We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In my view, Newt is unelectable, and not only because he comes across as an unusually unpleasant and undisciplined person. I don't know whether Mitt could win a national election, but I think the point is that he would help hold down potential losses in the House and Senate. He is not a rooted Conservative in the way that Obama is a rooted Leftist, it seems to me, and is the white bread candidate. Likeable, in my view. Not exciting, not overtly humorous, and not too quick on his feet. He'd be fine as President, I think, but not an Obama-style media celeb which seems to be what people enjoy these days, and not a Cut Government Down to Size Conservative.
Of course, holding the House and/or winning the Senate are more important than the White House, but we all tend to focus on the White House race because it's a sport, a soap opera, the Kentucky Derby. It gives us stuff to talk about.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe a calm, pragmatic, non-ideological CEO Mitt-type is what the country needs and wants now. However, the Conservative Repubs see, rightly or wrongly, the opportunity to crush a weak Obama and to win all the chips. Emotion can get in the way of mature, logical thinking. If Mitt wins nomination, it's because party members have voted for him in the primaries. There is no puppetmaster.
Who and where is that mystery person who can pleasantly and inspiringly articulate the Constitutional Conservative case (it ain't Sarah Palin)? Would it require a brokered convention to bring that person onto the field? That would make for some very good TV.
Otherwise, Moderate Mitt will be the party's figurehead.
Mitt is the "least worse" candidate for both Democrats and establishment Republicans. The Dems know they are in real trouble this November, and if they have to lose, they would prefer to lose to a moderate rather than a true conservative. The media is pushing him because they think he can be bullied into continuing the leftward course currently in place. Establishment Republicans seem to be more interested in squashing the upstart Tea Party and ensuring the status quo in DC than they are in actually beating Obama and changing the course of the ship.
All in all, a toxic mix that does not bode well for a resurgence of true conservative values. The only optimistic note is that Romney could probably be bullied the other direction, into being more conservative if he had a solidly conservative House and Senate. The real fight may have to be down ballot in local states and districts.
Good observation I think. Though I'm still unsure as to what true conservative values are, in the sense that I haven't seen them articulated in a cohesive way as yet. And, even if they were, I'm not so sure I'd sign up as an absolute.
Anyway, it is the downstate vote, and thus your voice of it, that interests me, where the real power lies. At least if we have a hope.
"Mitty" is a "wooden 'cigar' Indian"...too stiff and he reminds me of an intelligent Dan Quayle. If he's the GOP's nominee he won't best obama. Lamb-to-the-slaughter. It's the lesser of evils, at this point but Newt has the only 'credentials' to do it.
Coming from MA, the only difference I see between romney and obama is the color of their skin. Perhaps romney does seem sincere in his love for this country, unlike obama. But their intentions are the same and will give us the same results. A greatly diminished USA that bears no resemblance to the wonderful dream our founding fathers gave us.
Col. West has my vote and my backing, now all he has to do is run.
Please, Please everyone! Allen West does not want to run(I don't blame him) but really if he doesn't run for the President of the U.S. we won't have a country. Somebody needs to step up and honestly, Palin is a woman and this next four years is going to take a man. He has to be a rock and have a bullet proof vest. Four more years of what is going down and there simply will not be anything salvageable left. Allen West needs to run for President NOW. He has commonsense.
The mystery person you are looking for is Paul. Unfortunately he doesn't get any good press from the MSM and most American Christians have no clue about the Bible and have no clue about Godly government. And those who do still know how to read are not interested in reading anything about him because he doesn't fit into their presidential box.
That Christians are blinded was established in South Carolina when Newt polled in first. Supposedly SC is a strong Christian state and in fact what happened is that the Christians there called for Barabas in a loud and clear voice.
Newt will sell America out at the first opportunity. He did that before and he will do it again. He is a serial adulterier. Newt has all sorts of ideas but that is just for show and he does what will make money and consolidate power for him and not what is good for America.
Romney is Obama.
* is Obama light and tries to sound tough. When you sweep the debris off his platform there isn't much to see except more of the same.
Paul is the only candidate that will hold to the Constitution -- that's the paper that everyone swears they will support but won't.
I know that Maggie's doesn't like Paul, but as I travel I find more and more Americans, regardless of race, color or creed, who are in his corner.
Dave, and subsequent commenter's. You sound insane with American Christian's and Godly government and Christians are blinded.
Paul is a crazy man to me. A few articulate thoughts amongst a multitude of inanity does not constitute a person I'd vote for, no matter the dire straights we find ourselves in.
If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I will vote for the Republicans.
Otherwise, for the first time in my life (I'm 62), I will not.
I honestly believe that we would be better off w/ Obama than Romney. Romney is another Bush. A leftist w/ a conservative veneer, who will lead the country to ruin.
At least, w/ Obama, the Repubicans in the House and Senate will oppose him. But if Romney is President, then the Republicans will have to support him. That's what happened w/ Bush. So we got the expansion of Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, the wars, and deficits, deficits, deficits. A truly leftist swing.
I urge all of you to consider Paul carefully. I believe that he will balance the budgets and end the wars. I think he is the only conservative running.
I don't know about conservatives in general, but the purists who comment online seem overpopulated with people who want some grand definitive battle against liberals so that we can crush them forever (TAKE THAT!)
Where do we get these people who live in such a fantasy-land? Do they watch too many adventure movies or MMA fights or something? Vote their feelings? Tell me, do you really believe them every election when they tell you it's the most important election in our lifetimes?
We are not on the edge of apocalypse and do not need to deliver some immediate knockout blow to liberals or be forever ruled by Mao. We are in round four of a twelve-round fight.
#9
Assistant VIllage Idiot
(Link)
on
2012-01-30 21:15
(Reply)
AVI...You are right ... We are not "on the edge of an apocalypse" and we don't have to panic. We have to keep our wits and good judgment about us. We have been battling against moonbattery for at least as long as I have been of voting age. And I voted first for Dwight Eisenhower. The liberal elites have been trying to take over the government since the 1930s. Every so often they get an advantage and it looks bad for those of us who know and love our history and liberty. But they can only win if we lose our focus and panic. All of their tired old "bright ideas" have been tried before and failed.
I plan to focus on staying alive [always a challenge] and voting them out of office.
Marianne (and AVI) - it is a delusion (and a common one) to think that cultural and political realities are static.
They are not.
People under 40 in the US no longer KNOW that they are under left-wing influence. The culture has been subverted, the words emptied of their plain meaning and replaced with alternate definitions of "fairness" and "equality" and "opportunity" and "democracy".
They really, REALLY don't know what we older folks know - their experience and education have been completely different.
If/when the economy tanks, these people - who may not even know who Eisenhower was - will not have the political awareness or conceptual vocabulary to articulate a sentence like "soft socialism failed - we need to return to limited government".
Want proof? Take a look at the incoherent "I want a pony" blather coming out of the Occupy movement. That - and Greek-style protests to preserve entitlements - is what will happen when the US economy collapses 12 years out.
So yes - a window of opportunity IS closing.
That is why the media is so desperate to marginalize conservative ideas and spokespeople - to make them "uncool" in young eyes.
We are playing catch-up against an enemy that has spent decades working not just for political power - but for cultural hegemony. They have successfully shifted the goalposts, so the discussions take place on their terms, in their ideological framework - which is why we talk about "RINOs" but not "DINOs".
Yes - there IS a closing window of opportunity.
... Since we're discussing the Republican field - let's recall that the Left/Dem hegemony successfully sidelined the most promising, articulate conservative voices BEFORE REPUBLICAN VOTERS even got to the primaries.
Yes - we ARE in crises. Yes we DO have to push back.
This is the best political satire of the election! This is some funny shit. Seriously folks, is the 11th grade debate team done with their opening statements?
I would be very surprised if Democrats don't have an covert organization that identifies promising young Republican politicians and keeps dossiers on them, to kill the baby in the crib, so to speak.
XRay, clean your glasses as your vision isnt too good right now. I am not insane. My work involves travel and I talk with those that I meet. They are not in favor of the top 3 pushed by the MSM, the bankers and the international cartels. More and more of the everyday, middle class Americans are talking about voting for Paul. The reason that Paul seems crazy is because he believes in the Constitution rather than just winging it. America has moved so far away from the Constitution that it seems crazy.
We are on the edge of a serious financial problem and those of us who watched it develop are heartbroken. In the 1960's as LBJ formulated his Great Society, the largest Christian group in America discussed what should be done for welfare. Should it be left to the government and everyone pay a touch more in taxes or should the Southern Baptists encourage other Christians to stand against government welfare. The end result of that debate was to let the US Government take care of welfare in the US. The fact that the Bible directs welfare to be a church function and not a governmental function was smashed. Since then the Southern Baptists and other Prostant Christians in America have continued to ignore Biblical teachings and to make up their own rules. As a result America is in shambles and the country that was founded on Christian principles is now broke with decaying and falling infrastructure.
Patrick Henry stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." The other founders made similar statements to the necessity of maintaining America as a Christian nation. The neocons and those who want to change history disavow all thoughts of America's Christian foundation. Unfortunately the preachers in todays Christian churches are afraid or so uneducated as to be unable to preach God's word with conviction.
Jaybird, don't forget Ike's warnings about the Military Industiral Complex. It is here and is making itself known along with the bankers and other interests. Patraeus is not a good man for our president.
PacRim the Democrats do have dossiers on Republicans and the Republicans have dossiers on the Democrats. In court testimony G Gorden Liddy explained exactly what Watergate was about. They were picking up photos of comprimised politicians with hookers and other leveraged positions.
The bottom line is that if Christian men don't start praying America isn't going to get any better.
Dave. You've written so many exclusions into your definition of Christians that I haven't a clue as to what you really mean by that term. I'll simply say that however you parse it, Christians in and of themselves no longer determine our leaders. Influence, and tipping point on occasion, but no longer capable of going it alone to elect their anointed.
Who and where is that mystery person who can pleasantly and inspiringly articulate the Constitutional Conservative case?
Doesn't exist, because there's a fundamental problem with the concept. The Constitutional Conservatism case is not a pleasant one. It has nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We (acting as the government) have spent too much, promised too much, and now we can't pay it. We have to make huge cuts in both present expenses and future commitments, or else face fiscal collapse. But we can't make such drastic cuts without causing a fiscal collapse. Not in a country where half the people get some kind of government handout.
As for the Paulbots that have invaded this comment-thread: a reality check is in order, guys and gals. Paul's brand of "let them eat cake" fiscal conservatism combined with head-in-the-sand isolationism would be a complete disaster for the United States if it ever got enacted. Of course, it probably wouldn't get enacted, because as a Constitutional president, Paul would of course reduce himself to the constitutional role of the Chief Executive, which was little more than a rubber stamp for decisions made by Congress. The great irony of the Pauloid position is that without a Congress that agrees with him completely, a Pauloid president effectively eliminates himself as a center of political power.
Myself, I don't know what to make of this election, this field of candidates. At this time four years ago, it wasn't clear whether the Bitch Queen or Barry Lackwit would win the D nomination, but whoever won, it was clear the R-side candidate (which also wasn't settled yet) wouldn't stand a chance. The situation was so toxic for the GOP that the D's could have run their mascot and won. This time around reminds me more of 2004: the incumbent is very weak, very beatable, and a decent candidate will beat him ... but no decent Opposition candidate is to be had. So the election looks like a tossup.
Unfortunately, Paul is the only fiscal conservative still in the Republican race. None of the others even pass the laugh test when you look at their records on fiscal restraint.
I'm hardly a Paulbot but I may vote for him in the probably meaningless NJ primary in June.
"Social Conservative" has come to mean the opposite of the word. Instead of keeping government out of our lives, they now campaign on sticking their noses into our bedrooms and our wallets.
Come November, I will try my best to resist voting for Gary Johnson who is by far the best man currently running for the office (in my opinion).
I would love to see a debate between Obama and Allen West. I visualize Obama cowering throughout the whole debate and peeing in his pants.
Yes, West in 2016, although I do like Rubio (maybe after a little more experience)
