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

[Avorysuds]

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.

The main issue for Mitt is his own abysmal record...

 

[DaGoose]

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?

Its is fascinating isn't it. I think the republican party has changed, and the base is currently doing a lot of soul searching. Many if not most conservatives have been trapped into the "lesser of two evils" vote of Mitt.

It is a long standing tradition that the former runner up gets the nod the next go round. Mitt finished second against McCain, so this time the media just kind of said, "Mitt is the man" from the beginning it was like manifest destiny.

But lets face it Mitt is not popular with the base, and the only support he garners is from the fact that he is not Obama. From the very beginning, until the very end we saw conservatives flock from one candidate to the next; looking for a real conservative with real brains and charisma. But none of them fit the ticket. Mitt is the last man standing with the exception of Ron Paul. Its interesting to see the fork in the road that republicans are faced with at this point. They can still change everything today if they so choose. You have one who is dependent and principled and another who is the etch-a-sketch man. This is why I say the conservative base has some soul searching to do. You would think that it is obvious that Paul is more conservative than Romney. Not to mention Paul is more electable than Romney (polls have shown).


I think the crux of the matter is that conservatives don't like giving up control. They would like to legislate morality. But is it conservative to do so. To me it just sounds like government intruding in the bedroom, which is ironic because conservatives live and die by the principle of the government staying out of our bedrooms. More soul searching in the civil liberties category for the conservative base.

Both sides try to 'legislate morality'. Just different moralities. It is conservative to live and let live.

How does that square with the death penalty?

It's also conservative to not dictate how others should live their personal lives.

 

[ThinkCritically]

All laws are a form of someone legislating morality.

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.

You are twisting my words on the first part there

As for the second part involving costs. That is a different issue but a just as important one.
1)what does AIDS have to do with anything we are discussing.
2)The cost of the drug-war/prison-industrial-complex surely out weighs the costs of legalizing it.
3)Road Rage? Other escalating events? What are you getting at or talking about?

 

[ThinkCritically]

There are the live and let live conservatives and then there are the control freak conservatives, this is the growing divide within the party

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its is fascinating isn't it. I think the republican party has changed, and the base is currently doing a lot of soul searching. Many if not most conservatives have been trapped into the "lesser of two evils" vote of Mitt.

It is a long standing tradition that the former runner up gets the nod the next go round. Mitt finished second against McCain, so this time the media just kind of said, "Mitt is the man" from the beginning it was like manifest destiny.

But lets face it Mitt is not popular with the base, and the only support he garners is from the fact that he is not Obama. From the very beginning, until the very end we saw conservatives flock from one candidate to the next; looking for a real conservative with real brains and charisma. But none of them fit the ticket. Mitt is the last man standing with the exception of Ron Paul. Its interesting to see the fork in the road that republicans are faced with at this point. They can still change everything today if they so choose. You have one who is dependent and principled and another who is the etch-a-sketch man. This is why I say the conservative base has some soul searching to do. You would think that it is obvious that Paul is more conservative than Romney. Not to mention Paul is more electable than Romney (polls have shown).


I think the crux of the matter is that conservatives don't like giving up control. They would like to legislate morality. But is it conservative to do so. To me it just sounds like government intruding in the bedroom, which is ironic because conservatives live and die by the principle of the government staying out of our bedrooms. More soul searching in the civil liberties category for the conservative base.

Both sides try to 'legislate morality'. Just different moralities. It is conservative to live and let live.

How does that square with the death penalty?

I'd normally respond with "apples and oranges", but given your question, I'm not sure you'd understand what I mean.

Hint:
Those under threat of the death penalty have not lived and let live.

 

[Avorysuds]

looks like a cool place!

Your fantasy system of government lasts about two weeks.

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

You realize that the US was founded on libertarian principles, right? The constitution pretty much sums up a basic libertarian position on Governments role in our lives. You, the ass that you are claim that Libertarianism is equal to that of Anarchy, you have no idea how stupid you look.

So, once again SF, my example of a country or form of Government that worked out under Libertarian principles is America. Can you name a country that was developed and worked out under Republican principles?

Or like Rtard, TM, Shaman and RW do we have to keep having the same fight where you never back up jack shit of what you claim while demanding it from everyone else even after they give it to you many times over?

 

[The Rabbi]

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)

You're right here. The conservative wing of the part was not able to capitalize on discontent with DC and put forth a good appropriate candidate with broader appeal. I thought Perry would do it, and he didn't.

The question we conservatives have to ask is why, and what we can do next time.

 

[The Rabbi]

looks like a cool place!

Your fantasy system of government lasts about two weeks.

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

You realize that the US was founded on libertarian principles, right? The constitution pretty much sums up a basic libertarian position on Governments role in our lives. You, the ass that you are claim that Libertarianism is equal to that of Anarchy, you have no idea how stupid you look.

So, once again SF, my example of a country or form of Government that worked out under Libertarian principles is America. Can you name a country that was developed and worked out under Republican principles?

Or like Rtard, TM, Shaman and RW do we have to keep having the same fight where you never back up jack shit of what you claim while demanding it from everyone else even after they give it to you many times over?

No, actually teh Founders were as far from narco libertarianism as cheese from chalk. Much closer were the Anarchists of the 19thC. This is why narco-libs have never made inroads with real conservatives.

 

[Avorysuds]

Your fantasy system of government lasts about two weeks.

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

You realize that the US was founded on libertarian principles, right? The constitution pretty much sums up a basic libertarian position on Governments role in our lives. You, the ass that you are claim that Libertarianism is equal to that of Anarchy, you have no idea how stupid you look.

So, once again SF, my example of a country or form of Government that worked out under Libertarian principles is America. Can you name a country that was developed and worked out under Republican principles?

Or like Rtard, TM, Shaman and RW do we have to keep having the same fight where you never back up jack shit of what you claim while demanding it from everyone else even after they give it to you many times over?

No, actually teh Founders were as far from narco libertarianism as cheese from chalk. Much closer were the Anarchists of the 19thC. This is why narco-libs have never made inroads with real conservatives.

lol... Keep voting liberal lite Rabbi. Enjoy the ever shrinking Republican party as it sheds all conservatives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

His record is up for debate, yet, but not his personality or his person. If we try that, Obama will crucify Romney ~ he is much better liked than MR.

This is a referendum (has been at least through the primary season) on Republican conservatism and ultra-conservatism. A majority of the party is telling the ubers "enough is enough, we won't go the route of Ryan or Palin or Santorum."

The closer Mitt runs to right of center, the better his chance of winning becomes, and the better his chance of working with a Democratic minority becomes.

 

[Sallow]

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.

That's his high holiness Bishop Romney..to you bub.

 

[Paulie]

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.

That's fine. If Romney wasn't such a fake ass flip flopping dumbass maybe he'd get a little more respect. But at this point no one knows where he really stands on ANYTHING.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure we do, Paulie. We know that he is not a libertarian or an uber-conservative. We are blessed.

 

[whitehall]

Mitt's victory says a couple of things.
1. Anybody but Obama
2. Libs like him because they think he is moderate enough
3. Conservatives think he is electable and they can work with him
4. the Country is so bad off that any change of administration is preferable to what we have

 

[DaGoose]

Mitt's victory says a couple of things.
1. Anybody but Obama
2. Libs like him because they think he is moderate enough
3. Conservatives think he is electable and they can work with him
4. the Country is so bad off that any change of administration is preferable to what we have

Interesting.......These are the exact same things that were said about McCain (and his ties to the Bush Administration) when Obama was elected President.

Let's turn it around.......

1. Anybody but McCain/Palin
2. Cons like him because they think he is moderate enough
3. Liberals think he is electable and they can work with him
4. the Country is so bad off that any change of administration is preferable to what we have

And before you say that Obama has no conservative policies (or support in 2008) I suggest you look at the following links.....

Obama the Conservative | Tracking Obama's abandoning of the progressive agenda, and the disconnect between his words and deeds.

Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hell, even his Health Care Plan came from conservative policy!!

 

[Contumacious]

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

Really?

And the reason we are 15 TTTTTTTTTTTrillion in the hole is because .......


And the reason the federal government has become a redistributionist behemoth is because ....

Come on man, admit you are a fucktard.

.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

His record is up for debate, yet, but not his personality or his person. If we try that, Obama will crucify Romney ~ he is much better liked than MR.

This is a referendum (has been at least through the primary season) on Republican conservatism and ultra-conservatism. A majority of the party is telling the ubers "enough is enough, we won't go the route of Ryan or Palin or Santorum."

The closer Mitt runs to right of center, the better his chance of winning becomes, and the better his chance of working with a Democratic minority becomes.

No because the anal asswipe in the Oval Office is a douche bag.

He is human. Let the attacks begin. Obama is so anal he let Axelrod run the
Seamus Campaign" earlier this year.

We countered with Bam Bam eating dogs. He ate dogs and loved it.

 

[tinydancer]

Anyone else want to chime in here from the left?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Really?

And the reason we are 15 TTTTTTTTTTTrillion in the hole is because .......


And the reason the federal government has become a redistributionist behemoth is because ....

Come on man, admit you are a fucktard.

.

It's not because conservatives have been running things.

 

[The Rabbi]

You realize that the US was founded on libertarian principles, right? The constitution pretty much sums up a basic libertarian position on Governments role in our lives. You, the ass that you are claim that Libertarianism is equal to that of Anarchy, you have no idea how stupid you look.

So, once again SF, my example of a country or form of Government that worked out under Libertarian principles is America. Can you name a country that was developed and worked out under Republican principles?

Or like Rtard, TM, Shaman and RW do we have to keep having the same fight where you never back up jack shit of what you claim while demanding it from everyone else even after they give it to you many times over?

No, actually teh Founders were as far from narco libertarianism as cheese from chalk. Much closer were the Anarchists of the 19thC. This is why narco-libs have never made inroads with real conservatives.

lol... Keep voting liberal lite Rabbi. Enjoy the ever shrinking Republican party as it sheds all conservatives.

When the truth is out it's time to deflect.
You post like the good progressive you really are.