My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[Newby]

Oh, I DO believe one cannot be both. Social conservatism requires more laws - more money.

When we try to legislate morality, we make even MORE government. Ugh. And, it's just NOT going to happen. Americans like their liberty.

Now, how Obama and his supporters reconcile social liberty with mandates to buy health insurance is beyond me.

And, how the GOP can reconcile social conservatism with smaller government is beyond me.

Somebody needs to bring Goldwater back to life.....

I usually refer to social conservatives as socialist conservatives. Just like the socialist liberals, they seek to use legislative power to mold the world into an image they desire, they just happen to be at polar opposites as to what that world should look like. Republicans need to drop the social side of things in favor of liberty and freedom and concentrate on the fiscal side. But that's the libertarian in me coming out.

No they don't. Republicans must be as entitled to their moral convictions as anybody else is. But those Republicans who would force their moral convictions on everybody else are no more conservative than are Democrats who would force their moral convictions on everybody else. True modern American conservatism is a live and let live principle that allows the people freedom to form whatever sort of society they wish to have so long as they do not infringe on anybody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That means the federal government stays out of it and community A does their own thing and allows community B to do its own thing. And each community doesn't try to force their thing on the other.

I took what he said to mean what you just said, that conservatives can have their moral convictions, they just shouldn't try to legislate them on everyone, i.e. have them a part of a political platform, the same as liberals should not try to legislate theirs as well. The problem is that the media takes the liberal side and constantly beats the dead horse of how conservatives are legislating their morals, while ignoring when the left does the exact same thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

The same problems exist today as existed yesterday before the election returns came in. I will be very very disappointed in any fellow conservatives who tuck their tails between their legs now and go slinking off into the darkness. We may have lost a battle, but to give up on the war does not become us. We either believe in our principles or we don't. If we don't, then so be it. If we do, then they are no less important to fight for now as they were yesterday.

 

[Foxfyre]

I usually refer to social conservatives as socialist conservatives. Just like the socialist liberals, they seek to use legislative power to mold the world into an image they desire, they just happen to be at polar opposites as to what that world should look like. Republicans need to drop the social side of things in favor of liberty and freedom and concentrate on the fiscal side. But that's the libertarian in me coming out.

No they don't. Republicans must be as entitled to their moral convictions as anybody else is. But those Republicans who would force their moral convictions on everybody else are no more conservative than are Democrats who would force their moral convictions on everybody else. True modern American conservatism is a live and let live principle that allows the people freedom to form whatever sort of society they wish to have so long as they do not infringe on anybody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That means the federal government stays out of it and community A does their own thing and allows community B to do its own thing. And each community doesn't try to force their thing on the other.

I took what he said to mean what you just said, that conservatives can have their moral convictions, they just shouldn't try to legislate them on everyone, i.e. have them a part of a political platform, the same as liberals should not try to legislate theirs as well. The problem is that the media takes the liberal side and constantly beats the dead horse of how conservatives are legislating their morals, while ignoring when the left does the exact same thing.

I agree with the principle. The part I disagree with is that those who would force their morality on everybody else are conservative at all. Such are authoritarians that are no different from modern American liberals who would force their version of morality on all; they just have different objectives.

At the same time, freedom must include an ability to form the society we want even if it it seems to be morally rigid and isn't everybody else's cup of tea. True freedom allows people to be who they are just so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have suffered a major setback...there is no denying that.

The natural kneejerk reaction it's to lash out, point fingers, distance oneself from defeat.

Instead, I would ask that you take time to process the election results and thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the election, the constructive criticism that you glean from that reflection, and how we can rectify the shortfall we suffered here.

What we need is an After Action Review, not a rerun of the Blame Game.

Defeat is a fork in the road...one path leads to internal destruction, the other to strength through adversity.

Today we choose...choose wisely.


EDIT -- Before replying to this post, read the clarification here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ervatives-please-read-this-3.html#post6297400

Dear Missourian (MOan?)
To quote Clinton, I feel your pain. And I'm a progressive Texas Democrat who voted Green since Romney (whom I support for President) was already going to carry our State. (My reasons for moaning and groaning is quite different, however; I work with a Black Democrat church district where we have had no support to save this national historic site from govt abuses, which would expose corruption by Democrat officials, where all the money private or public seems to follow what benefits candidates politically. So instead of investing directly in building a sustainable campus site, all the money and attention goes elsewhere, especially with Obama and Black candidates who get their votes by race, not by what they accomplish, they don't have to earn the Black vote; which may cost the entire nation the time we needed to save this Civil Rights landmark of historic houses and churches built by Freed Slaves.)

It was before Obama, but back when Clinton won with only 43% of the population who vote, that I took a public vow to uphold the Constitution, knowing that half the country was losing representation. I almost regret making that commitment, because it is too much work. I believe in equal inclusion, representation and protection of due process for all views, not just playing the majority rule game which leaves out everyone else. But I end up being abused for helping people, while they go out and keep playing the same game. So I invest my own time, effort and money to create sustainable inclusive solutions; but there is no financial support to carry this project because people keep throwing their votes and money at candidates playing the same politics of NOT solving problems!

I have been wanting a mixed ticket ever since these races started getting so contentious.
But the only group (America Elects) that was pushing for that disbanded their website.

A positive proposal I would like to present to the GOP and third parties who are sick of politics as usual: since Obama/Dems are basically claiming to attract the minorities by race and gender, why not answer that challenge by inviting all people of diverse political/religious views to seek representation under the Constitution as enforced by the GOP?

Isn't it more critical for crafting policies and limiting govt legislation, to seek agreement among all views, regardless of religious or political ideology WITHOUT bullying exclusion or discrimination, rather than identify and target people by race or gender?

I believe this is where we need to work with diversity to fulfill Constitutional equal protections under the law. And I believe the GOP and third parties can achieve this, while urging Democrats also to DISCONTINUE their policy of banning candidates for endorsing other parties. If they keep such a policy, they should implement INTERNAL systems of redressing all grievances WITHIN the party.
But it is oppressing or obstructing the right to petition to deny members input and conflict resolution, and then penalize them after.

The GOP is much more free in having party members rebuke and correct each other. Can we encourage all parties to address problems with tactic of keeping unity for political benefit. The Democrats seem worse about suppressing dissent, only topped by the bullying in the Occupy movement where people had to split off to stop it. Even the Greens have problems with people blocking the consensus process by objecting but not offering ways of correcting the cause of rejection. So if we can work on conflict resolution by Constitutional values, the GOP can answer this challenge, and include the input of dissenting and diverse views instead of splitting votes and losing to whoever is willing to play the bigger bully. If we can organize by party lines, and coordinate a system of input, redressing grievances, and forming solutions by conflict resolution, that will do more to accommodate true diversity than grouping by race.

I am personally interested in mediating between Christians and nontheist/atheist/nonchristians in order to unite under the true meaning of what God/Jesus represent instead of dividing and judging over religion. The other issues I would like to address without splitting voters: the prochoice/prolife issue of abortion/death penalty, gay marriage and homosexuality, roles of men/women or church/state or even Dems/GOP playing complementary roles instead of competing to dominate the other, immigration and restitution for trafficking, and addressing legalization issues under health/safety codes per state or district instead of criminal/civil policies, so localizing the democratic process and representation in policies instead of imposing too much bureaucracy on federal levels where one policy may not fit the broader population. There is a lot of work to be done, but it requires a unifying central stance on the Constitution, where the Democrats dilute it too much. It is good to accommodate everyone, but when it comes to forming an agreement on policy, with that much diversity, decisions must be made by the Constitution not bullying by majority rule. That narrows what govt can implement to just the fine lines of agreement.
So this way, the GOP would fulfill the goal of limiting govt to just the Constitutional core.

let me know what you think of this idea

I will be happy to work with you on a website and petition to the GOP and third party leaders and supporters to answer the challenge to create a system that accommodates and protects political and religious diversity under the Constitution. I have a GOP friend who ran for President to study the walls in the system that obstruct the average person from office.
So together we could set up a system to organize input and also TRAIN aspiring leaders
to get real-life experience managing districts first, then city-states, etc. so they have a background and support to run for public office. Otherwise there is no track for "minorities" to do what Obama did but the right way, based on real-life experience. He got there by getting support most people cannot access. So we need to democratize the system.

Thank you and take care.
It will take more work, but God is going to give us what we need.
If it takes being in this position in order to mobilize and motivate the right people to
come together to get the real work done, from the private individual sector and not depending on govt to legislate for us, then God positions us exactly where we need to be to get the job done. Let's find the people and organize solutions, setting up businesses to create jobs in doing this much needed work in policy studies and consulting, and write those resources off federal taxes so we fund cost-effective solutions instead of feeding bad govt.

Anyone who does not support more of the same politics, can be organized and educated on how to set up local teams as a business or a school, where expenses/taxes are invested there which achieves the same goals as supporting education, health care systems, and creating jobs, building the local business community instead of expanding bigger govt.

We need Americans united under the Constitution, not divided by party politics. The Democrats cannot rag on the Tea Party and then claim to have the upper hand in inclusion.

If we would stick to the Constitution, all groups would be included and none threatened or bullied. I will try to address fellow Democrats with that, but have had better luck with other groups when it comes to enforcing Constitutional values. Maybe the fringe groups within the Democrat Party who are oppressed and silenced can relate to this instead of the bullying.

What if we issue a counter-challenge to the Democrats?

What do you think?
Could we possibly influence states to set up a party system outside of govt
to reflect proportional representation based on their votes this election?

Yours truly,
Emily
EmilyNghiem at hotmail or yahoo
http://www.ethics-commission.net
http://www.freedmenstown.com

I will be glad to help write some points, but would need help to edit.
Just don't get me started on the health care bill, and how that was totally putting partisan
agenda above the Constitution, and even above the party's own pro-choice stance. You can claim to represent the Latino or women's votes, but doing that by oppressing dissenting votes doesn't correct the problem but creates new ones, two wrongs don't make a right. All views would have to be accommodated in policies in order to be fully Constitutional. The Dems may be good at advertising and attracting the diverse minorities; but you cannot finish the democratic process without working with Republicans and other people being left out who can edit the policies to something that is within the Constitutional bounds of govt.

This lopsided system of taking turns pushing one political agenda or the other has to stop.
You cannot stop it by just asking people to stop it (especially when Obama does it himself).
You actually have to address the problems causing people to dissent and split by party. Duh!
Not by trying to outnumber the opposition, vote one group in or out, and then tell them to stop after using these very tactics.

 

[midcan5]

I don't think conservatives understand themselves. They seem to miss the fact they are a disparate group that only votes together for reasons that can be summed up as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Step outside that bubble in which liberals progressives democrats immigrants and other assorted aliens exist as the foe and there is nothing to hold on to. Take Romney, had he not changed who he was he would not have been their candidate. If you cannot be yourself who are you. Consider any other element. Conservatives consider themselves pro-business but as jobs were outsourced and foreign companies gained market share jobs were lost. So then which is it, do you support a bailout that helped an American company or do you support a business model that allows companies to crash along with your job? In this case you'd have to change position and support government help. In the end there is no core to American conservatism, the best they can do now is what they do best, point fingers at our current president. In the end they selected a candidate who wanted to govern without governing; America had enough of that last time.

""Ideas," a distinguished conservative named Richard Weaver once wrote, "have consequences." Americans have learned something about the consequences of conservative ideas during the Bush years that they never had to confront in the more amiable Reagan period. As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe


"By the time Romney arrived at the Republican convention in Tampa, he had done everything he could to remake himself as a “severe” conservative, including choosing Rep. Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential candidate. Thus Romney was anointed acceptable if not a true believer. His convention speech was locked into re-citing a litany of extreme conservative positions on taxes, spending, regulation, welfare, health care, reproductive rights, immigration, race relations, trade, foreign policy, you name it. He mirrored his campaign stump speech, lacking specifics because he has no real serious plans for making these tired policy prescriptions work. Romney was still hoping he could run simply by saying he was not the current President who had failed to pull the country out of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression." The Contemporary Condition: Running on Vapors: Presidential Politics and the Neoliberal Moment


"It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: “The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens.” That was only the beginning of the period when the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity started to seep into the public consciousness, so at the time it seemed like a striking and novel statement." Mike Lofgren Revolt of the Rich | The American Conservative


Sallow has an excellent post here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/171638-social-conservatives-and-corporatists.html

_

 

[amrchaos]

If the only employer left on the block is the Government, you might as well start eating dirt.

The govt has had to bail out businesses too big to fail.
We are already eating expensive corporate dirt.

And guess what the fucking banks are bigger than ever and there are less smaller banks than before the meltdown.

So what do you call a business that is even bigger than when it was too big to fail?

Too big to succeed?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I consider Obama to be socially and economically ruining this nation. I am not prepared to back off one subatomic particle.

I think some of you have misconstrued my message.

I'm not asking anyone to compromise their principles.

What I'm referring to is the tendency of the losing party to eat it's own.

The blame and finger pointing.

The "Romney was too moderate" blames the moderates.

The "It was the social issues" blames the social conservatives.

The "folks who wasted there vote on Paul and Johnson cost us the election" blames the libertarians.

The permutation are endless.

We are a coalition party...alienating any coalition member hurts the party.

The point of my thread is that we need time to reflect and present opinions on how to proceed...not tear off a leg of the stool berate it as the fault...the root cause of defeat.

It's just not that simple.

That's what I mean by distancing oneself from defeat..."It's not me, I'm right, it's THOSE guys who are to blame"

The ego almost demands that response.

We need to fight that urge, changeling it into something more productive.

Does that clarify my intent?

I think your point was pretty clear in the first place and I think it's a good one. It's just may be too soon to articulate it. Congratultions to you, but there are many others who just aren't ready yet. Today IS a knee-jerk day... and understandably so. I wish you well in your efforts and I look forward to seeing what happens in the hope of one day being able to vote for a Republican again.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I usually refer to social conservatives as socialist conservatives. Just like the socialist liberals, they seek to use legislative power to mold the world into an image they desire, they just happen to be at polar opposites as to what that world should look like. Republicans need to drop the social side of things in favor of liberty and freedom and concentrate on the fiscal side. But that's the libertarian in me coming out.

No they don't. Republicans must be as entitled to their moral convictions as anybody else is. But those Republicans who would force their moral convictions on everybody else are no more conservative than are Democrats who would force their moral convictions on everybody else. True modern American conservatism is a live and let live principle that allows the people freedom to form whatever sort of society they wish to have so long as they do not infringe on anybody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That means the federal government stays out of it and community A does their own thing and allows community B to do its own thing. And each community doesn't try to force their thing on the other.

I took what he said to mean what you just said, that conservatives can have their moral convictions, they just shouldn't try to legislate them on everyone, i.e. have them a part of a political platform, the same as liberals should not try to legislate theirs as well. The problem is that the media takes the liberal side and constantly beats the dead horse of how conservatives are legislating their morals, while ignoring when the left does the exact same thing.

Obama has enacted his/his father's moral convictions on the world. Over throwing a nation's government that has a treaty with Israel, to usher in an Arab Spring, that it as anti- American as Obama, and they will be using our tax dollars to further their goal of destroying Israel. We have elected a Muslim that has Muslim convictions.

 

[editec]

How about extending early voting and encouraging conservatives to take advantage of it!!

Here in Florida, many conservatives were putting off early voting and even deriding it as a means for the left to cheat. But when election day came along, I found myself in line for hours and I still didn't vote because I had to attend to other business.

Lesson learned here--take advantage of the early voting system to avoid unforeseen problems on election day--such as not enough ballots and blundering pollworkers. At least this way you can comeback the next day and cast your ballot if something were to happen on the first day you went to vote.

Is this the kind of assessment you are talking about Missourian?

Examining some of the problems, giving an honest assessement on how to resolve regardless of partisan attitudes and beliefs?

That only works with Moderates, not partisans.

That prob'em has to stop.

It is unthinkable that people cannot vote unless they are willing to give up their entire day waiting in line.

I am truly sorry that you didn't get to vote, amigo.

That's just SO WRONG it boggles my mind.

 

[emilynghiem]

If the only employer left on the block is the Government, you might as well start eating dirt.

The govt has had to bail out businesses too big to fail.
We are already eating expensive corporate dirt.

And guess what the fucking banks are bigger than ever and there are less smaller banks than before the meltdown.

So what do you call a business that is even bigger than when it was too big to fail?

Dear SP, US and 4H:
What do you think of this idea, of promoting local currency to organize community
resources and businesses to create jobs and economic flow:
Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York
http://www.ithacahours.com
The idea I would like to ADD to this:
Creating jobs for lawyers as collection agents/negotiators on behalf of citizens to assess and collect debts/damages owed to taxpayers for govt/corporate abuses or fraud at our expense;
and issuing notes against these debts to manage financing, microloans or investments to pay for the work to fix the problem. Either the wrongdoers work out a settlement plan to pay back the illicit amount where taxpayers also earn interest on the debt until it is paid off; OR if citizens opt to buy out the bonds/notes, then they claim shares in the programs or property where the corrections are implemented, and this is held as collateral on the debts.

So we could literally buy back America out of debt, while holding wrongdoers accountable, and create jobs for people to fix these problems (including lawyers and student interns in a variety of fields), per issue or per community, to balance budgets and rebuild the economy.

Do you like this idea?

Paul Glover who founded Ithaca HOURS and Pete with the local Workers cooperative
affiliated are interested in meeting and collaborating with any political groups or advocates
on how to research and develop this idea, such as with a pilot study as a national model.
I found a printer in Houston willing to try this. I even have two cases of corporate corruption at taxpayers' expense I'd like to propose for test studies to see if this works
(Freedmen's Town national historic district in TX and the Headwaters Redwood forest in CA both destroyed by unchecked corporate abuses by govt)

What do you think?

 

[4Horsemen]

If the only employer left on the block is the Government, you might as well start eating dirt.

The govt has had to bail out businesses too big to fail.
We are already eating expensive corporate dirt.

And guess what the fucking banks are bigger than ever and there are less smaller banks than before the meltdown.

So what do you call a business that is even bigger than when it was too big to fail?

Exactly!!

Just goes to show that you can't teach stupid. You can only mock it when it rears it's ugly head

 

[Quantum Windbag]

After action review: Don't nominate the loser who lost in the primaries to the last loser, as have the last two GOP losers.

The GOP power brokers declared that Romney would win from the beginning, and it still took him months to lock up the nomination. The grass roots of the party is fighting to throw off the idiots in charge, but it will take time. Hopefully, now that they have proven how ineffective they are, it will happen by 2016. If it doesn't, we will see Biden running against another Bush clone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

That's an interesting take - one that I haven't heard before and (honestly) one that I don't seem to be able to find any evidence to support.

In fact, I believe Romney started as a moderate (championed the individual mandate/healthcare reform model for one, pro choice for another) But in order to gain the GOP nomination, he had to move to the right (self deport, right to life, etc...).

Most observers feel it hurt him with the far right because no one really trusted his real "conservative" DNA.

And I think that was a waste. The far right was going to vote for him anyway - simply because he is not Obama. The moderates, the women and the Latinos he alienated by courting the far right could have propelled him into the White House.

IF he could get the nomination as a moderate.

Just MHO.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

That's an intersst take - one that I haven't heard before and (honestly) one that I don't seem to be able to find any evidence to support.

In fact, I believe Romneyy started as a moderate (championed the individual mandate/healthcare reform model for one, pro choice for another) But in order to gain the GOP nomination, he had to move to the right (self deport, right to life).

Most observers feel it hurt him with the far right because no one really trusted his real "conservative" DNA.

And I think that was a waste. The far right was going to vote for him anyway - simply because he is not Obama. The moderates, the women and the Latinos he alienated by courting the far right could have propelled him into the White House.

IF he could get the nomination as a moderate.

Just MHO.

His problem was that he had to win the GOP primary. In the beginning, Romney was always the number two contender as Republicans rotated through "anybody but Romney" candidates like Gingrich, Caine, Santorum and Bachmann.

Mitt had to sell his soul for the nomination.

 

[saveliberty]

I consider Obama to be socially and economically ruining this nation. I am not prepared to back off one subatomic particle.

I think some of you have misconstrued my message.

I'm not asking anyone to compromise their principles.

What I'm referring to is the tendency of the losing party to eat it's own.

The blame and finger pointing.

The "Romney was too moderate" blames the moderates.

The "It was the social issues" blames the social conservatives.

The "folks who wasted there vote on Paul and Johnson cost us the election" blames the libertarians.

The permutation are endless.

We are a coalition party...alienating any coalition member hurts the party.

The point of my thread is that we need time to reflect and present opinions on how to proceed...not tear off a leg of the stool berate it as the fault...the root cause of defeat.

It's just not that simple.

That's what I mean by distancing oneself from defeat..."It's not me, I'm right, it's THOSE guys who are to blame"

The ego almost demands that response.

We need to fight that urge, changeling it into something more productive.

Does that clarify my intent?

The fault is clear. Democrats cater to entitlements and what appears to be complete freedom. Republicans are never going to overcome that disadvantage, until the programs fall apart through debt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

That's an intersst take - one that I haven't heard before and (honestly) one that I don't seem to be able to find any evidence to support.

In fact, I believe Romneyy started as a moderate (championed the individual mandate/healthcare reform model for one, pro choice for another) But in order to gain the GOP nomination, he had to move to the right (self deport, right to life).

Most observers feel it hurt him with the far right because no one really trusted his real "conservative" DNA.

And I think that was a waste. The far right was going to vote for him anyway - simply because he is not Obama. The moderates, the women and the Latinos he alienated by courting the far right could have propelled him into the White House.

IF he could get the nomination as a moderate.

Just MHO.

His problem was that he had to win the GOP primary. In the beginning, Romney was always the number two contender as Republicans rotated through "anybody but Romney" candidates like Gingrich, Caine, Santorum and Bachmann.

Mitt had to sell his soul for the nomination.

Just as Obama has done to get the nomination and win two elections. But somehow it seems more forgivable for a leftist to do that and unforgivable for a Republican, yes?

Ultimately, until we give up hero worship/partisanship in favor of love of country, nothing much is likely to change for the better.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

That's an intersst take - one that I haven't heard before and (honestly) one that I don't seem to be able to find any evidence to support.

In fact, I believe Romneyy started as a moderate (championed the individual mandate/healthcare reform model for one, pro choice for another) But in order to gain the GOP nomination, he had to move to the right (self deport, right to life).

Most observers feel it hurt him with the far right because no one really trusted his real "conservative" DNA.

And I think that was a waste. The far right was going to vote for him anyway - simply because he is not Obama. The moderates, the women and the Latinos he alienated by courting the far right could have propelled him into the White House.

IF he could get the nomination as a moderate.

Just MHO.

His problem was that he had to win the GOP primary. In the beginning, Romney was always the number two contender as Republicans rotated through "anybody but Romney" candidates like Gingrich, Caine, Santorum and Bachmann.

Mitt had to sell his soul for the nomination.

I think the same thing happened to McCain.
John McCain of 2000 was a guy I could support. He didn't care if you were Democrat or Republican. He'd vote with you when he thought you were correct and against you when he thought you were incorrect. But he kissed Bush Butt for 4 years to get that nomination, and when he let them shove Sarah Palin down his throat - that was the last straw.

If John McCain of 2000 ran into John McCain of 2008 on the street - he would kick his ass out of general principles.

Sad that Republicans have to makeover their best before they can get the nomination.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's an intersst take - one that I haven't heard before and (honestly) one that I don't seem to be able to find any evidence to support.

In fact, I believe Romneyy started as a moderate (championed the individual mandate/healthcare reform model for one, pro choice for another) But in order to gain the GOP nomination, he had to move to the right (self deport, right to life).

Most observers feel it hurt him with the far right because no one really trusted his real "conservative" DNA.

And I think that was a waste. The far right was going to vote for him anyway - simply because he is not Obama. The moderates, the women and the Latinos he alienated by courting the far right could have propelled him into the White House.

IF he could get the nomination as a moderate.

Just MHO.

His problem was that he had to win the GOP primary. In the beginning, Romney was always the number two contender as Republicans rotated through "anybody but Romney" candidates like Gingrich, Caine, Santorum and Bachmann.

Mitt had to sell his soul for the nomination.

Just as Obama has done to get the nomination and win two elections. But somehow it seems more forgivable for a leftist to do that and unforgivable for a Republican, yes?

Ultimately, until we give up hero worship/partisanship in favor of love of country, nothing much is likely to change for the better.

Do you mean to say you believe Obama was a far left radical who moved to the center in order to get elected. Or that you believe he was always a moderate who moved to the left in order to court the extreme wing of his party?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far right extremism is not classical liberal conservatism.

Never. Period.

Conservatism is dead in the United States. It's only chance of survival anywhere is to formally divide the country. The best thing conservatives can do for themselves is identify a hospitable nation and take their industry there. Just like Lot ran from Sodom, don't look back.

 

[kwc57]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

Romney a radical? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Let me catch my breath. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Romney is about as center as you can get. The man doesn't have a radical bone in his body. If you want to know what a radical looks like, take a look at the guy who got reelected. That kind sir, is a radical.