Posted on 08/03/2012 1:26:47 PM PDT by Bratch
Don’t buy the doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives telling you, “this is the most important election in history.” A loss for Mitt Romney would not necessarily spell long lasting disaster for Republicans, nor would it be the death-knell to conservatism. In fact, it’s possible a 2012 loss could lay the groundwork for a stronger Republican party and conservative movement.
Elections are almost always seen as urgent and morally imperative. But sometimes major victories can only come in the aftermath of what appear to be devastating defeats. John Kerry‘s loss in 2004 laid the groundwork for a Democratic takeover in 2006 and 2008, and Jimmy Carter‘s defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976 paved the way for the Ronald Reagan in 1980. In other words, it is a mistake to assume losing a presidential election is a permanent defeat.
“This should be the most important election since 1980, but so far it is not,” says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. “Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle postulated the ‘great man’ theory of history, and indeed this was true with Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and Reagan. But history has not summoned forth great men in 2012 and in fact our history today is small.”
This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Just trying to see some consistnacy in your thoughts. There appears, at least on the surface, to be conflict.
Here’s a quick prediction:
You’re going to write some more questions that show you haven’t quite gotten up to speed yet. More derision. Nothing to show that you really know what the proposal was all about.
By the time you actually get around to understanding it, your derision would have so poisoned the well that you won’t be able to make heads nor tails of it, wasting everyone’s time.
On the contrary, I find your posts most enlightening. More so than even you imagine.
Just trying to see some consistnacy in your thoughts.
***Bowlsheet. You’re in instant-derision mode. There is no attempt to understand the proposal.
There appears, at least on the surface, to be conflict.
***Then first, demonstrate that you understand the proposal. Second, point out the conflict.
There is no major conflict that cannot be explained by your lack of understanding or perhaps reading skills.
So, I thought, wow, what a wonderful idea, making a list of those who are less qualified, not true conservative,...
***Other than the fact that was not the idea AT ALL, what is your point?
What is it going to take to get you to read the proposal properly? How much prodding will it take? How many predictions need I make before you realize your error?
So, tell me, did you already work out such a list, or is this merely conjecture, a pipe dream, on your part?
***So, tell me, did you read the proposal? Can you demonstrate that you understand it? Where did I propose a list in post #304 on this thread? How would it be conjecture to have a pipe dream of a list that doesn’t even exist other than in your own mind?
Nothing like that aywhere on these threads.
No sir.
Say, (smacks forehead) you must be one of the p240.
Please accept my most humble apologies. For one moment it simply escaped my mind as to with whom I was dealing.
Good night,I have to get some sleep, long day tomorrow.
Oh, this is a good sign. Crickets. It means you’re probably reading the actual proposal and trying to figure it out rather than arguing against something that I never said in the first place.
So here’s what usually happens. 1) the instant-derision freeper realizes his error and starts talking about the proposal, usually just being against it because he’s already emotionally invested in that position. 2) crickets, more crickets 3) the freeper actually recognizes his error but tries to hide it 4) the freeper recognizes his error and overcomes the original deficit in understanding by demonstrating it 5) the instant-derision freeper gives up the derision in realizing the mistake he made or 6) who knows, the freeper does something completely different and unexpected.
And we have a winner...
the scurrying away instant-derision freeper wins by a hair.
good night, sleep tight
Beer almost done, so hurry up.
Beer almost done, so hurry up.
***You already said you were leaving. If you’re still on this thread, then demonstrate the proper understanding.
Oh, right... that’s too much to ask of an instant-derision freeper.
Purity has no limit, and those not so endowed are in fact squishies, wrong headed, and do not know of what they speak, least of all politically in tune. Tomorrow I will go back and peruse this entire thread, and perhaps learn something about purity, and derision. G'night.
Perhaps your aim should be to learn where the phrase “good fences make good neighbors” comes from.
You might consider that it was your own instant-derision that caused you to need to read up on derision.
Then you might read post #304, as you have been asked.
Instead, you seem to want to read the whole thread, which isn’t what you were commenting on. Perhaps you might find you don’t need to learn about purity nor derision, because the original proposal touches on neither.
But my read is this: you’ll just ignore it. You’ll go blithely on without reading the thread, without reading post #304, without learning anything.
Your ballot will have more than two choices, even if it has a write-in line. So, yes, it is false.
Most of the ABOs I have asked make no attempt to answer my question. Deep down they know that a Romney victory, which grants control of the party apparatus to the incumbent, will do absolutely nothing to advance conservatism, and will as likely retard it by cementing control of the Republican Party in the hands of those moderates and liberals who helped create the mess we're in.
I've talked extensively with Jeff Head and I consider him a friend. However, we have agreed to disagree about Romney and we have a gentleman's bet on how he'll govern if elected. Others have posted Romney's record on this site and I won't waste Jim's bandwidth by doing it again because it's readily available. Some of it can be spun and explained away but some of it, specifically his writing the forerunner to Obamacare, Romneycare's abortion availability and his simply pathetic record on family issues including his unfortunate status as the father of gay 'marriage', cannot.
You might be able to vote for that. I can't. I'm sorry, but I won't help give control of the party I've belonged to for my entire adult life to a self-described progressive like Mitt Romney. America needs better and if conservatives would simply band together, they could have better.
Two thirds of both houses would do it (that would allow the GOP to override his vetoes and impeach him if he gets too tiresome).
But how likely is that to happen in an election in which Obama also wins a second term? The sort of election that would produce that result would also sweep in a GOP president. It would be a "wave" election, more than likely led by the top of the ticket.
On the other hand, a result in which the GOP securely controls Congress, yet Obama is reelected, would be a total freak of nature! Extremely unlikely!
If the only thing a Romney election gets us is the death of Obama care I’ll be happy.
Absolutely.
Of course, it will require convincing majorities in both houses to ensure that Mittens etches the right sketch with respect to health care and all the other issues. The likelihood of those majorities is dependent on how fired up the sheeple are about replacing Obama with a positive alternative in November. Talking down the Republican ticket is not the way to make that happen.
Go ahead, elect Obama...that is your choice. And yes, the president does make judicial appointments. We all know who will be appointed next by Obama...
But I don't understand why you are calling it out. I've read most of the posts and the only ones that seem to be over the top are the ones attacking those of us who say we will be voting for Romney.
Romney was not the choice of most of us on this sight. I was for Cain and then for Newt. I voted for Newt in the TN primary. I donated to him and prayed daily. I prayed for God to let light shine on truth and hoped that truth would lead them to vote for Newt.
It didn't lead them to vote for Newt but the light did let us see exactly who the GOP-E is and who we can trust going forward.
I know it sounds like I have forgotten that and am giving up by voting for Romney but nothing could be further from the truth. I will not forget and I will start working to replace him as soon as he takes the oath of office. I don't want him to be President. He is just a placeholder in order to get rid of Obama. Romney doesn't have a lot of support so unless he does something spectacular I don't think it will be that hard to replace him. The Tea Party has had great success getting rid of RINOS so why would Romney be any different?
I understand that a lot of people here don't see the danger I see. They see it as just another election. I see it as Germany voting for Hitler.
I think Romney, aided by a GOP Congress, probably does more long term damage to America than a second term Obama, opposed by a GOP Congress.
For a present day small example of Romney already actively working to undermine our Constitution simply read this thread; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2913133/posts
Then think of Richard Nixon and the EPA, GHWB and the Americans with Disabilities Act, both tools being used to destroy our country. Imagine the damage Romney can do in four years with a Congress that will be forced to rubberstamp his ObamaCare, EPA and ADA type plans.
Obama will be forced to fight that very same Congress.
I’m conservative (oh yea uh-huh) and pro-gay marriage and I want your ZOT!
You mean not wanting a second Obama term makes me not a conservative? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Grow up, dude. I have better things to do with my life than get into angry fights with people on the internet. I'm on FR to discuss issues with people, and I try not to make it personal. You avoid the issue at hand and just do name-calling.
Who is going to force him? He doesn't pay any attention to them now. He rewrites the law and not one person stands up to him.
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.