Posted on 11/10/2006 8:31:44 PM PST by pickrell
Ok, so what are You going to do about it?
By the end of that speech, the entire room knew it had made a mistake by going with Ford.
Lucky for us, Reagan didn't give up.
Our primary system needs a lot of work if we want to make sure Reagans don't get beaten by Fords..."
That is a first-class summary. Thank you sir.
Tells me that we need to hammer that home before an election, rather than watch it happen to us afterwards.
A lot of good thoughts have been posted here, and with luck, we will realize the gravity of the situation... which we failed to make a majority of voters understand last week.
At some point in any retreat, you have to regroup, man the ridgeline, and convince yourself that the only way home is forward.
We have two years, if we start early.
Right answer, I've been doing what you suggest for years.
Good rant pickrell... but the stupid a$$es who stayed home on Tuesday most likely never bothered to vote in their state primaries.
Too true. The problem is, as I read and weigh the opinions posted here, that I am still hearing a losing theme.
The idea seems to be, even after we got smacked by accepting it, once again, that we cannot nominate anyone who isn't already popular.
And how do we determine who is popular?
Why... the Mainstream media tells us, of course, that's how.
In the next two years we need to kick this habit- this acquiescence to the "authority" and control of our politics by the New York Times.
We say we need to nominate a true conservative. But then we immediately surrender, and meekly accept that we aren't "allowed" to sift through all of our politicos, and realize just which one consistently votes conservatively.
Take Obama. The Left decided to elevate him, and puts him in a position to address the Democratic party. The media then gushes as to how his was the greatest speech since the Gettysburg Address. It was just that easy to dictate that he is now to be popular, according to Sulzberger and his media acolytes.
What We Need To Do... is to throw off all of those constraints that say the only free choice we can make as conservatives is to accept exactly what the New York Times bloody well tells us to accept.
Don't accept that we can't nominate a true conservative like Senator Sessions.
If we evaluate him and decide that there is a better, stronger conservative candidate, that's one thing. And such may be the case.
But let's list what strengths and weaknesses he has from his record, (which is difficult to hide from), and contrast them to the strengths and weaknesses of several other possibles, and their records.
Demonstrate to us that he isn't the best choice, and we'll accept that. (With supporting proof, of course.)
But please don't tell me that we aren't "allowed" to nominate and then build up a real conservative. We have two years to do our homework. The Obama coronation took them no more than an afternoon's machinations.
Here in Ohio, in the primaries, it was gravely explained that we couldn't nominate a stauncher conservative to replace Mike DeWine, because... "Only DeWine can win easily..." And two-thirds of Ohio Republicans accepted that. Now the same sages will offer us the same wisdom, over the next two years, in regards to 2008.
How many times do we need to get our heads beaten into the concrete before we decide what kind of a candidate we want...
...and who we will let prohibit him, on the basis that he isn't loved as much as McCain by Helen Thomas?
What... will it take? How many more losses can we afford? How much more damage do we subject the country to... before we say that:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to sever our ties to a political system which rigs the game against us before we even start..."
The "mainstream" media tells me nothing! I consider them no more than background noise. And the candidates now being rammed down our throats leave me cold. Were Rudy Giuliani a Republican with conservative values on abortion and strict constructionist judges, etc., I might see him differently.
We need to do exactly what you suggested...find someone independently...someone other than those hand picked by the alledged "know-it-alls".
I just think you're right on this, period.
Nancee
P.S. Wasn't Mike DeWine one of the "gang of 14"?
Good points.
Don't focus too narrowly on just the candidate for POTUS.
We need to look at new leadership for:
*RNC Chairman
Melhman is stepping down. How much of a say we can have in this I have no clue but names being put out on this board that I can recall are:
{Steele}
He has Chairman experience in Maryland
{Gingrich}
There is no question he knows how to focus on a message to the People and then get a gang together to push that across.
*Congressional Leaders
The Majority leaders are Nov 7th. Now is the time for putting leaders in place who can prime the pumps for the conservative message to the People in 2008.
They must combat Bush's bipartisan tendancies to push through liberal agendas like the Immigration bill. We can all argue how to handle illegal aliens but we must have true Border Security first. IMHO any bill that solely focuses on the southern border without addressing the terrorist friendly government north of us is a joke!
60% + Americans want something done about the borders. The glaring contradiction of Open Borders during a time of war is inanity and the voters aren't going to listen to a pro-WOT party who neglects Homeland Security.
|||HILLARY IS ALREADY PLAYING THE ABOVE CARD IN HER DECK|||
We must NOT allow her to position herself to the right of us. That is what happened with many candidates this time around and it worked. <_<
Some names being thrown around are:
{Pence}
{Shadegg}
These are people who are known to be going for the position. I've only heard good things thus far but we most definitly need to keep our ears open on other names and our minds open as to which ones would be best.
*Candidates for POTUS
I don't disagree that we need to start drafting conservatives right now but the two above cannot be forgotten or we'll end up with a captian facing mutiny.
Not all of these people have put their feelers out for a run. These are names I've heard thrown out here and I have of course been one of the ones doing the name tossing. XD
__________________________________________________________
YOU WILL NOT HEAR THE MSM TOUTING THESE NAMES ON A REGULAR BASIS like Guilliani & McCain.
__________________________________________________________
Executives
{Sanford} =P
http://www.petitiononline.com/msan2008/petition.html
{Romney}
People here have been debating him. Let's continue the debate.
{Barbour}
Sorry folks you all are gonna have to build up something about him cause I know nothing. Just a name I've been hearing.
Legislatures
{Sessions}
I don't know anything. XD
{Hunter}
I don't know anything again. XD
{Santorum} ^_^
Well at least he was top 3rd in the Senate. T^T He's my homestate guy and I'd like to see him make a run just cause he's that good! He will keep the debates lively there is no question about that. Maybe we could haul up Boxer for him to yell at just for fun. I like to think of him as our future VP.
Err sorry I repeated myself somewhat. I've been all over these threads and sometimes I forget what I've already said. >_<
Everyone check out the Conservative Choice for 2008, Congressman Mike Pence. Visit the website at www.pence08.com
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.