Mitt Wins So What Does That Say? What's The Message?

This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?

Is Mitt the REAL conservative and the rest RINO's?

Is this the fallout from the Citizen's United ruling?

Is the religous wing of the party losing it's influence?

Is the Tea Party no longer a driving force?

Will we see moderates gaining power in congress?

What say you? What's the message? Or is there a message? How can a moderate win the nomination in a party full of hard core conservatives?

It means that Republicans and Independents want a President who has an undeniably strong record in the private sector.

Mitt would have run away with this race if there was no Obaminationcare legislation! Romneycare is all that hurt him and it hurt him big time with conservatives. Won't hurt him in the generals though! In fact it will help him win some independents!
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Mitt wins. I heard yesterday that 20 out of the last 23 times a president was up for a reelection and the economy was bad they were ousted from office. Thats a pretty strong indication of who will win come november. If the economy is not perceived to be better by then, Mitt will win.
 
It means that Republicans and Independents want a President who has an undeniably strong record in the private sector.!

Really? That's the reason Vernon?


I believe the reason to be that Mitt - Like Obama - have shown that they are not threats to the welfare/warfare state. The status quo will be preserved with both.

.
 
Your fantasy system of government lasts about two weeks.

Human nature destroys it, you know - just like communism.

No, my fantasy form of government is unknown to you because I have never personally shared that with you. But keep projecting Hilary.



More free of cumbersome laws than Deadwood?

I don't know the history behind deadwood, but for some reason you believe that I know all about it and that I support it......You are imagining things my friend. And don't even play the "human nature" argument with me again. Its a broken argument we already had this argument and you ran away from it.
 
No, my fantasy form of government is unknown to you because I have never personally shared that with you. But keep projecting Hilary.



More free of cumbersome laws than Deadwood?

I don't know the history behind deadwood, but for some reason you believe that I know all about it and that I support it......You are imagining things my friend. And don't even play the "human nature" argument with me again. Its a broken argument we already had this argument and you ran away from it.

Still, you won't come down off of your silly esoteric theory and give us an example of how your silly pipedream government would actually work - factoring in the vagrancies of human nature, of course.
 
Still, you won't come down off of your silly esoteric theory and give us an example of how your silly pipedream government would actually work - factoring in the vagrancies of human nature, of course.

Here is an idea. Why don't you stop with the Rodney Dangerfield one-liners and give us some substance. Out of all the posts that I've read of yours and I still don't know a dam thing about what you stand for. All you stand for is summed up in the FOX news commentators reading points. You don't really have an opinion because you are waiting for the commentators to tell you what to think next.

You still don't even know what a libertarian is. After all the debating you can't even understand it yet let alone debate it for what it is.

And let me sum up your "human nature" argument for those that aren't familiar with SniperFires argument against limited government, he thinks that it will not work because "human nature" won't let it. To which I say, no form of government will work, if you factor in "human nature", so it is quite the moot point.
 
If you guys are looking for an Everyman conservative candidate, he does not exist.

There are many competing ideas on how to stop the communist infiltration.

How about just a conservative one?

There were plenty of conservatives in the race. Problem was there was too many and the conservative vote got spread out among them all. If they had dropped out much earlier we probably would have seen a different nominee.


Its safe to say though that unlike McCain, Romney will attack Obama for his abysmal record. This election is a referendum on the Hussein.
Herman Cain quit on December 3, 2011. Michelle Bachmann quit on January 4, 2012. Rick Perry quit on January 19, 2012 and Li'l Ricky Santorum quit April 10.

The vote wasn't diluted. It showed two clear things: None of the Conservative candidates could mount an effective campaign (probably due to their ineptitude) and, most tellingly, there aren't enough hard core Conservatives to affect the outcome of the Republican primary system. Conservatives, at least the stripe of Conservative that feels any other political ideology has to be Marxist, are just too few in number (thank God) to make a difference. You are a minority in the Republican party (a minority party to begin with)
 
This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?
Something that most self-sware people have known for some time:
The GOP as a whole is a firm 1145-1200 on the Ideological Clock.
:dunno:
 
How about just a conservative one?

There were plenty of conservatives in the race. Problem was there was too many and the conservative vote got spread out among them all. If they had dropped out much earlier we probably would have seen a different nominee.


Its safe to say though that unlike McCain, Romney will attack Obama for his abysmal record. This election is a referendum on the Hussein.
Herman Cain quit on December 3, 2011. Michelle Bachmann quit on January 4, 2012. Rick Perry quit on January 19, 2012 and Li'l Ricky Santorum quit April 10.

The vote wasn't diluted. It showed two clear things: None of the Conservative candidates could mount an effective campaign (probably due to their ineptitude) and, most tellingly, there aren't enough hard core Conservatives to affect the outcome of the Republican primary system. Conservatives, at least the stripe of Conservative that feels any other political ideology has to be Marxist, are just too few in number (thank God) to make a difference. You are a minority in the Republican party (a minority party to begin with)

I agree here the vote wasn't watered down, it was essentially a four man race for the most part as far as delegates are concerned.
 
This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?
Something that most self-sware people have known for some time:
The GOP as a whole is a firm 1145-1200 on the Ideological Clock.
:dunno:

I would agree with this as well. I hear a lot of people complain that the right has moved to far to the right, but from what I can tell they are right in the center for the most part. Maybe the left has moved so far to the left that it makes the right look like they are moving further to the right. :laugh:
 
This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?

Is Mitt the REAL conservative and the rest RINO's?

Is this the fallout from the Citizen's United ruling?

Is the religous wing of the party losing it's influence?

Is the Tea Party no longer a driving force?

Will we see moderates gaining power in congress?

What say you? What's the message? Or is there a message? How can a moderate win the nomination in a party full of hard core conservatives?

I won't asnwer all of those questions, mainly because I can't, but what I could add or would ask ass well.

How many of those positions Mitt campaigned on, especially the very conservative ones, will hold true for the generel election? If he doesn't change positions, I would say yes, those are the republican positions, but I believe he will flip flop or at least alter many controversial opinions he took to win the really conservative GOP electorate and actually be ready to secure some key demographics in the generel election!
 
This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?
Something that most self-sware people have known for some time:
The GOP as a whole is a firm 1145-1200 on the Ideological Clock.
:dunno:
I would agree with this as well. I hear a lot of people complain that the right has moved to far to the right, but from what I can tell they are right in the center for the most part. Maybe the left has moved so far to the left that it makes the right look like they are moving further to the right. :laugh:
Yes. Ideologically, and on most issues, the GOP is now where the Dems were ~1980.

You have to be a -rabid- leftist to actually believe the GOP on the whole is a right-wing party.
 
I think you miss read that. I was posing a question, "is it conservative to legislate morality?" I personally don't believe that it is, just like you. But much of the conservative base does like to legislate morality. Its the fork in the road for the party as far as I can tell.

All laws are a form of someone legislating morality. :cuckoo:

I should clarify what I mean by morality.

Is it immoral to swear, to do drugs, be gay?
You might say as a conservative that yes all these things are immoral.

I could also ask is it immoral to kill, or to steal?
Again the conservative would say "yes".

The difference between the two set of moral questions is that the first one harms the individual and in no way infringes upon the liberties of other's around them. The second example though is an example of immoral behavior that directly infringes upon the liberties of others.

You are right that all legislation is a form of morality codes, but so long as those immoralities are not directly infringing upon the liberties of other's, we as a free society should allow it, instead of incarcerating individuals for things like drug addiction and the like.

Yeah actually all of those things affect people around you, unless you live on a prairie 50 miles from your neighbor. In the real world people interact with hundreds of people all around them every day.
What has been the cost of the AIDS epidemic?
What has been the cost of drug addiction?
What has been the cost of road rage incidents or other escalating events?

This is a fantasy of narco-libertarians. Fortunately actual conservatives aren't buying it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top