Jim Robinson: Taking stock of our dwindling conservative inventory

Jan 5, 2011 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Tea party favorite and pro-life conservative Sarah Palin and her family were viciously attacked to the point she chose not to run.

Congressional Tea Party Caucus leader and constitutional pro-life conservative Michele Bachmann had early promise, but I guess came across as too "shrill" and consequently her numbers driven down to the point she exited.

Successful pro-life conservative Texas Governor Perry hit the race at the top but due to missteps and less than stellar debate performances soon fizzled and is now all but gone.

Pro-life conservative businessman Cain and his famous 9-9-9 plan had promise, but was driven out due to indefensible allegations.

Pro-life Reagan Revolution conservative Newt Gingrich reinvigorated his campaign and soared to the top of the national polls, but was unacceptable to the establishment and apparently also unacceptable to the "true conservatives" among us and his numbers are now plummeting

You'd think "unquestionably" pro-life, pro-family conservative Rick Santorum whose recent surge took him to a tie in Iowa and who's now surging in the national polls might be good enough to stand against Romney for the base, but looks like there are "true conservatives" now attacking HIM as not good enough.

Well, drive them all out and who's left?

Huntsman? Who? Moonbat Paul?

Ideas anyone? Should we all continue attacking the conservatives we don't like until we drive them all out?

Personally, I could easily have lived with Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt or Santorum and would be proud to enthusiastically support any of them, warts and all. Any one of them is infinitely better than Obama or Romney.

But if we don't land on one soon and raise him up over Romney, guess who we're going to be stuck with? And it ain't going to be pretty. And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.

I'd suggest that we all stop trying to tear down the other conservative candidates in the race and instead concentrate on trying to build up our own personal favorites. Who knows? May even discover an acceptable conservative (if not a great conservative) in the bunch. We've never had a perfect conservative yet. Not even the magnificent Ronald Reagan. We and they all have warts.

But we do want to have a candidate with at least an actual CONSERVATIVE record and not an out and out liberal progressive RINO. So let's compare their records and their actual conservative accomplishments but not try to destroy them personally.

God bless and may the best CONSERVATIVE be our nominee.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

OK, let me try this last example so you clearly understand my thinking.

Would you want to play Russian Roulette with a loaded revolver? No you wouldn’t.

Romney is a loaded revolver, like a 6 shot revolver loaded with 3 bullets. The odds are very slim that you will survive if you play Russian Roulette with the Romney Revolver with 3 cartridges in the 6-shot cylinder.

Obama is like a Colt .45 automatic with 3 shots in the magazine. Every single shot from it will shoot out a bullet. There is no chance of an empty shot with a pistol like a Colt .45 auto.

You wouldn’t want to play Russian Roulette, but if you were FORCED to do so, and if you had to choose between using a loaded auto pistol or a 1/2 loaded revolver, which would you use?

The auto pistol has a 100% chance to blow your brains out while the half-loaded revolver only has a 50% chance of blowing your brains out.

So my logic tells me to play Russian Roulette with the 1/2 empty Romney revolver than the Obama pistol which is certain death.

Get it?

That is my opinion. I understand your opinion. In your opinion, both pistol and revolver are fully loaded and both have a 100% chance to blow your brains out. This is why it is impossible for us to agree. We don’t agree on the lethality of the Romney revolver and so have no basis to ever agree.

[Redleg Duke]

Boy, are you consumed with hate!

You might need some professional help. Right now, trying to have a reasonable debate with you is a waste of time.

[Mozilla]

I think if Romney were to win the presidency then he might end up doing things no conservative likes. He’ll force the congress to go along and he’ll repeal bills that republican conservatives pass.

The media will have a field day if he doesn’t agree with the the republican congress. And moderates in blue states will began to make noise. It will be like George Bush’s presidency again mixed with parts of Nixon.

I don’t think the congress will be so conservative they will be able to force Romney to do it there way. And then Romney is not leading, but playing second fiddle to congress like Obama has been.

If it comes down to Romney vs Obama then both are bad choices. Anyway you look at it you lose. The tea party base, I think the tea party groups are cowards, but the base will be actively against Romney. Eventually they would find a person to run against him in 2016.

[Mozilla]

“f you really believe that Romney would have anything to do with repealing Obamacare (without replacing it with his “better” version of THE SAME), then I have a great bridge I’d like to sell you.

Truly, YOU are the one who refuses to acknowledge that the differences are so slight that EITHER WAY we get Obamacare, only with Romney it would be worse because REPUBLICANS would be responsible for it, and REPUBLICANS would be powerless to stop it. At least with Obama, Republicans still have the power to fight against it as a united force. Romney would DISARM conservatives!! “

That there is what is pissing me off about tea party groups. They area bunch of cowards. Not doing anything to stop Romney from winning or from getting behind a candidate to put him over the top. I don’t think the groups are worth anytime. they won’t do rallies anymore or protests. They are just focused on congress in 2012. Okay then. but they are letting the GOP get away with murder.

Sorry, but I view them as not eager to rile the establishment in the GOP or they would have been doing more. No time to waste.

[Mozilla]

I agree. As a Bachmann, Cain and Palin fan, Santorum is exactly at the position I had been hoping that anyone of the other three would be at. So Santorum is the best one to back of the candidates left. He was always my third choice after Bachmann and Cain.

[Finny]

Obama is like a Colt .45 automatic with 3 shots in the magazine. Every single shot from it will shoot out a bullet. There is no chance of an empty shot with a pistol like a Colt .45 auto.

That is where we essentially disagree. You've got it backwards: Obama is the six-shot revolver with three rounds; Romney is the .45 semi-auto..

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Hence our irreconcilable disagreement.

Thank you for clarifying that you believe 4 years of Romney will more readily destroy America than another 4 years of a radical Communist Muslim traitor weaned off the Chicago Mob. That explains everything. Thank you.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I said, "Obama is like a Colt .45 automatic with 3 shots in the magazine. Every single shot from it will shoot out a bullet. There is no chance of an empty shot with a pistol like a Colt .45 auto."

Finny said, "That is where we essentially disagree. You've got it backwards: Obama is the six-shot revolver with three rounds; Romney is the .45 semi-auto..."

We were talking in circles until I clarified that Obama was more dangerous to the USA than Romney is. Finny clarified that 4 years with Romney as president would be more damaging to America than another 4 years of Obama.

If I may ask, do you concur that Romney is more dangerous to America than Obama? That is kind of an important detail for Freepers to understand if you also think Romney is a greater threat to America than Obama is.

[Finny]

Yes, as I have argued in detail on posts in this and other threads, after much thought, I must conclude that Romney is the greater threat. Understand that in more than three decades of voting, I've voted in every election and ALWAYS voted straight Republican ticket. I have never cast my vote for anyone OTHER than a Republican. So you will understand that this is a very difficult truth for me to embrace, but embrace it I must. I realize that this is blasphemy to many -- but here in California, some of us learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger -- Arnold, who replaced nightmare Gray Davis and supposedly saved us from racist socialist Cruz Bustamonte, who -- like Obama -- was considered over-the-top unacceptable.

So after two terms of Schwarzenegger, guess what manner of Democrat followed? "Moonbeam" JERRY BROWN, for pete's sake!!! Even worse that Cruz Bustamonte!!! So "winning" on those terms was one step forward followed by TWO STEPS BACK. And THAT is exactly what would happen after a Romney administration -- the next Democrat would be of a caliber we can't even imagine right now, and would make Obama look good by comparison.

Learning lessons is not enough. You then have to APPLY WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED. If you vote for a statist, no matter how you justify voting for him, you're going to make statism more powerful.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Your position was previously made perfectly clear. I’m just hoping Mr. Robinson will grace us with his position, as I respectfully asked.

Beyond that, don’t blame me for Arnold, I voted for McClintock for Governor during Davis’s recall.

[Finny]

Sorry, FINF -- missed the direction to Jim! :^)

Interesting ... ...don’t blame me for Arnold, I voted for McClintock for Governor during Davis’s recall.

Had every Republican in the state voted for Tom (a wonderful man, hugely respected in my five-generations-native ... now into its 7th generation ... and mostly conservative Californian extended family), he'd still have lost. A vote for Tom was certainly and reasonably regarded by many as, sadly, a wasted vote. If I had it to do over again, I'd have voted for Tom knowing he'd lose, but willing to risk that Bustamonte (he was the one running against Scwarzenegger and Tom) would have done less damage in the long run -- AND HE WOULD HAVE. But I was still practicing Einstein's Definition of Insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

So you threw your vote away, but voted your conscience -- and it turns out you did the right thing.

I don't know about Jim, but as for me, I urge you: do the same if it's Romney in 2012. Otherwise YOU will be fulfilling Einstein's definition of insanity, and doing the same thing (I take it you voted for McCain in '08, and probably for Whitman in the last CA Governor's race, right?) as always but expecting different results.

NICE FReepeing with you, by the way. Your civil tone is much admired and respected.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I didn’t think I was throwing my vote away. I thought McClintock had a chance.

Yes, I did hold my nose and vote for both McCain and Whitman as lessers of evils.

Nice Freeping with you as well.

[mrsmel]

Ditto, best post of the thread laying out what’s going on. And we need not be fooled that the R establishment has become a part of that enemy. Conservatives, especially social conservatives, have been disowned by this party.

[mrsmel]

Same here, if the Republicans party is no longer conservative-and that includes social conservatism-then I’m no longer Republican. And as you say, my social conservatism is the most important part, though closely followed by fiscal. Anyway, as you say, they must intertwine.

I don’t know who this present Republican party as represented by those in leadership, is anymore. Either they’re cynical opportunists who get in front of the biggest parade going at a given moment, or they’re liberals in sheeps clothing.

[Little Ray]

Been saying this all along - there are too many conservatives of one stripe or another running. They split the conservative votes while the “moderate” Romney wins the Primaries - and Obama wins the General.

We need agree that, if all else fails, we’re still voting AGAINST Obama.

[mrsmel]

I totally agree. When it gets to the point where we have to vote for the very things we oppose, just to stop the other guy who will also do the same things, we’ve come to a dark and dire crossroads as to where to go next-but choosing between two guys who are practically clones of each other and then allowing the remnant of the Republican Party (conservatives need not apply) get the “credit” for the stuff headed towards the fan just makes no sense. Once the Party is destroyed by having been used to elect a man who held naught different in principle , than the man whose principles we despise, then what principles were we ever for?

[LomanBill]

>>Boy, are you consumed with hate! 

Don't forget the usual Intolerant and Biggoted as well, comrade.  Wouldn't want folks to think I was getting soft-hearted on the Reds.

[Finny]

Glad to see that I’m in good company with regard to my take on this. Thanks!

[My Favorite Headache]

I say we ignore the media...open the wallets and double down on Newt.

[lentulusgracchus]

And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.

I don't know if you heard the late-night commentators on Tuesday night, Jim, but all the PBS and ABC talking heads but one were practically out-of-control ecstatic. I thought Charlie Rose guests Al Hunt (WSJ) and Mark Halperin (TIME) were going to french-kiss each other, and all of them, even Charlie Rose, were soaring, with Rose talking up the meme that

"America is finally going to get the kind of political campaign America deserves, on the great issues and the direction the country should take" (/paraphrase),

meaning, the MSM makes it all about socialism and the horribleness of socialism's enemies, while Obama does the down-and-dirty so socialism wins -- and then Obama walks on, and polices up, the bad conservatives while the MSM cheer him on.

At ABC, Jake Tapper, David Muir, Matt Dowd, NYT slug Jonathan Karl, and the infamous Donna Brazile (Algore's 2000 campaign manager! -- will ABC refuse to hire any Clintonista hack?!) all lined up to line-dance to the chant "Romney won!! La la la la, we love Obozo!"

Jake Tapper, punk David Muir, and troll Matt Dowd were all field-testing a new Party Line meme, that "Romney is the inevitable nominee unless someone decisively defeats him" .... funny, I thought the convention decided that, but I guess I just need to "git mah maaaaahhhnd raht!" </Strother Martin>

Donna Brazile sheds more light than the rest of them combined, and earned a Party Line Check from ABC late-night referee Terry Moron, because she let out that Romney is the Republicans' weakest candidate, and closed the loop the ABCbots want left open:

What's good for Mitt Romney, is good for Obama.

She also noted that nobody has attacked Romney the way all the conservatives have been attacked. <voice stage left: Shut up, Donna! Shut up shut up shut up, you're letting the cat out of the bag!!! /voice >

Compared to the rest of them, Brazile talked straightest, and even Georgie Clintonopoulos sounded almost statesmanlike .... the rest of them were out-of-control exultant for Obama and Mittens's "inevitability". What does that say?

Tuesday evening, Charlie Rose twice made the mistake of calling Mitt Romney "Obama" -- proving the equation in his own mind, of a Romney win with an eventual Obama win (he agrees with Donna Brazile -- hell, they all do, they just won't tell us.) Al Hunt had to correct him.

Significant datum from open-primary New Hampshire:

Ron Paul (they said on Charlie Rose) won the independents and Dems who crossed over in masses to vote in New Hampshire. That ought to tell us something ..... but at least Paul and Huntsman are splitting Romney's vote and muddying up the Establishment's claim that "we won, shut up already".