Dear "Conservatives"....

[Meister]

Uh, you guys have been telling us that the GOP is hard core conservative.

Who has been saying that exactly?

I ******* quit the GOP precisely BECAUSE they weren't conservative.

Then why are you supporting their liberal candidate?

When there is a two party system which is what we have....who should he vote for?
Until there is a viable 4 party system, then the choices are limited.

 

[geauxtohell]

Majority rules. And it would be wise for everyone in the GOP to realize the common goal and sally forth with Mitt.

It depends on what your goals are. If sheer power is the only concern, maybe. If you want to reign in corporatist government, it's exactly the wrong move.

The Paul thread was pretty telling to me on that regard.

This is it's demonic sequal where the unprincipled dwell.

 

[Meister]

Majority rules. And it would be wise for everyone in the GOP to realize the common goal and sally forth with Mitt.

It depends on what your goals are. If sheer power is the only concern, maybe. If you want to reign in corporatist government, it's exactly the wrong move.

The Paul thread was pretty telling to me on that regard.

This is it's demonic sequal where the unprincipled dwell.

Oh brother,

 

[Sunshine]

Who has been saying that exactly?

I ******* quit the GOP precisely BECAUSE they weren't conservative.

Then why are you supporting their liberal candidate?

When there is a two party system which is what we have....who should he vote for?
Until there is a viable 4 party system, then the choices are limited.

This is correct. And only a republican can unseat Obama. If you vote 'green' you might as well cast your vote for Obama because your green vote will not count against him

 

[Amelia]

Because I am the first person to accuse Romney of being liberal.....

The reality is, most of the prominent conservatives and some conservatives on this thread have previously tagged Romney as a liberal.

See?

Rush Limbaugh: Romney Is Not A Conservative | RealClearPolitics

So this talk of ideology is just crap. The only ideology is beating Obama.

So if Romney wins, it shouldn't be surprising to you that he governs as a liberal.

And you voted for it.

Well, if you're going to post that bit by Rush, you open up a whole nother can of worms.

In 2008, Rush rated Romney as conservative in the three principle ways he measures conservatism.

Who changed between 2008 and 2011? Hint: It wasn't Romney.

So now we have to through Limbaugh under the bus to make Mitt liberal? [<--- typo?]

Hmmm, maybe that is what Limbaugh meant by being tired of carrying their water.

Or maybe a certain element of the party has gone so far to the right that even conservatives run the risk of being called RINO these days.

A conservative talk show host here in Wisconsin told me the GOP doesn't need me because even though I'm personally against abortion, I think abortion should be legal and I think the GOP should focus on economic issues not social.

Limbaugh recalibrated his yardstick for conservatism between 2008 and 2011. That's what changed. Not Romney. The party has left a lot of people who consider themselves conservative. Not the other way around.



But that's another issue. Completely separate from your own disingenuous labeling of Romney as liberal.

 

[geauxtohell]

Then why are you supporting their liberal candidate?

When there is a two party system which is what we have....who should he vote for?
Until there is a viable 4 party system, then the choices are limited.

This is correct. And only a republican can unseat Obama. If you vote 'green' you might as well cast your vote for Obama because your green vote will not count against him

I don't disagree, but that is a tacit statement that principles and belief take a second seat to ambition.

As I said, if people weren't so didactic about being conservative, this would be a non issue

 

[geauxtohell]

Well, if you're going to post that bit by Rush, you open up a whole nother can of worms.

In 2008, Rush rated Romney as conservative in the three principle ways he measures conservatism.

Who changed between 2008 and 2011? Hint: It wasn't Romney.

So now we have to through Limbaugh under the bus to make Mitt liberal? [<--- typo?]

Hmmm, maybe that is what Limbaugh meant by being tired of carrying their water.

Or maybe a certain element of the party has gone so far to the right that even conservatives run the risk of being called RINO these days.

A conservative talk show host here in Wisconsin told me the GOP doesn't need me because even though I'm personally against abortion, I think abortion should be legal and I think the GOP should focus on economic issues not social.

Limbaugh recalibrated his yardstick for conservatism between 2008 and 2011. That's what changed. Not Romney. The party has left a lot of people who consider themselves conservative. Not the other way around.



But that's another issue. Completely separate from your own disingenuous labeling of Romney as liberal.

I am hardly they first or last to label Romney as a liberal.

 

[sallyforth]

Majority rules. And it would be wise for everyone in the GOP to realize the common goal and sally forth with Mitt.

It depends on what your goals are. If sheer power is the only concern, maybe. If you want to reign in corporatist government, it's exactly the wrong move.

The GOP common goal is to oust Obama and get rid of his corrupt administration.

 

[dblack]

Majority rules. And it would be wise for everyone in the GOP to realize the common goal and sally forth with Mitt.

It depends on what your goals are. If sheer power is the only concern, maybe. If you want to reign in corporatist government, it's exactly the wrong move.

The GOP common goal is to oust Obama and get rid of his corrupt administration.

Replacing it with the same crap. No, thanks.

 

[The T]

And that explains why the GOP Blue-Blood Repubicans have utter distain for the TEA Partiers in thier midsts.

They had better be prepared to take on more of them.

Mitt's the nominee and the tea partiers will line up to kiss his ring (see: this thread).

The blue bloods won.

Did they?

 

[Amelia]

So now we have to through Limbaugh under the bus to make Mitt liberal? [<--- typo?]

Hmmm, maybe that is what Limbaugh meant by being tired of carrying their water.

Or maybe a certain element of the party has gone so far to the right that even conservatives run the risk of being called RINO these days.

A conservative talk show host here in Wisconsin told me the GOP doesn't need me because even though I'm personally against abortion, I think abortion should be legal and I think the GOP should focus on economic issues not social.

Limbaugh recalibrated his yardstick for conservatism between 2008 and 2011. That's what changed. Not Romney. The party has left a lot of people who consider themselves conservative. Not the other way around.



But that's another issue. Completely separate from your own disingenuous labeling of Romney as liberal.

I am hardly they first or last to label Romney as a liberal.

That doesn't stop your label from being disingenuous or ignorant or in some other way lacking in meaning. Romney's life, positions, governance, etc. are not liberal. At best they are liberal in comparison to some arbitrary standard of conservatism. They are not on their face liberal.

 

[geauxtohell]

This is going to be fun. Thank you search function!

Might as well of asked if Obama could beat Mickey Mouse.......



..... it is more than likely that none of these people will be running against Obama in 2012.

You don't think Mitt Romney is going to run?

He can and will run, but he has very slim chances of actually winning the nomination. The Republicans are going to nominate a conservative, not a moderate.

 

[Meister]

It depends on what your goals are. If sheer power is the only concern, maybe. If you want to reign in corporatist government, it's exactly the wrong move.

The GOP common goal is to oust Obama and get rid of his corrupt administration.

Replacing it with the same crap. No, thanks.

If what you say is that we have crap in there now...replace it, and we can vote out Romney next election if he doesn't produce.

 

[Liability]

And that explains why the GOP Blue-Blood Repubicans have utter distain for the TEA Partiers in thier midsts.

They had better be prepared to take on more of them.

Mitt's the nominee and the tea partiers will line up to kiss his ring (see: this thread).

The blue bloods won.

WTF do you care?

You just want to get President Obama back into Office.

 

[Liability]

Again, wrong. It is replacing one damn near marxist liberal with one more or less "moderate" liberal with a touch of conservatism.

**** Faust.

The deal I want back is the Constitutional deal. You know: checks, balances, limited government, federalism.

No. It's right. Conservatism takes a second seat to expediency.

It's Faustian to the nth degree.

No. That's still bullshit. We don't have a choice between a conservative and a liberal.

We have a choice between an uber liberal (the President) and a milquetoast moderate style liberal.

Not a ******* thing Faustian about it.

It may not be the ideal set of choice for a conservative, but it is a pretty damn clear choice.

 

[dblack]

The GOP common goal is to oust Obama and get rid of his corrupt administration.

Replacing it with the same crap. No, thanks.

If what you say is that we have crap in there now...replace it, and we can vote out Romney next election if he doesn't produce.

Sure, but we start over again, essentially sacrificing all efforts to change the repubs into a real alternative. Again, as long as they think they can take us for granted, as long as they can ignore our concerns and count on our votes, they will.

 

[Liability]

Uh, you guys have been telling us that the GOP is hard core conservative.

Who has been saying that exactly?

I ******* quit the GOP precisely BECAUSE they weren't conservative.

Then why are you supporting their liberal candidate?

I am supporting their moderate to liberal candidate (Mitt) in order to kick out the damn near Marxist liberal incumbent (the President).

You having trouble keeping up, today?

 

[sallyforth]

It depends on what your goals are. If sheer power is the only concern, maybe. If you want to reign in corporatist government, it's exactly the wrong move.

The GOP common goal is to oust Obama and get rid of his corrupt administration.

Replacing it with the same crap. No, thanks.

All we can do is work with what we're given. The choice between Obama (whose "hope and change" we have experienced for the last 4 years) and Romney (who may or may not do a good job)........ is an easy one. And if Romney screws us ..........then we vote him out too.

 

[Meister]

Replacing it with the same crap. No, thanks.

If what you say is that we have crap in there now...replace it, and we can vote out Romney next election if he doesn't produce.

Sure, but we start over again, essentially sacrificing all efforts to change the repubs into a real alternative. Again, as long as they think they can take us for granted, as long as they can ignore our concerns and count on our votes, they will.

Go ahead and vote for Obama again...it's your choice.
Me? I don't like the path Obama has taken us and where he wants to take us, so there is the difference in choice for me.

 

[Greenbeard]

WTF do you care?

You just want to get President Obama back into Office.

Given that, as several folks have acknowledged in this thread, this country has a center-left majority (to the point where even the majority of the GOP primary electorate is apparently moderate to liberal), that would be a much easier task were Obama running against the clear contrast of modern rightwing radicalism. I think it's generally understood he would have crushed any of the actual conservatives in the GOP race. As it is, he's running against a slightly different shade of center-leftism than his own.

On the other hand, it's somewhat gratifying to know that ideologically that nation is more or less where I am, and even the far right kooks on sites like this recognize it. So you're right, maybe i don't care.