Romney 2012?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

Ohhh, believe me, you will NOT find me claiming that all Congresspeople are remotely intelligent – there are some fucking LOONS in there on both ends of the spectrum. (The sad reality is that, as market forces dictate, most REALLY smart, capable people work in the private sector).

I don’t think that anyone who isn’t ashamed to mention their faith is a nutjob, I think that anyone who GOVERNS by it is a nutjob. Any anyone who shoves it down others’ throats is a nutjob.

I certainly wouldn’t say that nothing good can come from religion, and I likewise wouldn’t say that nothing bad comes from religion – plenty does. As for the term “Religious Right,” what it specifically has come to represent in this country is very much abhorrent to me. But that’s not the same as saying that all religious people are abhorrent to me.

I’m not too concerned about sticking or not sticking to what anyone officially describes as “conservative.” The label is something I could take or leave. I think my politics tend to be more conservative on the whole than liberal, but if someone wants to shout at me “YOU’RE not a real conservative!!” I wouldn’t really care.

I would be gung-ho for a conservative/libertarian party that would drop the religion thing (since it has no place in government) and stick to fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, low regulation, market economics, anti-litigiousness, etc.

And I have to disagree: I think that if the Republican party as we know it today were to splinter or dissolve (which I wouldn’t mind) a party like the one I’m describing – which would NOT include the “Religious Right” COULD indeed win national elections. But I don’t know if such a thing will materialize anytime soon.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
We disagree on the other: I’m against nominating unintelligent, non-wordly Bible-thumping idiots above all else. You seem to disagree.

Unintelligent is a pretty subjective term. An entire Congress full of supposedly “intelligent” elected officials, and they pass an $850 billion bailout for a financial crisis cause by the same people who are telling them that a bailout will fix it.

You seem to think that anyone who isn’t ashamed to mention their faith is an abomination to the party, or that anyone who is religios should shut the fuck up and sit in the corner.

Yeah - we disagree.

Give me an intelligent, fiscally conservative, strong (yet intelligent, not ideological) on national defense, socially libertarian Republican candidate and I’ll vote for him/her in a heartbeat. But I have a feeling they’ll never field one.

Give me a party full of men that are willing to fight for what is right instead of thinking that reaching across the aisle will make them popular.

I can take or leave the religion. I am not so closed minded as to think that nothing good can come from the religious right, nor am I so naive to think that a conservative movement will go very far without their support. Like it or not, Middle American values are not going anywhere soon.

[/quote]

142

Good posts, Damici.

143

[quote]Damici wrote:

I would be gung-ho for a conservative/libertarian party that would drop the religion thing (since it has no place in government) and stick to fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, low regulation, market economics, anti-litigiousness, etc.

And I have to disagree: I think that if the Republican party as we know it today were to splinter or dissolve (which I wouldn’t mind) a party like the one I’m describing – which would NOT include the “Religious Right” COULD indeed win national elections. But I don’t know if such a thing will materialize anytime soon.
[/quote]

Yes. The Republican party is in trouble because it has decided to put its LEAST conservative members up for president who are no different than liberals in meaningful ways that the bulk of the country cares about. While at the same time trying to cater to their MOST extreme social and religious elements that most of the country does not identify with. (though you wouldn’t realize it by how loud and vocal they are on these fourms)

144

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Damici wrote:

I would be gung-ho for a conservative/libertarian party that would drop the religion thing (since it has no place in government) and stick to fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, low regulation, market economics, anti-litigiousness, etc.

And I have to disagree: I think that if the Republican party as we know it today were to splinter or dissolve (which I wouldn’t mind) a party like the one I’m describing – which would NOT include the “Religious Right” COULD indeed win national elections. But I don’t know if such a thing will materialize anytime soon.

Yes. The Republican party is in trouble because it has decided to put its LEAST conservative members up for president who are no different than liberals in meaningful ways that the bulk of the country cares about. While at the same time trying to cater to their MOST extreme social and religious elements that most of the country does not identify with. (though you wouldn’t realize it by how loud and vocal they are on these fourms)[/quote]

You are not a conservative. You have admitted this several times.

Why the fuck should the Dallas Cowboys take game planning advice from the Detroit Lions?

Seriously - you have no clue what “the people” want. True conservatism wins EVERY SINGE TIME it is used.

The facts just don’t juive with your musings, kiddo. Sorry.

145

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Damici wrote:

I would be gung-ho for a conservative/libertarian party that would drop the religion thing (since it has no place in government) and stick to fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, low regulation, market economics, anti-litigiousness, etc.

And I have to disagree: I think that if the Republican party as we know it today were to splinter or dissolve (which I wouldn’t mind) a party like the one I’m describing – which would NOT include the “Religious Right” COULD indeed win national elections. But I don’t know if such a thing will materialize anytime soon.

Yes. The Republican party is in trouble because it has decided to put its LEAST conservative members up for president who are no different than liberals in meaningful ways that the bulk of the country cares about. While at the same time trying to cater to their MOST extreme social and religious elements that most of the country does not identify with. (though you wouldn’t realize it by how loud and vocal they are on these fourms)

You are not a conservative. You have admitted this several times.

Why the fuck should the Dallas Cowboys take game planning advice from the Detroit Lions?

Seriously - you have no clue what “the people” want. True conservatism wins EVERY SINGE TIME it is used.

The facts just don’t juive with your musings, kiddo. Sorry.
[/quote]

Different country now, buddy. I’m calling for a party realignment. Believe me it’d work. There are enough people who are disillusioned with the Democrats to embrace moderate conservatism and a responsible, intelligent Republican party that cuts off its extremist elements. Sure, people like you and the even more extreme would be left out in the cold. But that wouldn’t be my problem. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening.

146

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Different country now, buddy. I’m calling for a party realignment. Believe me it’d work. There are enough people who are disillusioned with the Democrats to embrace moderate conservatism and a responsible, intelligent Republican party that cuts off its extremist elements. Sure, people like you and the even more extreme would be left out in the cold. But that wouldn’t be my problem. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening. [/quote]

You are not a conservative.

If you want to form a party in the middle, go ahead and see how well that works for you.

Wishy-washy fence riders will never win anything.

McCain ran as a wishy-washy fence rider, and lost. You just admitted this, as well. Were it not for Palin - he would have lost much worse than he did.

And you think more McCains are going to create a viable party?

Try again, kiddo.

147

By the way, an appeal to staunch conservatism only works at the margins and when the turnout of classic liberal groups is low. When the candidate is running against a political dud like Al Gore or John Kerry. And lying about fiscal conservatism, curbing wasteful spending, and responsible governance (the things the majority of the electorate cares about). It works because people are duped and willing to suck up the more extremist elements to get the things they care about and the approach to governance they are promised. But don’t get.

Think of the kind of support a party that actually committed to these values, and cut off the extremist elements that alienate most would enjoy election after election.

148

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Different country now, buddy. I’m calling for a party realignment. Believe me it’d work. There are enough people who are disillusioned with the Democrats to embrace moderate conservatism and a responsible, intelligent Republican party that cuts off its extremist elements. Sure, people like you and the even more extreme would be left out in the cold. But that wouldn’t be my problem. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening.

You are not a conservative.

If you want to form a party in the middle, go ahead and see how well that works for you.

Wishy-washy fence riders will never win anything.

McCain ran as a wishy-washy fence rider, and lost. You just admitted this, as well. Were it not for Palin - he would have lost much worse than he did.

And you think more McCains are going to create a viable party?

Try again, kiddo. [/quote]

McCain was not a wishy-washy fence-rider. He was pretty much a liberal through-and-through. That extremist Palin cost him more votes than it gained him. And I feel fairly certain history will agree on that once the dust has settled and the issue is looked at carefully.

149

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Think of the kind of support a party that actually committed to these values, and cut off the extremist elements that alienate most would enjoy election after election.[/quote]

A party committed to smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending will win every election.

Those three issues are the lynch pins of any true conservative.

Running to the left to avoid the religious right would be stupid at the very least, as you would have to abandon at least one of the conservative tenets.

Bush abandoned two of the three, as did the Republican congress. Both of them lost big.

Results don’t lie. It was proven just in the last 4 years that your brand of pussified conservatism is cold lumpy mush in the mouths of hungry voters looking to vote FOR something or someone with balls.

Moderates = nutless wonders. Always has. Always will.

150

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
McCain was not a wishy-washy fence-rider. He was pretty much a liberal through-and-through. That extremist Palin cost him more votes than it gained him. And I feel fairly certain history will agree on that once the dust has settled and the issue is looked at carefully.[/quote]

Palin is a Reagan conservative. And you label that as an extremist?

Please stop offering advice. Go to the doctor and see who stole your balls.

151

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Think of the kind of support a party that actually committed to these values, and cut off the extremist elements that alienate most would enjoy election after election.

A party committed to smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending will win every election.

Those three issues are the lynch pins of any true conservative.

Running to the left to avoid the religious right would be stupid at the very least, as you would have to abandon at least one of the conservative tenets.

Bush abandoned two of the three, as did the Republican congress. Both of them lost big.

Results don’t lie. It was proven just in the last 4 years that your brand of pussified conservatism is cold lumpy mush in the mouths of hungry voters looking to vote FOR something or someone with balls.

Moderates = nutless wonders. Always has. Always will.

[/quote]

No, moderates make sense. Solve problems. And don’t apporach each issue, no matter what is actually called for and needed, with one nut-job ideological approach. Bush did not adopt ‘pussified conservatism.’ What he did was drop all the best elements of conservatism like good governance and fiscal responsibility, and embrace all the worst. We’re not gonna agree. If anyone’s the nutless wonder it’s you. The only one that actually has balls among staunch conservatives is Ann Coulter. I’ll give her that. But a penis too. And possibly rabies. And mad cow.

152

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No, moderates make sense. Solve problems. And don’t apporach each issue, no matter what is actually called for and needed, with one nut-job ideological approach. Bush did not adopt ‘pussified conservatism.’ What he did was drop all the best elements of conservatism like good governance and fiscal responsibility, and embrace all the worst. We’re not gonna agree. If anyone’s the nutless wonder it’s you. The only one that actually has balls among staunch conservatives is Ann Coulter. I’ll give her that. But a penis too. And possibly rabies and mad cow.[/quote]

Please give examples of approaching a problem with a “nutjob ideological approach”. That is just a bunch of fucking jibberish.

The nutless wonders are folks like you who proclaim they are not conservatives, yet have an answer for conservatism in the form of self-castration and a move to the middle.

People of principle do not move. They draw others to them. You are like a moth chasing a flame.

For fuck’s sake. You are whining about how I am talking about a bygone era - and the new baby jesus ran on the identical platform FDR did 75 fucking years ago.

153

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
No Romney in 2012. There needs to be a purging of the current crop of spineless Republicrats and some new blood to replace them.[/quote]

Laura Ingraham (conservative radio talk shoe host) was subbing for Oreilly last nigh on FOX new and completely ripped the Republican Leadership and the McCain staffers who were shitting on Palin.

She was naming names and calling for John Boehner’s removal as Minority leader. Two other leaders have already resigned there positions.

There is going to be a whole new wave of Republican leadership. Palin exposed for all to see the lack of conservative principles in the leadership and that is why she is being attacked. The republicans have a history of giving the POTUS nomination to the next guy in line (read Dole,McCain), not necessarily the best candidate. This needs to change.

154

Bingo: Those three things and ONLY those three things are what they need to focus on. Let’s repeat: smaller government (in ALL respects), lower taxes and less spending.

Exactly.

BUT, then you went on to say that “running to the left to avoid the religious right would be stupid at the very least, as you would have to abandon at least one of the conservative tenets.”

Nooooo . . . let’s drop the words “left” and “right” for a minute, as they seem to be confusing us from the actual policy stances. Dropping the Religious Right would require ZERO compromise on those three issue: smaller government, lower taxes and less spending.

Not one of those issues has ANYTHING TO DO with religion or social issues. Period.

If the religious wackos are faced with a choice between a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, raise spending, increase government regulation . . . and stay out of everyone’s business when it comes to social issues . . . OR, a Republican (or whatever party they might be a part of) who wants to lower taxes, lower spending, lower government regulation . . . and LIKEWISE stay out of everyone’s business when it comes to social issues . . .

You’re saying the religious wackos would then choose to vote for the Democrat?? Aren’t they “Conservatives?” Wouldn’t they prefer the candidate with the conservative stance on those three issues . . . ?

Let’s force them to make that choice by nominating just such a Republican.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
A party committed to smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending will win every election.

Those three issues are the lynch pins of any true conservative.

Running to the left to avoid the religious right would be stupid at the very least, as you would have to abandon at least one of the conservative tenets.

[/quote]

155

You drop the Pro-life stance and the GoP is dead.

156

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You drop the Pro-life stance and the GoP is dead.[/quote]

Why?

I’ll reiterate what Damici said:

Bingo: Those three things and ONLY those three things are what they need to focus on. Let’s repeat: smaller government (in ALL respects), lower taxes and less spending.

Smaller government, in my view, means staying the hell out of people’s personal lives. I personally think abortion is a tragedy, but an even bigger tragedy is government getting involved with reproduction.

The other day I received some propaganda from Focus on the Family about the “gay threat.” Not sure how I got on their mailing list other than the fact that I used to be registered as a Republican. Here’s the thing: I know that Iran has a nuclear program; India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons; by the time I retire, there will be no Social Security, so the money I’m paying in FICA taxes that was supposed to be for my retirement is being pissed away. Kids in Korea do better in math and science than kids in the U.S. Compared to these issues, the “gay threat” just seems like a joke.

157

[quote]Damici wrote:
Bingo: Those three things and ONLY those three things are what they need to focus on. Let’s repeat: smaller government (in ALL respects), lower taxes and less spending.

Exactly.

BUT, then you went on to say that “running to the left to avoid the religious right would be stupid at the very least, as you would have to abandon at least one of the conservative tenets.”

Nooooo . . . let’s drop the words “left” and “right” for a minute, as they seem to be confusing us from the actual policy stances. Dropping the Religious Right would require ZERO compromise on those three issue: smaller government, lower taxes and less spending.

Not one of those issues has ANYTHING TO DO with religion or social issues. Period.

If the religious wackos are faced with a choice between a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, raise spending, increase government regulation . . . and stay out of everyone’s business when it comes to social issues . . . OR, a Republican (or whatever party they might be a part of) who wants to lower taxes, lower spending, lower government regulation . . . and LIKEWISE stay out of everyone’s business when it comes to social issues . . .

You’re saying the religious wackos would then choose to vote for the Democrat?? Aren’t they “Conservatives?” Wouldn’t they prefer the candidate with the conservative stance on those three issues . . . ?

Let’s force them to make that choice by nominating just such a Republican.

[/quote]

Depends who you’re calling “religious wackos.” They wouldn’t vote for a Democrat; they would stay home. I would have a real hard time voting for a pro-choice candidate for president, and so would 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire country (and at least half the GOP base). Had Joe Lieberman been McCain’s VP pick, as McCain reportedly wanted, McCain would have gotten KILLED by Obama, instead of just soundly beaten.

As it is, Republicans really only pay lip service to abortion. They rarely take any real action on the issue.

158

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You drop the Pro-life stance and the GoP is dead.

Why?

[/quote]

Because that’s the way it is. They could try running strictly libertarian Republicans, but I doubt they’d get very far without the pro-life movement.

159

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Depends who you’re calling “religious wackos.” They wouldn’t vote for a Democrat; they would stay home. I would have a real hard time voting for a pro-choice candidate for president, and so would 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire country (and at least half the GOP base)…[/quote]

I agree, they would’ve stayed home.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Had Joe Lieberman been McCain’s VP pick, as McCain reportedly wanted, McCain would have gotten KILLED by Obama, instead of just soundly beaten…[/quote]

Here’s where I disagree. The battleground this last election was with the independents. I think a lot more independents would have voted for McCain had he picked Lieberman, and I actually think he would’ve had a shot at winning. I’m an independent and voted for McCain, but I wasn’t an enthusiastic supporter. Had he picked Lieberman, I probably would have volunteered to work for his campaign.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
As it is, Republicans really only pay lip service to abortion. They rarely take any real action on the issue.[/quote]

I’m beginning to think you’re right. Plus, lots of things would have had to happen before Roe would have been overturned, and if you overturn Roe, so what? That just means that the states could pass laws regarding abortion. Some states would have no doubt imposed restrictions, many would not have. Texas would have for sure. Colorado, hard to say. Probably, but with very broad exceptions. Massachussetts no way.

160

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
No Romney in 2012. There needs to be a purging of the current crop of spineless Republicrats and some new blood to replace them.

Laura Ingraham (conservative radio talk shoe host) was subbing for Oreilly last nigh on FOX new and completely ripped the Republican Leadership and the McCain staffers who were shitting on Palin.

She was naming names and calling for John Boehner’s removal as Minority leader. Two other leaders have already resigned there positions.

There is going to be a whole new wave of Republican leadership. Palin exposed for all to see the lack of conservative principles in the leadership and that is why she is being attacked. The republicans have a history of giving the POTUS nomination to the next guy in line (read Dole,McCain), not necessarily the best candidate. This needs to change.
[/quote]

Your post has the ring of truth about it.

McCain was a godawful candidate for the GOP to pick, so don’t go too far with the “Republicans are dead” mantra. We had an economic catastrophe a month ago, and here we have a candidate who has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t understand economics. Did anyone seriously think he had a chance? Sadly, I did for about a week, and I regret it already. McCain is a senile old bastard. Everyone knew this. Who the hell voted for the idiot in the primaries? It took everyone on the internet by surprise when he got the nomination.

Listen, Obama won the popular vote by a small margin. Nearly half the country does NOT think he was the best choice. Plenty of people had reservations until the very end.

Imagine if Mitt Romney had been facing Obama. Mitt, who is strong on economics. Mitt, who is strong on national defense. Mitt, who isn’t a senile old fart. He even has a pet healthcare program from Massachusetts that he could dig up to get the lefties on board. On top of that, the man is handsome enough to win over female voters in droves. What’s not to like?

Mitt’s a winner. I do hope we see more of him in 2012.