Republicans Against Sarah Palin
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Mitt is certainly not "our man" ...he may be YOUR man, but you don't speak for the entire Republican party. Mitt Romney signed what was essentially the model for Obamacare in Massachusetts. The fact that he was elected in Massachusetts, should give ANY conservative reason to pause. He is a MODERATE Conservative at best... and that's what we nominated last go-around, because you moderate fucktards just HAD to have a MODERATE! John McCain was not much different than Mitt Romney, he was someone that everyone saw as a reasonable 'non-extreme' kinda conservative, who distanced himself from the religious right, and played statesman with the Democrats to get things done, and Mitt would be the equivalent. The left even liked McCain, that's what made him so attractive to the moderate Republicans... look, here's a guy the left won't bash to pieces because he gets along with them, and that's what you see in the former governor of Massachusetts, someone the left doesn't just absolutely HATE and LOATHE! You pinheaded righties think, if we can only nominate someone like that, he may have a shot... but didn't you learn ANYTHING in 2008? The left turned on McCain before he even won the nomination, and they poured it on relentlessly throughout the campaign. You're not going to nominate someone the left will embrace, get over that idea! Stop trying to suck up to the left, and go read up on CORE Conservative values, and stop acting like a bunch of half-assed nitwits who have no clue why Social Conservatism is a vital part of the Conservative message! I don't give a damn if you are a devil-worshiping Atheist, and don't believe in God, but have Conservative fiscal values, you're not getting a candidate like that because they can't win the damn election. Try to get that through your Agnostic little pinheads! We can compromise, we can have a candidate that doesn't talk about God in every breath, doesn't have to advocate DOMA in every speech, but it's not going to be a Massachusetts MODERATE! NO MORE MODERATES!
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California (twice, actually), where he went on to sign the most liberal abortion law in the country at the time. And yet, he also went on to become a fine President. Go figure.
Romney is very Reagan-esque in many respects.
Um, no. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I considered not even voting for McCain in the general election, but hey, considering the alternative...
Which I (and most Americans) consider a very positive thing. The farther the GOP can distance itself from the RR, the better.
Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Apparently you did not, considering you think Palin is capable of being President (or even getting elected, for that matter). McCain would have lost with or without Palin, but the race would have been much closer without.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And that is where your problem is. Some people who call themselves conservatives, simply do not understand the importance of the moral foundation. They want conservatism, but without the morality, and what you have then, is an easy target for the left. Conservatism MUST be accompanied in a moral belief that God endowed us with our freedom and our rights are inalienable because of that. If you take that away, then our rights become simply a designation determined by man, and nothing more.
Reagan was pro-life, he appointed pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, he spoke of the "shining city on a hill" which is a direct reference from the Bible. He believed in the proposition that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator. You can pretend that he was some immoral non-religious heathen if you like, but that's simply not true. He didn't wear his religion on his sleeve, he didn't need to. But he did understand why belief in God and faith in God was important to Conservatism. I don't get the impression you do, and I don't see Ronald Reagan when I look at Mitt Romney.
For the record, I liked Mitt until he pulled the stunt he pulled on Palin after McCain picked her. Did you know, all the "leaked" stories denigrating Palin during the campaign, came from the Romney camp? That was really sleazy, and unacceptable in my book. I have absolutely NO use for the man after that. If he is who Republicans nominate, I will have to vote for him over Obama... but you know? I don't get the impression that you would ever vote for Sarah Palin, under any circumstance! You'd rather see the country turn into the Soviet Union and be ruled by a dictator, before you'd vote for someone you feel is socially conservative. If that is how most "moderates" see it, then I guess that's the fate we'll be dealt.
Socrtease
Verified User
GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT!
Voltaire, there is no way Mitt gets through the primary system if he is the only center right candidate. Anyone right of him wins because, he's mormon. Have you ever seen the "documentaries" produced by the Evangelical protestants in this country about Mormons? The Evangelical Christian conservative will not vote for a mormon. Just won't happen. I was married to a woman whose whole family was dyed in the wool RR. They despised Mormons. Once every three to four months they would have a wednesday night "come to Jesus meetin' " where they would watch one of these movies about Mormonism. And as Dixie pointed out, the fact that Mass. voted for him as governor would play against him. He is no Ronald Reagan.
Voltaire, there is no way Mitt gets through the primary system if he is the only center right candidate. Anyone right of him wins because, he's mormon. Have you ever seen the "documentaries" produced by the Evangelical protestants in this country about Mormons? The Evangelical Christian conservative will not vote for a mormon. Just won't happen. I was married to a woman whose whole family was dyed in the wool RR. They despised Mormons. Once every three to four months they would have a wednesday night "come to Jesus meetin' " where they would watch one of these movies about Mormonism. And as Dixie pointed out, the fact that Mass. voted for him as governor would play against him. He is no Ronald Reagan.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I grasp the importance of a moral foundation as far as my personal conduct is concerned. For instance, I do not insult people simply for disagreeing with me. I try to treat others as Jesus would and I believe hearts and minds are best won through reason, not coercion. I do not believe people can be forced to be moral. That's where we differ.
Proof?
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I'd support Johnson enthusiastically.
You raise interesting points and I will concede that you are quite possibly correct. Given the choice between Romney and Obama, however, I believe the RR folks would vote for Romney.
Socrtease
Verified User
Without a doubt...but you have to get him to November first. It's probably as much of a stretch as it will be for Gary Johnson. But I have an idea. I know lots of Centerist dems and independents. If everyone of us libertarian-esque supporters could convince at least 10 moderate dems and independents to change their registration to Republican for just one year and vote for Johnson, I believe we could push the primaries in his favor. Here in the Mountain west, people will vote for him. I also think you sell him to N.E. republicans and moderate independents and dems. In the South, probably not, he is not a particularly vocally religious man, and he does support marijuana legalization and the treatment model for most other drugs. We all know how the south just loves to throw them dopers in jail. What has to be done is convincing bluedog dems and moderate independents that voting in dem primaries or not voting in primaries at all continues to stick us with politicians that think the government is here to save you from yourself or save your soul.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't believe people can be forced to be moral either. When have you heard me say that or infer that? I do believe our leaders have to be moral, character matters. I don't have a problem with our leaders professing their faith, or anyone else for that matter, I think it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be able to do so, and I think we should. I am sick and tired of the "politically correct" crowd, browbeating social conservatives as if they are a bunch of "Jesus Freaks" who must be shoved in a corner and silenced. Those of religious faith have every right to a voice at the table as anyone else, and with Conservatism, the whole concept fails without that faith. It is the foundation, and it's vitally important, and I think many on the moderate right, simply don't understand that.
What do you want...like a sworn testimony?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2126515/posts
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Which is irrelevant regarding an election.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Say that again when Mitt wins the nod. Seriously, if you paid attention last time, you'll notice how a lot of candidates screwed each other over, such as Thompson running against Huckabee. With McCain and Giuliani out of the mix, Mitt has total dominance over the Northeast, plus he gets the Mountain West, and probably the Plains and the Pacific Coast. Most likely, the South will again be split, favoring Jindal but also leaning in other directions. If Pawlenty runs, he can capture a chunk of the Midwest, but Romney will still likely capture Michigan, the state of his father.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Palin is despised by all liberals in both main stream parties because she is an effective leader. Notice that in this thread, as usual, none of them can debate actual issues, only make personal attacks. She's a true leader and is best qualified to bring the GOP back to conservatism.
So, when a politician is despised, it means they're an "effective leader"?
What does that say about Obama? He must be like a combination of Lincoln, TR, Moses & Joe Montana.
And most don't "despise" her; she does get a lot of ridicule, though...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They are both effective leaders of their respective movements. We Conservatives despise The Obama because we despise the libtard agenda. You Libtards despise Palin because you despise the Conservative Agenda.
Does that make sense to you now?
Dix, while you get a little more passionate and sometimes use more expressive language I think we are on the same page on this. I don't want religious politicians to have to be silent about thier beliefs for fear of being painted as a religious nut either. While I always am suspect of someone who wears thier religion on thier sleeve (you've seen the shirts & heard the speeches) but I do like the occasional reference to God and/or morals in public dialogue.
That is what I like about Palin. I do not think she is ever going to fly with the electorate overall and personally I am suspect of her knowledge and experience on the international level but she definitely shows some anchored belief. Unfortunately, she's painted a big target on herself with a few gaffs and the media and the left loves hitting that target. This makes her appear less attractive, in the political sense, to the general electorate.
I think your references to Ronald Reagan were spot on and unfortunately I don't see such a candidate on the Republican's political horizon. Maybe one will materialize between now and '12 but I just am not seeing one.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Palin has been turned into a pariah by the left and elitist right, and she probably can't overcome that, otherwise, I think she could be that "Ronald Reagan" conservative we've been looking for. Remember, when Reagan was running, people said gawd-awful things about his knowledge and experience as well, he was bashed for being an actor, much was made of his age, was he senile? He had been governor of wacko California, we all know those people are nuts... A LOT of people hated Reagan! but he stayed on message, kept pushing the conservative message, and he resounded with the people. I see Palin resounding the same way, when people honestly give her a chance. I hate to say it, but I think a great many people simply don't give her an honest chance because she is a woman, and an attractive woman, and that's really sad this day and age. I think there is an underlying sexist stigma when it comes to Palin, because there has been absolutely no credible criticism of her message from the right.
Back to Reagan, those old enough to remember will recall, the "establishment elite" backed George H.W. Bush, not Reagan! There was as much of a rift between the elites and the rest of the right, as there is today. The elites didn't really try to destroy Reagan the way they've tried to destroy Palin, back in the day, such a thing was just not done. But this was precisely why Bush was chosen by Reagan as VP! It was that "moment of unity" which galvanized the elites with the base, which also included what came to be known as the "Reagan Democrats," and resulted in a landslide victory over the Democrats. Now do you really believe hardcore Democrats switched partied to vote for Ronald Reagan? Not really, these were mostly independent minded voters, outside the republican establishment elite, they were dubbed that by the elite on the right, it really wasn't much different than what we're seeing today. The elite pushed McCain, the elite are pushing Romney, but there are a tremendous number from the base who support Palin, Jindal, or even Huckabee.
Keep in mind, Ronald Reagan didn't just pop up one day and become the Great Communicator to Republicans! In 1978, the midst of the Carter Malaise, people would literally LAUGH at the prospect of Ronald Reagan becoming the GOP nominee! I know this for a fact because my father was a big Reagan supporter back then, and people laughed at him... you're joking, right? Ronald Reagan? The goofy actor/governor from California? Mehh...we need to find another Barry Goldwater! Two years is FOREVER in politics. Even through the primaries, Reagan and Bush supporters clashed, Bush coined the phrase "voodoo economics" to describe Reagan's ideas for the economy! It got really ugly for a while, and at the end of the day, Reagan edged out Bush for the nomination, then selected Bush as his running mate. The point is, it wasn't always clear that Reagan was our man!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Excellent post. I remember that about Reagan exactly.
I could really get behind a Huckabee candidacy. I don't know enough about Jindal yet. I just know I am not enamored with President Obama....and it worries me the pressure he will feel from the left. If you think they are pushing him to do things in a strong lefty fashion now just watch if he is given a 2nd and final term. I am rooting for a Carteresque finish myself.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, at this point, I would support Mitt Romeny's DOG over Obama! I am definitely voting Republican, no matter who they nominate, there is just no question on that. However, there are several republican possibilities I could be enthusiastic about, Huckabee is one of them. But, there again, he has that "social conservative" label, and that tends to turn off the 'moderate' libertarian types for some reason... they had rather sit on their hands and let Obama have another term, than vote for a social conservative of any kind. It's just amazing to me, they can't get over that. The President isn't going to mandate his personal religious beliefs be made the National Religion! At best, he/she will make decisions and choices rooted in their faith, but what the hell is wrong with that? I'd much rather have someone being guided by their religious morality, than someone who has no morality! That's not to say I would be happy with some moral crusader, but having a strong faith in God is not a bad attribute for a President, or a Conservative, in my honest opinion.
Jindal, like Pawlenty, are good possibilities, but so much is simply not known about either of them, time could change that, we could get to know more as we get closer to voting time, but I think both have an uphill battle for recognition, while Huckabee is better known, and wouldn't have that same problem. I just don't see it being Mitt Romney, I'm sorry... in 2008, we were looking for someone who could "unite" America, someone who could cross party lines and not be such a partisan. Bush had so divided people, that republicans just thought that was the way we needed to go, and our two main choices were McCain and Romney, but we saw what happened! We don't need to repeat the same strategy again, it failed, it didn't work, the Hillary voters didn't come over and vote for McCain, he didn't draw squat from the left, as was anticipated, and neither would Romney! That's just not going to happen, it's not the reality in the political climate of the day. What we need, is someone to articulate a strong Conservative message, who will not waiver on that for any reason, who will remain true to conservative principles and ideals. That's not a John McCain and it's not a Mitt Romney.