Romney 2012?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

OHHH!! Well then it’s a REAL good thing you “good” folks use THAT as the fucking litmus test for who to vote for, putting aside intelligence, qualifications, foreign policy, fiscal policy and everything else that fucking MATTERS!!

Thanks for contributing to ruining the country!!

You mean to tell me those religious whackos, if given the two choices I mentioned previously, would RATHER let the Democrat get into office? Uh . . . no. Sorry. False.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

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

162

False. They’d get almost all the typical Republican voters, because they’re on their side with regard to taxes, spending and foreign policy, and they’d get ALL the fucking swing voters. Every. Single. One.

The half that always vote Democratic still would, the half that always vote Republican still would, and ALL the swing voters would vote for the Republican in that case. They’re (the swing voters) who wins elections.

Election won.

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

Why?

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.

[/quote]

163

Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

164

[quote]Damici wrote:
False. They’d get almost all the typical Republican voters, because they’re on their side with regard to taxes, spending and foreign policy, and they’d get ALL the fucking swing voters. Every. Single. One.

The half that always vote Democratic still would, the half that always vote Republican still would, and ALL the swing voters would vote for the Republican in that case. They’re (the swing voters) who wins elections.

Election won.

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

Why?

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.

[/quote]

If the Republicans were more socially moderate, current Democrats who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative (or even fiscally moderate) would defect to the Republican party in droves. The liberals would still vote Democrat. And who cares. They wouldn’t be needed.

165

hah this is whats wrong with the conservative movement. anytime it needs to get anywhere nationally, one end of the movement has to bend over backwards (with libs and economic conservatives bending over for the social side). both sides end up bickering back and forth over who gets to lead or whose more right. such as the “discussion” in this thread.

and no rainjack, just because you’re old enough to have played hop scotch with newt does not mean you get to know everything about conservatism and everyone else knows nothing, or that they have no say in the direction of their our own party. And put a shirt on, you look like a Pro-Prop 8 add, wouldnt want to confuse anyone.

166

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Damici wrote:
False. They’d get almost all the typical Republican voters, because they’re on their side with regard to taxes, spending and foreign policy, and they’d get ALL the fucking swing voters. Every. Single. One.

The half that always vote Democratic still would, the half that always vote Republican still would, and ALL the swing voters would vote for the Republican in that case. They’re (the swing voters) who wins elections.

Election won.

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

Why?

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.

If the Republicans were more socially moderate, current Democrats who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative (or even fiscally moderate) would defect to the Republican party in droves. The liberals would still vote Democrat. And who cares. They wouldn’t be needed.[/quote]

Oh yeah, “droves” I’m sure… You lose the social conservatives and the GoP is dead.

167

And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

168

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’[/quote]

There are many differences between socially moderate and socially liberal. Here’s just a rough list as not even liberal people all align perfectly on every issue.

Socially liberal: Pro-abortion with no restraints. 2. For the banning of guns. 3. Pro-welfare. 4. In support of heavy federal involvment in education. 5. Nationalized healthcare.

Socially moderate: 1. Against partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. Against abortions for minors without parental approval. Against many other requirements that would occur under FOCA. 2. Support the right to bear arms and in favor of the Supreme Court’s recent decision. 3. Against welfare or only for welfare programs with strict (and short) term limits and an emphasis on job-training. And cutting off benefits if people don’t use the opportunity to get on their feet. 4. View education as a state issue. 5. Against nationalized healthcare.

169

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

There are many differences between socially moderate and socially liberal. Here’s just a rough list as not even liberal people all align perfectly on every issue.

Socially liberal: Pro-abortion with no restraints. 2. For the banning of guns. 3. Pro-welfare. 4. In support of heavy federal involvment in education. 5. Nationalized healthcare.

Socially moderate: 1. Against partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. Against abortions for minors without parental approval. Against many other requirements that would occur under FOCA. 2. Support the right to bear arms and in favor of the Supreme Court’s recent decision. 3. Against welfare or only for welfare programs with strict (and short) term limits and an emphasis on job-training. And cutting off benefits if people don’t use the opportunity to get on their feet. 4. View education as a state issue. 5. Against nationalized healthcare.[/quote]

Sounds like a moderate Democrat to me.

170

A dirty little secret about alot of social conservatives, from my experience. You take the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-sex ed. plank out of the party platform, and many would just vote Democrat.

Why? Because Democrats would just attract them with “helping the poor.” Social conservatives aren’t neccassarily fiscal conservatives. It’s the social issues like life in the womb and the sanctity of marriage prevent them from voting Democrat. Many didn’t want to even vote for McCain. Now abandon the social issues, and well, less reasons not to vote Democrat.

171

What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

172

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

There are many differences between socially moderate and socially liberal. Here’s just a rough list as not even liberal people all align perfectly on every issue.

Socially liberal: Pro-abortion with no restraints. 2. For the banning of guns. 3. Pro-welfare. 4. In support of heavy federal involvment in education. 5. Nationalized healthcare.

Socially moderate: 1. Against partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. Against abortions for minors without parental approval. Against many other requirements that would occur under FOCA. 2. Support the right to bear arms and in favor of the Supreme Court’s recent decision. 3. Against welfare or only for welfare programs with strict (and short) term limits and an emphasis on job-training. And cutting off benefits if people don’t use the opportunity to get on their feet. 4. View education as a state issue. 5. Against nationalized healthcare.

Sounds like a moderate Democrat to me.
[/quote]

Well, that’d be nice except the Democratic leadership is not in line with any of these ideas and beyond which are fiscal loonies. You complain that you’ve been betrayed by the Republicans. But the Democrats are no better. Seriously, look what they’ve given. Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama.

Most of the country is socially moderate and is more moderate fiscally than the Democrats. Yet NEITHER party caters to the majority of voters. They cater to people at the margins, banking on the fact that the vast amounts of moderate voters will suck it up and and vote Democrat if they lean slightly left and Repbulican if they lean slightly right. And it works! But it’s ludicrous.

173

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’[/quote]

Possibly. But it might be more than offset by people who would vote Repbulican if not for their far-right stance on social issues.

The two-party system really just sucks. There’s very few people that can really fully get behind either party.

174

Ok. But, it doesn’t change the fact that the Republican party is a socially conservative party.

175

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

Possibly. But it might be more than offset by people who would vote Repbulican if not for their far-right stance on social issues.

The two-party system really just sucks. There’s very few people that can really fully get behind either party.[/quote]

Then vote Libertarian?

176

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

Possibly. But it might be more than offset by people who would vote Repbulican if not for their far-right stance on social issues.

The two-party system really just sucks. There’s very few people that can really fully get behind either party.

Then vote Libertarian?[/quote]

Maybe libertarian-lite as you said. Which really does not exist. But I’d rather get involved in grassroots efforts to change the parties and force them to represent the will of the majority better. I think I am going to get involved. This election was the tipping-point for me.

177

Why wasn’t McCain the moderate everyone was waiting for? He was the “Maverick, Independent minded Republican.” Until he had to run against the Democrat nominee of course. Then he was just like Bush.

Edit: He doesn’t approve of a federal ban against gay marriage, he’d let states decide. While he does come across as pro-life, he allows for they typical exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother in danger). He’s definitely not anti-entitlement/“social safety net.”

178

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Had he picked Lieberman, I probably would have volunteered to work for his campaign.
[/quote]

You’re serious? Wow.

179

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why wasn’t McCain the moderate everyone was waiting for? He was the “Maverick, Independent minded Republican.” Until he had to run against the Democrat nominee of course. Then he was just like Bush.

Edit: He doesn’t approve of a federal ban against gay marriage, he’d let states decide. While he does come across as pro-life, he allows for they typical exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother in danger). He’s definitely not anti-entitlement/“social safety net.”[/quote]

If anything, McCain was ‘too liberal’ in the ways that matter. His fiscal approach was scarcely any better than Obama’s. There was little reason to jump ship. Especially with a Palin pick. Like, I’ve said before, McCain abandoned the tenets of conservatism that hold the broadest appeal to most and tried to paper over it with a very conservative VP pick that more moderate party members and swing voters could not support.

180

[quote]Damici wrote:
False. They’d get almost all the typical Republican voters, because they’re on their side with regard to taxes, spending and foreign policy, and they’d get ALL the fucking swing voters. Every. Single. One.

The half that always vote Democratic still would, the half that always vote Republican still would, and ALL the swing voters would vote for the Republican in that case. They’re (the swing voters) who wins elections.

Election won.
[/quote]

Way, way off base. Social conservatives/evangelicals are the largest part of the Republican base. The proportion of the party that is libertarian, or even strictly small government, is tiny in comparison. I’m not gonna bother to look up the numbers, but I thought this was common knowledge. You tell them they’re not welcome, you no longer have a Republican Party. That simple.

The only wonder is that they haven’t already fled, given decades of the GOP taking them for a ride, tossing out some cheap anti-gay rhetoric every four years, and then doing nothing substantial on their issues. Everyone from Reagan on has been guilty of this.