Free Republic

The situation looks that bleak to me as well. Ultimately, I do hope that we will have some kind of revolution that will return this country to one of which we can be proud. Part of making that return will require some reassessment on the part of many who had considered themselves “patriots,” “conservatives,” and other good kinds of good Americans. While I have no doubt that the election was taken by fraud, Mr. Romney received fewer votes than John McCain received four years ago. We have no excuse for that, and those who refused to vote for Mr. Romney for whatever reason have destroyed this country as surely as if they were shredding the Constitution with their own hands. If we ever have a hope of restoration, we must be willing to open a big tent rather than a small one. We must stand on principles, but we must not define that stand so narrowly that we can never include enough people to govern “with the consent of the governed.” Fourteen years ago, Free Republic was a great place to gather conservatives and near conservatives of all kinds. Every election since then has resulted in more and more purges so that little is left. If we can resurrect the USA that we all knew, we will need leadership that knows how to build and not just how to destroy.

Thank you for being a friend to me back in 2007 when I was still thinking about Mr. Romney but supporting another candidate. Today is a big day, and I hope all will go well.

Here are some questions and comments for Mitt Romney to use on Obama at opportune times.

1. How are you feeling? Is the altitude okay for you?

2. Hillary Clinton didn't pass along information about the need for increased security in Libya. Do you promise to communicate more closely so that this never happens again? Why should we believe you?

3. I have money, but when I've had a job, I've focused on that job rather than playing golf. In my free time, I've served others through my church and other organizations.

4. Will you ensure starting tomorrow that all members of the military receive their ballots in time to vote?

5. You wanted to change how people acted in government. Are you proud of how Biden acted last week?

Can you expound on exactly what the states can do to minimize the effects of these Rule Changes?

I don't want to minimize the effect of the rule changes. To me, giving the candidate some veto power over the delegates sent to the convention makes sense. We disagree over Mitt Romney, but let's go back to 2008 as an example.

Many people in the party hierarchy seemed to want Rudy Giuliani or John McCain to be our nominee as we went into the primary season. Rudy Giuliani lost too much momentum when he refused to participate in any contest before Florida, but let's assume that John McCain had health problems that kept him from running at all. If that had happened, Mike Huckabee might have won Iowa and South Carolina. If Rudy Giuliani had campaigned in New Hampshire, he might have won. Mitt Romney would have lost support quickly once Huckabee and Giuliani were splitting victories. Under those conditions, I could easily see many state GOP establishments hoping to seed their delegations with Giuliani supporters even if Mike Huckabee won the state. In that case, this kind of rule would help prevent the establishment from seeding delegations this way by giving Mike Huckabee veto power over delegates pledged to him. He'd pick delegates who would come to the convention willing to be loyal to him instead of people looking for an excuse to change their votes and give the nomination to Rudy Giuliani.

I realize that all sorts of people wanted an ugly floor fight this year to try to give the nomination to anyone but Mitt Romney. They spouted the usual "establishment" insults the way that liberals cry "racist" whenever they lose an argument. This year, these rules would be a hindrance to "conservatives" trying to derail Mitt Romney. Next time, the same rules may be all that saves a conservative from being derailed by someone more liberal.

You actually expect people to believe that nonsense?

I've spoken the truth. Whether anyone believes me or not is up to them. I've run into many fools who refuse to believe when I speak the truth.

I disagree with most of the opposition to these changes. Most of the opposition to these changes this time is coming from people who wanted to create a floor fight at the convention. The opposition seems to come from three groups. They are Ron Paul people who genuinely want a libertarian shift in the GOP, Ron Paul people who are really leftists supporting Paul to try to disrupt the GOP, and the foolish end of the conservative movement that wanted to remove Mitt Romney in favor of someone who failed to win the primaries. These people wanted to manipulate the system in order to create three days of chaos in Tampa. The outcome would either be a candidate of their choosing or a weakened Mitt Romney who would lose to Obama and allow them to continue their civil war fantasies. Having their schemes frustrated has left them angry about the rules, but that attitude is short sighted.

The rules that stopped them from derailing Mitt Romney this year could protect them in the future. If state parties quietly change their rules in the future to put more delegate choice under the power of the party hierarchy and less in the hands of voters, we could have a situation where a "Tea Party candidate" wins a state but is represented at the convention by "establishment" delegates chosen by the "establishment." The new rules would give the candidate some power to veto delegates who were clearly being sent to the convention as patsies for the state party hierarchy.

The whole controversy seems to be one more example of people trying to derail Mitt Romney's campaign.

I’m trying to decide whether this message means that the Mayans were right or the Mayans were wrong.

Not my problem that your party selected the wrong guy.

You're an example of those who put ego ahead of country.

Thank you for putting the country ahead of your ego. I’m sorry that more people around here won’t do that.

Getting rid of Salazar is one of the most important reasons to get rid of Obama.

Tin-foil condom alert!

I will make my purchase well in advance. I’m seriously considering getting a high-capacity handgun. I’ve always been a revolver fan, but I’m facing the reality that I may need something that I can shoot often and reload quickly.

Monitoring, restrictions on alcohol, and loss of Second Amendment rights would make sense if George Zimmerman were any kind of threat to public safety. I don’t deny that judges may reasonably impose those restrictions. I disagree that they are justified in this case. Given the threats made against Mr. Zimmerman, monitoring may only lead to someone finding and killing him. Taking away any chance for him to defend himself means that those who find him can kill him without risk. He shouldn’t spend his pre-trial period drunk, but if a beer or two will help him relax in this difficult time, his having a beer or two will not threaten public safety.

If I only have five shots, I want 12 gauge and not 28 gauge. I also want them coming out of a gun with the control that I’d get from a full-sized shotgun. If I’m going with a revolver in this situation, I’d at least want six shots of .357 magnum. Against 20 attackers, I’m not going to miss, and I want every shot to have the knockdown power of a .357. If I’m going to use a handgun, I want high capacity. The Trayvon Martin case may drive me to buy a 9mm.

If they hold the trial this year, the situation could get very interesting. October riots could energize some of Obama’s base, but those riots could also emphasize the poor state of the nation under Obama’s “leadership.” If the Obama administration handles the riots poorly, he’ll have his own “Hurricane Katrina” moment.

They’re the same folks who nominated Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle.

What they should have learned after nominating Christine O'Donnell is that losing with someone who represents your passions is still losing. If the TEA Party people had pushed a candidate more qualified and less confrontational than Christine O'Donnell but less liberal than Mike Castle, they might have won a Senate seat in a state that had been steadily Democrat for a long time. We probably wouldn't have wound up with someone who was perfectly conservative on every issue, but we would have picked up an important vote in the Senate for six years.

Newt Gingrich winning Delaware would be trivial. Even if he wins the state, the delegates will be free to vote however they choose if he’s not on the ballot at the convention. A few of them may want to start a floor fight, but most will want to see the nominee chosen on the first ballot. He’s a good guy, and I’d be happy to see him win one. He’s not going to be the nominee, and he’s not going to win enough delegates to force a floor fight at the convention.

I’m supporting Mitt Romney, but I agree that Rick Santorum has disqualified himself from further consideration.

If the current numbers hold, there’s a chance that Rick Santorum gets all 20 delegates on Saturday. To qualify for delegates in Saturday’s primary, a candidate must get 25% of the vote. With both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney below 25%, only Rick Santorum would receive delegates. If the 6% undecideds split evenly, all three will be over 25% and the delegate split is likely to be Santorum 8, Gingrich 6, and Romney 6. If Gingrich got out the race, the split would likely be Santorum 13 and Romney 7. If we are truly at the point where every delegate counts, then the extra delegate for Mitt Romney is probably more important than the increased margin for Rick Santorum. I’m sure that the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns are hoping that the final numbers are something like Santorum 40, Gingrich 27, and Romney 24. That ending would keep Mr. Romney from receiving any delegates. In this primary, Dr. Gingrich’s presence in the race certainly has the chance of taking delegates from Mitt Romney.

You only insure your future failure by this kind of rant. The lessons that you think you are learning from history are false, and your failure to pick up true lessons is why you keep losing. Let's hit some high points.

3)As in the past conservatives have simply not exercised their power of numbers to tip the scales towards a conservative candidate being chosen by the GOP. The facts are generally in each state primary/caucus from 3/5 to 2/3 of all voters (including independents and Democrats) tell exit pollsters they are conservative, the rest being liberal or moderates.

What you fail to realize is that you don't own the definition of the word "conservative." You and others sit here in your little echo chamber telling one another that a conservative has to agree with you on every little point to be classified as a conservative. When you see exit polls of a majority of people self-identifying as conservatives, you then jump to the conclusion that all of those people agree with you on each point of your definition of conservative. You think that someone just needs to gather them all together to win elections.

The whole situation would be funny if not so sad. You don't own the definition of "conservative." Plenty of people out here in the real world will self-identify as conservatives without agreeing with your defining points. These people couldn't care less that you think they are wrong to define themselves as conservatives even though they don't agree with you on what a conservative is. They are not your allies in your quest to have everything done your way. We all have to face this reality at one time or another. I'm just surprised that you and everyone else on here writing these rants hasn't faced this reality sooner.

9)And then there are the conservatives in the movement who are ready and willing to sell out their values and political principles and convictions in 2012 while forgetting the lessons of 2010 where the conservative enthusiasm gap was sky-high due to the conservative movement advocating conservative ideas and ideals.

An important lesson of 2010 is similar to an important lesson of 2006, 1998, 1994, and numerous other mid-term election years. Many Americans don't think in terms of ideology. They get a vague sense that things aren't going as well as they'd like, so they vote for change. They get a sense that those in power are going too far in one direction, so they try to turn the wheel to another direction. One of the great contrasts of 2010 was the difference in the Florida and Delaware Senate races. In Florida, Marco Rubio stayed on message. He presented a reasoned, intelligent image of a man who knew how to identify the important factors and focus on them. We knew in a general sense that he is pro-life and pro-gun, but he wasn't a sputtering, angry ideologue. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell wasn't on message. We learned that she had strong opinions about masturbation. We learned that she wasn't a witch. She seemed to represent the angry ideologue. I have no doubt that the media played a huge part in keeping her off message, but that's the field on which we play. If we are going to win, we need candidates who can stay on message and whose past will not seem odd to the average voter (who may claim to be conservative but still doesn't see the world through your eyes).

Since the Arizona and Michigan primaries at the end of February... Think about it: Wouldn't the race look a lot different now if Santorum had eked out wins in both of these states?

Rick Santorum was clobbered in Arizona. He lost by 20 points. Even if all of Newt Gingrich's votes had gone to Rick Santorum, he still would have lost. You're talking about eking out a win in a state where he wasn't even in the game. That kind of talk is delusional.

Rick Santorum was a little more than 3 points behind in Michigan, but he was that close only because the Democrats encouraged their people to vote for him because he's the weakest GOP candidate. Talk of eking out a win in Michigan is a little more realistic, but Rick Santorum is still a candidate who had only 2% base of support at the start of the campaign. Two percent of the GOP voters really thought he'd be a good president. The rest of his voters are just looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney. Even with these negative, anti-Romney votes, he's consistently losing.

And conservatives like sheep vote for the establishment candidate even though there are clear examples where this strategy did NOT work: Dole (1996) and McCain (2008).

In addition to being "establishment" candidates, Bob Dole and John McCain have something else in common. They were both senators. Senators do not defeat sitting presidents. Even conservative senators like Barry Goldwater do not defeat sitting presidents like LBJ. I can't remember a senator beating a sitting president in the past 100 years. In spite of that, some people actually want to run Rick Santorum against Obama.

Who does defeating sitting presidents? Governors defeat sitting presidents. Bill Clinton defeated GHW Bush. Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. However, conservatives insist that we can't nominate the only governor left in the race.

1)The conservative movement failed to rally around Sarah Palin after the midterm election and embrace her as its white knight after her mighty contribution to the midterm results.

This one is silly. See the comparison of Marco Rubio to Christine O'Donnell. While I admit that Sarah Palin had a better resume than Christine O'Donnell did, she wasn't good at staying on message and her past made staying on message harder. In the public eye, she didn't represent the reasoned, intelligent, competent leader. Instead, she represented the boiling passion of extremists. That image of her wasn't entirely fair, but that image wasn't going away. Furthermore, posts like yours make clear that many of her supporters embraced that image specifically. A majority of Americans were not going to vote for that image regardless of whether they held generally conservative views on the individual issues.

10)And the last reason I believe the conservative movement has self-destructed lies in the steadfast belief of the movement that it does NOT need one leader or at least a leadership council to represent all conservative, evangelicals and TP supporters in the nation.

In earlier paragraphs, you want us to remember the successes of 2010, but in 2010, we succeeded without a designated leader or organization. TEA Party was a term that described a disconnected movement of people of various backgrounds and interests. In some areas, "TEA Party" people were religious conservatives. In other areas, they were mostly libertarians. The movement's first success was the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Scott Brown is a very different senator from Marco Rubio who is different from Rand Paul who is different from Christine O'Donnell who was a little too similar to Sharon Angle who is different from Mark Kirk. If we'd had a single leadership who gave us Christine O'Donnells and Sharon Angles in every race, the Democrats would still have about 58 Senate seats. If we'd had a single leadership who gave us Marco Rubios, Rand Pauls, and Scott Browns where necessary, we'd probably control the Senate, but you probably wouldn't be happy with our senators.

I'd love to see this country move in a conservative direction, but your "strategies" are not going to get us there.