Posted on 01/24/2008 9:47:43 PM PST by Graybeard58
NO YOU THINK AGAIN!
If Campaigning in New Hampshire and Iowa is “bankrupting’ candidates (two states where the time tested way to go there is to rent a bus and spend six months driving to every coffee shop in the state) please explain how the proposed ALL STATES IN ONE DAY primary is going to be affordable?
Who won Iowa? Huckabee, who is near dead last in fundraising. But that win got him time and space to keep going.
You keep saying that early states eliminate people, but who is going to benefit in your all-in-one plan?
Please answer the question, rather than re-stating your thesis this time.
Who's doing well? Not the ones who have solid positions on anything -- it's the ones who do the best job of presenting their roses and chocolates.
Who's to blame for that? It's the Republican voters, that's who. If they can't expend the brain cells to look beyond roses and chocolates, they deserve whatever the hell they get.
National Elections are controlled by the Fed.
Primaries are controlled by the state parties.. THe RNC and DNC are the only ones who can punish a state for playing with their dates.. they did so for Michigan, but not others.
Of course I find it amusing this guy consideres IOWA a liberal state.
bttt
Before anyone said a word in debate Hunter should have been well enough known within the party to have kicked off with a fairly good base.
Thompson also was a well known commodity, who offered concise and written positions rather than merely offering an insincere "me too" after each semi-conservative public statement made by another.
Tancredo will never escape the anti immigration label that's been pinned on him - yet he was a match for any of he RINO candidates for as long as he lasted.
I'm embarrassed that the GOP has a Ron Paul faction: even when he is being fairly rational he's a freak.
The blatant elitism that has kept Huckabee in the race only supports the stereotype of an intolerant Christian - a stereotype pleases socialists and muslims to pieces.
Both sucked more supporters from the apparently weak conservative block left within the party than from the poll driven, corporate think, handsies across the aisle, libpublicans we're left with.
Of course, neither the media or the RNC would toss a rope to a drowning conservative - all they need to do is say "Ronald Reagan" once in awhile and move on to what they really want to say.
But remember that Tanc, Duncan, and Fred each should have carried decent support into the race - support that should have been directed to Fred when/if the others determined that they were not strong enough to continue, support that should have allowed him to continue.
Do Conservatives really only amount to 17% [plus a small spin off from Huckabee] of the party?
If conservatives are that small a minority today, I think it is time for the following:
Go ahead and support the pubby nominee [assuming it's not McCain], that's better than conceding to Hitlery's despotism.
Then, as soon as the election has been ratified, call for a convention to establish a conservative platform, in writing, published, and for use as either basis for a third party or as a demand for reform of the republican party. That would leave three years to find out if there might be a two party system again someday - while hopefully slowing and possibly stopping the socialist takeover.
PS: I think Thompson's greatest mistake was that he believed he was speaking to adults.
It's tempting to sit back and watch the boat sink, except that we're in the boat, too.
Robert Redford made a movie about this exact subject in 1972, The Candidate. Although I can't imagine anyone being further from me on political issues than Redford, the film is about politicians being bought and sold, lies and smears, the dog and pony show over the substantive issues, the corruption of the candidate by the campaign, and from a liberal perspective, basically all the same things conservatives are disgusted about now.
It's changed some, but it's nothing new. Politics has always been about shaking babies and kissing hands, finding a few catch phrases, being packaged like a Happy Meal, making deals with the devil, scrounging for contributions and all the rest.
Fred knew this when he got in, and in the end, the criticism of him was true. He didn't have the fire in the belly.
The only reason conservatives are complaining about the game right now is the same reason Raiders fans hate the tuck rule. We're losing. So, we got a choice, snuffle that people aren't smart enough to vote for us, like Gore did in 2000 and Kerry did in 2004 or start trying to figure out a way to win.
I never heard Ronald Reagan make the excuse that the electorate was just too stupid to vote for him, or that campaigning was shoving roses and chocolates up people's rear ends. He dealt with an election process just as flawed as the one Thompson just exited, and he managed to campaign without degrading himself or acting like the process was beneath him. He seemed to be pretty good at it, too.
Oh, MAAA-AA-AAAAN! That post deserves a prize!! Very good!
Geeze. Life isn't perfect, you know. You have a right to vote, not a right to have the person you absolutely think is the best have a statistically even chance of winning the election. It is a rough and tumble system that rewards, uh, smart politicians.
Speaking for myself, you assume a lot of false things regarding motivations and beliefs. Further, it is factually erroneous and emotionally insulting (or it would be to me) for you to describe those who disagree with you as stubbornly searching for "the perfect" candidate and of being so sissified that we don't recognize or understand your "rough and tumble" system.
It is so rough-and-tumble and your kind of thinking misunderstands it so thoroughly, in fact, that such thinking has allowed fear to rough-and-tumble the Republican party into Big Government Liberal Lite over the past 30 years. Yes, you should know all about rough-and-tumble, because you've most certainly been rolled.
I have, too. The difference is, I've figured it out. You have yet to get the big picture.
The kid has the right to wear his sexuality on his sleeve, as well; I have no right to stop him, nor does his employer or anybody else on this planet. We and the kid have the right to cause and deal with the consequences of free choices, which include the choice to discriminate against things we don't like. You want to fiddle with the consequences, and that is most decidedly OUTSIDE YOUR RIGHT and OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Do you want some cheese with that Whine!
I used to have a boss that would shut people up with that line, especially when those people had legitimate complaints and were airing them in search of a solution.
That company has fallen on very hard times because of bad management. What a surprise.
Bill, here's a couple of questions for you: Do you want a tennis ball stuffed in your mouth so we don't have to hear that tired old "cheese with your whine" pun again? Are we still supposed to laugh at it?
Thanks Finny. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I’m sorry if mine were taken as insensitive.
You know, I agree that the GOP is liberal lite. I’m not happy about it. I’m interested in constructive ways to address it.
But in the context of this race I think the reasons we don’t have a more conservative front runner, in rough order of importance are:
1.) No excellent more conservative candidate stepped forward.
2.) The ones that did step forward were marginal in terms of background.
3.) They underperformed. (Except Ron Paul, who overperformed)
I would add reason 0.) above them all: we are a more liberal country in many respects than we were 30 years ago. The Republicans want a hand in governing. We have a two party system, and inevitably both parties try to sit on the middle of where the voters are to get to 50+1% and win.
Thus neither major party is ideologically pure. For a while, we had a tiny bit of momentum to roll back FDR’s restructuring of America (say Newt’s Contract as the high water mark), but we blew it. Some of the most ideological Republicans blew it the worst. (Including the Clinton impeachment which totally killed the smaller government momentum in Congress.)
I recently re-read “The Conscience of A Conservative”. Goldwater sold a few million copies of the paperback when running for office in 1964. It is interesting to read. Most of the things that he is disputing are completely settled. He argues against special union laws. He argues against much of the 1964 Civil Rights laws.
As long as we have Social Security we are saying to citizens “It is the governments job to take care of you”. At least some of the time. (When you are young, old, unemployed, have babies you can’t afford, sick, retired or can’t afford your medicine).
When was the last time you heard someone seriously argue for eliminating social security? Bush wanted to let people under 40 put 20% in stocks.
That was demagogued like he was proposing putting swastikas on the flag. Even 30 years ago you could still talk about whether Social Security made sense.
So, with all that in mind I have little patience for people proposing that George Soros is controlling the timing of primaries. Hey, he doesn’t need to work that issue!
If my tone conveyed exasperation it was with the extremely tenditious arguments and confused issue jumping of the orginal article.
Eastern states with big cities are like that.
If you live in that hot bed of liberalism called Wyoming, I'd advise you to just move, it's hopeless.
*chuckle*
I have deep contempt for the traitorous Fourth Estate, especially as I have a degree in journalism and worked with and around so-called "newsmen" for years. Now, thank goodness, I can ignore them in my work. I don't blame them directly for Thompson's drop or the primaries. I do think, and have always thought, that open primaries are a form of oxymoron. So the question of the blame is not on my radar, though I'll gladly broadcast my contempt for the blatant fraud perpetrated by "newsmen" of the MSM -- they are not newsmen, they are propagandists, pure and simple. They are supposed to be our eyes and ears; instead they are our censors and they are too pompous to acknowledge it to themselves. They do an enormous disservice to our nation. They deserve considerable contempt, and they have it.
My thinking is that there are identity politics going on here where one set of "conservatives" gets the title solely determined by the fact that they embrace Gospel morality (as do I) that says, among other things, that abortion and homosexuality are abominations and should be battled at all times. I choose those two examples because they are so evidently at play in 21st century America. This principle of Limited Government does not factor into the social conservative's politics. This Gospel conservative, if you will, thinks that "conservative" means using the government to enforce Gospel morality on a free people.
The second and in my opinion truer conservative, is the one who gets the title "conservative" because he believes in being conservative in the application of government the way a smart person is conservative in the application of salt to the dinner plate. Sparing, cautious, minimal, is what this "conservative" stands for in terms of government. In other words, Limited Government.
As it turns out, it was the abandonment of Limited Government that led to the very things that social conservatives rightly hate and despise the most in American culture -- a government that is actively participating in forcing the cultural normalization of homosexuality on people, and a government that has successfully forced all people to support with their labor (tax dollars) the abortion industry. The Federal Government thinks it's immoral to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace or in organizations like the Boy Scouts, and the Federal Governmen thinks it's immoral not to fund abortions for poor women. If that Federal Government had been LIMITED, the national enabling of abortion and homosexuality would never have come to pass and social conservatives wouldn't even be DEALING with two of the things that bother them most.
Sadly, the two "conservatives" are diametrically opposed and never the twain shall meet. Either you're for limited government or you're not. Fidelity to Limited Government conservatism would have prevented Roe v. Wade and the prospect of gay marriage because it would have allowed us to wholesomely, freely discriminate against them of our own free will.
To me, the real solution is for us to convince social conservatives that their moral concerns are best served by Limited Government, as is illustrated in recent history.
I think the problem was the fact primaries were “open”.
We need a closed primary system. If you don’t know your party 90 days before an election you should not be voting in a primary.
Well when someone (Ann Coulter) says their favorite (Duncan Hunter)is X (I know she HAD stated this)and then consciously states otherwise, I can only conclude that she is faking me out one way or another.
It is not her analysis that is of ANY consequence here.
Since I can no longer trust her statements as a indicator of her politics, she has become as bad (and UNTRUSTWORTHY) as those she chastises for similar behavior.
And I like her but she has betrayed us conservatives when we needed her to stand for what she believes.
Sad situation.
I can't go quite that far, though it is sickening to see her proppin' Romney. She has caught the same "pragmatism" bug that seems to be going around in Republican circles. Her approach to the issue was far easier for me to swallow than Hannity whoring himself as he has. I refuse to listen to him anymore. Of those that betray us, I would measure Coulter the least of them.
I do agree though, on just the two "great biggies", Pro-Life and 2nd Amendment, Romney is a POS, and she ought to know better.
” She (AnneCoulter) has caught the same “pragmatism” bug that seems to be going around in Republican circles.”
Tom McClintok has managed to NOT succume to that disease.
He has come out for the ONLY conservative left in the race.
Now that is logical and consistent.
Damn the pragmatism disease - NO MORE LESSERof2Evils !!!
As screwy as RPaul’s foreign pols seem to be, he is the ONLY one that would certainly put a cabosh to any DemoRat congressional situation.
As point of interest/clarification, his position on Isreal is the most nuanced and best solution to Isreal’s delimma. Since US keeps Isreal from defending itself by supporting the Muslims at every turn, by removing US intervention as foreign policy that WOULD be a solid support for Isreal’s self defense.
I’ve become most annoyed at all those FReepers who say RP CAN’T be elected. Well if no solid conservatives will support the ONLY conservative remaining that would be correct.
Sad situation when abondoned reason/principals and failed common sense are dispensed for the cure to “pragmatism disease”.
Pragmatism disease IS WHAT GOT US HERE !!%##^^@@**!!!
Read the warning label folks !!!
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.