Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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!!
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.
Good post. It's insightful and I agree with a lot of it. One exception is that it's "conservative to legislate morality". I disagree with that.
I think you're right when you say that the base needs to do a lot of soul searching. Especially since a moderate like Mitt is the best they could do.
How does that square with the death penalty?Both sides try to 'legislate morality'. Just different moralities. It is conservative to live and let live.
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.
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!!
You asked about Mitt not McCain. Neither candidate had a presidential record to defend back then. There are a few links posted that promote B. Hussein but on the whole nobody defends the administration policies. Barry was the shining hope/change promise and he is just a tarnished has-been phony today.
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?
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.
What about the gays that want to get married? They pose no threat to anyone. Same with those that smoke cannabis. What about the right's zeal to infringe on those personal liberties?
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.
What about the gays that want to get married? They pose no threat to anyone. Same with those that smoke cannabis. What about the right's zeal to infringe on those personal liberties?
Ive got no problem with gays or pot... I do have a prob with someone trying to change the definition of word to placate a group of folks who can call it a civil union and get the same rights as my wife and I.
I see the left infringing on my personal liberties, not the other way around.
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?
And we see how well it's turned out.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?
Maybe he can adopt something brilliant and inspirational like "Hope and Change", or, "Yes we can". Oh, wait, never mind... that's been done.
And we see how well it's turned out.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?
Maybe he can adopt something brilliant and inspirational like "Hope and Change", or, "Yes we can". Oh, wait, never mind... that's been done.
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?
And we see how well it's turned out.Maybe he can adopt something brilliant and inspirational like "Hope and Change", or, "Yes we can". Oh, wait, never mind... that's been done.
Quite well.
And we see how well it's turned out.
Quite well.
Keeping the bar below sea level as always huh Chris?
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.
George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.
Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.
Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 10 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 27 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.
And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.
Obama has done a very good job.
What about the gays that want to get married? They pose no threat to anyone. Same with those that smoke cannabis. What about the right's zeal to infringe on those personal liberties?
Ive got no problem with gays or pot... I do have a prob with someone trying to change the definition of word to placate a group of folks who can call it a civil union and get the same rights as my wife and I.
I see the left infringing on my personal liberties, not the other way around.
How does someone getting a tax break for living together "infringe on your personal rights"?
Do you consider the tax breaks the uber wealthy get just for being rich to infringe as well?
George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.
Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.
Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 10 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 27 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.
And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.
Obama has done a very good job.
Ive got no problem with gays or pot... I do have a prob with someone trying to change the definition of word to placate a group of folks who can call it a civil union and get the same rights as my wife and I.
I see the left infringing on my personal liberties, not the other way around.
How does someone getting a tax break for living together "infringe on your personal rights"?
Do you consider the tax breaks the uber wealthy get just for being rich to infringe as well?
I didnt say that... I said I do have a prob with someone trying to change the definition of word to placate a group of folks who can call it a civil union and get the same rights as my wife and I.
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or woman and a woman.
Where did I say they should not get the same benefits as my wife and I... Hell, more power to them man, really... I could care less.
