Time Grows Short

Palin is really the most logical choice ... I wish she'd do it ... especially if the dream scenario happened and Hillary was nominated by the Dems! Can you imagine!

I can dream, can't I?

But yes, you're right the candidate would have to be dynamic. Then again, Americans are restless, more and more. All those American flags all over the place that you never used to see, I think are saying, "Sick of party politics, I'm an American." In other words, 2nd amendment and freedom loving Democrats, along with disgusted Republicans, are ... restless. So maybe it wouldn't take much.

Thank you, You understand what I’ve been trying to say. The absolutists, speaking in general terms and not wanting to call out anyone in particular on this issue, do not seem to understand that the tide is subtly and slowly turning our way as progressive policies and overreach turn increasing numbers of voter to our side vis-a-vis the ballot box. I will also say this; even if we Constitutionalists ultimately lose at the ballot box, and lose the culture war; I would encourage states to go the route of secession, again, such that people of the different different states can organize themselves in their new countries as they see fit. I believe that a superior choice to the bloodshed that would be unleashed by another civil war.

What say you sir.

I think you are right on the money. I will admit that even if Christie is the R nominee I will probably hold my nose and vote for him in the belief that the most important thing right now is to consolidate as much power as possible under the R’s on the theory that the Tea Party, whose numbers in Congress, I believe, will be increased by 2016 to the extent that we can temper the more liberal impulses of a GOPe President. I hope beyond all else that either or both Palin and Cruz run in 2016 primaries. In fact the dream ticket would be Cruz/Palin either way. They both have the ability to explain their positions in common sense ways to the American people in much the same way Ronaldus Magnus did, they go right around the media filter directly to the American people. There is a conservative/Tea Party tsunami building in response to the progressive overreach that might not only effect this election but 2016 also, and considering the damage done by the progs thus far may even effect elections beyond that. That’s the beauty of remaining patient and subtle, let the progressives provide the rope that they will hang themselves and their ideology with. They have planted the seeds of their own destruction and they do not even realize it because their Achilles heel is the fact that they believe their own propaganda.

"The culture war" --

Just for grins, watch this video of cats taking over dogs' beds. The culture war presumes a lot like the cats in the video. In real voter terms (that is, excluding manufactured, illegal, ginned, harvested, and outright fraudulent Democrat votes), regular joe and jane Americans are about two-to-one disgusted with the biased MSM, liberalism, Obama, and government. They don't like where the Democrats have gone, but many, most, Republicans are as lusting for government as Democrats.

There are more of us (productive Americans who just want government to get out of our hair) than there are of actual leftists. We're the dogs in the video.

Unlike you, I will reject a Christie candidate if the GOP nominates such for the presidential. I expect they will. As a Californian, the East Coast elite select "my" Republican candidate; my "vote" and selection are already neutered. I have no illusions that it will change over the next two years.

I hope Palin runs Third Party. Even if she entered the GOP primaries, she'd be selected-out in the first few weeks. Voting Republican is a crap shoot, a total crap shoot with regard to being represented, and I think that roughly two in three cognizant Americans basically agree. This country is ripe for a 2nd Party. We only have one party now, the Uniparty, of DemRep "choice."

I sure do like some of the things you've mentioned about shooting wars. Nice historical reminders. The ballot box and soapbox, you are correct. I also think that the only way to make the ballot box work in 2016, will be to embrace the third party gamble. Risk is the price you pay for opportunity. And even if he/she loses, if there's a Perot effect, the Pres will be in office with most Americans having voted "against" him or her. That's pretty much guaranteed no matter who wins. So liberalism, R or D, is put on offense. Conservatism gains.

Voting Republican is crap shoot enough without having to vote for a figure who advocates and assists all the government tyranny that I abhor. It's as nuts as voting for the Democrat. It's why I declined to vote for Romney, and why I am very relieved that he lost.

I only disagree in the sense that it will be much easier to take control of the R party from within rather than try to win with a third or second party as you claim. I have no idea though how anybody could believe that Romney could possibly be as bad as Obama. In fact he would have at least supported polices that would have had a chance at working to improve our economy. And Romney is a decent person, something that we cannot say about Obama. No, the US would be in much better shape had Romney been elected come 2016 than it will be now.
Just as an FYI, I hate the GOPe with a passion, but I believe the best and most workable strategy is to take the GOP over from within using the Tea Party and I believe that can take place over the next two or three election cycles. Creating a second/third party and then for it to gain enough strength to be a real player and effect policies that will begin to restore the Republic would take far longer during which time the progressives would do much more damage to this country and the Constitution than if we followed the takeover strategy, IMHO.
I will also go out on the limb by anticipating a likely response about how the Whigs went away when the Tea Partiers of the day formed the Republican Party in 1853. Yes the Whigs were finished but the fact is the modern Republican party has had 160 years to burrow in just as deep as the dems that is why I believe it a fools errand to try to supplant the Republican Party rather than take it over from within. I understand this would be a tough fight but with the tsunami of disgust with building against most long term incumbents I believe this is the time to wage that intra-party fight as it seems to me, reading the tea leaves, that this is the time to take on the GOPe and at the same time we’re taking it over also defeat the dems at the same time.

They don't like where the Democrats have gone, but many, most, Republicans are as lusting for government as Democrats.

Shazam!

Correct Finny, McCain, Bonehead et al. Aren't RINO's.

We Are.

The Republicans are for Uncle Sam to be there to hold your hand too, except on a budget.

They Like Government as much as the next Progressive.

That is what is so Liberating about being truly Independent, you don't NEED the Federal Bureaucracy or the Parities to get along in life.

We have Pro-Statism and Anti-Statism in this country. And that Statist have plenty of Cheerleaders here on the Right too.

That is why the Reject some like Sarah Palin (or Ted Cruz just you wait and See) and then SCREAM at you on why you didn't vote for Romney Unicrat-Esstablishment.

We’ve just begun to fight, lets not lose it before we give it a chance.

If Romney had won, if Romney had been in office these past years, we would have lost it. I've done my due diligence on the guy. Sorry if it doesn't connect, but ... Romney would have advanced every single agenda of the left. Perhaps you aren't aware of his real stance and direction on the gay agenda, government-run health care, the environment, abortion, judicial activism.

Limited government conservatives would have been cut off at the knees. Leftism would make a quantum leap. We'd have lost so much ground it would lead to a shooting war with the next Democrat president, who would make Obama look palatable, the same way Obama made Hillary look like nothing.

If Republicans elect a leftist liberal big government amoral president, who would hold the balance of power being supported by the left and thereby enact horrors along the line of Nixon's EPA, the Republican "brand" would be even more of a joke than it is now.

I've been voting R all my life with naive confidence that I was voting in principle for limited government. Instead, it has come to me being asked to vote for a person who has advanced intrusive, tyrannical government into every avenue of American life, from homosexuality to health care. That's what Democrats vote for.

This time around, it would take a miracle to revive the very bad and very much deserved mess of an image that "Republican" means to Joe Blow Americans. That image is of a craven weenie hypocrite blowhard sell-out elitist. I loved Dubya but -- fatman, Dubya allowed all kinds of crap on his watch that one could say set the stage for Obama!!!!

The Republican brand is so tarnished that at least for now, for this presidential if the "Republican" is just another Democrat the same way Romney was --

-- then unless we upset it bigtime with a plurality to put liberalism on defense (had Romney won with a plurality, and ONLY then, he would be much more vulnerable and so would leftism in the Republican party), we will lose bigtime either way.

You ridicule my conviction that in real-world terms, Romney would have been a major disaster. Oh well!

I didn’t ridicule anything, I just disagree with you. But if that’s what you consider ridicule then yes I am guilty as charged. I happen to believe you’re wrong about Romney, in fact he made several statements during the campaign that he was not for any kind national health care, that he believed in Federalism and that states should be free to find their own solutions to problems. Hmmmmm that sounds to like Romney has a very good understanding of, and support for our Constitutional Republic as founded. Something Obama, whom you helped elect, does not. He also stated that the reason he went along with the Massachusetts state health care was because as Governor he heard from his constituents, i.e., the people of Massachusetts, that that kind of solution is what they wanted. Having said that, Romney was not my choice. My choice would have been any of the Tea Party candidates that were running but none of them survived the primaries. You must understand something, I deal with the world as it is and situations as they present themselves and attempt to take the best possible course of action given the actual circumstances. We must make decisions based upon reality, not how we wish things were. Had Romney been elected, I do not believe any of the doomsday scenarios you presented would have come to fruition, but with obama reelected and not restrained by having to seek reelection as he was in his first term those scenarios might just play out. I only say to you that we must think in strategic terms devoid of the emotional response you displayed in your last post, emotion based strategies will not win us our Republic, but they will certainly lose it in the long run. History shows this to be true, you can either accept what history teaches us or you can stick your head in the sand and keep pretending that a candidates who you don’t agree with 100% are never worth your support. In politics you will never get to vote for a candidate whom supports what you want 100% unless you’re the candidate. The sad fact, and this is the reality of life now intruding upon how you wish reality was, is that politics is always, has always been, and will always be a choice between the lesser of two evils. That is the real world of electoral politics. You can either understand and accept that fact or you can continue you’re strategy of not voting for the best candidate that has a chance to win or you can continue to elect people who continue to tear down our Republic. You sound like the third invention of Invar, reasonable until someone shows just how easy it is to poke holes in your emotion based arguments and then you start calling names. You have no idea what Romney would have done because he did not get elected thus, reality again sets in, and one realizes all you have are guesses and no one has a crystal ball capable of seeing what would have happened. but that shows the childishness of your last argument and yes that is meant as ridicule of your emotion based claims.

Good afternoon.

Soap box, uncheck.

Incorrect. Have you seen the chill put on free speech by the NSA, IRS, and local governments?

Jury box, uncheck.

Incorrect. Have you seen SCOTUS decision lately? From Kelo, to 0bamacare? I could go on.

Ballot box, uncheck.

Again, you are incorrect. Do I need to remind you of Joe Kennedy, Richard Daley(s), the Longs, Sanchez etc.? All democRats that have committed voter fraud, and electioneering.

I’m running out of boxes... except those that you checked are still playing out.

Wrong again. Your batting average is not so good.

And in the fwiw department, "5.56mm" is a tag line. I've had this tag line before there was a spot to put taglines on FR.

I appreciate your response.

5.56mm

Well if Im wrong about all this then go out and start using your 5.56 ammo and see how well that works. Yes I’ve seen, and actually read, recent USSC decisions. Bad USSC decisions have happened throughout our history, ever read the Dred Scott decision? Which only means we have to work harder to correct those things. This civil war started 100 years ago with the ratification of the 17th amendment. It’s taken us 100 years to get to this point. 100 years of the progressives trying to trash the Constitution and impose their will and you’re only strategy is to complain and threaten an armed response rather than doing something cogent that has a real chance to work. Go ahead and see how fast your armed response will allow the progs to impose their real tyranny you claim you’re against. I actually think most of you, as gleaned from your postings, are just the other side of the coin from progressives. They want to impose their form of tyranny based upon their absolutist world view and you want to impose your own kind of tyranny based upon your absolutist world view. That is why the political spectrum should not be a line from left to right but rather a circle with all of the absolutists, both left and right meeting at the other side of the circle. Absolutists will not win this fight they will only lose it in the end because the absolutists on each side want the same basic thing, their beliefs imposed upon others. That you have not figured this out, or maybe you just choose to ignore this basic fact, really says everything one needs to know.
WOW another poster that sounds just like invar. What a coincidence, that’s now five or so different posters whom have the same style of posting, using the very same tired, old and losing arguments. Again what a coincidence. You just never get enough do you? Personally I think at this point anyone encouraging an armed response is gutless and unwilling to do the hard work spread over years of time that could win the day and avoid bloodshed. And of course those encouraging an armed response have no personal experience with what it would actually look like, thus they encourage it.

politics is always, has always been, and will always be a choice between the lesser of two evils...

You are right about that. You are WRONG about which is the lesser evil.

Romney lost because HE WAS A FUNCTIONAL STATIST DEMOCRAT and enough freedom-loving Americans refused to be bullied by Obama hysteria mongers into voting for a greater evil -- that is, a functional Democrat masquerading as a Republican, further destroying the Republican brand and dissolving any useful cohesiveness conservatives might build in the Republican party, leaving statists in both parties unchallenged.

Christie or another Romney-like candidate in 1016 will very likely lose for the same reason because more and more people are starting to wake up to the truth of Einstein's definition of insanity, a truth you are apparently unable to discern.

You talk about how you "deal with the world as it is" -- well, the "world as it is" is that a Christie/Romney-type candidate is a losing proposition.

Deal with that.

You had me fooled, fatman. I thought you were smart. Instead, you're average, predictable, and headed hard left.

I take it back, fatman. You ARE smart. So please, if you would ...

Please ... What "emotion based strategy" are you referring to? Please be specific, don't just tell me it's emotional, show me HOW it is emotional, even to identifying the SPECFIC things that make it "emotional" instead of "strategic." You see, here I'd been thinking that I was rising above emotion and looking at reality and strategy, gauging the mood of Americans by what they say and write, not by what the MSM says "America" thinks, thinking of the smartest ways to use our conservative votes to push things to the right by denying liberal Republicans our votes and thereby denying them access to power -- and here you come along and pop my bubble by informing me that it is "emotional" and "childish."

Also, if you will be so kind, please be specific in what instances I exhibited childishness. Since I don't see them, your pointing them out to me may help me improve myself.

One other thing. How is it not "emotional" to vote for a candidate who is ON RECORD (this is not an emotional nor a childish claim, but a conclusion based on things Romney has said and done, YOU can look them up, I already have) supporting gay adoption (which really means prohibiting adoption agencies from telling prospective gay parents "Go somewhere else if you want to adopt a kid") and for ending DADT in the military, and the entire concept of government overseeing health care and health insurance, and also in favor of activist environmental agendas, and for what you must admit -- non emotionally of course -- that only an amoral man would state, as Romney is on audio saying, that he believes that if a minor girl gets pregnant and her parents refuse her permission to get an abortion, that that minor teenager has the right to go to a judge and have that judge overrule her parents, yes, I'm afraid Romney is on record saying that, I heard the sound clip many times) --

-- presumably (since as you state Romney wasn't your "choice") things you as a conservative stand against in principle as well as in deed, which is my the State vs Federal with regard to government-run health care is wholly irrelevant) ... wasn't it an entirely EMOTIONAL thing, then, to vote for him?

That emotion being FEAR?

“I happen to believe you’re wrong about Romney, in fact he made several statements during the campaign that he was not for any kind national health care, that he believed in Federalism and that states should be free to find their own solutions to problems.”

So you believe what he said during an election cycle over his actual documented record in office and since.

Hint: People who say one thing and do another are not what any intelligent person wants in a world leader.

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.