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

[JakeStarkey]

Snippper, lezzes and gays are as American as you, deserve the same rights to have loving marriages. That is the conservative position.

Changing the definiton of marriage, which has evolved over millennia, is a freakishly radical and liberal position. Hope that helps.

Your opinion is archaic, unconstitutional, and in the minority. The generations 40 and younger accept universal marriage. So be snippy, Snipper, cause that is all you have left.

 

[Katzndogz]

Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.

That wasn't the question though. It had to do with choosing a moderate over the number of strong conservatives running and why that is.

Don't be dense!

There was a full primary campaign with each candidate fully vetted. There were no rules that only conservatives could vote, or only moderates could vote. The reason why Romney won is simple, he was not distracted by democrat bait. It's the economy, he stayed there and sat on the issue as if it was an egg. Then it hatched into the nomination. Democrats are prejudiced. They have prejudged and formulated the "average" republican voter, imbuded that voter with democrat picked interests, and attributed the whole construct to the republican primary. If democrats need to ask why a moderate was chosen over the strong conservatives, it means democrats haven't got a clue as to the process. Likely, since human republicans are far more complex than human democrats the strong conservative candidates were rejected for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with conservative values.

Of all the republican candidates running, only Romney recognized that the bait the democrats threw out was maggoty. The war on women, the war on dogs, the endless social issues that democrats dragged around like Achilles dragging the body of Hector around the walls of Troy. They were all distractions. Romney never bit, nor did he even nibble. Santorum did, not only did he bite, but he flashed a bit of anger when he realized that he couldn't stop the democrat lies. Gingrich became too personally involved and ended up disliked. Cain was deliberately attacked and taken out by a string of democrat operatives.

This particular election is not about social values. Social values are a luxury when things are going pretty good. This election is about the economy and the mess obama made of foreign policy. Democrats want to force the election into being about social policy, it won't work because the Republican candidate is Mitt Romney. That's why he's the nominee and not a more conservative candidate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama has done well on foreign policy, much better than Bush, so we better concentrate on the economy, which is Mitt's strength. Katzndogz, let's not try to make something of what we don't have: a good attack on BHO foreign policy. Ignore it as much as possible.

 

[BDBoop]

Doesn't Romney's message depend on what day it is and who he's speaking to?

Yes. And what direction he's facing, and where Anne is currently shopping. These are all important variables.

 

[BDBoop]

Funny the John Birch society should be mentioned, considering that one of the founding members - anybody? Anybody? ... Bueller?

That's right! Fred Koch. See all that money flooding the legislation efforts to turn us back to a simpler time (and by 'simple', I mean 'minded')? Another lovely inheritance, as stated by David.

 

[The Rabbi]

Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.

But if he wins, then what? Was he awesome so far, or did Romney just suck that bad?

The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.

 

[Nosmo King]

Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.

But if he wins, then what? Was he awesome so far, or did Romney just suck that bad?

The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.

Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.

 

[BDBoop]

But if he wins, then what? Was he awesome so far, or did Romney just suck that bad?

The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.

Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.

I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.

 

[dblack]

I think you miss read that. I was posing a question, "is it conservative to legislate morality?" I personally don't believe that it is, just like you. But much of the conservative base does like to legislate morality. Its the fork in the road for the party as far as I can tell.

All laws are a form of someone legislating morality.

No, they're not. Law protecting rights are not the same as laws imposing morality. There's overlap, to be sure, but the purpose is different.

 

[DaGoose]

Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.

That wasn't the question though. It had to do with choosing a moderate over the number of strong conservatives running and why that is.

Don't be dense!

There was a full primary campaign with each candidate fully vetted. There were no rules that only conservatives could vote, or only moderates could vote. The reason why Romney won is simple, he was not distracted by democrat bait. It's the economy, he stayed there and sat on the issue as if it was an egg. Then it hatched into the nomination. Democrats are prejudiced. They have prejudged and formulated the "average" republican voter, imbuded that voter with democrat picked interests, and attributed the whole construct to the republican primary. If democrats need to ask why a moderate was chosen over the strong conservatives, it means democrats haven't got a clue as to the process. Likely, since human republicans are far more complex than human democrats the strong conservative candidates were rejected for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with conservative values.

Of all the republican candidates running, only Romney recognized that the bait the democrats threw out was maggoty. The war on women, the war on dogs, the endless social issues that democrats dragged around like Achilles dragging the body of Hector around the walls of Troy. They were all distractions. Romney never bit, nor did he even nibble. Santorum did, not only did he bite, but he flashed a bit of anger when he realized that he couldn't stop the democrat lies. Gingrich became too personally involved and ended up disliked. Cain was deliberately attacked and taken out by a string of democrat operatives.

This particular election is not about social values. Social values are a luxury when things are going pretty good. This election is about the economy and the mess obama made of foreign policy. Democrats want to force the election into being about social policy, it won't work because the Republican candidate is Mitt Romney. That's why he's the nominee and not a more conservative candidate.

Though I disagree with it that was a good response.

The only reason "social values" were brought into the primary is because the candidates themselves brought them in. It had nothing to do with the Dems. And your belief that it was somehow the Dems means that the GOP electorate is too stupid to realize when they are being manipulated by the opposing party.

No.....in my opinion this primary was a fight between the tea party vs conservatives vs moderates.

The moderates won.

 

[Nosmo King]

The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.

Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.

I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.

It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....

When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).

 

[BDBoop]

Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.

I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.

It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....

When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).

I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.

 

[Katzndogz]

Obama has done well on foreign policy, much better than Bush, so we better concentrate on the economy, which is Mitt's strength. Katzndogz, let's not try to make something of what we don't have: a good attack on BHO foreign policy. Ignore it as much as possible.

obama's foreign policy has been a disaster of such proportions that there is no possibility of recovering, just fighting through it.

It isn't that he has made wrong decisions. It's that everyone of his decisions has been wrong. He completely misread the Arab Spring with the result that formerly moderate islamic nations are now controlled by the most oppressive of islamic sects. His policy on North Korea has been a disastrous failure. Hamid Karzai has been leading him around on a halter like a villager's goat. But nothing can compare with the utter disaster that is his policies with Iran. That one might be the worst of all.

 

[Nosmo King]

I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.

It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....

When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).

I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.

If the Republican Party remains anchored to Grover Norquist, if they keep the wheel pulled hard to starboard on ideology, if they continue to repel boarders who happen to be women or Latino, that GOP ship has no hope but to fonder on the shoals.




All those nautical terms and i live in Pittsburgh! A long walk from the beach!

 

[dblack]

That wasn't the question though. It had to do with choosing a moderate over the number of strong conservatives running and why that is.

Don't be dense!

There was a full primary campaign with each candidate fully vetted. There were no rules that only conservatives could vote, or only moderates could vote. The reason why Romney won is simple, he was not distracted by democrat bait. It's the economy, he stayed there and sat on the issue as if it was an egg. Then it hatched into the nomination. Democrats are prejudiced. They have prejudged and formulated the "average" republican voter, imbuded that voter with democrat picked interests, and attributed the whole construct to the republican primary. If democrats need to ask why a moderate was chosen over the strong conservatives, it means democrats haven't got a clue as to the process. Likely, since human republicans are far more complex than human democrats the strong conservative candidates were rejected for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with conservative values.

Of all the republican candidates running, only Romney recognized that the bait the democrats threw out was maggoty. The war on women, the war on dogs, the endless social issues that democrats dragged around like Achilles dragging the body of Hector around the walls of Troy. They were all distractions. Romney never bit, nor did he even nibble. Santorum did, not only did he bite, but he flashed a bit of anger when he realized that he couldn't stop the democrat lies. Gingrich became too personally involved and ended up disliked. Cain was deliberately attacked and taken out by a string of democrat operatives.

This particular election is not about social values. Social values are a luxury when things are going pretty good. This election is about the economy and the mess obama made of foreign policy. Democrats want to force the election into being about social policy, it won't work because the Republican candidate is Mitt Romney. That's why he's the nominee and not a more conservative candidate.

Though I disagree with it that was a good response.

The only reason "social values" were brought into the primary is because the candidates themselves brought them in. It had nothing to do with the Dems. And your belief that it was somehow the Dems means that the GOP electorate is too stupid to realize when they are being manipulated by the opposing party.

No.....in my opinion this primary was a fight between the tea party vs conservatives vs moderates.

The moderates won.

I tend to agree. Libertarians are working hard to transform the Republican party, and seeing some success. Part of that process is rejecting the corporatists propped up by establishment leaders, which is why the best outcome of this election - from a libertarian point of view - is a Romney defeat. In my view, it would benefit the cause of freedom in two important ways.

First, as a corporatist, status-quo leader, Romney would pursue most of the same policies as Obama. But instead of being up against the stubborn opposition of Congress that Obama would face, Romney would find compliance. Republicans will support him out of partisanship, and Democrats out of general enthusiasm for big government.

Second, if we're to continue to make progress transforming the party, it's vital that the vested interests in the party pay the price for ignoring our priorities. Otherwise, if we reward Romney with a victory, they'll continue to ignore us.

 

[BDBoop]

It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....

When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).

I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.

If the Republican Party remains anchored to Grover Norquist, if they keep the wheel pulled hard to starboard on ideology, if they continue to repel boarders who happen to be women or Latino, that GOP ship has no hope but to fonder on the shoals.




All those nautical terms and i live in Pittsburgh! A long walk from the beach!

Are you currently reading a nautical book, and it's seeping over into real life?

 

[Nosmo King]

I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.

If the Republican Party remains anchored to Grover Norquist, if they keep the wheel pulled hard to starboard on ideology, if they continue to repel boarders who happen to be women or Latino, that GOP ship has no hope but to fonder on the shoals.




All those nautical terms and i live in Pittsburgh! A long walk from the beach!

Are you currently reading a nautical book, and it's seeping over into real life?

Maybe the 100th anniversary of the Titanic and the Republican Party are just too similar to ignore?

 

[BDBoop]

rofl! Hehehehehehe. Maybe.

Nice pics.
♫ Morning plane to Georgia ♫ « The Obama Diary

 

[BluePhantom]

Snippper, lezzes and gays are as American as you, deserve the same rights to have loving marriages. That is the conservative position.

Changing the definiton of marriage, which has evolved over millennia, is a freakishly radical and liberal position. Hope that helps.

Your opinion is archaic, unconstitutional, and in the minority. The generations 40 and younger accept universal marriage. So be snippy, Snipper, cause that is all you have left.

I completely agree, Jake (take your nitro pill....it does happen ). However, it's worth noting that the anti-gay agenda is not exclusively a conservative position as people would have you believe. The DNC and Democratic politicians love to say they support gay rights, but unfortunately liberal voters don't. We see evidence of this in California and Oregon, just to name two examples among many, where measures were passed by the voters to ban gay marriage (In Oregon it was actually an amendment to the state constitution). Certainly one is not going to argue that it was only ultra-conservatives voting for those bans. Perhaps you could make that argument in Idaho or Wyoming...but California? Oregon? Sorry liberals.....you can't lay this all on the GOP. You do your share as well.

I would further the argument by pointing out that, as with many things, The Democratic Party has a real bad habit of portraying themselves as champions of a given cause or demographic but not doing a damn thing to actually help their cause. They always blame it on GOP obstructionism....bullshit. Super majorities in both houses of Congress for two years and not a ******* thing done about any of those issues. Can't blame the oppression of gay rights on conservatives in California and Oregon now can you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama has done well on foreign policy, much better than Bush, so we better concentrate on the economy, which is Mitt's strength. Katzndogz, let's not try to make something of what we don't have: a good attack on BHO foreign policy. Ignore it as much as possible.

obama's foreign policy has been a disaster of such proportions that there is no possibility of recovering, just fighting through it.

It isn't that he has made wrong decisions. It's that everyone of his decisions has been wrong. He completely misread the Arab Spring with the result that formerly moderate islamic nations are now controlled by the most oppressive of islamic sects. His policy on North Korea has been a disastrous failure. Hamid Karzai has been leading him around on a halter like a villager's goat. But nothing can compare with the utter disaster that is his policies with Iran. That one might be the worst of all.

Talking points that are unsustainable. He has repaired much of the Bush mistakes. We do have great challenges in the Middle East to keep confronting. Iran? No, we aren't going to attack Iran, nor should we. Nor will Romney.