Dear "Conservatives"....

[Mac1958]

.

This whole thread demonstrates the division within the GOP for which the Dems are so thankful. The party appears to be trying to find itself, figure out what it is. Unfortunately for them, they're doing it at a time when they're up against a very vulnerable incumbent. And the Dems know damn well that a coherent, unified party with a strong standard-bearer would have had a much better shot against them in November.

Nothing wrong with a party trying to find a clear voice. The timing isn't very good in this case, though...

.

 

[Sallow]

I am as far right off the charts.
but,to get rid of inplace garbage we have....
putting the back behind romney.
if,by any chance he picks paul as VP
you bama bots have no chance in hell,as paul has a corner of your voting pool
disillusioned hope and change voters in 08
now smartened up
one key component hes been consistant with
i lived in MA from 05 to 08
and before the socialists finally voted in deval patrick
he was SLAUGHTER on illegal immigration
refused IDs and good vital items to illegals
fucked em royally

Romney's good at "******* people" and seems to enjoy it..as his time at Bain capital proved.

And his governorship was so good..why no second term?

 

[JoeB131]

...if you support the Massachusetts liberal known as Mitt Romney you are not a conservative, you are just a Republican that will support whatever bag of shit they send you.

At least the Paul people have the balls to support a losing candidate that truly ebndorses their beliefs.

Sorry to disillusion you but I've been supporting Romney since 2008. No one sent him to me.

So you've been a liberal since 2008? Or has it been longer?

I have to stick up for Amelia here... she has been very consistant in her support for Romney.

I think the thing about it is that there is a whole grab bag of what is considered "conservative" of conflicting views and interest.

You have the economic conservatives- the ones who think the biggest obstacle to them getting or remaining rich is the government. They want more economic freedom, lower taxes more free trade, etc. This is actually a pretty small slice of the electorate, maybe 20%.

Then you have the Social/Religious/Conservatives. They are actually a much larger slice of the electorate and they care about the social issues- abortion, gay rights, guns, teaching evolution in the schools, school prayer, marriage.

A third group, which I consider myself part of, are the ones who are really concerned about security issues and defense. Oddly enough, they won't be an important part of this election because on security issues, we're fatigued with the war. Obama ended Iraq, killed Bin Laden, and is looking for a graceful way out of Afghanistan, which is where most folks are at right now.

Now, the interesting thing was, the first group had pretty much lost the national argument in 1932. Until 1968 or 1980 (take your pick) The only time Republicans won was when they ran guys who admitted, um, yeah, we really do need the government to protect us from those who have more money than humanity.

The second and third groups really weren't on the radar until 1968. FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ were all economic liberals, but they were cultural and security conservatives. It really wasn't until the hippies got control of the Democratic party that we started talking about these other issues like they were serious.

Now, you can make the argument that Romney was a cultural liberal when he ran Massachusetts, which he was. In 2008, he tried to recast himself as a cultural conservative, but no one was buying it. In 2012, he paid minimum lip service, but his selling point is that he's the economic fix it guy. (which again, looks great at a distance, but when you get into the actual sausage making of what he did to AmPad or DDi or GS Steel, not so much.)

I do think that there are people who are supporting him because they just hate Obama with such a passion. I think there are people who sincerely believe that we need a businessman to fix things, and Amelia is one of them. (And unlike the cyncism of most of WMR's supporters, she's sincere.)

I've become disillusioned with the economic conservatives in the last decade, no doubt the result of being employed by people who are happy to work me to death with little concern about my well-being.

Despite my atheism, I considered myself a cultural conservative for a long time, but I realize that the government isn't the place to fix those problems. At least not if we want to have anything resembling freedom.

Security issues, again, Obama's gotten to the right of the GOP on those. Conservatives can complain about how he "bows" to people, and some of his rhetoric is a bit idiotic, but the fact is, he's maintained Bush's policies, which oddly the usual suspects aren't carping about anymore. When was the last time you heard a lib here talk about Gitmo?

 

[Sallow]

If you vote for either Obama or Mitt you might be either conservative or a liberal, but that won't make either of them either of those. What you'll be getting is either triddle-dee or twiddle-dum of the same Insiders Internationalist cabal that's run this nation into the crapper

Some of you still believe Obama is a liberal?

Even after seeing him sign both the ACA and NDAA, you still think Obama is a liberal? Even after keeping GITMO open?




Jesus! ~ you people are dense.

Romney's lined up Bork to help him pick the next supreme court justice.

That alone should send shivers up and down people's spine.

 

[JoeB131]

.

This whole thread demonstrates the division within the GOP for which the Dems are so thankful. The party appears to be trying to find itself, figure out what it is. Unfortunately for them, they're doing it at a time when they're up against a very vulnerable incumbent. And the Dems know damn well that a coherent, unified party with a strong standard-bearer would have had a much better shot against them in November.

Nothing wrong with a party trying to find a clear voice. The timing isn't very good in this case, though...

.

I made this point in a much more verbose way in the previous post, but you have a point.

I think the problem is the conflicts that have always been there since Nixon or Reagan created the current GOP coalition (and American Political Parties are coalitions, at the end of the day) are coming to the fore.

The religious/cultural conservatives have very little in common with the economic/fiscal conservatives, and it shows. They are getting behind Romney because they hate Obama so much, but they don't like or trust him, and Romney is barely able to hide his contempt for them.

 

[The T]

Who the hell are you ?

I'll support who I want, where I want, when I want.

In this case, he's less a BOS than the current BOS-In-Chief we have now.

Eat crap and die.

Sage advice.

 

[Avatar4321]

so a progressive wants to tell conservatives who or who isnt conservative?

Did you ever think that principles are more important than the label? I dont really care if you call me a conservative or a PoS. Im going to support candidates who more closely reflect my principles. I want people who will govern correctly, which means allowing individuals to govern themselves. Romney will do that for the most part. Far more than Obama will.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This whole thread demonstrates the division within the GOP for which the Dems are so thankful. The party appears to be trying to find itself, figure out what it is. Unfortunately for them, they're doing it at a time when they're up against a very vulnerable incumbent. And the Dems know damn well that a coherent, unified party with a strong standard-bearer would have had a much better shot against them in November.

Nothing wrong with a party trying to find a clear voice. The timing isn't very good in this case, though...

.

I made this point in a much more verbose way in the previous post, but you have a point.

I think the problem is the conflicts that have always been there since Nixon or Reagan created the current GOP coalition (and American Political Parties are coalitions, at the end of the day) are coming to the fore.

The religious/cultural conservatives have very little in common with the economic/fiscal conservatives, and it shows. They are getting behind Romney because they hate Obama so much, but they don't like or trust him, and Romney is barely able to hide his contempt for them.

I'd add one thing, and it's on display here daily - the influence of the wild-eyed absolutists within the party. They've always been around, the Rush wannabees who'd rather fan flames than anything else, but right now they're getting the spotlight.

Weird balance at play here. The wild-eyed absolutists, the group that gives the party 99% of its energy, is the same group that both drives many independents away and animates the opposition. So are these people a net positive or a net negative?

Dunno!

.

 

[Avatar4321]

.

This whole thread demonstrates the division within the GOP for which the Dems are so thankful. The party appears to be trying to find itself, figure out what it is. Unfortunately for them, they're doing it at a time when they're up against a very vulnerable incumbent. And the Dems know damn well that a coherent, unified party with a strong standard-bearer would have had a much better shot against them in November.

Nothing wrong with a party trying to find a clear voice. The timing isn't very good in this case, though...

.

I made this point in a much more verbose way in the previous post, but you have a point.

I think the problem is the conflicts that have always been there since Nixon or Reagan created the current GOP coalition (and American Political Parties are coalitions, at the end of the day) are coming to the fore.

The religious/cultural conservatives have very little in common with the economic/fiscal conservatives, and it shows. They are getting behind Romney because they hate Obama so much, but they don't like or trust him, and Romney is barely able to hide his contempt for them.

What contempt does Romney have for anyone? What evidence is there that he doesnt like anyone?

Please stop lying to yourself. It hurts only you in the end. Romney will be President and people will be better off for it.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you vote for either Obama or Mitt you might be either conservative or a liberal, but that won't make either of them either of those. What you'll be getting is either triddle-dee or twiddle-dum of the same Insiders Internationalist cabal that's run this nation into the crapper

Some of you still believe Obama is a liberal?

Even after seeing him sign both the ACA and NDAA, you still think Obama is a liberal? Even after keeping GITMO open?




Jesus! ~ you people are dense.

Romney's lined up Bork to help him pick the next supreme court justice.

That alone should send shivers up and down people's spine.

anyone trying to overthrow the Constitution and the Republic should have shivers down their spine.

 

[Avatar4321]

For conservatives the election doesn’t have anything to do with Romney, what he believes or doesn’t believe is irrelevant; whether Romney is a liberal or conservative is irrelevant.

What conservatives are voting for is what they imagine a Romney administration would look like, the actual administrators – appointed, not elected – who will run the country, rightwing extremists and partisan hacks who will determine the actual day to day policies, and make the actual day to day decisions.

And conservatives imagine most of these appointees will be hardcore conservative ideologues; conservatives won’t be voting for Romney, they’ll be voting for the likes of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Andrew Card, Alberto Gonzales, Karen Hughes, and Dick Cheney.

Indeed, the fact that Romney is weak and indecisive makes him even more attractive to conservatives, Romney will stay out of the way, act ‘presidential,’ as another republican shadow government manipulates the Nation from behind the scenes.

In essence they see Romney as another GWB, a clueless dolt content with being a vacuous figurehead.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Are you trying to make yourself as relevant as rdean?

 

[JoeB131]

.

This whole thread demonstrates the division within the GOP for which the Dems are so thankful. The party appears to be trying to find itself, figure out what it is. Unfortunately for them, they're doing it at a time when they're up against a very vulnerable incumbent. And the Dems know damn well that a coherent, unified party with a strong standard-bearer would have had a much better shot against them in November.

Nothing wrong with a party trying to find a clear voice. The timing isn't very good in this case, though...

.

I made this point in a much more verbose way in the previous post, but you have a point.

I think the problem is the conflicts that have always been there since Nixon or Reagan created the current GOP coalition (and American Political Parties are coalitions, at the end of the day) are coming to the fore.

The religious/cultural conservatives have very little in common with the economic/fiscal conservatives, and it shows. They are getting behind Romney because they hate Obama so much, but they don't like or trust him, and Romney is barely able to hide his contempt for them.

I'd add one thing, and it's on display here daily - the influence of the wild-eyed absolutists within the party. They've always been around, the Rush wannabees who'd rather fan flames than anything else, but right now they're getting the spotlight.

Weird balance at play here. The wild-eyed absolutists, the group that gives the party 99% of its energy, is the same group that both drives many independents away and animates the opposition. So are these people a net positive or a net negative?

Dunno!

.

I think they are a positive for Romney in that they are the only thing animating his zombie campaign. If it weren't for hatred of Obama, the only people supporting Romney would be millionaires and Mormons. Which is pretty much got him that third place finish in 2008 after spending nine figures running.

Take a look at all the folks here who were supporting Cain or Perry or Gingrich back in December who are trying to convince themselves they love Romney now. It's really a shotgun marriage.

of course, if unemployment had declined as it would have in a normal recession, unemployment would be 6% right now and we'd be measuring Obama for that fifth spot on Mount Rushmore. but it's at 8.2%, which would normally put Obama in the same position as George H. Bush and Jimmy Carter. So this is probably the only thing that makes these independents take a look at Romney.

The interesting things in the polls was a few of them showed Romney pulling ahead for about a week after Santorum dropped out and he clinched it. Which means people were finaly giving him a serious look. And after looking for about a week, Obama has widened his lead back to about 4%.

 

[Sallow]

For conservatives the election doesn’t have anything to do with Romney, what he believes or doesn’t believe is irrelevant; whether Romney is a liberal or conservative is irrelevant.

What conservatives are voting for is what they imagine a Romney administration would look like, the actual administrators – appointed, not elected – who will run the country, rightwing extremists and partisan hacks who will determine the actual day to day policies, and make the actual day to day decisions.

And conservatives imagine most of these appointees will be hardcore conservative ideologues; conservatives won’t be voting for Romney, they’ll be voting for the likes of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Andrew Card, Alberto Gonzales, Karen Hughes, and Dick Cheney.

Indeed, the fact that Romney is weak and indecisive makes him even more attractive to conservatives, Romney will stay out of the way, act ‘presidential,’ as another republican shadow government manipulates the Nation from behind the scenes.

In essence they see Romney as another GWB, a clueless dolt content with being a vacuous figurehead.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Are you trying to make yourself as relevant as rdean?

Why?

For much of his first term, Bush was a very hands off President. Most of the time, he looked like he didn't know what was going on. The country was being run, effectively, by Cheney and the boys. It wasn't until later in the second term, when Bush's father interceded by sending in the "A-Team", that you see some pretty big changes. Rumsfeld went away..and Gates got in. There was some meaningful changes in the way the Iraqi war was conducted...which led to a success. But for pretty much of Bush's presidency..he wasn't running the show.

 

[Mac1958]

I made this point in a much more verbose way in the previous post, but you have a point.

I think the problem is the conflicts that have always been there since Nixon or Reagan created the current GOP coalition (and American Political Parties are coalitions, at the end of the day) are coming to the fore.

The religious/cultural conservatives have very little in common with the economic/fiscal conservatives, and it shows. They are getting behind Romney because they hate Obama so much, but they don't like or trust him, and Romney is barely able to hide his contempt for them.

I'd add one thing, and it's on display here daily - the influence of the wild-eyed absolutists within the party. They've always been around, the Rush wannabees who'd rather fan flames than anything else, but right now they're getting the spotlight.

Weird balance at play here. The wild-eyed absolutists, the group that gives the party 99% of its energy, is the same group that both drives many independents away and animates the opposition. So are these people a net positive or a net negative?

Dunno!

.

I think they are a positive for Romney in that they are the only thing animating his zombie campaign. If it weren't for hatred of Obama, the only people supporting Romney would be millionaires and Mormons. Which is pretty much got him that third place finish in 2008 after spending nine figures running.

Take a look at all the folks here who were supporting Cain or Perry or Gingrich back in December who are trying to convince themselves they love Romney now. It's really a shotgun marriage.

of course, if unemployment had declined as it would have in a normal recession, unemployment would be 6% right now and we'd be measuring Obama for that fifth spot on Mount Rushmore. but it's at 8.2%, which would normally put Obama in the same position as George H. Bush and Jimmy Carter. So this is probably the only thing that makes these independents take a look at Romney.

The interesting things in the polls was a few of them showed Romney pulling ahead for about a week after Santorum dropped out and he clinched it. Which means people were finaly giving him a serious look. And after looking for about a week, Obama has widened his lead back to about 4%.

Yeah, this has been fascinating to watch. Many of them have decided they love Romney now. The most interesting example has been Coulter. That's the problem for absolutists - sometimes they have to bend so hard to stick to their message they run the risk of ending up in traction.

.

 

[peach174]

And he is one frealing hell of a businessperson,ill hand that to him as well.
it at least appears he wants to listen to the base...
rather than be megalomaniac like obama...doing his own thing.

When has Obama done his own thing?

He was for the Republican plan on cap-and-trade and the individual mandate.

He kept Gitmo open.

Extended the Bush tax cuts.

The guy's been a nice moderate Republican to this point. I think the far right would really be shitting their pants at this point had he passed single-payer and nationalized the banking and oil industries.

And if he didn't save GM, the same mother fuckers who hate him for saving it would be accusing him of hating cars.

GM was not saved, it still went bankrupt.
That is why we have the bankruptcy law. The tax payers money was not needed.
GM needed to fire their CEO a long time ago, and hire a new one. Then they needed to restructure their union by lowering over paid workers, the benefits and over paid retirement pay.

 

[geauxtohell]

Who the hell are you ?

I'll support who I want, where I want, when I want.

In this case, he's less a BOS than the current BOS-In-Chief we have now.

Eat crap and die.

So you are a Repblican, not a conservative. The two aren' mutually inclusive.

When you vote for a liberal for his nations highest office in November, you will demonstrate that you aren't a conservative.

It's a tough call for conservatives. Obama is the most liberal of all choices. Voting for a third party candidate is a huge risk because it would likely hand the election to Obama. True conservatives will go for the least liberal candidate that has a chance of winning. Many moderates support Romney and others will hold their nose and vote for Romney because they consider him the lesser of two evils.

Cain was my guy and the left went after him with a vengeance. Couldn't have a conservative black or they couldn't have claimed the right was racist. It's really not about race. Cain represented what I believe and once he was out, I rooted for Paul, but know he doesn't have a chance. If I vote for Paul, it's just taking away a vote for Romney, who has a real chance of beating Obama.

I would think a "real" (insert ideology here) would vote for their principles in order to advance them (even if slowly) and not vote for a fake simply so their team might win.

Good discussion on this concept:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/180492-paul-supporters-what-are-you-going-to-do.html

 

[geauxtohell]

As a moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, it's not that I see Romney as a liberal or a conservative, it's that I don't really know what he is. There's no consistency with the guy.

I find it troubling that a person could totally reverse themselves on practically every important issue in under 5 years.

I get attacked from the right now when I say I still support their ideas of cap-and-trade and the individual mandate.

I feel that a Romney presidency would be like John Boehner's tenure in the House, where they start out center-right but then totally cave and then only pass hard-right bills, like the idiotic one they passed today that pays for the extension of lower student loan interest rates by cutting preventive medicine for women, like cancer screenings.

America is #1 at early cancer detection, but apparently the Republicans in Washington have a problem with that.

Their extreme stubbornness on everything is a result of an extreme wing that has hijacked the party.

Early cancer screenings should not be under assault at this time, but it is, and for that reason I just can't vote Republican this time. It's like you vote for them for two or three specific reasons, but then they create 8 problems that were totally unnecessary after they get elected.

Couldn't agree with that more.

 

[Stephanie]

For conservatives the election doesn't have anything to do with Romney, what he believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant; whether Romney is a liberal or conservative is irrelevant.

What conservatives are voting for is what they imagine a Romney administration would look like, the actual administrators – appointed, not elected – who will run the country, right wing extremists and partisan hacks who will determine the actual day to day policies, and make the actual day to day decisions.

And conservatives imagine most of these appointees will be hardcore conservative ideologues; conservatives won’t be voting for Romney, they’ll be voting for the likes of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Andrew Card, Alberto Gonzales, Karen Hughes, and Dick Cheney.

Indeed, the fact that Romney is weak and indecisive makes him even more attractive to conservatives, Romney will stay out of the way, act ‘presidential,’ as another republican shadow government manipulates the Nation from behind the scenes.

In essence they see Romney as another GWB, a clueless dolt content with being a vacuous figurehead.

you have it all figured out eh?
what the hell do you call Obama? He's just the puppet of the people pulling his strings in the background...the guy flies all around the country on our dime to spread his special brand of hate.

 

[geauxtohell]

I am as far right off the charts.
but,to get rid of inplace garbage we have....
putting the back behind romney.
if,by any chance he picks paul as VP
you bama bots have no chance in hell,as paul has a corner of your voting pool
disillusioned hope and change voters in 08
now smartened up
one key component hes been consistant with
i lived in MA from 05 to 08
and before the socialists finally voted in deval patrick
he was SLAUGHTER on illegal immigration
refused IDs and good vital items to illegals
fucked em royally

So you aren't conservative, you just hate Obama.

If you were conservative, it wouldn't be acceptable for you to replace one liberal with another.

 

[The T]

And he is one frealing hell of a businessperson,ill hand that to him as well.
it at least appears he wants to listen to the base...
rather than be megalomaniac like obama...doing his own thing.

When has Obama done his own thing?

He was for the Republican plan on cap-and-trade and the individual mandate.

He kept Gitmo open.

Extended the Bush tax cuts.

The guy's been a nice moderate Republican to this point. I think the far right would really be shitting their pants at this point had he passed single-payer and nationalized the banking and oil industries.

And if he didn't save GM, the same mother fuckers who hate him for saving it would be accusing him of hating cars.

GM was not saved, it still went bankrupt.
That is why we have the bankruptcy law. The tax payers money was not needed.
GM needed to fire their CEO a long time ago, and hire a new one. Then they needed to restructure their union by lowering over paid workers, the benefits and over paid retirement pay.

GM was handed over to the Unions as a gift from Obama. The taxpayers and the shareholders got a raw deal.