Agree that we have to be very careful of falling for the divide and conquer approach I believe the Democrats are using against Republicans. The fact is that if a more conservative candidate loses the Republican primary (absent Democrat interference) the only thing going into the general election will do is split the vote so Democrats win. Are we really better off having a Democrat enabling leftists policies full speed than at least a nominal Republican that votes conservative at least some of the time? I’ll probably be flamed for not lining up with those who say they will refuse to vote for a less than totally conservative Republican - but we live in a real world and the fact is that ultimately the choice needs to be between 2, not three or more in the General election. Don’t have to provide money to those not aligned, but we need to at least show up and vote.
The last election likely would not have gone to Zero if the “true conservatives” that refused to vote for Romney for whatever reason had simply shown up and voted. Despite comments that have been made in this forum to the contrary, Obama got less votes than in 2008 and Romney got more votes than McCain in 2008. Romney may be far from perfect - but the absolute disaster on so many fronts we are now facing would have been avoided. Primaries are where we have to sort out our differences.
Remember Reagan’s 11th commandment. I believe the Democrats have been successful in making too many Republicans forget it.
Romney didn't even match his party platform on abortion, amnesty, 2nd Amendment, socialized medicine and big government.
The perfection argument is a LIE spread by GOP-E operatives.
How about a candidate that matches the party platform?
I will do everything in my power to politically destroy liberal republicans.
I'm a conservative, not a republican.
No vote for liberal republicans here.
/johnny
Real world impact example: had Romney won the Presidency the DC Circuit Court of Appeals wouldn’t have been stacked with Liberals following the nuking of the appointment filibuster.
That means that if the recent panel decision overturning the Obamacare Federal Exchange subsidies were appealed en banc, the panel’s ruling would have been upheld. Instead it’s going to be overturned.
Now, this is in no way an endorsement of Romney for 2016, but it does illustrate that there are degrees of ideological acceptability. And consequences for placing them at certain points.
Romney despised Reagan and has smeared him for years, he left the GOP because of Reagan and became a democrat supporter and fundraiser, and voter, not returning to the GOP until Bill Clinton was safely in the White House.
Romney was the problem that killed 2008 and 2012, the Reagan hating, most radical liberal that has ever been a major player in GOP presidential politics had only won a single election in his life, and had only returned to the GOP in October of 1993, after supporting democrats, and fundraising and voting as a democrat, and fund raising for Planned Parenthood.
Since his own polling showed he wasn’t going to win reelection as governor, an office he left with 34% approval, he set out to become president and announced that he was the 800 pound gorilla with all the money, which kept out any substantive challengers and left us with nobodies, as it was, Romney spent 50 million dollars of his own money, had all the big donors, a massive organization, and still lost to two guys without campaign funds, or organization.
The proof of Romney was in 2012, in an election that republicans couldn’t lose, Romney/Ryan, somehow pulled it off, that far trumps losing in the 2008 election that was almost impossible for the GOP to win in a perfect storm of recession, 8 years of Bush, and the first black president.
Sorry, FRiend, but IMO the worst offenders are Rove, Romney, and McConnell.
You should get flamed for not stating your opponents' position correctly. While I would love a true, rock-ribbed conservative, I have supported candidates who were far from that. Romney was a bridge too far. I will in all likelihood vote for the 2016 Republican nominee, unless it is Romney. Some possible candidates would cause me to throw up in my mouth a bit as I pull the lever (Christie) but only one would not get my vote. Not being Obama in 2012 or not being Hillary in 2016 is not a sufficient reason for me to ignore Romney's long history of opposing everything conservative.
The last election likely would not have gone to Zero if the “true conservatives” that refused to vote for Romney for whatever reason had simply shown up and voted.
You're directing this to the wrong audience. Direct it to the GOPe who take the conservatives for granted. Rather than criticizing the "purists" for not eating the crap sandwich served up, maybe the GOPe should realize that they should be a little more selective in what they serve up. The party powers need to recognize that there is a subset of potential candidates who are unacceptable to the party rank and file. That means that the party powers need to stop pushing, urging, or encouraging Romney toward a 2016 run. What the party leadership really needs to do is encourage him for the good of the party to stand aside and announce it soon. If anything, he's even more objectionable to the party rank and file now than he was in 2012.
You chastise those who didn't vote for Romney as not understanding political reality. There is the other reality that the party powers need to understand - there are some candidates who are so distasteful to the party regulars that they will not vote for them just because they have an R behind their name.
Will I still be a purist when I cast my vote this fall for Pat Roberts? It won't be an enthusiastic vote but Roberts is far from Romney squishy.
It is the liberals of BOTH parties that are using divide and conquer, more so in the Republican party.
And the GOPE needs to be reminded of Reagan’s 11th commandment because they sure as hell don’t follow it if a conservative wins the nomination. Either they play by the rules or screw the rules.