TARP was a line in the sand for me and I have long been of the opinion that Paul Ryan is a fraud. In fact it was hard to resist expressing that opinion during this campaign season though I understand why the sentiment wouldn’t have been received well.

Uh, Erick’s whole point is, look at the man’s record. Perry’s record was solid, and still is.

Not only that, but he wussed out in attacking Joe Biden in his debate. We needed to humiliate the old windbag and Ryan was way too timid.

I assume you have taken your screen name because you are a farmer pig at the trough of federal subsidies. As for Rick Perry, he was the only conservative that had a proven conservative record and could have won the general. However, the RINOs, along with the fools for the Bachmann/Cain/Newt/Pawlease train wreck saw to it that he didn’t get the chance.

Rand Paul seems to be more principled. I didn’t know that about Jindal.

I’m still hoping for a Santorum comeback. We have too many week kneed moderates in the party – we need a hard edged ideological conservative for a change.

Gov. Kasich and Gov. Snyder are both pretty conservative by the standards of Ohio and Michigan, respectively. If that sounds like damning with faint praise… it should.

We’ll have to respectfully disagree. He supported the Ryan plan before he even announced his candidacy (when others didn’t). The first media interviews he gave were to conservatives. Like I said, his campaign made some mistakes. Yes, he reached out to moderates and independents (which is necessary too) but his policies were conservative. And he came from a conservative state where he had a proven record. I know there are many on this site who didn’t support Huntsman. But, boy did we give away an election we could/should have won. Some of us saw early on that Huntsman was the one guy who could have won the general election.
We just need to avoid having this happen in 2016. Paul Ryan has been the darling of a lot of conservatives for a long time but his vote yesterday has changed some people’s minds. And many viewed Chris Christie favorably until he worked with Obama post-Sandy.
A lot can happen in 3 years. Who knows what other events will happen that will turn conservatives off on other candidates? I just hope we focus on the important things and look at a candidate’s whole record.

Well we know that Romney and McCain sure didn’t, and in the process they humiliated the party and made us look like a bunch of clueless fools without any coherent ideas or ideology. Maybe if we actually nominated a *real* conservative, and nominated someone who can actually connect with the middle class, like Santorum, we might win for a change. As long as we are (sometimes rightfully – here is looking at you Romney)seen as the party of the socially moderate and rich country club northern elitists, who look down on southerners and religious people, we sure aren’t going to win anything. Start nominating true believers who aren’t just in it to get a tax cut, but are in it to fight for the soul of this great nation.

There isn’t unanimous thought among conservatives on issues like immigration and civil unions/gay marriage. And some who are pro-life are opposed to the death penalty. Even on abortion, there are conservatives who are pro-life with exceptions and others who take stricter positions. If we want to win in 2016, we need less of Rick Santorum’s and Michelle Bachmann’s approach to these issues and more of Jon Huntsman’s/Chris Christie’s approach.

If I wanted to win by becoming a democrat I’d vote for Obama. Real conservatives have no conflicts on these issues. Pseudo-Republicans like Mikee Bloomberg and Lincoln Chafee do. No thanks. I’d rather lose than surrender my values for some kind of phyrric victory. Heck, obama considers himself a moderate republican – I guess we are even winning now.

Agree about Romney, who was a terrible candidate for us to nominate. McCain? No, I think McCain’s defeat had more to do with the financial crash and the Democrats tying him to George W. Bush.
We shouldn’t nominate anyone who “looks down on southerners and religious people”, as you said, to be sure. But we do need to go back to being Ronald Reagan’s big tent party. Social issues are important but I’d argue that, to win, we need to tolerate different points of view. Republicans haven’t been able to compete in California, the Northeast and some of the big midwestern states largely because of the party’s views and platform on social issues. We can be the pro-life party, but with exceptions, and we need to stop pushing personhood legislation. And the country is moving quickly toward acceptance of gay marriage. As Newt Gingrich said recently, the party needs to accept the fact that many states will legalize it in coming years. If we don’t recognize that and the party continues to take a stand against even civil unions, we will lose future elections by even bigger margins than we lost in 2012.

Do you consider Dick Cheney a pseudo Republican?

I almost made this comment earlier but I didn’t want to threadjack. But it looks like others already have so I might as well jump in. In my opinion there were exactly three credible candidates this cycle: huntsman, pawlenty and romney. Of the three we ended up with the only one who wouldn’t have beaten obama. Of course, both pawlenty and huntsman have no one but themselves to blame for running such bad campaigns, but still, it was a shame that our best options never even got any traction.

I have gotten to the point where I will go with young and inexperienced if they have great political and communication skills. I am so tired of Democrats outsmarting us on political ads and trite messages, so I am conceding on the achievement criterion. Rubio’s problem is he will be painted as a Lothario and most low information voters will believe that.

How are you going to win the presidency without states like Ohio and Michigan?

The assertion that Ryan’s supporters are anything like a “cult” is offensive. Paul Ryan refers to himself in the process of arguing conservatism far less than people like Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Newt. et all do. All of the R Presidential candidates in 2012 responded to challenges of their conservatism with a “this is me you are talking about” kind of approach rather than spelling out the actual policy argument.
I 100% agree that Ryan’s value as a talker exceeds his value as a voter. Any elected politician whose value is more in casting votes that moving the debate is dead wood.
Ryan is clearly trying to bridge the two polarities of the party. He is also trying to move the ball on things that can actually happen (Medicare reform) instead of just stomping his foot on things that won’t happen (Bachmann on not raising the debt ceiling).

Here we go again with the true or real or whatever conservatives. Like cold warrior has been saying for years, we, the folks at the local level, have to actually get involved in the process and our local GOP, work to choose and groom which conservatives run and then get them elected, work to convince our friends and neighbors of the value of conservatism, start challenging the tripe that’s taught in schools, pay attention to who’s running your local school board. Neither Ryan nor Rubio nor Jindal nor any other politician on a white horse is going to charge in and dig us out of this mess overnight.

We have to stop believing that a vote every 2 or 4 years is enough to turn around 50 years of down and dirty, in the trenches, liberal activism. And the other side is just not going to stop, either. Honestly, I’m not convinced that enough conservatives, true, real or otherwise, care enough to actually do much more than offer lip service as to what should be done and who should do it.

As for Newt, no doubt he’s made some mistakes, but he’s actually done more for the GOP over the last three decades than just about anyone else. http://www.redstate.com/rightwingmom52/2012/03/20/newt-gingrich-talking-head-or-the-smartest-man-in-the-race-what-have-you-done-for-me-lately/

With all respect, and you have earned a ton, Newt has done just as much to destroy the party as he has done to help it. While his personal life is a separate issue from his political career, it speaks volumes about the man and his character, which he has little.

There are plenty of conservative heroes, Newt would never make my list for many reasons.

How do you spell RINO? Ryan

“Ideological conservative” is an oxymoron invented by the left. True conservatism is the process of observing history, science, and art then drawing conclusions to better advance liberty. It has no room for ideology.

In my time watching politics, Newt Gingrich for all his faults and all the damage he has done to the party is one of two men who actually managed for a short time to do what RedStaters claim they want to do: Beat the Democrats, increased prosperity, and held back the rise of socialism. The other was Ronald Reagan.

Maybe you missed when Huntsman quoted Erick in one of his ads. He got more attention at this site than he deserved….but I don’t know how half this thread ended up with people relitigating the 2012 primaries. Of all the things to want to relive…

No, he went out of his way to insult everyone, so everyone saw it fit to insult him in return.

If anything can be used to describe Rick Perry supporters, it’s definitely not “cultish”.

Yes, I wish we would have nominated Newt. It would have at least been a fun election.

Your wrong in dividing ‘establishment’ and ‘conservative’ as never intersecting.

Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, and many of the conservative greats of prior decades were mentors to Paul Ryan. They WERE the conservative establishment.

Establishment or conservative? Paul Ryan is both.

And in being both, he serves as a useful bridge for conservative Republican unity. The reality is that conservative and establishment disconnects are a part of the current pathology of the Republican party.

Ryan showed guts. The easy vote was to vote ‘no’ but we all know that a lot of the GOP ‘no’ votes didnt want to go over the cliff and WOULD have folded.

What performance on the campaign trail?

We rejected Pawlenty because of that, and it did us more harm than good. And, of course, Ryan was muzzled by the campaign, which meant he didn’t have room for more familiar things, which he would have as a Presidential candidate. And Ryan’s speech was one of the better ones at the RNC.

Rubio offers us a fresh contrast to the Democrats. Ryan offers us a fresh, serious, and sincere contrast to the Democrats.

All Marco Rubio has done has been to vote in a way to check off boxes on a list, and write a book too, and maybe tried to write a version of the DREAM Act. How admirable. Oh, yeah, and he made a speech too, saying that we choose government over freedom. That’s very nice of him.

Huntsman is known for publicly berating right of center Americans as this article states, he has “more harsh words” for his party. Just two days ago his words that the entire GOP has “no soul” made headlines around the world. At the worst possible moment too. Huntsman continually bashes us and gets headlines for it. You can’t deny it or claim it was about someone you don’t like. He fits the Bush crowd mold perfectly, which is to make very public, very mean, deeply contemptuous and uncalled for remarks about Americans who have played by the rules all their lives. Yet we get kicked around and ridiculed by Ruling Class hacks who sold this country out to the bare walls, haven’t even apologized to us for it, haven’t left the public stage in shame, or even gone to jail. They want us to shut up and let them make money. I don’t care if he took a job with the radical left Obama down the block or around the world, it shows a major lack of principles. He’s a vain sellout. I am sick to death of politicians who publicly show deep contempt and hatred for the Silent Majority when it’s these longtime “GOP/problem solver/no label types” who made the party almost extinct after 2008 thanks to their failures. They weren’t even upset about putting George Soros in the Oval Office, were fine being in the minority. What brought them back to the scene was the Tea Party. The Bush crowd came blazing back to make sure we didn’t rescue their pathetic party, or get a good. presidential candidate, or God Forbid save the country.

12/31/12,”Huntsman Says Republican Party Has “No Soul”
(KUTV), Former Governor Jon Huntsman has more harsh words for his party.
In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Huntsman says the Republican Party has “no soul.” Huntsman says the GOP should adopt more Libertarian principles and allow states to legalize things like same-sex marriage. Utah’s
former Governor also says having more moderate social views is the best way for Republicans to win future Presidential elections.”

Sure that may be pro-life, but it’s definitely not pro-health, given the dangerous side-effects of these pills. Not that this should be used as a litmus test, of course, but on this particular policy, I would be far more cautious than Jindal.

Now, tell me, isn’t the entire premise, that Ryan and other committee chairs instigated the purge, built by one of of Boehner’s anonymous aides? Basically, Boehner is suggesting that they were the ones at fault, and we are swallowing that up? I’ve already defended the fiscal cliff vote many times.

Has Rubio said anything particularly out of the blue? Not to my knowledge.

A pretty strange standard, then, given a running mate’s role.
And that doesn’t make him an utter failure just like Boehner, just because, number one, he didn’t give enough speeches, and number two, he didn’t vote for larger tax hikes.

Sure, if you think the boy from Janesville who worked his way up in life and has a keen interest in developing substantive ideas, and has used his time in public service to push for them, is typical of D.C., well, welcome to Washington.

Ya Pawlenty, the man who said, “the era of small government is over,” great choice for representing conservatism. He should be forcibly ejected from the Republican party.

Toomey too.

And we’re going to throw all these people under the bus for Rand Paul and HRH Marco Rubio?

Mitch Daniels ain’t running, Rick Snyder will be hated by the base which thinks he’s been too slow.

Yes, backstabbing and opportunistic. Recipe for a Republican victory.

Well, one could definitely see a path without Michigan, but not really Ohio.

I see, so you’ll stand with Tom Petri in favor of bigger tax hikes, worse economy, same spending, and in the end, more bums?

That only makes me more worried. On Paul.

We can trust Jindal.

I’m definitely not jumping on Marco Rubio’s bandwagon just because he played good politics and chose to grandstand without leading, and the Senate Conference as a whole put too many people in the absurd position of voting for larger tax hikes, little less spending, and more welfare bums which Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson didn’t want.

Thank you for this.

Now, if only we could figure out how to put Newt in the Speaker’s seat…

Ryan is a DC insider and was taken out of his comfort zone as VP nominee. I think he’s more of a behind the scenes guy that likes to get things done but not promote himself. So my guess is he won’t even make a run at 2016 for prez. The campaign rollout of him was almost as bad as Palin, not for ridicule, but for the grand announcement and then the fizzle; I’m sure the so-called “professional” campaign handlers muzzeled him so as not to over-shadow Mitt.
.
Given all the angst over the cliff, I for one would like to see an experienced executive that has managed huge assets, turned deficits into surpluses and governed a state. We lost out big on Mitt, regardless of your social values, and those that sat out the election based on that ideology alone, aided in putting the worst social values prez in our lifetime back into office. We’re so deep in the red, that no amount of social agenda items will fix that. So for me, that rules out Rubio and Rand Paul based on a lack of experience dealing with massive fiscal problems or even being an executive manager.
.
The 2016 candidate I’m looking for should at least be expected to do no harm with social issues (promote where possible) and definitely be able to fix the out of control spending and government intrusion in our lives. Making sweeping social changes is secondary and extremely difficult for most presidents, except the current one in the office due to HIS cult of personality.

Amen

Hunstman has a better chance at reigning in hell than he does ever winning anything on our side. He built his campaign on trashing conservatives, he will never have our support.

So you can respectfully disagree, but you will still be wrong. Huntsman is trash and deserves our contempt.

Heck, during the debates I thought Huntsman was the token democrat.

Ted Cruz is awesome and I hope he can fend off the swamp-eaters when he enters the Senate tomorrow. He just may be the next Reagan if we’re lucky.

I am looking for the most fiscal Conservative to lead the party in 2016. And so far it looks like Rand Paul fits that the most.

I should have responded with agreement on those issues but since you and I are almost carbon copies on what should be done, I just left that part alone. Other than I am rude as hell when provoked and you are the example of humility, our politics and beliefs mirror each other usually.

I do not throw away or dismiss his accomplishments either, I just have such a hard time supporting a guy who started out so right and ended up so wrong. I can not get past his trouncing by Clinton when Newt was the one who pushed the showdown and lost, have a hard time equating true conservative beliefs when I watched his Global Warming pandering commercials with Pelosi, and so on. As I stated to the poster below, had the statement been made when he was starting out as Speaker, I would have agreed as I was one of his biggest fans back then. But times change and I guess he did as well.

I join you in the cynical outlook on politics and politicians. The last two elections, the failure to stand on conservative principles by so many who promised so much, and this fiscal cliff vote has just about put me in who gives a damn anymore land and in do not trust any of them land as well. Just getting real tired of it all.

Good thing I am a lot closer to death than most here so I will not have to deal with it much longer and my son is set so he has little to worry about other than total collapse of this country which may be on its way as well.

Pretty darn close if not right on target.

The automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts would have destroyed even more jobs than the current deal, you recognize that. When jobs are destroyed, that means more worklessness, and more worklessness means more people dependent on the government, and that means a larger constituency for bigger government, because bums on the largesse aren’t going to care about tax hikes on working people nor feel the burden, are they?

I’m sorry, but there was no automatic rise in user fees.

Well, Santorum never made it clear, he never gave us real specifics, and never charted out a real plan on spending, to say nothing about tax (although that is a problem most candidates, admittedly, and Congressional Republicans not called Tom Coburn, did have). And Medicaid block granting is something so old even the Ryan budget and the Romney campaign you appear to disdain so much included that.

Well, policymaking isn’t just a matter of pushing buttons and getting points on scorecards, but you seem to disagree, so have it your way.

Let’s see how well we do with a President who thinks his duty is just to vote the right way.

Hmmm… I sure hope we aren’t planning on raising the debt ceiling. Unless obama agrees to sharp spending cuts without any new revenue (news flash – he won’t), we are either busting through the debt ceiling or folding like just another cheap suit. And if they fold on this one, its time to just shut down the party and start again from first elements. So I guess we will see exactly how much backbone our buddy Ryan has real soon.

Oh, so the problem with this deal was not that they raised taxes or didn’t cut spending, but that they didn’t raise taxes earlier.

For heavens’ sake, the automatic tax hikes weren’t coming into effect until this year, and you expect them to start destroying jobs about now, to retroactively force Obama out in November last year?

Or is your problem that they extended the tax cuts at all in 2010?

In any case, in the current context of larger automatic tax hikes which would have destroyed jobs, AFTER the election, this bill was far superior to the fantasy alternative, PERIOD.

It takes a special kind of idiocy to try and push Obama by threatening to give him larger tax hikes than he asked for, after an election. And, no, the blame won’t lie with him, and the 47% won’t start magically feeling the burden of big government, because when you wreck the economy, you force more people into government dependency, and you create a larger constituency for big government.

The fiscal cliff was always Obama’s preferred fallback option, and no amount of shifting goalposts from all of you will change that.

Oh, really, now Santorum wants to abolish Medicaid? Pity he never mentioned it.

Bachmann says she opposes any raising of the debt ceiling, but proposes no plan that would resolve the issue. Ryan proposes all sorts of directionally correct plans, and is ridiculed for being a RINO and a lack of leadership. This country is screwed, and its not only democrat voters who are to blame.

I support Rand, HRH, and Rubio—all are great additions. However, I concur with you that our tactical assessments are just as poor as our dumping on people who actually help us most.

Will higher taxes and a collapsing economy make it easier to reform entitlements? Address the debt? If your objective is to trigger an immediate recession, by all means support an across the board tax increase. The Bush rates were going to end–that is the reality. The idea that going off the cliff would somehow bring back the Bush rates is utopian thinking.

Huntsman spent the entirety of his campaign intentionally offending conservatives to earn brownie points from the legacy media. Screw him.

Yes, showing the bankruptcy of Obama’s loony ideas will elect republican majorities and turn the country around. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

10%? How about 30%? How about abolishing medicaid? How about repealing Obamacare? How about ending farm subsidies? How about breaking the government unions and lowering salaries for government workers? How about cutting the pork out of defense? How about getting spending to 18% of GDP within 5 years? How about block granting every single major government program?

Conservatives should not have a hard time figuring out how to cut our bloated and failed government. I certainly have none. I would be willing to raise the debt ceiling for major cuts and no new revenue, but obama will not. So we need to be ready for war.

And Romney , who sat back in the primary debates, did so well during the general.

Agree that the 3 were credible, Romney wasn’t electable, and the other 2 made mistakes. But I do think Pawlenty and Huntsman had some outside factors working against them, not the least of which was that the base focused on those whose candidacies were jokes and the conservative media and party leaders failed to adequately raise the issues of electability and qualification for office. It was a disservice to voters not to do so.

I’m glad to see that Erick is urging consideration of Ryan’s record, experience and leadership qualities. That is what the GOP base should be focusing on for ALL candidates in 2014, 2016 and beyond. We need to avoid re-playing the debacle of 2012.

All Marco Rubio has done….

What we really need is someone that been unsuccessfully running for office for 18 years, denounced Reagan & conservatives more than once and ran to the left of the biggest socialist in the Senate.

Yeah, that guy’s a sure winner.

Try to keep it classy. Comment sections are better when the posts are reasonable and fact-based, not insulting or name-calling. Reasonable people can disagree. Conservatives can disagree with each other on issues/candidates. I’m just a conservative Republican who likes to see my party win elections, not lose elections. And the substance of Erick’s article and the first comment brought Huntsman to mind.

Mike Pence is a good choice too if he runs.

Basically, you’re saying that viable would be raising taxes on higher income earners even more, because everyone knows that the income below a threshold is taxed at the lower rates.

The middle and entrepreneurs and producers would be squeezed most, while the takers will just go onto welfare when their jobs, if they have any, are taxed out of existence.

Hardly a good way to set the stage for a recovery in the culture of hard work, personal responsibility and aspiration.

Ryan’s speech at the convention was good. But he did little to help the ticket, even in his own congressional district, let alone his state. I blame a lot of that on the Romney staff for not utilizing him better. But Ryan has to shoulder some of the blame. He had never run a statewide race before. The coverage of Ryan’s speeches that I saw left me unimpressed by him. And while Biden came across as condescending in the debate, Ryan looked very young and not quite ready for the presidency should he need to step in. Maybe a few more years will help him grow into the role, but I’m skeptical. There’s a reason that congressmen don’t often get elected president. Generally speaking, I think governors make better presidents.
I’m with you on Rubio in that I don’t think he is ready to be a contender, much less a frontrunner, in 2016. He does not have enough experience. He should put off a presidential run for a couple of cycles, build a record and take on a Senate committee leadership role. But, because of what Erick is calling the “cult of personality”, Rubio probably will be encouraged to run….

At least CA gave us Reagan and you’re right about Perry. I’m all for Issa as Speaker of the House and he shows that there are still a few patriots in CA! IMO, Perry could have filled the gap b/w social and fiscal conservatives. I admit that he flubbed his debut and that’s sad. Better luck in 2016!

Uh, Ryan looks young because he’s young?

Aye. Senate Republicans must shoulder the most blame on this, actually, it any exists.

And Mr. Reinfeldt is doing pretty well, in context.

Lesson: Don’t announce your running mate more than a week before the convention, or during the convention itself. 3 days before is best. Presidential campaign staff are incompetent too.

I think your ideal candidate would be someone like Walker, Jindal, or Kasich.

I won’t predict if Ryan will run for President, though I don’t think he’s that kind of person like Obama who would have been thinking about that since high school or something.

It is not always just about the candidate’s record (and Huntsman’s record was not universally conservative, so don’t try to whitewash it!) It is also about the image. And, I guarantee you that Obummer would have painted Huntsman as an out of touch rich guy, because he is rich!

Go back and re-read Erick’s post. We are too much enamored with individuals, and you prove his point.

So, his record is not really as important as explaining it in your eyes? So, what you want is a media darling? Or, just a smooth talker? So, to you conservatism is just a sales job?

No, McPain in the Butt’s defeat was because he wanted to play nice with Obummer and get media praise for it. He is more willing to reach across the aisle than he is to reach toward his base. He is NOT a conservative, NOR is he a statesman. He is a middle of the road egotistical politician.

How about living in the real world???

How do you know where they will really lead if you don’t look at their voting record??? How many people have we seen in the past who said all the right things and then did the opposite once in office??? Isn’t saying one thing and doing another the very hypocrisy that Christ condemned so often??? Just askin’.

What I’m saying is that a voting record isn’t enough, and needs to be considered in the context of other contributions, like pioneering on innovative policy initiatives and bringing substantive ideas into the public debate, which Heritage Action has made a small step towards accounting for with their sponsorship score, but which is difficult to measure in scorecards of any kind.

I agree. Burning down the house so you can rebuild will have you living in your car for a year or two. Not to mention getting you in Dutch with the authorities and your insurance company. But, oh, what the heck, let’s do it anyway. That seems to be what I hear a lot of here. And, as much as I respect Erick, he is wrong in that regard. Half a loaf is better than a sharp stick in the eye!

NO, we don’t need either a Huntman nor a Christie! Neither is a conservative, although they may do one or two conservative things and say three or four conservative things. NEITHER IS a real conservative. Both are politicians who have done a couple of good things while in office, but that hardly makes them what we NEED!

We need a candidate who is a real conservative in word AND deed, who can articulate why constitutional small government works best, and who is photogenic and personable, who is a statesman, not just a politician. Am I asking for too much?
Once we do have some candidates, and that includes everyone who is being discussed seriously a year or more before the first caucus or primary, we must not throw them under the bus for one verbal gaffe, no matter how horrible the media wants to crucify him/her for saying it. We cannot demand perfection with our own personal litmus test(s). We just cannot toss away good candidates looking for perfection and then being forced to accept “its my turn” opportunistic type politicians and wannabes who are not real conservative statesmen.

It seems to me that most of the problem with candidates in the last three decades are their supporters and their detractors more than the candidates themselves. That does not excuse bad candidates from being bad candidates. But, too often we assume someone is a bad candidate because of one small flaw in their personality, or in their voting record or speech. Let’s let all the real conservatives stand on their own record, and let them speak for themselves, and then let the voters in each state pick who they want on the ballot. Let’s not let the media, nor the “establishment”, do the picking for us!. Please!

So says the “let’s go back to the Clinton era tax rates” wing of the party.

Keep insulting people who have different opinions, that is a great way to win people over to your side. In none of your posts do I ever read a cogent argument for your point of view. Some people who post here make very good and intellectually honest arguments for a conservative point of view on an issue, which is why I return here and will be making a donation. As far as you are concerned, your crassness and crudeness say much more about you than the people you are dissing – you give conservatives a bad name.

If the pious shrilling you just did makes you feel better, so be it. Always love to help liberals feel better about themselves.

As to the rest of your tripe, get over yourself. We are not here to debate you, we are not here to agree with you, we are not here to “win” you over. You are a lefty and you are all that is wrong with this country. I have no love for you, I despise you and all the rest of your lefty friends. If that makes me an example of conservatives, even in your words a bad example, great. At least you know where you stand with me and most of the other people on this site.

But by all means, make a donation. About time some of you lefties pay for something.

Governor Walker disagrees with you vehemently, but what the heck does that spineless squish matter anyway? (sarcasm off)

Encore daveinsanantonio’! There is no perfect candidate, now or ever! Republicans need to close ranks to win elections and especially now to stop Obama, and put aside small squabbles that are counter-productive to stopping this socialist agenda. .