“We don’t have our ‘A’ team”
Agreed: Republicans don’t have their “A” team in the field this election cycle.
But you go to the primaries with the field you have, and then you go to the election with the candidate you have. Paul Ryan, Allan West, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie—or whomever it is that you think might be able to wipe the floor with Obama—just isn’t running, and the convention is unlikely to be brokered and a draft just won’t be happening unless that’s the case.
So, are you reconciled to a Romney candidacy? Or is it “anyone-but-Romney” for you?
I think you know where I stand: I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, if he’s the nominee. He’s competent and conservative enough for me, especially compared to Obama.
[ADDENDUM: Socially conservative Romney.]
I can’t vote for Romney, or necessarily an anybody-but-Romney candidate. I will only vote for an honest conservative. As honest as politicians get, conservative or not. I simply believe that the parties need to differentiate themselves greatly. I don’t see enough difference between Romney, Gingrich, and Zero, for example.
Then again I don’t think my vote is needed or even really wanted. Those who are principled are held in contempt by the Republican party and many of the recent and previous presidential candidates. They really did leave us, not the other way around.
“” I don’t think my vote is needed or even really wanted. Those who are principled are held in contempt by the Republican party.””
Doom
Them’s some principles that’ll make a man not care whether his children and grandchilden’s future will be pretty bad or downright awful.
Sitting out due to dissatisfaction with McCain is what gave us Obama. Right now we should vote for the nominee of the party to put in place someone who would be less likely to veto legislation put forth that makes sense and not advance the policies this administration is doing.
We may not win the Senate but at least we should close it up to where only a couple of moderate dems are needed to pass vital legislation.
Even with all the redistricting games the dems are playing we might still hold the House.
Romney isn’t perfect. Nobody is. But he’s competent, at least moderately conservative, and has the balanced rationality of a businessman, which we need right now. I’ll take a businessman over an ideologue any day.
I would recommend someone like Bachman or Rubio for VP.
And if its Gingrich, who is the present “anti-Romney”, then he’s good enough for me too… a very smart individual, warts and all.
Lets get rid of Obama, and get this ship away from the iceberg before we decide what port of call we should head for.
Georgette Mosbacher told reporters, “We do not consider Perry a factor… We know who will be our nominee.”
Doom,
Romney doesn’t especially appeal to me either from a strictly conservative view. But 4 more years of Obama, with him knowing there’s not another election on the horizon for him, gives him free reign to finally do exactly what he wants. That is, to “transform America”. Do you really want to sit this one out and then stand on your “principles” while the country slides into oblivion? I’m sorry, but in my book you are no different than the leftists pushing his agenda.
Just saw on Drudge that Gallup now has BHO back in postive territory. The Dems are going to pull all the stops out to win this next one, and it’s going to be very close. Every vote is going to be needed.
I did not ever care for Romney but then started watching him more. I am opening my heart to him and I respect his character. He said recently he would rather lose and have someone who could beat Obama win. (Of course he does not think someone else could beat Obama so maybe that does not count in your book.)
He also said, when someone said to him, “If you lost, you’d be in a pretty bad situation.” No, he said. If he won he’d be happy to be president and if he lost he has quite a nice situation awaiting him and many possibilities for work.
I like those answers. I also like that he keeps his eye on the ball in the way an executive must. He is even handed, targeted, non-emotional. He is more conservative than Obama, and that is what counts.
I’d like to see him paired with Rubio or Mitch Daniels or Condi Rice. I can’t see Christie being anything but #1 man, I believe Rubio also wants to be #1 – in 2016 or 2020. How would that be? Romney-Rice for 2012-2020, then Rubio and Col. West for 2020-2028. Wow – I think the country would survive.
Toads, sitting in a bath, slowly being cooked, suggesting I do the same. Thanks but no thanks. Romney or Gingrich would merely slow the speed of heat increase. I would rather just have the dang thing over, Obama will see to that. Sorry, but I’m outta this one if that is those are the choices. Rationalize all you wish.
Doom: well then, I’d say you’ve certainly chosen your moniker well.
Looking over the news here in Virginia, it appears that –while the Gingrich campaign dropped the ball in not collecting enough signatures to withstand disqualification–it has now surfaced that the rules were changed just this past month, so that those submitting 15K or more signatures could bypass any examination of their signatures, but those below 16K would supposedly be subject to such examination. Apparently, though, in the last several elections those submitting 10K signatures, not 15K were deemed to have met the requirements–no checking was performed on any of their signatures.
Fishy, too, was the involvement of the VA lieutenant governor (Romney’s campaign chairman) in collecting/delivering Romney’s petitions to the VA Republican party.
As well, Then, there is the question of why Ron Paul, who submitted something like 13K signatures, was apparently given a pass on any examination of his signatures.
So, it seems like there was a lot of skull-duggery and hanky-panky going on here, and I expect things might end up in oucrt.
Obama is so awful that the main issue should be ensuring we get a candidate who will WIN.
We may not have another chance. Another 4 years of Obama, especially if coupled with any serious Dem strength in Congress, will result in the erosion of free speech, especially Internet-related free speech, the perpetration of Dem-favoring redisticting, and the effective legalization of election fraud, and continued economic mismanagement to buy the support of key wealthy individuals, corporations and interest groups.
Wolla:
It sounds like the Romney campaign has taken a page from Obama’s playbook.
I like Romney better than the other candidates. He won’t radically change anything, but he will try to establish some solid baseline re taxes, regulation, energy, etc that people can count on to build for the future. I don’t trust some of the more conservative promises such as getting rid of federal agencies right away. I just don’t think this can be done at the drop of a hat as several candidates seem to imply. I would prefer working with congress to repeal unnecessary laws so that departmental workloads can be cut to the point of perhaps eliminating the departments. But if the laws still stand, they have to be implemented.
Somehow I think that Romney would be best at working with congress on fiscal measures. I think he and Ryan could work wonders on spending and entitlements. I also think he would appoint competent people as advisors and cabinet members.
In contrast, I can’t imagine Gingrich not butting in on cabinet plans at the last minute and p***ing off his whole team. He just can’t rein in his creative urges. He also lost his first campaign team, and perhaps his lousy organization in VA would have been avoided if he had listened to some of their advice. His talk about handling the judiciary was really badly timed and poorly thought out.
Ron Paul is an egomanic who has latched on to a few good principles, but he has shown little ability to get others to work with him. I can’t imagine him at a summit with any world leader. Julian Assange would probably love him. And again, what would his cabinet look like?
I also think that Romney’s current positions on social issues represent a believable turn to the conservative side. First of all, his own life is conservative, and second, he is probably appalled that liberals never know when to stop.
The best thing we can do now is try to elect more Team A types to congress so that Romney will have competent and experienced people to work with and hold him in check if he becomes too conciliatory.
Doom, please reconsider. I’m not enthusiastic about Romney, but I’m suicidal about Obama.
Just slowing the rate at which the water heats up is better than the alternative. And considering the judicial appointments that a re-elected Obama (as an instant lame-duck, and therefore unfettered in his actions) would doubtless make, I’d vote for Jar Jar Binks in November if he were Obama’s opponent.
So please reconsider. We need every vote. If it helps, just view your vote as canceling out that of a dead person voting Democrat.
I’ll vote for Romney if he’s the nominee, but it will only be for his judicial appointments and foreign policy.
I have very low expectations about his domestic policy agenda. He’s been a squish on entitlement reform in the debates. He supports ethanol subsidies. It came out last week in the WSJ that he won’t rule out a VAT tax. He says he’ll cut $500 billion from the federal budget by 2016. But because of how the government does its budgeting, Dan Mitchell says that means the federal government budget will actually be 8% higher in 2016 than it is today. Some cut.
In addition, we all know he favored healthcare mandates in MA. In spite of his campaign rhetoric and his professed affinity for federalism, I’ll be surprised if he expends very much political capital at all to try to repeal Obamacare unless we get another Republican wave election which gives the Republicans a filibuster proof Senate. That seems very unlikely at this point. So instead I suspect he’ll work with Democrats to “fix” Obamacare rather than persuade them to repeal it and start over.
That said, my expectations for Romney are so low that it should be rather easy for him to exceed my depressingly dismal expectations.
I’m with you, Neo. I’ll vote for Romney. I won’t even have to hold my nose. I can’t get excited about him, but that’s OK with me. I think the country needs to cool down and begin to recover from the insane hyper-partisanship of the recent past.
I was deeply disappointed that Christie decided not to run, but I’ve gotten over it and will support Romney wholeheartedly, for whatever that’s worth.
Doom,
The liberal media love that you are dispirited and demoralized to the point of just sitting this one out. It’s been their plan for you and every other right leaning American all along. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Everyone here already knows what I think about Romney. But even if I was inclined to support him, this would have been a deal breaker.
Space policy is much too important to be used as a rhetorical gimmick to garner a few laughs from an audience.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that either Romney or Gingrich can beat Obama.
I’m gonna vote for Romney every chance I get.
And I don’t understand anyone who thinks like Doom.
I’ll vote for Romney if I have to. The thing is, he’s a loser and this is yet another election where we are forced to take whatever loser the Republican establishment throws at us. I voted for McCain, but I am really tired of this. We deeply need a candiate with a great record, a real leader and one with a record of successful campaigns. We’re just not getting it and the fault is strictly with the Republican establishment. We will likely be out of power until we take control at the grass roots level.
Anybody But Obama. Nose-holder at the ready.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
SteveH,
I feel exactly the same as Doom. I don’t care if the MSM has planned to make me feel dispirited. It doesn’t make a difference. It doesn’t change the fact that voting Republican just means we’re on our way to ‘glorious socialism’ at a slower pace.
Doom has it right. Let Obama win and take us full speed ahead. It will hasten the collapse of this sorry system. We can pick up the pieces and build from scratch afterwards.
“”Unfortunately, I don’t believe that either Romney or Gingrich can beat Obama.””
Rickl
See my 7:30pm comment.
It’s almost surreal that we sit here with arguably the most radically destructive man ever to visit the white house, much less be President in it, and he’s rumored to be unbeatable.
I not only think he’s beatable, but don’t think he’ll even reside in this country 10 years from now. The man and his party is off the hook corrupt and there ain’t a rug big enough to sweep the lies and deceit under much longer.
“”We can pick up the pieces and build from scratch afterwards.””
draveed
Makes me wonder if there was anyone on the Titanic chopping holes in the hull with an axe to hasten the appearance of a better ship.
SteveH:
It’s not that he’s unbeatable; it’s just that the Republican Party doesn’t seem to be serious about doing what it takes to beat him.
The B and C teams aren’t up to the task, and the Republican leadership is bound and determined to marginalize and neuter the Tea Party and conservatives.
It’s like I’ve been saying for a while: The Republican Party wants to be like the “conservative” parties of Europe. They have no intention of reducing the size and scope of government; they merely argue that they can administer the machinery of the State better than the Democrats.
Neo,
You miss the point of my name. It isn’t just about me, you know.
It is what I see, what I can bring personally, what I know, what the world and others have tried to give me, even what I have tried to create for myself at one time. Surrender everything for nothing if you must. I understand most people do this daily daily. The sheep are often confused between the shepherd and the thief. The kinder thief often better at leading then even the owner.
Doom is coming, sooner or later, to a varying degree, personally and communally. We have chosen poorly in the past, leading to this disaster. Choosing wisely now, true, will only lessen the sting, making it sharper and harder for the short term but providing for a slow slog out of the morass. Choosing unwisely will bring calamity like Americans have truly never known. The Civil War will seem a more civil time.
As America goes dark, so goes the world. Choosing between a communist and a socialist isn’t much of a choice while we teeter on fiscal destruction. I must stay my hand from even an involvement in such a deal. What happens when the realization that the US dollar is so watered that none will take it, use it? That is coming without real reductions in spending.
The rest, while important, rests upon the ability of the nation to actually be able to financially function. No candidate showing as popular offers real reduction. Which means everything else they mean to do, good or ill, is based on a false premises. I will, most likely, be dead before the fall, if it is indeed the will of the people. I just hope to sway people to wisdom. To their principles.
Obama will simply snap the neck of the economy, bringing about what has to happen without real reductions. The only thing is he won’t offer a way out. Nor would a Romney. Leave the end of America to the progressives, they have led us here. Or provide a real way forward, in honest light, with the truth that we cannot have all we do have. Lie to yourselves, lie to me, but don’t expect me to abide it.
Perhaps I don’t understand what “conservative” means. I have read the insistent arguments about how Obama is so bad, and Romney would be significantly better. I am not persuaded.
Neither will move the government in a conservative direction. Obama is certainly beatable. But why celebrate a pyrrhic victory?
The righty establishment’s primary process is doing its job of eliminating the conservatives from the race. The bi-factional ruling party and their cronies will be served. Government will grow. Conservative goals will get further away.
As a cynic on another blog I follow says, if voting really had any power it would be illegal.
SteveH Says:
December 26th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Yes, that argument is inane, and I’ve been hearing it for years.
It’s like saying, “The roof leaks, so let’s burn down the house and use the insurance money to build a better house.”
If Romney wins he has the problem of governing Americans addicted to government. My guess is even half the people who detest Obama would also fall in that category. Americans have just been conditioned to accept this skewed form of suffocating compassion for a long time now.
Teri Pittman: not sure why you blame the Republican establishment for the fact that better candidates (such as, IMHO, Ryan) did not throw their hats into the ring. The Republican leadership is to blame for many things, but not that.
Are you saying they should be encouraging the development of better candidates at the local level? What would they be doing differently if they were to do that? How are they presently discouraging candidates from entering the fray? I see it more as the fact that politics is a dirty, dirty, business, and most “normal” people would think twice before entering it. But that’s hardly the fault of the Republican Party.
rickl: it’s even more inane that that.
Because there’s a much better chance of getting that insurance money and building a new and better house than there is of letting the left take charge and then thinking you can pick up the pieces.
“”not sure why you blame the Republican establishment for the fact that better candidates (such as, IMHO, Ryan) did not throw their hats into the ring.””
Neo
I think Teri has a point. Just think of it as a similar problem of working for a self serving boss who won’t ever back you up or defend you if you stray from being a puppet.
SteveH: that would make sense as an argument for why people didn’t want to get into politics. Ryan, et al, are already in politics at a fairly high level, and they are already members of the Republican Party and members of Congress. They already work for that so-called “self-serving boss.” If they ran for president, they’d be in a stronger position to defy that boss, not a weaker one.
>>> Or is it “anyone-but-Romney” for you?
The notion that the answer *could be* “Obama” makes it a VERY remarkably stupid question.
Occam’s Beard@7:04
I’m with you. Romney, Gingrich, or even McCain (had he been elected) would not appoint judges like Sotomayor and Kagan. “It’s the judges,” is a primary reason for voting to defeat Obama if one can’t vote enthusiastically for the Republican. Because they stay in office long after the president has departed. They (activist, leftist judges) can do more damage than any one president.
Don’t vote for the Republican candidate, vote to defeat activist federal courts, disastrous fiscal policy, anti-business idiocy, and a chance, just a chance, to change course. That means ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!!
Anyone who doesn’t trust Romney or any Republican candidate to move the country back to the right, even when they say they will, should stop to consider Obama’s record. We KNOW what Obama has done and what he intends to do. At least we have a chance with a Republican candidate that he will do what he says – decrease spending and quit the anti-business, class-warfare policies that are strangling the economy. Vote against Obama and his policies. Any of the Republican candidates I have seen at the debates would have better policy than Obama. (With Paul it would be a close call, but I would even vote for him over Obama.)
[Mitt]’s competent and conservative enough for me, especially compared to Obama.
That’s a rather low bar. It’s true. But what I fear is that Mitt is just a Big Government Republican, and will drive us off the cliff at a mere 300 MPH, instead of the Dem’s prefered speed of at least 600 MPH.
In the end, we still go *splat*. Just not so violently…
Whoops…It’s true that I’ll vote for him in the general election.
It’s a shame Paul Ryan’s not running, that guy could win. Still, Romney is a million times better than Obama. Hope people see that.
I live in a late-primary state.
My opinion for GOP candidate doesn’t matter.
.
I live in a navy blue state.
My opinion for President doesn’t matter.
.
.
And people wonder why I am angry about politics.
On the one hand I am dismayed and perplexed that at such a grave moment in our national history the ‘best and brightest’ decided to bow out. Palin, Christie, Ryan all had better things to do. Christie, instead of saving America, needed to deal with those pesky teacher unions in Trenton. Huh? Ryan has kids. Okay, but is the nation they will live or be slaves in more important than Dad being at their baseball games? Palin, our best fighter by far, decides to play the rest of the game from the sidelines. What?
Perplexing and dismaying.
One the other hand, maybe the ones we have are the real fighters and politicians. Between what the media says about a person, what debates reveal about a candidate, and what a small clique of voters in Iowa say about a candidate has almost no correlation at all to what kind of actual President they will be.
Obama is the best case in point.
Perry, for example, may well be the best President if it is executive leadership and principles you want. He apparently stinks as a debater. Being a debater on TV means next to zero with respect to being a President of America.
Let’s hope God and the American voter have a plan that we cannot quite see yet. One of our crowd, Paul excepted, might end up being just what the doctor ordered when we look back on it.
@Doom,
I am naturally suspicious of people who say they are principled while just about everyone else is not.
What are your principles and who is so offending them that you can’t vote for them? My goodness. I can see hoping Romney might be a bit tough in certain areas, but when compared to whom or what?
Is one of your principles that you will exclude people based on a checklist of offenses from their pasts? That excludes practically everyone, everywhere, all the time. The odd saint might slip through.
Can we just vote the Buckley Rule: The best available/possible conservative candidate?
@Doom2: “Sorry, but I’m outta this one if that is those are the choices. Rationalize all you wish.”
I saw a Gingrich Ad about the Battle of Trenton last night. It was a string of defeats up to then. The Continental Army had shrunk from 30,000 to 2500.
I count that as 27,500 Dooms gone missing.
The 2500 took care of business.
See ya!
These characters like Doom are as low and despicable as Dems. Let’s just stop being nice about it.
These guys want bullets over ballots to sort it out later after the nation crashes.
As if it a certainty that we’d resolve it to our satisfaction, that the populace would come around to our side in the middle of a calamity.
At least a Dem does what you expect: sell out the country.
But a “conservative” who doesn’t get his own way and goes home to sulk is a traitor to his countrymen.
Man up!
Sometimes a delaying action is necessary til the situation changes.
Suppose we go “Obama light” and only slow things down.
And Europe crashes first as an example that wakes up the populace, giving us a conservative backlash.
Better than watching China walk over a crashed America.
Mitt.
Period.
“”at such a grave moment in our national history the ‘best and brightest’ decided to bow out.””
Mike Mc
We should call this the Fred Thompson effect. Which is really an epiphany by the candidates that the media will destroy any conservative who dares an attempt to govern as one.
I believe that the U.S. has–to a great degree–already been “fundamentally transformed,” has been driven off course, not just by Obama–who has certainly moved that “transformation” along at a much greater pace–but by our reaction to and transformation by the unrelenting Marxist, Gramscian attack and its slow, steady, constant pressure against the United States and the West in general that has been going on for these last 70 years since WWII.
As a result, and looking back over the last almost 70 years I have been alive, I believe we have, in general, been misdirected, been deliberately pushed and drifted away (and sometimes, admittedly, drifted all on our own) from the correct path, from the Truth, become, supposedly, an increasingly “sophisticated” read decadent, a much more “educated and “enlightened” read ill/un-educated, course, dishonest, and immoral–increasingly a society of liars, cheats, swindlers, parasites, and chiselers–“free” read undisciplined and lazy, society than we were in the past. And Gramscian political correctness–as it was designed to do–has largely destroyed the ability of many of us to see and to tell the truth. We are starting to enter the territory of the immoral, brutal, morally and intellectually corrosive mental realm of societies like the old Soviet Union, where everyone–although they knew the truth in their hearts–espoused a totally false view of reality–the Party Line– in order to survive, to “get along” in that culture. A culture that ultimately changed their entire ethos, that did largely achieve its objective of creating a “new man,” and resulted in the bleak, bankrupt, environmentally contaminated and wrecked, brutal country, and amoral people we often see portrayed today, with massive alcoholism, corruption, unemployment, and sky-high routine abortion as indicators of their fall–it is no accident that the Russian mob is considered the most ruthless, savage, bloody, and brutal mob around, or that many of the young (and sometimes older) women in the nations that made up the old U.S.S.R. are seeking, in any way they can (check out the multiplicity of Eastern European/Russian “mail-order bride” sites on the Web) , to escape their bleak futures and to immigrate to the West, which, for the moment, is in better shape than the old U.S.S.R.
.
As I see it, the pressure of that attack has pushed us as a country and us as individuals off course, we have strayed far out of sight of the land of our fathers, of the ways–mostly good– in which we used to think and behave, drifted away, as well, from our true history, our religious foundations, and our Constitution and government as it was meant to be and to function.
We are adrift, rudderless (for religion and the “Iron Triangle” of home, school and family that reinforced the lessons of religion and ethics, values, expectations, and behaviors supplied that rudder), and headed for an iceberg.
I hadn’t planned to comment, but the first comment by Doom made me feel compelled to join the chorus of those saying whatever his shortcomings, Romney is still many, many, many times better than a second term for Obama. At least Romney won’t veto legislation to repeal Obamacare, nor will he appoint justices like Sotomayor or Kagan, nor will he impose countless more business-killing regulations through executive orders and hyper-partisan agencies.
Wolla,
I see the marxist position as one that needs only innattention to be arrived at. It is the default governance of people unless some very rare events like our founding fathers occur. We lost sight of how much maintenance what our founders gave us actually required. And when the enemies of liberty called that maintenance imperialism and colonialism we didn’t have the gonads to tell them to **** off.
Romney is a nice guy, probably a very competent guy, but he does not inspire or elevate.
I will vote for a box of rocks over Obama.
Sadly, the Republican circular firing squad, amplified by Ann Coulter and represented by what’s happening in Virginia, where what candidates we DO have aren’t even allowed on the GOP ballot – we’re dooming ourselves far more efficiently than even the Soros-controlled filthy Journ-O-listers. Worse, we’re dooming the world, because a weakling like Obama in power here has upset the entire world’s stability.
Here’s the problem with Romney: He won’t do squat to remove Obama Care.
That sucker will sink the country.
Doom above is right about the US Dollar: it’s so watered down, it’s practically worthless. The only reason it is still the currency of trade is because of a) OPEC still trades in USDs, b) none of the other currencies are any better.
If b) ever changes, and forces a change in a) that will be our tipping point.
And while Teh Won appointing radicals to SCOTUS is bad enough, I’d hate to see Romney’s appointments. How many Souters can we withstand?
SteveH @ 11:03
We should call this the Fred Thompson effect. Which is really an epiphany by the candidates that the media will destroy any conservative who dares an attempt to govern as one.
The media are the key to the problem. They don’t just destroy conservatives attempting to govern as such, but anyone who either as candidate or officeholder threatens the march of collectivism. We really need the media investigated under the RICO Act, if for no other reason than JournoList, a leftist cabal that brazenly manipulated the news to their own nefarious ends. Their brazeness suggests that they think they’re close to achieving their goal, and that time is therefore short.
IRA,
Isn’t the U.S. Dollar really worth only what American produce in terms of wealth, prosperity, goods and services? There is no gold. It is all fiat, and the fiat finally comes down to “we are good for it; we make stuff and you can invest here; and we have lots of stuff and real estate all the time; and our land is productive land (of farms or minerals or whatever”.
Therefore, the problem is liberal dems, a population corrupted by that whole ethos (thinking that all that fiat grows on trees that someone else picks for them.
The solution is someone like Romney, or any R, to stop the bleed and begin to turn the ship around. We are talking a tourniquet first, before Thomas Jefferson. America will never be “back” until they let us make things again, and do business again, and be free again. Our problems are moral, since it is lack of morality that killed those good things. We have to start somewhere.
“Doom and Gloom” is just giving up without a fight. It’s a vice not a virtue.
Occam’s Beard,
“The media are the key to the problem.”
Quoted for truth.
Added by yours truly:
Everywhere. Not just in America. Everywhere. Ev. Ree. Where.
Election results are just the last and most visible manifestation of the rot. The real issue is Gramsci’s Long March Through The Institutions. There is no outcome worthy of the name of “Victory” but this: The undoing of this Long March.
All over the free world, including the United States of America, and including my country. As I said: Everywhere.
I kinda like what SteveH says about how BO might even leave the country due to unsweep-under-the-rug-able corruption.
I had a dream that Sarah got a buzz cut and announced she was running. I thought, in the dream, oh this must be a dream. So I looked again. I found a second picture of her and sure enough: Sarah’s hair was 1/8 inch all the way around, she looked adorable, and says she’s running and running hard and did not want to have to bother with her hair.
M of Hollywood: that’s quite a dream! Sarah as Joan of Arc??
What I think must be remembered is that the Republican Party is just that: a party.
A group of people whose interest lies in getting each other elected.
To what purpose, though?
It was originally abolition, although few blacks know that today.
So what is it’s purpose, it’s goal, it’s vision?
To get each other elected and remain in power.
Market forces dictate that they respond to the electorate.
They are a brand.
We must make them want us, market themselves to us.
They are not conservatives.
They are just more conservative than the other brand.
To give those here some idea of just how drastically our paper currency has depreciated:
The spot price of silver is around $28.70 per ounce right now. Many U.S. coins, through the mid-1960s, were 90% silver. So, if you go on Ebay right now you will see sellers offering, for instance, 6 oz of circulated “junk” silver pre-1965 coins for around $200.00, with actual face values of between 4 and 6 dollars–you get perhaps several quarters, and a few dimes and a nickel or two, or a half-dollar, a quarter, and a few dimes–something like that; what we used to call “pocket change” that is now worth close to $200 in paper money.
A thousand dollar face amount bag of junk silver coins goes for over $30,000 today.
Make that face value between 1 and 3 dollars.
Is it better to be Republican or conservative?
Romney v. Taft, redux.
IRA Darth Aggie,
You do know that Robert Bork is one of Romney’s judicial advisors and a strong supporter, don’t you?
Speaking of Christie as a member of the A team: when his name started to rise as a potential candidate, there were some ideologically pure conservatives who started to attack him. Even Ryan had a few detractors. Some people really seem to believe we will find a like-thinking person who can stop the rise of the oceans. I think we as individuals need to figure out our own priorities and then choose the candidate most likely to implement them. No one will be able to remake America into our own personal Utopia, especially not in 4 years.
Agreed, neo, that Romney’s the best of the bunch, so I will definitely vote for him. He’s a good family man, morally and ethically upright, a fantastic manager, won’t embarrass us by saying stupid things, is not vain or self-centered, and will do generally conservative things.
Gingrich – as vain as Obama. Shoots off at the mouth. Was a terrible leader when he was Speaker. Most of his ideas are good but many are half-baked. Generally conservative but has almost as many flip-flops as Romney. Also has more scandals in his background than all of the other candidates put together (true or not is irrelevant because they’ll be trotted out ad nauseum).
Paul – a kook. His followers are worse.
Perry – not ready for prime time, and probably never will be.
Santorum – I like him a lot, but you can’t run for president having lost your last senate race. Besides, being a two term congressman and one term senator is pretty thin to begin with.
Bachmann – I like her ideology but you need more experience than just having been in congress. She comes across as too extreme anyway and scares the soccer moms.
Huntsman – is more conservative than most people think, but in a moment of monumental stupidity decided to create an image of himself as a moderate.
@Ed Bondereka
“What I think must be remembered is that the Republican Party is just that: a party.
A group of people whose interest lies in getting each other elected.”
“Just”????
Nothing is “just” something. The Republican party is not “just” a Party. It was the party that ended slavery for goodness sakes. it is one of the two main parties of political participation in the greatest country in the history of the universe.
It is the party of Lincoln, and Reagan, and Palin, and freedom and liberty and prosperity and true fairness and equality of opportunity and life and a hundred other good things.
As with all things human – including Y-O-U – it is not perfect and it makes mistakes.
When did we Republicans turn into a bunch of whiners? We are all starting to sound like Ron Paul and he is truly crazy and insufferably childish for a grown man.
Any of the Rs left, save Paul, are grown up people with excellent resumes. Any one of them would make an excellent President. Very soon we will begin the process of picking the one out of the bunch.
It’s pretty simple really. Look at how the McCain folks treated Sarah Palin. Does that make sense, given that she was chosen to be the VP candidate? The backstabbing never stops. The Repubs need to stop trying to shoot each other down and start campaigning NOW against Obama.
I’m not particularly impressed with Boehner and he’s symptomatic with the problem with the party. Why do they care what the Tea Party is up to, as long as they will support them on certain issues? We’ve gotten too exclusive and don’t focus on ways to bring more people into the party. It’s like a high school clique. Both parties are like that and it’s why more and more people are registering as Independents. Of course, that gives you no real say in the primaries, in many states.
We’ve got a lot of serious issues to deal with right now and what I’m looking for, in a candidate, is someone that can say what they stand for (without changing their position every other week) and can firmly state what the President has done wrong. And it wouldn’t hurt if they had a plan on how they’d go about fixing those problems.
I’m in Chicago, with my daughter, helping her go to sundry appointments and run errands before she starts chemo. Chicago is the evil, Siamese twin heart (to DC) of what ails American society. It must be resisted at all costs.
I have this comment for those like Doom: Purity will get you nowhere although I understand your desire for purity. So I’ll vote for road kill before I’ll stay home and refuse to vote against Obama and the Chicago boys. Yes, the RNC establishment is only slightly better than the DNC; but we can not afford BHO in the Oval Office until January of 2017. There will be no country to save if we allow that to happen through a vow to purity.
@Mike Mc.
I’m not denigrating the Republican Party.
But it is what it is today.
And will act in it’s own interests.
It is a collection of people and interests.
We just need to be a part of that collection and realize it is not us alone.
And bend it to our will.
neo-neocon Says:
December 27th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Hell, I’ve been saying that since forever.
I bet she’d look fine in a suit of armor.
Have you read Thomas Sowell’s column about Newt Gingrich?
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122011.php3
Worth reading.
Despite the claims, it does seem like there are no true “outsiders” in the Republican race, and Congressional Republicans–from what I can see–are just as resistant to the really deep spending cuts, drastic changes, and smaller, less intrusive government demanded by the Tea Party as are the Democrats. It seems like the “inside the Beltway” spell has ensnared almost all of those Republicans–power, adulation, perks–it just sucks most people in, and transforms their world-view, their priorities, and their actions; they really don’t want to “rock the boat” that is so nicely transporting them towards their own personal golden futures.
Proponents of the ideals of the Tea Party have not been able to put forward a candidate from their own ranks and have, instead, been forced to place their bets on whomever among the establishment candidates will likely hew closest to the ideals of the Tea Party. Meanwhile, those candidates are trying to give off the vibrations that, “yes, they are really for the Tea Party’s ideas.” But, are they?
All of the candidates who I believe would have been better standard bearers for the ideas of the Tea Party have declined to run, Sarah Palin chief among them. Chris Christie?–he seemed to be different, and certainly was in attitude and approach, but looking at his actual proposals and actions again, he is trimming around the edges and not talking about deep, deep cuts and revolutionary changes. Paul Ryan?–his proposals to rein in spending sound good, until you look at the actual numbers–better than others, but still way too small–cutting a trillion dollars over something like a ten year period from a $17 trillion dollar debt is not a counter-revolution, and deep in the shit as we are, what we need is a counter-revolution to roll back the Obama revolution.
So, who among those candidates who are running could best approximate such a counter-revolutionary leader?
Huntsman? He is basically a RINO–remember, Obama appointed him as his Ambassador to China, and it would largely be status quo with him.
Paul–he has got “game” with his fanatical supporters, but as the days go on, and more and more of his statements, supporters i.e. Stormfront, crazy ideas and positions come to light, it has become abundantly clear that he is truly the crazy uncle that should never have power.
Bachman, Santorum?–they are focused on a few issues, somehow they are lightweights, and just don’t seem to have it either.
That leaves us with just the two current front runners, Romney and Gingrich.
Can you really see Romney leading a counter-revolution? He would be a don’t rock the boat too much, a bland, middle of the road leader–OK, perhaps, when we are not in shit this deep, but just not adequate to the magnitude, or to the type of challenge we face.
That leaves Gingrich–warts and all. He may be all of the things his critics call him–morally flawed, bombastic, full of himself–but as I see it, he is the only one who understands just how deep in it we really are, and who has the guts, the requisite knowledge and experience, who can really, actually “think outside of the box,” and who will be bold enough to try to lead the full-blown counter-revolution that is the only real solution to the deep, deep trouble that we are in.
P.S.–A Third Party run? Attractive, i know, but just not a good idea.
The deck is so stacked against a third party that such a course of action would be suicidal,and–if tried– would very likely siphon enough votes from Republican candidates to assure Obama of victory.
I see I have forgotten Perry–and perhaps it was because he is just “forgettable.”
Perry, in my estimation, is just not ready–and may never be ready–for prime time.
Perry, too, seems tome to be a lightweight, but beyond that, his chief defect is that he is not articulate, and we have seen, in Obama, what an advantage being articulate–or being thought articulate–and being able to move people is and, in Bush, what a disadvantage not being able to express yourself well, and not being able to really move substantial numbers of people is, too.
Finally, I see some commenters on this and other blogs saying that, they are very dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates–their backgrounds, or this or that particular policy or position, or their various faults–and that they will protest by just staying home and not voting, or voting for, say, Ron Paul or Obama in the Virginia primary to show their dissatisfaction with how things turned out in Virginia.
My view is this; the upcoming Presidential election will be much more like a street brawl–lead pipes, bricks, brass knuckles, kicks to the genitals and all–than it will be like a well-mannered, white-glove. debutant ball, and, thus, we will need” all hands on deck” to win, and the one and only objective is to retire Obama & Co. That means every single vote counts, and everyone has to vote for the Republican of their choice–I’d have to say with the exception of Ron Paul, who I believe would be an absolute disaster–in his own unique way–comparable to the disaster we already have with Obama.
Watching this with amusement.
I’m with Doom, and the few others.
Paul is the only candidate of the bunch that gives two craps about the Constitution -which is what this country is supposed to be about. Yet quite a few here could never vote for him.
Meanwhile, like at Talkleft (the primary argument for re-electing Obama [which is a minority view there, most want Obama gone] is the Supreme Court and fear of how much “worse” things will be if a Republican is elected) there’s talk here of holding your nose and voting for someone (except Paul, ironically, he’s the only one of the Republican clowns singled out by anyone), anyone, except Obama.
Hook, line and sinker, heads we win, tails you lose. Yep, go ahead, vote whomever the GOP establishment sends up there for you. Don’t hold any of your candidates to any conservative principles because that might get in the way of electing them so they can..fight for conservative principles? Amazing.
Here’s your only real options:
1. If you must vote mainstream, frogs, and you care as much about the Constitution or the USA as you claim you do, you will vote Ron Paul. He’s far from perfect, certainly as kooky as any of the other Republicans, and not as hepped up on Endless War against Towel Heads like some of you are, but he won’t turn into a Dictator -or give the other party powers they can use to that direction – and he’s not going to be able to do very much damage to your precious military anyway.
2. You can write in the conservative candidate of your choice or vote third party. That might seem like a protest vote -well , it is. But until enough protest votes come around , the two parties (the kinda teensy weensy bit conservatives sometimes and the Evil Liberal Party that Serves Big Business) are going to continue to ignore you and do whatever the heck they want to do.
3. You can sit this one out. Hey, at least you can’t be hit -no matter what -with cries of “you voted for him or her”.
4. You can continue to vote mainstream and, win or lose, continue to wonder why you are not taken seriously , no one gives a crap, and where your country is going.
Since most of you seem to be aiming for option 4, I wish you the best of luck with that, and I won’t feel sorry for you.
@Brasd
Ron Paul is nearly mad.
He talks about the Constitution but no matter what he says about it he is still very nearly a madman.
It is unthinkable that he could ever be President. The choice between him and Obama would, without doubt, be a Sophie’s Choice.
You are playing with fire and being petulant, immature, whiny. You would burn down the house in the name of what? The Constitution? The Founders would be horrified. Lincoln horrified. Every great President or decent American who ever lived – horrified.
Ron Paul is not a joke any more. He assures a 50 State victory for Obama and the end of America forever. You are so unconcerned about the amazing human suffering that would cause that I find it astonishing to behold. I cannot believe you would seriously support Paul. Non sane person can. People use Paul to make statements, like kids or something.
Ron Paul has collected a paycheck for 24 years from the American Taxpayer. He is Big Government.
How ironic. His whole election strategy for continuing to collect that free paycheck for doing nothing is to say he is against big government.
“He assures a 50 State victory for Obama and the end of America forever.”
And you accuse Ron Paul of being an extremist madman…
Mike McAhmadinejad:
Stomping feet and raising fists where counterarguments are called for is immature, maladjusted behavior. Next, you’ll be calling Paul a doody-head.
We’ve already thrashed around your opposition to Paul’s strictly Constitutional foreign policy. What parts of the Constitution are you demanding we ignore in regard to his domestic policies?
Since the majority is willing to ignore their Oath and set aside the Constitution, what is this thing you call “America” that you fear Obama (and the half-GOP Congress) are about to destroy? Genuinely I ask, what are you defending? To what would you swear an Oath?
If there is a doody head, it’s Ron Paul.
He would win zero States. And I mean that. There is no State in the Union that would cast a majority of its votes for him.
Among ten things, he’s a truther. He hates America every bit as much as the Left does.
Mike Mc:
You failed to answer what you think this “America” is. How can you conclude that Paul hates America when you cannot tell us what the object of the alleged hate is?
I presume “Truther” is someone who believes Bush administration or other FedGov personnel orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. Can you cite evidence that Paul adheres to that view? Be careful to show your work, and guard against confusing the concept of blowback with active intent.
I can coinclude Paul hates America the same way I can conclude Obama hates it, and you hate it. You, btw, have already deemed it beyond redemption.
Every time Paul mentions America it is to disparage it.
In that he is like Obama, and Hamas for that matter.
It is like the man or woman who says they love their spouse but all they ever do is point out their faults.
And what is it with you whackazoid Paulistas thinking you are so clever? Is it now a condition of political commentary that one must first “define” America? Have you? Has Paul? Has anyone? That’s nuts.
I know what America is. It is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. it is the Declaration and the Constitution. It is hot dogs, apple pie and baseball. It is freedom and liberty and opportunity. My educated guess is that Ron Paul winces at all of those things. I bet he hates baseball. I’m sure he hates hotdogs.
Let’s recap: Ron Paul has fed at the public trough for one-quarter century now. he has yet to pass one bill that I ever heard of, or make any positive change in the direction he says he wants for all that time. It is certain he is making a ton of money both from his salary for a quite literally in his case do-nothing job that we pay for; and for all the people who pay him to be their ornery crank who says crazy things for them.
He will never get the nomination. He’s not even a Republican (he’s a libertarian) and is therefore a fraud for even seeking their nomination. Every day he is on the race it is only more likely Obama gets re-elected. He has almost no support at all outside his faithful cadre of libertarian brownshirts who stuff polls and will skew Iowa since it is a caucus and not a vote.
If by some moonshot miracle he got the R nomination – a virtual impossibility – he would lose every single State. Who would give him a majority? Montana? No way.
Have you heard him in the debates? Have you heard him say Michelle Bachman hates muslims, and all manner of outrageous things like that? In that high pitched arm waving eyes glazed over manner of his?
I have no problem with the Constitution. Paul is a mad man. If he were President, the whole world would be thrown into chaos and the U.S. would be a shell of itself with misery all around.
Mike Mc:
Really, Ron Paul hates hot dogs? That’s the depth of your thinking? The whole world would be thrown into chaos? I should go back to calling you McAhmadinejad.
Re-read your last post and tell me again about arm-waving and eye-glazing.
But seriously, when you include the Constitution as part of the America you think Obama will destroy, tell us how any of the GOP prospects has shown integrity to an Oath to honor and defend the limits set out in that document?
You have inferred one of my points correctly. The America you claim to be arm-wavingly keyboard-frothingly concerned about saving has already passed. The Constitution has been demoted to a whim. It’s easy to have no problem with it when it has been rendered inoperative. That’s why I asked you–you specifically–to explain what it was you feel is about to end. I actually want to understand your perspective and your argument.
You make a standard error in assuming what you see in these comments is the entirety of my view. The faults I am hammering here are those of the electeds and the appointeds who have taken law into their own hands. You do not see my opinions about apple pie or baseball (in my case, football). And don’t get me started on how much I love my Mom.
When you try, again, to substitute ad hominem with argument, you present yourself as a confirmed fool. Were you somewhere else when I was making the similar strident defenses of Herman Cain on this very forum? Did your eyes gloss over the zillion times I have called for conservatives to pick a candidate with coattails?
Closer to the root, I reject your error of conflating “America” with the Federal Government. I want better pie and more competitive football. I want the invisible conspiracy of goodwill that serves and binds us as a people to endure. I want the ideals in the Declaration to guide and shape our society. I see the Constitution as a wonderful means toward enabling each of us to achieve all those ends. America is us, the country class, not them, the ruling class. I want to live in the country the Founders gave us, not the soft tyranny of the Bi-Factional Ruling Party and its slow-witted enablers.
You’re mad.
I am “conflating America with the Federal Government”? The mad person is almost monomaniacal – they see only one thing whether it is there or not.
Be that as it may…I have not been a federal Employee in the innermost of innermost circles of the Federal Government for 25 years. Ron Paul has. Very few people have been gaming the system to no good end for as long as he has.
But wait! He’s a libertarian!
Did I say libertarian? I meant Republican! He’s a republican. Yeah. That’s right. He’s the one who couldn’t stand Reagan either.
I have a question for you: Why is Ron Paul running as a Republican in the Republican Primaries? Is he a Republican? If so, then your whole argument is shot through and through. If not, then your man is a fraud.
Whether he is really mad I guess is a matter of conjecture. But either he is mad or he is a fraud. Which is it?
I will vote in my Texas primary for Rick Perry. I should hope that he will be the best we can muster this time around.
If he does not pass the gauntlet laid by the DNC for picking our candidate for their Messiah to defeat, then I will vote ABO.
Stockpile commodities if The pResident is re-enthroned.
It’s could be a rough ride.
Reading a few comments up-thread:
Beware! Ron Paul is batsh-t crazy. Do not lock eyes with it and back slowly away lest you become enthralled by it’s gaze and bewitched.
It has taken decades to reach the current situation, bit by bit. There’s no reason to think it unlikely that a reversal will not also take decades, bit by bit.
I’m reminded of a recent discussion on the expansion of civil rights for bearing arms. Who could’ve predicted in 1990 that only one state would still totally forbid its subjects to be armed for self defense (although there are still many hold-outs locally, and some other states are still pretty oppressive). Slow work, that, but improvements nevertheless.
Anyway, I respect someone fighting in the arena much more than someone who gives up, awaits Ragnarok, and wishes that he’ll be able to scrape things up from the rubble.
I was driving, listening to a charter school executive.
I was reminded of Lord of the Rings, where when all looked dire, an army rose up where no one had reckoned from, did not know the existence of.
What if we held out long enough to see an army of home, private and charter schooled kids rise up and enter the electorate?
Mike Mc:
I argue with libertarians that Paul is not one of them. Paul wants to close borders and control immigration. Paul confirms that life begins at conception and abortion is a violation of liberty. I’m amazed he gets so much support from the libs.
Have you taken the time to read what Paul had to say about his move to the Libertarian Party? The problem was that the GOP abandoned conservative principles. The Rs, despite their rhetoric have consistently expanded gov’t and increasingly ignored the set of limits outlined in the Constitution.
If you have the integrity to look at Paul’s platform, you should see why he’s wearing the GOP jersey again. He holds to pretty much all they claim to desire. What sets him apart is his willingness to adhere to those ideals in all situations.
Lets see–racist, anti-Semitic statements, and looney conspiracy theories in his newsletters (first, he said he didn’t write them and didn’t even know what was in them, now, he says, yes, he wrote most of these newsletters, but just not the bad parts) –check.
Support from white supremacist, Neo-Nazi “Stormfront”–check.
Said he would neither have fought Hitler in WWII, nor tried to stop the Holocaust–check.
Close all of our overseas bases and pull our troops back to the U.S.–check.
Sees nothing wrong with Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, nor with their closing of the Straits of Hormuz–check.
In 2009 went over to Iran and praised Hamas on their national TV, bashed Israel, and excused suicide bombing, said the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and called Gaza a “concentration camp” (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/ron-paul-on-iranian-tv-2009-defends-hamas-and-suicide-bombing-bashes-israel.html) –check.
Well, what more could we ask for in a President?