Where are the Conservatives?

[Eupher]

Why can't someone just admit that Rem is right?

The Conservative party has had to slide father and father away from it's ideology in order to find support.  The Liberal nominee is, well, Liberal and hasn't had to shift to pander to Conservatives the way that Romney, a man with a mouth on both sides of his face, has had to.

The Conservative nominee, as Eupher has pointed out, is a guy who's health care plan for his state is almost indistinguishable form the one Obama is pitching.  That should be blasphemy from the conservative viewpoint.  In all fairness though, the list of potential candidates was a sorry ass lot this time around.  I bet Bob Dole wishes he was still around!

Now, I'm not bashing Conservatism per se, but just to point out that Rem makes an interesting point and exploit that point just a little tinnie, tiny bit  .

  

Yep, I'll go along with Rem's idea on this -- and I'll attribute the "slide" to an absolutely ****ing SPINELESS RNC. Michael Steele et. al. did nobody any favors, and the turd that's currently chairman of the RNC is equally worthless, AFAIC.

Repubs have been "expected" to shift to the center in order to show a "willingness" to "work in a bi-partisan way." What absolute ****ing horseshit.

Boehner is a slightly shinier turd than was Steele, but he still stinks (when he's not crying like the little bitch he is).

[rich_t]

He has been saying over and over again that on his first day in office, he will repeal obamacare. I guess we will have to wait and see. And yes, with SCOTUS telling their decision on it the first or second week of June, Romney might not even have to worry about it.

He won't have the Constitutional authority as POTUS to repeal it.  He can't just pull out his pen and strike down existing laws that he doesn't like by executive fiat.

[Eupher]

He won't have the Constitutional authority as POTUS to repeal it.  He can't just pull out his pen and strike down existing laws that he doesn't like by executive fiat.

I interpreted what he said in that Congress would first pass the necessarily legislation, then Romney would sign it. But you're absolutely right.

Be that as it may, Romney ain't gonna sign any kind of repeal legislation. No way, no how.

[Wineslob]

BS'd both little bitches. 

[rich_t]

I interpreted what he said in that Congress would first pass the necessarily legislation, then Romney would sign it. But you're absolutely right.

Be that as it may, Romney ain't gonna sign any kind of repeal legislation. No way, no how.

I'd be surprised if he did sign true repeal legislation.

[thundley4]

I'd be surprised if he did sign true repeal legislation.

If Republicans take the senate, keep the house and pass legislation repealing Obamacare then I don't think he would have much choice.  However, I'm not even sure the republicans would pass a repeal even they have both houses of congress.

[rich_t]

If Republicans take the senate, keep the house and pass legislation repealing Obamacare then I don't think he would have much choice.  However, I'm not even sure the republicans would pass a repeal even they have both houses of congress.

I think that the younger tea party types would, but we have too much of the good ole boy network still in office.

Unfortunately.

[obumazombie]

When I listened to owebuma, on message, during his last campaign, he expounded very conservative ideals. He fooled a lot of voters with it. Every once in awhile, when off script, and no teleprompter in sight, he would say,"We gotta' spread the wealth around", and Keystone stater's "cling to their guns, and bibles with antipathy towards those who are different" (essentially calling them racist), and "They need to have skin in the game". Hannity and others chronicled how radical he was, is, and would be, but he fooled enough voters who were sitting on the fence with white guilt leaning them towards owebuma, that the conservative rhetoric felled them on his side of the electoral fence. This time it won't work nearly as well.

[Kyle Ricky]

When I listened to owebuma, on message, during his last campaign, he expounded very conservative ideals. He fooled a lot of voters with it. Every once in awhile, when off script, and no teleprompter in sight, he would say,"We gotta' spread the wealth around", and Keystone stater's "cling to their guns, and bibles with antipathy towards those who are different" (essentially calling them racist), and "They need to have skin in the game". Hannity and others chronicled how radical he was, is, and would be, but he fooled enough voters who were sitting on the fence with white guilt leaning them towards owebuma, that the conservative rhetoric felled them on his side of the electoral fence. This time it won't work nearly as well.

The only reason he got elected was because he is black, and he wasn't Bush. They willfully over looked who he was, or what he would do. In fact, 99% of the people who voted for him didn't even know his name.

[MrsSmith]

Why can't someone just admit that Rem is right?

The Conservative party has had to slide father and father away from it's ideology in order to find support.  The Liberal nominee is, well, Liberal and hasn't had to shift to pander to Conservatives the way that Romney, a man with a mouth on both sides of his face, has had to.

The Conservative nominee, as Eupher has pointed out, is a guy who's health care plan for his state is almost indistinguishable form the one Obama is pitching.  That should be blasphemy from the conservative viewpoint.  In all fairness though, the list of potential candidates was a sorry ass lot this time around.  I bet Bob Dole wishes he was still around!

Now, I'm not bashing Conservatism per se, but just to point out that Rem makes an interesting point and exploit that point just a little tinnie, tiny bit  .

  

We did admit it, noob.  Obviously your reading skills are not yet improving.  The problem conservatives have is that the conservative candidates are all Christians, our media hates Christians, and too many conservatives are foolish and uneducated enough to believe the media.  Seems that hat fits you.  Or are you trying to tell us you supported Santorum?  

[MrsSmith]

And all I am saying is that supporting either (of course Romney is the better choice) will not advance the conservative agenda.

Agendas do NOT help the economy recover or remind the world that the US is not full of butt-kissing useful idiots.  Our only course of action after the conservative candidate failed is to vote for the least damage to the country, and that puts us squarely behind Romney.

[wasp69]

We did admit it, noob.  Obviously your reading skills are not yet improving.  

Comprehension of written English does not seem to be its strong suit, does it?

Incidentally, I don't think our newest "true Conservative" is ever going to bother to tell us who it thinks the real Conservative candidate is. 

[remington762700]

I've only seen a few posters misspell his name.  All were trolls or Paultards. (Not that there is much difference between those critters)  You are not impressing us.

A typo....Commence with my flogging.....

[obumazombie]

A typo....Commence with my flogging.....

How do you spell his name now ?

[remington762700]

So enough whinging, Remington. Answer wasp's question:

Who's YOUR candy-date, now that the following has happened?

1.  Herman Cain went belly up due to his marital infidelities and a Dem/MSM witchhunt.
2.  Bachmann went belly up because she knew, as a representative in Congress, there was no way she'd be nominated.
3.  Perry went belly up for whatever reason.
4.  Huntsman went belly up (yet another RINO).
5.  Santorum went belly up because he didn't have the money, the organization, or the head start that Romney got.
6.  Gingrich went belly up since he couldn't focus on the issues and had to attack Romney and whine and bitch about the results.
7.  Did I miss anybody?  Oh yeah. Dr. Nutz. The original Paultard. He's still in the running, but at his advanced age, he's slowed down to a geezer crawl.

Oh, so you think this is all about promoting a "specific" candidate. I'm not here to push any "candidate" but only the ideology. Conservatism to me, has always been the more difficult of the two competing ideologies because of it's natural boarders and boundaries that prohibit certain actions. For instance stationing Federal troops to prevent Aliens from crossing the boarder sounds like a reasonable idea until one is reminded that it violates the Constitution. A typical Liberal might respond "to hell with it, do it anyway" but anyone with a reasonable amount of understanding might ask "If we can circumvent the Constitution for this, what grounds will prevent Federal troops from being deployed on American soil on an issue I'm less inclined to support? In the end the obvious choice is to play it safe and oppose such an action and seek other answers that a typical liberal doesn't see.

People are free to make their own choices, this is not a political round table designed to consolidate support for anyone. (and this is a little late in the game to make a difference if that was my goal), I think the lefts political machine has the monopoly on pushing voters in who and what to support anyway.

I might support "Joe the plumber" as compared to what I've seen in the sorry assed performances of the current candidates and I can't help but fantasize that all these people board the same plane that meets with some unfortunate end so we can start over. If Romney is the nomination I will of course give him just consideration but I for one am not inclined to turn the party that represents my ideology into some vague similarity of government that runs that which I oppose just to win an election.    



So spare us the rhetoric, remington.

Who's your "true conservative?"

[remington762700]

How do you spell his name now ?

The Gipper, Dutch, Ron.....or due to my recent blaspheme... The Honorable President Reagan.

[Kyle Ricky]

The Honorable President Reagan.

One of the greatest Presidents in history. Hi5.

[remington762700]

The first step in advancing the conservative agenda is halting the advance of the liberal agenda.

Of course but your taking a defensive strategy. Stop the others before you yourself can advance.

Clinton suffered in the first year of his Presidency where his approval rating fell to just under 40% but was on the rise up to the same popularity he had when he took office when Newt Gingrich laid out his Contract with America. His conservative idea's put the DNC on the defensive for the following 3 years. Defensive positions are easier to hold and to ward off attack but they do nothing for taking ground. Newt took the offensive and American's supported his plan. I think one of the dark spots on Newts record is he never followed it up and I think his failure to do so hurt him in his bid for the Presidency.   

[remington762700]

I guess we will have to wait and see. If it turns out that he lied and will not repeal it. His chances of a second term will be slim to none. That makes me think of Bush Sr. and "Read my lips".

And maybe one of the reasons I have issues with the current system. Win the election based upon fabrication, half truths and empty promises and four years later "suck less" than the other guy to win another 4 years in office.

[Kyle Ricky]

And maybe one of the reasons I have issues with the current system. Win the election based upon fabrication, half truths and empty promises and four years later "suck less" than the other guy to win another 4 years in office.

Sounds like Obama. He lied to get elected and now the MSM is trying to make it sound like it will be worse with Romney.

[txradioguy]

And maybe one of the reasons I have issues with the current system. Win the election based upon fabrication, half truths and empty promises and four years later "suck less" than the other guy to win another 4 years in office.

So...as someone asked earlier...who do you think should have been our nominee?

[remington762700]

No one that I can think of in the last 200 years.  Not as President anyway.



Romney is certainly not the conservative choice...but he is the anti-Obama choice.  ANd right now what concerns me most is getting the Communist comment organizer out of office before he makes Carter look anymore competent than he already has.

That should be everyone's focus right now.

Kennedy was far more conservative than the left would ever admit. Strong on National defense and foreign policy many of JFK's ideas such as "Ask not what your country can do for you....." are alien to progressive and liberals alike.

I absolutely don't want to see Obama in the White House another 4 years and even if it meant a return of Jimmy Carter.....WHATEVER.... As I stated, my position is to see conservatism for what it really is and not to see it hijacked by liberal republicans trying to out liberalize liberals.      

[txradioguy]

Kennedy was far more conservative than the left would ever admit. Strong on National defense and foreign policy many of JFK's ideas such as "Ask not what your country can do for you....." are alien to progressive and liberals alike.

I absolutely don't want to see Obama in the White House another 4 years and even if it meant a return of Jimmy Carter.....WHATEVER.... As I stated, my position is to see conservatism for what it really is and not to see it hijacked by liberal republicans trying to out liberalize liberals.      

Who do you think should have been our nominee?

[remington762700]

So...as someone asked earlier...who do you think should have been our nominee?

Gingrich probably was the closest conservative candidate in the race but Newt doesn't appeal to people. I think he might want to consider the VP spot where he would be quite experienced as a whipping boy. When should somebody's looks, the way they talk, the color tie they have on determine if they would make a good President? Never but if you recall, (some nit wit) said their choice for Kerry was because he had "better looking hair".

 

Unfortunately with the absence of people's education and interest in politics a political candidate has an obligation to be likable if they are serious about winning the White House. Schwarzenegger and Ventura were elected almost entirely on likability........... Newt never had that.
   

[txradioguy]

Gingrich probably was the closest conservative candidate in the race but Newt doesn't appeal to people.

Newt has other issues that turn him off to Conservatives at large besides "appeal".

He's certainly not anywhere near being a Goldwater/Reagan conservative mold.

Unfortunately with the absence of people's education and interest in politics a political candidate has an obligation to be likable if they are serious about winning the White House. Schwarzenegger and Ventura were elected almost entirely on likability........... Newt never had that.
   

People are more than educated these days.  Your mistake is assuming they aren't and you're the only one in the room with the answers.