Skip to comments.Jim Robinson: Taking stock of our dwindling conservative inventory
Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by 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.
Nailed it. They outed that analytic on Charlie Rose Tuesday night, that Paul led the NH crossover indie/Dems.
The only county Paul won, was Coos County up in the north end of NH, sparsely populated with fewer crossovers, but those people are Old School 1920's Republicans, Cal Coolidge type people. Paleocons and isolationists. The rest of the State tumbled for Willard and what one FReeper called "his latex rictus" (death-mask grin).
South Carolina has got a lot of straightening-out to do. That's why Gov. DeMint, who endorsed Romney in 2008, jumped out in front and endorsed him again. And people kept telling us how conservative DeMint is.
Santorum/Gingrich. We need Gingrich for VP nominee, to free him up as the heavy who punches out the other ticket like Razor Ruddock -- the role Bob Dole had in 1976.
Santorum for policy, Gingrich for the slugfest.
(Side note: I'd like to see Dingy Harry's face, when Newt ascends the VP's chair.)
I have my occasional moments of prescience.
To say that what Romney did to businesses is “capitalism” is to say that what homosexual pedophiles priests did to alter boys is “Catholicism.”
I don’t think so.
Unfortunately I think we have to write off our chances of having an ideal candidate this go-around. Meanwhile let’s keep busy doing the good we can do both publicly and privately. Let’s add to that inventory of good conservatives by **being** that public conservative we so **want** to admire.
Like that's happening, right Jim? Tell you what, just tell us how to vote and put an end to all this in-party bickering...........Anybody who disagrees with the choice, ban them. It works for DU so it should work here........
Well, I can’t do that, but I can say that this pro-life, pro-family, pro-country conservative site will not support abortionist/statists like Mitt Romney or moonbat surrender monkey liberaltarians like Ron Paul.
And if we don’t coalesce around and support one of the three remaining pro-life, pro-family, pro-country conservatives very soon, our split conservative vote will stick us with Romney as our Republican nominee and consequently stick us with Obama for a second term. Our only prayer will then be that we vote in a veto proof congress, but with a disenchanted, disenfranchised conservative base that’s probably not happening either so we’ll be pretty much stuck.
It’s going to be a helluva four years.
Run Sarah Run!!!!
There is not and there is no cohesive force to create one.
The Tea Party is therefore not a relevant factor
There is then the House of Representatives. The influence is and relevance is greater there and can be an influencing factor when all three branches are Republican controlled.
Check out this link ... at the bottom of it is the link to part 1, which covers his college days ... part 1 is rather short. Read the ‘squire September edition’ ... the first interview of his wife of 18 years ... it is a bit long but worth reading to the end of it. Especially if you are seriously thinking of backing Newt.
Being a futurist is good.
That is precisely what is needed. We need a leader who can and will look out over the side of the rut and see far down the road. Staying in the rut is ridiculous but that is what many want.
No change is the wrong way to go forward. The future can and must be molded by a plan to go forward. To try to stay in the 60’s is to die.
The choice is simple...... a smaller government with no deficit and reducing debt in a changing world where there is going to be intense competition or the change being implemented by the Messiah and his Marxist associates.
Standing pat and dying is not a choice . To insist on such a course is to lose. It will not be allowed.
Agreed ... however to make the jump to One World Government is not going to be the answer either. Nor do we choose to bow to international law made by the United Nations ... (the UN ... usually nothing).
So far the ideas of the United Nations owning some of our parks (under Bill Clinton) has gone somewhat under cover.
The next step will be to own our land and there will be no private property owned by individuals.
Wake up this step by step incretmentalism is going to cover us over. It will all be under the auspices of the UN. Imagine that. How futurist are you willing to go?
As for me and my house we will serve the LORD.
Agree 100%. Our republic is gone if the Marxist Muslim usurper gets back in.
I don’t post much outside of a few comments - and truth be told I’m not a Republican as I refuse to put any party before my country, but let me put something out there and see what kind of response i get.
How many TEA type or other conservative group leaders are on this board? Is there any chance that we could have a private thread with just them caucusing amongst themselves in combination with Jim?
As a result of this caucus a release is then made that we would support any of the 3 conservatives (Gingerich, Perry, Santorum - alphabetical not preference) should they be chosen; but that the herein listed (with groups and or affiliations denoting position) recommend A in order to consolidate the conservative vote to prevent a Romney or Insane-Man capture of the nomination.
As part of the release a set of columns listing ABC grades for each major area of concern (economy/defense/foreign policy/taxation/illegal aliens/social issues/etc) could be listed for the 3 and demonstrating why that was the resulting consensus.
Then at the bottom a line that says while we expect each voter to exercise their independence and conscience we the aforementioned endorse X in order to prevent a total meltdown destruction of the conservative values of the party - heck you could even tick off the current party platform for the grade columns I suppose.
To go a bit further a step out to other conservative sites that aren’t following the Romney-is-inevitable meme could be added as well, but frankly this is the best known conservative discussion site so I don’t see a need to do that if it is too difficult or doesn’t feel right.
It’s just a thought - as I said I’m not nor will I ever be a party member, but It’s how I would try to draw a consensus between functions and personnel in the companies I’ve worked in where there are differing goals and objectives.
I realize that it isn’t work that I would have to do - though sense I suggested it and I’m not a repub nor claim a party at any primary I’d be open to attempting to act as a referee. (I hate the word facilitator).
My guess would be that if the personnel are easily rounded up it could be accomplished by Florida with the official announcements etc - I’m sure that the establishment types would pooh-pooh it, but I think the majority want to know what some of the real ground working conservative leaders think and it would be more influential then say mcstain, etc to the everyday Joe.
Sorry if I’ve overstepped I know I’m more of a poster-of-opportunity, but I’m watching this and concerned that it’ll go to Romney if something additional isn’t done.
(I don my general quarters gear and await the shelling to come)
Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:21:59 PM · 432 of 774
BuckeyeTexan to darrellmaurina: “Bump that.”
Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:28:16 PM · 436 of 774
simplesimon to darrellmaurina: “That was amazing ~ Thank you.”
Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:14:59 PM · 469 of 774
cracker45 to darrellmaurina: “Thank you! I agree with your sentiments about absolute truth, right and wrong, etc. Some things are non-negotiable, which is likely why I could never be a successful politician, lawyer or diplomat, not that I have ever wanted to be one of those!”
Unfortunately, you're probably right. I can just imagine Bill Clinton sitting and thinking, “Hey, I could never get away with asking Hillary for an open marriage... I'd get hit with another lamp and maybe the Secret Service wouldn't show up in time to save me.”
Now that a Bible Belt state like South Carolina has shown it's willing to vote for a multiple adulterer and do so by a wide margin, Gingrich has probably proved his electability in the South. I don't know how he did it, but he did, and in the spirit of Jim Robinson's warning that we need to stop the circular firing squad and destroying ourselves, we're probably going to have to accept Gingrich as the main conservative Republican alternative to Mitt Romney.
The next few primaries, many of which are in Southern states, are likely to cement Gingrich's lead as the main alternative to Romney unless something even worse comes out of Gingrich's background, and I can't imagine anything worse than the open marriage accusations. If that happens, we as conservatives need to sit down and have some really hard discussions about how we're going to handle being the party of family values if Gingrich is the nominee and is running against Obama, who will focus on all his work to strengthen black families.
I don't know how Gingrich won South Carolina, but he did it, and elections have consequences.
Let's try to prepare for them this time instead of flying by the seat of our pants. I'm not ready to throw in the towel and surrender a role for Christian conservatives in the Republican Party, but we've got some really hard work to do in the next few months.
763 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:11:38 PM by Excellence: “To say that what Romney did to businesses is capitalism is to say that what homosexual pedophiles priests did to alter boys is Catholicism. I dont think so.”
Can’t support the parallel here.
What Romney did to businesses may well have been awful rapacious robber-baron capitalism, and definitely was politically stupid for a future politician, but it was legal. What pedophile priests did was illegal according to the laws of both man and God.
There’s a difference.
As much as I object to Romney’s views, I will defend the right of owners to do what they want with their private property. If they run for office, I can and will take a hard look at how they managed their businesses and ask if their use of their private property was appropriate.
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.