Posts by MaxFlint

Brevity: Headers | « Text »

    11/19/2012 8:47:52 AM PST · 48 of 84
    MaxFlint to xzins
    1. They tell us that Romney lost a chunk of his base.

    2. They tell us that he ran a lousy campaign.

    3. They tell us he was the wrong candidate.

    All true and I'd add 4. They tell us that the lack of enthusiasm for Romney hobbled his campaign, denying it the ground troops necessary for an effective GOTV operation. That was what I was afraid of when I saw not just the apathy of most regular Republicans toward the candidate but the open hatred for Romney by a substantial minority of the conservative movement. The people (like me, for example) who grudgingly pulled the lever for Mitt didn't have the heart to volunteer, donate money or do anything more than the bare minimum.

    The same seemed to be true for the Democratic base, but as mentioned above he started far enough ahead that he could afford the losses. Mitt couldn't.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/19/2012 8:30:42 AM PST · 280 of 304
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    If we are giving people the right to use certain substances then it stands to reason that addiction ought to be their responsibility. As it stands, that’s not the case. Insofar as WA funds addiction clinics that are funded by Obamacare - what goes on in WA is federal concern. This is why Obamacare is a game changer. If people in Texas are funding treatment centres in WA - then people in Texas have a say as to whether they legalize pot.

    Is pot more or less addictive than alcohol? Your argument would justify a nanny state worse than any that exists at present, which has always been my argument against all forms of national health care.

    Maybe you should devote your activism to fighting Obamacare instead of trying to facilitate its most authoritarian implications.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/19/2012 8:25:31 AM PST · 278 of 304
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    Did you miss these four words? You seem to believe these are separate battles- they, are not. They are one and the same.

    Everything is connected but some things are a lot more connected than others.

    Grow houses in Washington state are only slightly connected to the drug war at the border. And the impact of that connection could go either way. Could be that legal domestic production will reduce demand for imports, reducing the violence. Could be that legal production will increase demand by legitimizing marijuana use, causing increased violence as profits rise.

    Of course complete legalization nationally would eliminate the profit margins of illegal importers, but that would be against the conservative principles of the Food and Drug Administration.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/19/2012 8:04:23 AM PST · 274 of 304
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    Being on the front lines is very different from being sheltered behind them. Texas is trafficking central. It doesn’t help us keep drugs out of America when the present Federal government has no interest in securing the border.

    The border is a war zone and should be treated as such. It should be defended with every weapon at our disposal.

    What does that have to do with a grow house in Washington?

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/19/2012 7:47:45 AM PST · 271 of 304
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    Drop the pro abort, pro gay marriage and pro drugs stance and you’re welcome to join the cause.

    Libertarians aren't conservatives. They don't want to join your cause.

    I'm not a libertarian, but I support any reduction in penalties for marijuana use on conservative grounds. Severely penalizing pot isn't justifiable based on costs and benefit analysis. Like almost everything people do for recreation it has negative consequences, but when you start regulating minor vices you end up with Bloomberg's New York trying to tax snacks. Regulating pot is a waste of money.

    Abortion, on the other hand, is murder and preventing murder is a central and essential purpose of government.

    At the rate things are decaying we'll be lucky to keep the GOP pro-life. If you don't like losing I'd start thinking of ways to get the pro-life, more reasonable Ron Paul people on board for 2016 instead of looking for more reasons to split the right.

  • There Will be a Deal: We'll Never Reach the Fiscal Cliff, And It Wouldn't Matter If We Did

    11/19/2012 7:33:27 AM PST · 16 of 23
    MaxFlint to Sgt_Schultze
    Once the rest of the world flees our debt auctions entirely, it will be mandated that your private 401k or pension invest, say 25% of its value, in government bonds.

    That will delay bankruptcy by a year or two, while destroying the 401k system and causing a backlash at the polls.

    It's easier to continue monetizing debt, and lazy, timid politicians always choose the easy way out.

  • There Will be a Deal: We'll Never Reach the Fiscal Cliff, And It Wouldn't Matter If We Did

    11/19/2012 7:27:47 AM PST · 14 of 23
    MaxFlint to ZULU

    One of the consequences of the election is continuing Republican control of the House. We didn’t elect them to abstain and let the Dems roll over us, we elected them to obstruct Obama’s agenda.

    As bad as the deals they’re going to make are, just giving up would be even worse. Voters don’t take kindly to temper tantrums. Especially tantrums that result in large tax increases.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/17/2012 7:09:56 AM PST · 176 of 304
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    Since, as you assert, gay marriage, drug legalization and abortion are not essential parts of what it means to be a libertarian - libertarians ought to be willing to concede these issues to conservatives.

    The crux of the abortion issue is human life. If unborn babies are human then libertarian philosophy is anti-abortion. Pro-abortion libertarians make the same arguments that pro-abortion Democrats make, that the unborn aren't really human.

    Ironically the most hated libertarian on FR, Ron Paul, is anti-abortion.

    Libertarians usually claim gay marriage is just a contract. This is a far more radical stand than that taken by liberals, who limit their ambition to giving homosexuals the right to marry each other and be subject to the same obligations and responsibilities as normal married couples, at least for now. The libertarian approach would immediately allow for polygamy and every other variation, as well as temporary "marriage" and prostitution.

    Drug legalization, however, is the one issue where all libertarians agree. If they repealed all federal drug laws the next step would be to repeal all state drug laws, as well as any local regulations.

    With pot this would have few negative side effects. Heroin, that's a horse of a different color.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/17/2012 6:48:20 AM PST · 175 of 304
    MaxFlint to KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
    REPUBLICANS are still asking themselves why Mitt Romney lost.

    CONSERVATIVES, on the other hand, already know why Mitt Romney lost.

    Do we? I'm not so sure. Maybe Romney lost because the people that voted for McCain in 2008 and stayed home this time were principled conservatives who wouldn't vote for a Massachusetts liberal. But how do you prove that theory? There are no exit polls of people who didn't show up to vote.

    As for what started this discussion, there's no reason to believe that every libertarian would have voted for Romney if there were no Libertarian Party. The socially liberal ones might have voted for Obama based on abortion or gay marriage.

    The conservative minor parties didn't get enough votes to make a difference.

    It may be that Romney lost because he was too conservative for an increasingly liberal country, or because Wall Street's reputation is tarnished after the financial meltdown, or because Obama gives a better speech.

    If there's any hard evidence favoring one theory over another I'd love to see it.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/16/2012 1:20:36 PM PST · 127 of 304
    MaxFlint to GlockThe Vote
    All Romney had to do get the paul people on board was repudiate the NDAA, say he was for full audit of the Fed, F Bernake, and maybe say RP would get a position in his Admn.

    Paul is too extreme to appoint to any normal Republican administration, but auditing the fed and opposing NDAA would have helped. But we know why that would never happen. The same big money interests that wanted Romney nominated are all for the Fed, unaccountable federal police power, the degradation of human life, the abolition of Christianity, a borderless world and a huge big spending federal government larding out goodies to connected business interests.

    Because Santorum and Newt aren't on board with the entire GOPe agenda they weren't getting any bones either.

    And worst of all, the people who foisted Romney on us don't even care that he lost. Obama is just as much a globalist as he is.

    Whoever wins, we lose.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/16/2012 8:11:05 AM PST · 102 of 304
    MaxFlint to GlockThe Vote
    Had Romney not agreed w the NDAA alone he would have gotten a lot of RP people.

    Yes, that and any number of minor concessions would have done it. Just a signal that he'd throw a bone. That's how you build coalitions.

  • Math-Challenged Silly People Voting Libertarian Cost GOP Victory in At Least 9 Congressional Races

    11/16/2012 7:59:28 AM PST · 96 of 304
    MaxFlint to Reaganite Republican

    To the extent that libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot (which accounts for at least 1/4 of the libertarian vote) they might have been won over by as small a concession as endorsing legalization of medical marijuana.

    Libertarians are divided on abortion, though you wouldn’t know it reading the think tank libertarians, so dropping the Republican prolife plank would lose as many libertarians as it would gain. The biggest libertarian website is prolife.

    It’s ridiculous to blame Romney’s defeat on libertarians. While it’s true Johnson did better than any Libertarian Party candidate since Ed Clark his votes did not account for the margin of defeat in any swing state.

  • Where to Adjust, Where to Stand Firm

    11/16/2012 7:14:17 AM PST · 8 of 12
    MaxFlint to Kaslin

    Strong majorities oppose amnesty. If we’re going to start backpedaling better to do it on issues that won’t give us 15 million more Democrat voters. Maybe we need to think about the least popular issue embraced by the right, so-called free trade, which wrecked the rust belt, the very place where Romney was crushed. Reagan protected the auto industry with quotas and it didn’t hurt him in 1984.

    Then there are the issues that contradict each other. Do we want a robust war on terror and the capability to fight and occupy in three theatres at once or do we want fiscal restraint?

    If House Republicans agreed to a deficit reduction deal where they allowed more defense cuts it wouldn’t cost them much politically. But that would require coming to terms with the fact that we’re flat out broke, something neither side wants to acknowledge.

    When Fred Barnes was promoting big government “conservatism” to enable massive overseas nation building projects he neglected the problem of paying for it all if domestic spending not only continued unabated, but grew even faster as Bush doubled down with more Medicare goodies.

    Now we reap the harvest, politically as a party and fiscally as a nation.

  • Christie facing GOP storm

    11/13/2012 7:50:27 AM PST · 42 of 92
    MaxFlint to concerned about politics

    The RINOs didn’t choose Romney because he was a liberal northeastern governor. They chose him because he was the most electable RINO available, tried and tested in 2008 and with his own money to sweeten the pot if anyone expressed doubts.

    Christie will never get to where Romney was in 2008 if he runs in 2016. He’ll be Jon Huntsman, out after New Hampshire.

  • Mark Levin to Karl Rove: ‘Get the off the stage already, will you pal?’

    11/13/2012 7:26:33 AM PST · 8 of 101
    MaxFlint to CaptainKrunch

    Rove should have been sent packing after the 2006 disaster. He’s the Dick Morris of the Republican party.

  • Alert: Immigration sellout underway?

    11/13/2012 7:11:42 AM PST · 38 of 42
    MaxFlint to dila813

    No deals. Illegals are criminals. You don’t get a reward for being a criminal.

  • Obama's Brilliant Victory

    11/13/2012 6:59:19 AM PST · 35 of 41
    MaxFlint to Steelfish
    Romney failed to endorse existing Republican proposals -- Rick Perry's or Marco Rubio's version of the Dream Act

    I stopped reading there. Any Republican columnist who thinks amnesty is the answer is part of the problem.

  • Progressive Evangelicals’ Epic Fail

    11/13/2012 6:18:02 AM PST · 3 of 8
    MaxFlint to Tennessee Nana
  • Obama wins Fla., topping Romney in final tally

    11/10/2012 12:00:05 PM PST · 83 of 145
    MaxFlint to Mr Ramsbotham
  • Obama wins Fla., topping Romney in final tally

    11/10/2012 11:21:26 AM PST · 50 of 145
    MaxFlint to Mr Ramsbotham
    What did the third-party vote amount to?

    In Florida?


    Johnson / Gray 44,684 0.53%


    Stevens / Link 3,855 0.05%

    Constitution Party

    Goode / Clymer 2,602 0.03%

    Those are the "right" leaning third parties. I won't bother pasting the Green Party and Rosanne Barr results because they wouldn't have gone to Romney, obviously. The right leaning third party votes weren't enough to swing the election. Florida, 2012

  • 7 Things The GOP Needs To Do To Start Turning It Around

    11/10/2012 8:35:25 AM PST · 127 of 168
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    Again, if someone had come to you in February and told you that Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain - would you have believed him?

    The analysis you are basing this assumption on - was 100 percent false. We were told that Romney was electable. All the FReepers hollering that Romney would be a disaster - they were right.

    Santorum couldn't win reelection in his own state, why do you assume he would have done better than Romney? Oh, and Romney got more electoral votes than McCain.

  • 7 Things The GOP Needs To Do To Start Turning It Around

    11/10/2012 8:25:24 AM PST · 122 of 168
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    Since the majority of the population supports socialism - would you vote for the socialist candidate as a nominee in the hopes of winning the election?

    I supported Newt and then Romney, so yes, I have and would.

  • 7 Things The GOP Needs To Do To Start Turning It Around

    11/10/2012 8:20:37 AM PST · 121 of 168
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    As for Newt - Santorum kicked his ass in the primaries.

    As for Santorum - Romney kicked his butt in the primaries.

    'Nuff said!

  • What religious voter demographics re-elected Obama? (& is it relevant if Mitt's Mormonism wasn't?]

    11/10/2012 8:17:28 AM PST · 32 of 38
    MaxFlint to OldRanchHand
    However, it’s disingenuous to think Romney’s faith didn’t play a role. Just think back to the daily diatribe of anti-Mormon articles and vanities posted here every day during the primaries.

    FR is hardly a pro-Mormon site but I'd wager 99% of Freepers voted for Romney. I've seen no evidence that Romney did worse with conservative Christians than McCain.

  • 7 Things The GOP Needs To Do To Start Turning It Around

    11/10/2012 7:59:19 AM PST · 117 of 168
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    So why do you support abortion in the case of rape and incest?

    Politics. I support candidates who make an exception for rape and incest for the same reason I support candidates who are in favor of Social Security. To call for what I'd like, the immediate elimination of all entitlements, is political suicide. Just like calling for a complete ban on abortion would be. So I compromise.

  • 7 Things The GOP Needs To Do To Start Turning It Around

    11/10/2012 7:49:24 AM PST · 116 of 168
    MaxFlint to JCBreckenridge
    why does Romney always get a pass for being a crappy candidate?

    Because the alternatives were even worse. In January 2012 we had no great choices. There's no reason to believe that the only two viable conservative candidates that survived Iowa and New Hampshire, Gingrich and Santorum, would have done any better than Romney and many reasons to believe they would have done worse.

    Romney was and is better looking than Gingrich. This is the kind of thing that drives serious political activists all across the political landscape crazy, and it matters far more than ideas. Gingrich is too troll-like to be president, Christie is too fat, Ron Paul is too goofy and Dennis Kucinich is too short. That's true even before you start looking at their ideas.

    Santorum was OK as far as appearance, but his mannerisms were awkward and dorky. Admittedly Romney suffered from this dorky problem as well, but he had other advantages over Santorum.

    When two candidates who are well matched in superficial factors go head to head issues become important, and on the issues Santorum's focus and strong stands on social issues were wrong for this campaign. On defense Santorum was too much of a hawk and on spending he was too liberal. Santorum's best issue was his firm opposition to Obamacare, but that wasn't enough.

    As for Gingrich, he had more problems than his appearance. While he was probably the most intelligent candidate running, and the best debater, his personal life was a train wreck. The religious conservative voters he absolutely needed to win were unimpressed by his series of marriages ending in adultery. In his personal life Romney the Massachusetts liberal was far more conservative than Gingrich the southern conservative.

    But the collapse of Cain and the failure of Gingrich point to something worse than their personal flaws. With personal morality declining across the board we may be approaching the point where there are almost no viable candidates who haven't cheated on their wives, two timed on their girlfriends, paid for abortions, or dragged their wives to swinger's clubs (we can thank Ryan's hijinks in that department for Senator Obama's rise).

    Of course it would be possible to adopt a more European attitude towards these things, which would give us more candidates to choose from.

    This presents any conservative voter with an uncomfortable choice. Do you stand against the moral decline by rejecting any candidate who is less than pure or do you support the person who can win even if they're a scoundrel?

    But back to Romney's candidacy. As badly as Romney did it could have been worse. We'd be in a weaker position today if Santorum had been nominated and lost in a landslide. Based on his weakness in the primaries that would have been the outcome.

    Gingrich might have done better than Santorum, but could he have done better than the well funded, moderate, taller, better looking Mitt Romney?


  • Conservatives and Romney work at working together

    06/11/2012 10:44:07 AM PDT · 163 of 166
    MaxFlint to svcw
    Now just when was that Romney stopped being a liberal?

    When he decided to run for president. It's one of those amazing coincidences.

  • Conservatives and Romney work at working together

    06/11/2012 10:40:19 AM PDT · 162 of 166
    MaxFlint to Ohioan
    There are enough intelligent Conservatives right here, at Free Republic, to turn America around, if we simply use our intelligence, rather than our anger.

    We couldn't get a conservative nominee for president in the Republican party. What makes you think we can turn the country around?

    Based on the election results the majority of Republicans are not FR style Reaganite conservatives. Some are moderates, a few are libertarians, a much larger group are people who don't like high taxes but don't care about abortion or homosexuality one way or the other, and the remainder are Reagan conservatives and social issues conservatives. Because the more balanced Reagan conservatives (who combine social and fiscal conservatism along with supporting a strong national defense) can't agree with the purely social conservatives they haven't been able to nominate anyone since George W. Bush, and even he was weak on fiscal conservatism.

    In congress one thing we need to remember is that there are states where only a moderate or liberal Republican can win. We should not campaign against people like Scott Brown or Olympia Snow if they're the nominee. Sometimes that's the best you can do.

    I will grant you one thing, if a strong conservative leader came forward he could move the country to the right the way Reagan did, but that means getting in the arena with a well financed, professional campaign. Complaining and arguing here won't do it.

  • Conservatives and Romney work at working together

    06/11/2012 7:41:55 AM PDT · 157 of 166
    MaxFlint to altura
    I estimate maybe 30 freepers who take turns posting anti-Romney stuff and sucking all the joy out of the universe. There are far more people who disagree with you but don’t want to get caught up in fighting with people who have no interest in reason.

    I still think 99% of freepers will vote for Romney. That 99% includes all conservative readers, not just recent posters. Among recent posters as many as 10% might vote third party, write in or leave it blank. Unless all of them live in swing states there's no chance they'll throw the election to Obama, so I wouldn't worry about it.

    On the general question of why we're stuck with a less than conservative nominee, there's a myth on FR that the people are conservative, that the country is moving right. It's not that simple. On taxes and spending Republicans are moving right and have been since 2005 or so. Democrats are moving left on taxes but so far they're being blocked by Republicans. On abortion the country is moving slightly to the right. On gay rights we're losing badly. On defense spending things are moving slightly left. On the war on terror the country has turned hard left, which IMHO is why we're stuck with Obama. He was elected to end the war in Iraq.

    A conservative who satisfied the social, fiscal and defense conservatives on FR would lose in a landslide.

    But I don't have to argue this point with a lot of polling, it's obvious from the most meaningful polls, elections.

    If the country is moving to the right why did the country elect a Democratic congress in 2006, and the most liberal Democrat president ever in 2008?

    For that matter if the country is moving to the right why did Republican primary voters choose moderates McCain and Romney in 2008 and 2012?

  • Conservative-GOP marriage over?

    05/08/2012 6:20:00 AM PDT · 116 of 173
    MaxFlint to onyx
    The best candidate doesn’t always win.

    The best campaign does, (ruthless as it just may be, and his was).

    That sums up the whole thing.

    Romney had the resources to run a national campaign. Gingrich and Santorum were outmatched by Romney in organization and cash. I knew Gingrich was in big trouble when he lost most of his staff in 2011. Not getting on the Virginia ballot when there was a simple procedure to guarantee you'd be on it (submit 15000 signatures), which Paul and Romney did, was an even bigger misstep. Especially when your whole plan to win is based on a southern strategy.

    That's the kind of problem underfunded, disorganized campaigns have. Wacky Paul, with no chance of being nominated and his cult followers paying the bills, was able to get on the ballot in every primary held to date.

    I credit this to experience. Romney and Paul went through this before. This was Gingrich and Santorum's first run. If they try again in 2016 they'll do better.

  • Conservative-GOP marriage over?

    05/08/2012 6:03:11 AM PDT · 112 of 173
    MaxFlint to papertyger
    ...what SCOTUS decision in living memory has moved our society overtly to the right over the objections and efforts of the left?

    D.C. v. Heller.

  • Are you an ABO like me PO'd at JR for getting called a RINO? Truce declared! Please DONATE!

    05/06/2012 4:20:51 PM PDT · 365 of 1,343
    MaxFlint to P-Marlowe
    If the Republican "Anybody but Obama" was a Koran thumping Muslim, would you campaign for him and vote for him out of your fear of another 4 years of Obama?

    No, because we are at war with "the religion of peace" whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

    Mormons are not at present engaged in a global terrorist plot to destroy Europe and the United States.

    Meanwhile back in the real world there is some evidence that Barack Obama is or was at one point a Muslim.

    So among the two people who can win that's your choice, Mormon or possible secret Muslim.

    This is not a difficult choice.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/06/2012 8:37:38 AM PDT · 1,385 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to CharacterCounts
    I respect your thoughts,but where will the pressure come from? Do you think the Democrats will run a candidate who is to the right of an incumbent Romney in 2016.

    Pressure will come from Republican voters who oppose RINO priorities like tax increases and amnesty.

    Bush backed down on Harriet Miers because of conservative pressure and Bush was a thousand times more stubborn than old Etch-o-sketch will be.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/04/2012 2:35:43 PM PDT · 813 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to CharacterCounts
    Sure, but if Romney wins, we are guaranteed to have a left winger in the White House for at least 8 more years.

    Romney's actions as governor of Massachusetts can be explained two ways. Either he's a left winger or he's an opportunist. We know he's a liar. Leftists and opportunists both lie, so knowing he lies doesn't resolve the question.

    An opportunist has no principles and will govern based on public opinion polls and lobbying. The United States is not a left wing country, so a man hoping to be reelected president would face different pressures than a man governing one of the most liberal states.

    Since we know Obama is a leftist while we only suspect Romney may be one there's a chance, however small, that Romney will govern to the right of Obama.

    That's my endorsement.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/04/2012 2:29:11 PM PDT · 803 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to JRandomFreeper
    I'm going to keep working to refuse the nomination to Romney.

    Good luck, FRiend. As I said before, if you can still vote for Newt or Santorum in your primary you should. That will send a message, and if enough people did it, deny Romney delegates.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/04/2012 2:14:00 PM PDT · 784 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to JRandomFreeper
    Newt doesn't have to win. He has to keep Romney from locking up enough undisputed delegates to secure the nomination. And then it goes to the floor. And from there, anything can happen.

    I would love nothing more than for that to happen. Even though it would probably damage the nominee's chances and lead to a Goldwater scale debacle it would be the greatest show on Earth.

    But I wouldn't bet on it.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/04/2012 2:07:26 PM PDT · 779 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to Finny
    Obama is beatable even if he's re-elected

    How? Will he be thrown out by the courts? He hasn't been so far. Will he be impeached and convicted in the senate?

    Republicans couldn't accomplish that with Clinton and they had DNA proof of perjury.

    If Obama wins odds are he serves another four full years.

    Don't try to minimize it with pie in the sky hopes.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/04/2012 1:54:22 PM PDT · 765 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to JRandomFreeper
    Just trying be be realistic here, but Texas (along with other states) hasn't voted in the primary, and I expect Gingrich will be on the ballot for the primary.

    Has a candidate who suspended his campaign ever gone on to win a primary? Not asking rhetorically, I don't know the answer.

  • Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

    05/04/2012 1:21:06 PM PDT · 728 of 1,525
    MaxFlint to JRandomFreeper
    I'm not willing to make presumptions or call a game in the 3rd quarter. Romney still doesn't have enough uncontested delegates to wrap up the nomination.

    Gingrich and Santorum have suspended their campaigns. It was probably a done deal when Santorum suspended. He was the only conservative who had any success in beating Romney.

    It's over. Now it's a choice between Obama, Romney and whatever small party candidates get on the presidential ballot in your state.

    As for write in votes, they're almost never reported on, and in some elections I've seen them classified as "other" with no public record of who the protest votes went to. If you do a write in you really are throwing away your vote.

    Not trying to be a downer here, but we have to be realists about our options.

  • Let's put this to bed. We have bigger fish to fry.

    04/27/2012 3:26:11 PM PDT · 830 of 2,335
    MaxFlint to Jim Robinson

    That Romney is the nominee after creating Romneycare is proof that a liar can buy the nomination regardless of his record. Giuliani’s mistake was telling the truth about what he was.

    My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that Romney will lose for much the same reason that McCain lost. You can’t win without the base.

  • Let's put this to bed. We have bigger fish to fry.

    04/27/2012 3:07:16 PM PDT · 806 of 2,335
    MaxFlint to Jim Robinson

    I’m worried that this excellent site will collapse. I’m worried that Obama will get another four years to destroy our country. I worry a lot these days. :(

    And I basically agree about Romney. He seemed conservative in 2008 against McLame, but that was when I knew almost nothing about him.

    What a mess.

  • Let's put this to bed. We have bigger fish to fry.

    04/27/2012 2:53:22 PM PDT · 785 of 2,335
    MaxFlint to onyx

    Unfortunately that policy leaves very little to discuss on FR regarding the presidential election, a subject of considerable interest to most of us. I will respect the rules, after all it’s Jim’s property, but those rules are going to reduce the number of comments and Freepers substantially.

  • Let's put this to bed. We have bigger fish to fry.

    04/27/2012 2:36:11 PM PDT · 773 of 2,335
    MaxFlint to onyx

    I can read, that’s why I’m not campaigning for He Who Must Not Be Named.

    But 99% of conservatives are going to vote for the Dark Lord regardless of what FR says.

  • Let's put this to bed. We have bigger fish to fry.

    04/27/2012 1:53:20 PM PDT · 731 of 2,335
    MaxFlint to jveritas
    Here is some news for those who want to ban the members of this forum who want to vote for Romney and defeat Obama: 90% of Republicans and Conservatives are going to walk on broken glass to defeat Obama and vote for Romney.

    More like 99%, I'd guess.

    I've kept my peace regarding the primary this time around because my opinions weren't welcome. I like Newt but I had serious doubts about his ability to be nominated, and if nominated his ability to beat Obama. I figured expressing doubts about Newt wouldn't be prudent, and besides, I didn't oppose him, and who knew? Maybe he had a shot. One could hope, anyway. But that's water under the bridge.

    During the primary conservative supporters of Newt and Santorum were a large contingent, and once it was down to the final four Newt and Rick were absolutely the last conservatives standing.

    But now the primary is all but over. No question, anyone who supports Newt or Rick who can vote for them in the remaining primaries (assuming they are still on the ballot) should do so. That is a message worth sending to the RINOs.

    But in the general election it's ABO, and the only ABO candidate who can beat O is Mitt. From this and other threads it looks like even here most people share this viewpoint.

    But where does that leave FR? Most conservatives desperately want to be rid of Obama and all his evil cronies. It's not about whether Romney is conservative, no one really believes that, it's whether he's as bad as Obama.

    I don't think he is. So you can deduce my vote from that.

    It's hard to see how FR survives if any support for the only available choice that can beat Obama results in removal.

    If nothing changes it's going to be really lonely around here on election day.

  • Ron Paul on Eliot Spitzer: He acted badly but didn't deserve this

    03/15/2008 11:55:19 AM PDT · 173 of 346
    MaxFlint to BlackElk
    Al Qaeda's spokesthing in Congress will be around for another two years as a continued embarrassment to America and to the GOP caucus. Well, at least the old anti-American bastard is 72 years old and cannot have much Congressional time left. It IS still possible that he might be offered the opportunity to run as Cynthia McKinney's running mate on the moonbat ticket.

    I suspect the Republican party bigshots are secretly very happy that Paul won his primary, no matter what they might whisper to anti-Paul reporters and columnists. If Paul had lost the primary the odds that he'd run as a third party candidate would be much higher. Ron Paul could easily do to McCain in 2008 what Nader did to Gore in 2000.

    Ironically Chris Peden's victory is the absolute worst thing that could have happened if you're a supporter of the war in Iraq.

  • Ron Paul on Eliot Spitzer: He acted badly but didn't deserve this

    03/15/2008 11:41:21 AM PDT · 166 of 346
    MaxFlint to John D
    What are they? [Paul's good ideas]

    Abolishing the income tax is so good that I can overlook almost anything else. Returning to gold based money is another great idea, one Reagan believed in but was talked out of pushing by the Baker/Bush wing.

    I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Departments of Education and Energy either.

    As for Paul's analysis of Spitzer, Paul is wrong about entrapment, but right about these transaction reporting laws.

    If I want to take out $10,000 in cash to spend on whatever it's nobody's business but my own. It's my money.

  • Simple Math for McCain...Really

    03/13/2008 8:14:26 AM PDT · 62 of 126
    MaxFlint to PSYCHO-FREEP
    There were indications in ‘06 that things were changing, in several surveys done by Quinnipiac, etc,,, that an entire generation of highly motivated and political young voters, had suddenly emerged. (Coined “The Least Republican Generation.”) had appeared on the scene.
    Countless Conservatives refused to believe it, that is until the elections were over and there was much despair and disbelief as to what and why this happened.

    There's still no consensus here on why it happened. I think it was the war energizing the left wing vote and the lack of any substantial conservative accomplishments suppressing the right wing vote.

    McCain is the poster boy for both.

    My advice to GOP loyalists is invest in liquor this November.

  • Simple Math for McCain...Really

    03/13/2008 8:04:30 AM PDT · 57 of 126
    MaxFlint to bmweezer

    McCain’s only chance of winning is a Democrat fumble. If Clinton tries some underhanded stunt at the convention and manages to wrest the nomination away from Obama the Democrat base will be more depressed than the Republican base is by their weak nominee.

    That is assuming there’s no conservative third party candidate to take votes from McCain. In that scenario McCain can’t possibly win.

  • McCain gets conservative grassroots support when...

    03/05/2008 11:42:51 AM PST · 262 of 354
    MaxFlint to End Times Crusader
    Conservatives have brought this on themselves with their little tantrum in 2006 as well as their continued push for extreme measures as well as their divisive rhetoric in dealing with our immigration situation.

    Amnesty will shift america to the left permanantly. You can't win a permanant low wage underclass, an underclass imported by the financial interests in order to keep wages low, to conservatism. If their wages ever start to increase the same people who brought us amnesty today will bring us another amnesty tomorrow. Each year poverty will increase and the majority of american workers will see the real purchasing power of their dollars erode.

    It's not just the immigrants who will vote Democrat under those circumstances. The american born working and middle class will abandon the party that betrayed them for the sake of pandering to corporate america.

  • McCain gets conservative grassroots support when...

    03/05/2008 11:34:06 AM PST · 261 of 354
    MaxFlint to End Times Crusader
    Amnesty, a pathway to citizenship, legalization, whatever you want to call it is going to happen no matter who gets in or what the right wing nuts want. It’s inevitable. Get over it and move on. We have a War on Terror to win.

    You're making no sense. No war has ever been won by a nation that doesn't defend its own borders.

    Amnesty amounts to unconditional surrender.