will “consensus” himself to exactly where he wants to end up.
So, ask yourself this simple question, “Will libs and rinos be willing to agree on a liberal direction?”
Does a wild bear.....
I predict a LOT of humming and hawing instead of answers.