I have settled on a GOP candidate to support.

[WinterBorn]

Ummm "get bogged down"? Stating ones views and beliefs is something ALL candidates do. Obama claimed to be pro gun anti gay marriage Christian candidate.

And Obama has been bogged down with more trivial issues than he can handle.

Stating that they are christian is not an issue. But allowing the campaign (and the administration) to get sidetracked and bogged down in social issues is a huge mistake.

 

[Canceled2]

And Obama has been bogged down with more trivial issues than he can handle.

Stating that they are christian is not an issue. But allowing the campaign (and the administration) to get sidetracked and bogged down in social issues is a huge mistake.

How is he "bogged down on trivial issues"? How was Bush "bogged down in social issues"? This all sounds like a bunch of clap-trap. I am pretty certain that EVERY candidate running understands the simple mantra of "it's the economy stupid"...regardless of their world view.

 

[WinterBorn]

How is he "bogged down on trivial issues"? How was Bush "bogged down in social issues"? This all sounds like a bunch of clap-trap. I am pretty certain that EVERY candidate running understands the simple mantra of "it's the economy stupid"...regardless of their world view.

How much press and media attention has been devoted to Obama's birth certificate? How much has been devoted to his minister? He got bogged down because people refused to allow him to steer the topics.

Yes, they all understand the simple mantra of "its the economy stupid", but can they keep the campaign focused there? If they open the can of worms on social issues, there are plenty out there that will make those issues the point of the campaign.

 

[Canceled2]

How much press and media attention has been devoted to Obama's birth certificate? How much has been devoted to his minister? He got bogged down because people refused to allow him to steer the topics.

Yes, they all understand the simple mantra of "its the economy stupid", but can they keep the campaign focused there? If they open the can of worms on social issues, there are plenty out there that will make those issues the point of the campaign.

The BC issue was a political diversion encouraged by Obama's admin, The news cycle will always grab onto the sensational and the Wright story got very little play after he was elected and so has very little to do with your assertion of any bogging down-neiethr of these two issues are "social conservative". Social issues are ALWAYS going to be discussed during a campaign...people want to get a bearing on who they vote for. Pro abortion and pro gay marriage conservatives are just gonna have to continue sharing the bed with social conservatives. Let's think about all those socvial conservative policies Bush passed and got bogged down in...oh wait there were none. The only policy along social conservative lines Bush passed was stem cell research...and there was no bogging down as well as I can remember it and that was right prior to 9/11.

 

[zappasguitar]

Let me preface my post with the following; The last time my initial primary pick actually won the presidency, it was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although the country should listen to me more, that just often doesn't turn out to be the case. Most of the time, my primary pick doesn't even make it to the nomination, and by the time the primaries reach Alabama, is not even on the ballot anymore. Nevertheless, as a man of principle, who believes in supporting who you think is best man/woman, regardless of party, polls or popularity, I have settled on an initial candidate to support for the GOP nomination.

It might come as a shocker to some on the left, who might think of me as "racist" because of my nickname and avatars, or respect for Confederate veterans, but my choice is Herman Cain. I realize he is a real long shot, and probably won't ever win the nomination or the presidency, but he is the man who I feel is best qualified to be president, who's ideas are most inline with my own, and who's character shines through above all else. Whether the rest of America agrees, remains to be seen.

Cain/Rubio 2012! YES WE CAIN!

Well of course he's your pick...crazy can spot crazy from a mile away!

He's a hateful racist who doesn't believe in freedom of religion.

Suits you to a Tee.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The point is not abandoning convictions. The point is focus and work. If the candidate, whoever they are, allows the campaign to get bogged down in gay marriage issues, flag burning issues, banning porn issues, 10 Commandments issues, or teaching ID issues, the fiscal work will not get done. The people in Washington don't want the fiscal issues addressed because it takes away thier power.

I agree with your last sentence, which is why Herman Cain is so appealing to me, he is not part of the Washington elite. And again, I can see the point being made that our candidate doesn't need to focus on social issues over fiscal issues at this time, because the fiscal issues are of too much importance, but I don't believe they can "put them on a back burner" or abandon them, for the sake of winning an election. Very often, the candidate's position on the social issues, is viewed as a measure of character and integrity... what you are saying is, character and integrity are bullshit that isn't important, and I disagree with that.

This will be about bridging the gap... I posted a thread a while back, Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives. In it, I outlined this very problem, and suggested my solutions. I believe there is a way to incorporate the social conservative values in a message which is focused on the fiscal problems, and we simply need a spokesman who can articulate that effectively. You believe these social issues are not important, and I believe they are of the utmost importance, because they are rooted in our principles and convictions. That can't be abandoned, because you've then abandoned your principles, and if you will do it for political expediency in one area, what prevents you from doing it in another? Perhaps that point skips comfortably over your head, but think about it for a moment before you respond further. What good is a candidate who is afraid to stand up for their principles and beliefs, whether is is a social issue or not?

 

[WinterBorn]

The BC issue was a political diversion encouraged by Obama's admin, The news cycle will always grab onto the sensational and the Wright story got very little play after he was elected and so has very little to do with your assertion of any bogging down-neiethr of these two issues are "social conservative". Social issues are ALWAYS going to be discussed during a campaign...people want to get a bearing on who they vote for. Pro abortion and pro gay marriage conservatives are just gonna have to continue sharing the bed with social conservatives. Let's think about all those socvial conservative policies Bush passed and got bogged down in...oh wait there were none. The only policy along social conservative lines Bush passed was stem cell research...and there was no bogging down as well as I can remember it and that was right prior to 9/11.

No social issues and spent money like a drunken sailor. I wouldn't think he would be a good example.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well of course he's your pick...crazy can spot crazy from a mile away!

He's a hateful racist who doesn't believe in freedom of religion.

Suits you to a Tee.

Wow... I never thought I would hear a liberal calling a black man racist! That's a first!

 

[Canceled2]

No social issues and spent money like a drunken sailor. I wouldn't think he would be a good example.

He spent on wars-those are not "social conservative". The search for an example was due to your hysteria over "social conservatism". If you are going to name a political alliance cite some examples of said alliance's getting bogged down.

 

[WinterBorn]

He spent on wars-those are not "social conservative". The search for an example was due to your hysteria over "social conservatism". If you are going to name a political alliance cite some examples of said alliance's getting bogged down.

Rather than cite examples of it getting bogged down. How about I talk about how many presidencies have avoided serious fiscal issues?

Hmmmm, pretty much all of them since Ike?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

A couple of weeks ago, this pack of losers were touting the Trumptard.

Now they're sweet as sugar on Cain.

When he crashes and burns, they'll move on to the next loser.

 

[Canceled2]

Rather than cite examples of it getting bogged down. How about I talk about how many presidencies have avoided serious fiscal issues?

Hmmmm, pretty much all of them since Ike?

Then why single out candidates who have a social conservative view? It's just silliness to do so when you cannot show an example of a presidents social conservative views being the reason "he gets bogged down". Like I said if a candidate running 2012 is not sentient enough to know "it's the economy stupid" then regardless of his social views he does not deserve the nomination-let alone the presidency!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How much press and media attention has been devoted to Obama's birth certificate? How much has been devoted to his minister? He got bogged down because people refused to allow him to steer the topics.

Yes, they all understand the simple mantra of "its the economy stupid", but can they keep the campaign focused there? If they open the can of worms on social issues, there are plenty out there that will make those issues the point of the campaign.

Not if he pops them in their silly mouths with TRUTH! That's what has been the problem in the recent times... Bush just sat back and let them flail away at him, and never tried to defend himself. republicans in general, have done the same thing... Cain won't do that, he'll take on the idiots and PWN that ass for them, before they know what hit them! The problem has been, we've allowed seculars to control the debate, to pull candidates off the 'fiscal' message to 'get bogged down' in the social issues... but what we need is someone who can turn that around, and make a case for the social issues as they relate to the fiscal issues, and do it in a way that average Americans can comprehend. That's not that difficult to do, really.

Look... here's what should happen... The candidate is asked about social issues, he responds with what his personal viewpoints are, but then... goes on to explain why it doesn't matter what his personal viewpoints are, the president is not the KING! He doesn't get to "promise to end all abortions immediately" because he simply CAN'T do that. If he could, perhaps he would, but he can't, so why are we discussing it? Why does it matter? It only matters in context of character, integrity, principles, and convictions. If that is all that matters, how can it be that abandoning those principles is a "good" thing?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A couple of weeks ago, this pack of losers were touting the Trumptard.

Now they're sweet as sugar on Cain.

When he crashes and burns, they'll move on to the next loser.

And a couple of weeks ago, you were typing your little fingers off about Trump, trying to destroy him too. Now you have moved on to Cain, because you know deep down, WHOEVER is the opposition to Obama, stands a better than average chance of beating his ass in 2012, if the economy doesn't pick up, which it's not likely to do. ......Cain beat stage 4 liver cancer, he can sure as hell beat Obama!

 

[WinterBorn]

Then why single out candidates who have a social conservative view? It's just silliness to do so when you cannot show an example of a presidents social conservative views being the reason "he gets bogged down". Like I said if a candidate running 2012 is not sentient enough to know "it's the economy stupid" then regardless of his social views he does not deserve the nomination-let alone the presidency!

I think my original post on this thread was something to the effect of we need a candidate who will focus on fiscal issues and stay away from social issues. Whether they have view or beliefs is not what I said. Everyone has beliefs and opinions. I am not asking for a robot. I am talking about a focus on something that could make or break this nation in the next 10 years. There is no social issue that even comes close.

This "well sure they need to focus on fiscal issues but don't make the compromise their beliefs" is simply clouding teh issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

It only matters in context of character, integrity, principles, and convictions. If that is all that matters, how can it be that abandoning those principles is a "good" thing?

Dixie, point out where I said any candidate should abandon their principle? Can you do that Dixie?

 

[Canceled2]

I think my original post on this thread was something to the effect of we need a candidate who will focus on fiscal issues and stay away from social issues. Whether they have view or beliefs is not what I said. Everyone has beliefs and opinions. I am not asking for a robot. I am talking about a focus on something that could make or break this nation in the next 10 years. There is no social issue that even comes close.

This "well sure they need to focus on fiscal issues but don't make the compromise their beliefs" is simply clouding teh issue.

Well, it is just odd, that the focus is on "social conservatism" when in fact the major spending troubles we have in this country are due to social liberalism...

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, it is just odd, that the focus is on "social conservatism" when in fact the major spending troubles we have in this country are due to social liberalism...

And a good dose of fiscal conservatism would cure that.

 

[Canceled2]

And a good dose of fiscal conservatism would cure that.

Who said so? I will say this, as a social conservative who subscribes to personal responsibility, I understand why social liberalism is the antithesis to our constitutional government. I also subscribe to the notion it serves as THE guiding principle to the protection of life. The very idea that a man/woman should not proudly be able to state their views or be accused of getting bogged down is ridiculous. It's as if they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. I mean if Obama can golf every week (is he bogged down in leisure?) certainly a social conservative can discuss their beliefs when asked.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And a good dose of fiscal conservatism would cure that.

The point you seem to be missing is, the connection between social conservative values and the fiscal issues and problems. Conservatism devoid of social values, is a failed and flawed ideology which is easily exploited by liberals, which is precisely why they are trying to pressure us into 'putting them on the back burner!' Some of you pinhead libertarian types don't get it, you fundamentally don't understand the connection, and you believe social values are something we can compromise on, when they are certainly NOT. You believe these issues are not important, but they are, fundamentally important, and it's fundamentally important we stand up for them and make our case, without fear, without intimidation, and without compromise.