« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatives Can Look Forward to 2012

2012 is going to be the most crucial election year in modern American history.

Fortunately Barack Obama is unlikely to be re-elected. Generally speaking the numbers against him are simply too overwhelming. But things could change. We conservatives must not become complacent or overconfident.

We must think every minute about what 2012 means in our plan to take America back from the jaws of destructive socialism. Because hard-left Democrats have taken over our nation incrementally over the past 100 years. Here are just a few of the results:

*An expanding bureaucracy of 22.5 million government workers on the local, state and federal level is strangling our economy. State and local workers alone consume more than $1 trillion in tax money for their salaries, benefits and pensions.

*Millions of handout poor live like the middle class without lifting a finger. They have not only food, clothing and shelter, but advanced medical care, cable TV, air conditioning, microwave ovens, color televisions, scooters to ride around on, and every other convenience. Meanwhile millions of taxpayers do without.

*Environmentalists control every facet of our economy and are preventing us from developing an efficient energy supply and good jobs.

*Excessive regulation, taxation and Big Government mandates are driving business and jobs from our shores.

*The American Media Left have become viciously dishonest in their manipulation of every story that comes along. They care only about promoting the Democrat agenda.

*Al Gore advocates with a straight face an absurdist end-of-the-world ‘global warming’ theory and is taken seriously by tens of millions of our citizens. As Gore accumulates a fortune estimated at $100 million.

*Ultra-wealthy Democrats like Nancy Pelosi vacation in luxury in Hawaii as Americans shiver without jobs and pay exorbitant costs for heating oil while the Democrat mantra is that “rich Republicans” are stealing everything.

The list never ends. In other words, the people who historically have done the hard work of building America are marginalized and those on the Freeloader Left get richer and fatter every day telling every lie in the book.

That is why we need more and more conservative Tea Partiers in the White House, in Congress, in state legislatures and even on town boards in order to tip the playing field away from unproductive people and back in favor of the productive citizens who are willing to work for what they have.

The signs are good. Since Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the American people have seen the face of left-wing socialism and they do not like what they see. The Republican party has made huge gains in almost every election since Obama assumed the White House. Even Obama’s own US Senate seat fell to a Republican in 2010.

But this year will be crucial as well because we conservatives are not only fighting against the Democrat Establishment but the Republican Establishment too.

No, not all Republicans in Washington have gone over to the dark side. But far too many of them are not willing to confront the Obama agenda with force, which is what is needed. Because America is like a see-saw and the Democrats are all sitting on one end and keeping the rest of us off the ground. And the only way to change that is not to agree with them, or to meet them halfway, but to oppose them forthrightly, to get the weight on our end of the see-saw.

Fortunately 17 Democrats already are retiring from the US House of Representatives this year, as opposed to only 7 Republicans. This bodes well for conservatism.

And 23 of the 33 US Senate seats up for challenge in 2012 are currently occupied by Democrats. Imagine how dispirited we conservatives would be if the figures were reversed. And this recent news adds to the fun – Democrat US Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is retiring after two terms, opening the door for conservative Don Stenberg who spoke at the RedState gathering last summer in Charleston. (I urge you to attend the 2012 gathering. It is a real big-league political experience. Watch my column later this week for a full commentary about Stenberg.)

Already there are at least a net four Senate seats that are expected to go from Democrat to Republican and probably more. A new Republican majority in the US Senate is virtually a foregone conclusion.

Meanwhile the massive GOP victory in many swing states in the November 2010 election is a harbinger of good things to come.

And who is our Republican presidential nominee going to be?

It certainly looks like it will be Mitt Romney because he has followed a tried-and-true course, running in 2008, losing and then trying again like Ronald Reagan did. Because Romney truly wants to be president; his campaign is not a lark. And while several challengers have risen and fallen, Romney seems to be remaining on top, although conservatives are not warming to him.

But if he is the nominee, all conservatives must support him. Because the alternative of four more years of Obama is outright unacceptable.

Indeed Romney is talking very tough about economics and national security and has some good conservative ideas about repealing ObamaCare and reforming entitlements. He also will put people of integrity into our Justice Department and Transportation Security Administration and everywhere else in government to replace the corruption that now exists.

Is Romney a genuine conservative like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum?

No. But he is the big figure on the presidential scene. And that is what it is. And if he is the next president, he is going to realize that conservatism is the only path to saving the nation and he will act boldly. Because our national survival is at stake and Romney will realize that his legacy is on the line too. He certainly would want to be remembered by history as a transformative Reagan-like figure and indeed he can be. He knows the score.

In fact many subjects came up in this year’s presidential debates that we conservatives have been discussing for years like eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency and replacing it with a smaller bureau; a flat tax collection system; or Michele Bachmann’s sensible proposal that “everyone must pay taxes, even the poor, even if it is only ten dollars”. She even called for the shutdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This indeed is progress. Because we must understand that we are in a long-term struggle for the survival of our nation and that 2012 is the second step in reclaiming it. 2010 was the first.

Remember that Harry Truman was talking about ObamaCare-type health legislation in the 1940s and that it took until 2010 to pass it. So we must think long term about getting our nation back.

Is it going to take us 100 years to undo what it took socialism 100 years to impose?

No. We are going to undo much of it in 20 years. Because socialism is unsustainable and sensible Americans now know it and understand it.

Perhaps the election of Barack Obama backhandedly was the best thing that could have happened to us. Because it sparked the creation of the Tea Parties and has illuminated the conservative ideas that we have been espousing all along.

Suddenly millions of people who were casually involved in politics or who have been uncommitted are seeing the common sense in what we conservatives have been urging for decades. And it sure feels good to be validated and vindicated in a way that only is just beginning.

Please visit my blog at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights.

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    As a governor, Romney has a record of leaning left. I can give him a tiny pass on that to an extent because he was governor of an extremely liberal-leaning state in MA.

    However…

    He would no longer be the governor of a liberal state as president. He would be the chief executive of a right-leaning American electorate that expects him to govern as such.

    Therefore, I expect Romney to be on a short leash should he be elected president. If he swerves to the left on issues like repealing Obamacare, budgets, judges, or taxes, I expect congress will snap him back into place in short order.

    • acat

      …I don’t expect much in the way of coattails… meaning the Senate will turn on the Maine Twins and the House will still be following Folding Suit Boehner.

      The only potentially successful strategery I can see is to make the races about the Senate candidates – and get enough actual Conservatives through that way (effectively creating inverse coattails) so we have someone to yank on McConnell’s leash, in turn pulling on Romney.

      That, though, would be much more difficult than just nominating a solid, three-legged conservative for POTUS in the first place.

      Mew

      • APA Guy

        …if Romney is elected.

        It would be imperative that we replace the current leadership in the senate. The problem is, take a look at the current make-up of that leadership:

        Minority Leader: Mitch McConnell
        Assistant Minority Leader (Minority Whip): Jon Kyl
        Conference Chairman: Lamar Alexander
        Policy Committee Chairman: John Thune
        Conference Vice Chair: John Barrasso
        National Senatorial Committee Chair: John Cornyn
        Deputy Whips: Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Mike Crapo, Saxby Chambliss, Rob Portman, Olympia Snowe, David Vitter, Roger Wicker

        SERIOUSLY???

        On second thought, it WOULD be far better to just elect a conservative president…

        Rick Perry, anyone? :)

        • acat

          There are far more pick-up opportunities for the GOP, and therefore for Conservatives this go’around.

          The trouble is, where are we going to find good candidates?

          Take Minnesota. Klobuchar (D) is quite weak and should be an easy target for a solid conservative. My hope was that Bachmann would realize she can’t win the White House and would pivot to take out Klobuchar. The national exposure and war chest would go a long way, and she’d be a great foil for Sen. Stuart Smalley.

          Take Pennsylvania. Casey Jr. (D) won in 2006, a very anti-Bush year, against a very vocal pro-Bush candidate. Guzzardi disagrees with me on this but .. I think if Santorum had pivoted early enough, and with enough of a war chest, he could have made PA interesting.

          As it stands, both Bachmann and Santorum are just serving to fragment Conservative presidential votes, helping to ensure Romney clinches.

          So .. it’s not hopeless, but we need to start seeing solid conservative candidates, and we need them Real Soon Now…

          (I’d love to see Paul Ryan digging in and running for Kohl’s (D) seat in Wisconsin, for instance …)

          Mew

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Is there an analysis anywhere about how many conservatives we’d have to elect in order to at least have more leverage with the leadership if not a full-fledged takeover?

            I fear that we’re so focused on the Presidential race that we’re overlooking how crucial the Congressional races are. Winning the POTUS would definitely send a message to the country, but we rightly need to solidify the message we sent to Congress in 2010 with another onslaught of conservatives, especially to the GOP
            leadership
            capitulators.

            Happy New Year!

          • acat

            the key is that the party majority and minority leaders are elected by their parties. That appears to mean that 25+ Senators would need to support not-McConnell to replace him as leader.

            I’m not sure how many we’d need to turn in order to get to 25 because I’m not sure how many solid conservatives we have now. DeMint, of course, and Lee (R-UT) I’m sure about.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            Klobuchar is quite weak? I have no idea how you manage to make up that kind of stuff. That race is pretty much hopeless at this point: Klobuchar is immensely popular (she’s the kind of Senator Minnesotans like), Nobody could really make the race competitive anyway. Bachmann? She’d lose by +20 points. I actually think Severson is a better candidate.

            The Senate races that will be competitive are:
            Montana
            Massachusetts
            Wisconsin
            Missouri
            Nevada
            Virginia
            Michigan
            Ohio
            Pennsylvania

            I also think Romney will provide the best coattails by far and way. Most of the other candidates have huge negatives with indies and even with republicans.
            Florida

          • APA Guy

            “I also think Romney will provide the best coattails by far and way.”

            Wow…so revered with Republicans is Romney that in a presidential election year where the GOP is dying to rid the country of Obama, he garners no more than 25% of the vote nationally despite the fact that he has been running for president for the past 4 years.

            Romney is to coattails what McDonald’s is to fine dining.

          • thirstyboots

            Romney will get the nomination very easily, he polls against Obama way, way better than anyone else and his favs/unfavs are consistently better than any other candidate.

            Sure, in a fragmented field is difficult for anyone to reach a majority of the voting intentions, I’m not really sure why people struggle to understand this and see it as a sign of Romney being weak. He’ll get there soon enough anyway – it’s just a question of also runs start dropping out.

          • acat

            They’re famous for being famous.

            Romney can’t run on most of his record – the views of the northeastern wing of the GOP don’t resonate, and being a wall street insider is not going to win friends in the age of #OWS – so he’s running on the one thing he has .. inevitability.

            Given Wafflin’ Willard’s inability to inspire enough GOP votes to win a second term – and I’ll note that he’s the *only* governor in the race who failed to win a second term – I don’t see where he’ll achieve coattails.

            Go ahead, keep on being a candi-bot.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            is not a river in Egypt.

            Tomorrow we’ll start finding out who’s right.

            I’m always amused by folks like you who believe their small world is somewhat representative of the country.

            By the way, I never liked Romney. Unlike many of the folks who now call him “a liberal northeastern” but four years ago were calling him a conservative. And he never run for a second term.

            Of course you fail to see where he’ll achieve coatails – even though I explained it. It’s not surprising.

          • acat

            Times have changed.

            Mew

          • gekster

            Four years ago they were calling Romney the ‘most’ conservative in the race.
            That’s just pointing out that the other candidates were to the left of him.
            It’s one thing to be called conservative, another to be be called most conservative.
            Between Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and Harry Reid, Lieberman is the most conservative.

          • thirstyboots

            They were calling him “a conservative” (and a very good one), not merely “the most conservative in the race”.

          • gekster

            Was Romney and his supporters.

          • thirstyboots

            But that includes DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, Levin, Erickson et all – but certainly not me.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Because by the time of the Arizona primary my favored candidates were gone. It was down to McCain or Romney. I hate McCain more. That doesn’t make me a Romney supporter any more than it made any of the other folks you named supporters. It was down to “who isn’t John McCain”.

            Romney wasn’t conservative in 08, he’s not changed in the intervening four years. The only thing that’s changed is that at present there actually are some conservatives in the race. Newt has a much better record of conservatism than Romney, there’s no comparison to Perry, even Bachmann and Santorum are better.

          • thirstyboots

            Or now. That was my point.

            I disagree that Perry, Gingrich or Santorum are any better than Romney though. They just play better to “identity conservatives” for a variety of reasons.

            Bachmann, I agree, but she’s too much of a lightweight to be electable.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And it validates the suspicion that you’re just plain stupid.

          • thirstyboots

            This poster and his tendency to direct personal insults at me creeps me out a bit. I’ve left middle-school a long time ago and it’s just kind of weird. I’m not used to interact with this type of person.

            What can I do about this unfortunate situation?

          • gekster

            It’s called don’t log on because my sometimes stupid comments get me comments I don’t like.

            Try Hell Kitty Paradise Island.
            Free registration, and you can get your Mom to help you, (must be over 18).
            Try a site that is more suited to you.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            You’ve been throwing as many sharp elbows as anybody else in this thread; don’t complain that they’re throwing ‘em back.

            This is a site moderator being nice and not being all official-like about it; this is also a site moderator who doesn’t care if you think that I’m being fair or not.

          • thirstyboots

            As I said I don’t interact with that type of person as a matter of principle so I’ll just stop replying to said poster.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            You’re part of whatever problem there is on this thread, not part of the solution.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            that exhibit rational thought. So far you are zero for however-many-comments-you’ve-posted.

            And again, validating the now-fact that you’re stupid.

            Oh, and the Hello Kitty site would be a great place for you. Stay away from places where people actually know how to think, analyze situations, separate opinion from fact and assemble a cogent argument. You’ll always get your pathetic little feelings hurt there.

          • APA Guy

            Apologies, Moe…couldn’t resist :)

          • acat

            The trouble is, the field in 2012 is much further to the right than the field in 2008…. and Wafflin’ Willard hasn’t moved.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            There isn’t a viable candidate in this cycle to the right of Brownback, Thompson, Thompson, Rudy, Hunter and MCain.

            I’m talking in terms of policy, not identity. Obviously, some folks will consider someone like Santorum, who supported every item of W’s socialist agenda, a conservative – but that’s only because he talks about God a lot. Same for Perry, he prays in public, carries guns and is from the South – his deplorable appetite for corporate welfare gets a pass because of that.

          • acat

            He was a great advocate for a thinking conservatism, rather than a faith-based one.

            The problem I always had with Fred(!) was his lack of executive record. I would much rather end up with a governor than a legislator, even one from as high up the food chain as Gingrich.

            I’m curious, by the way, which of the particular corporate welfare charges you’re buying into re. Perry. Is it on the list?

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            I never really decided between the two Thompsons (Fred and Tommy) and eventually I supported McCain when it became a 4 men race between him, Romney, Huckabee and Paul.

          • acat

            Not exactly a great small-government guy… serious crony issues…

            Mew

          • gekster

            Got any examples?

          • thirstyboots

            I’ve had this discussion before with you.

            Somehow you managed to claim that something like the TEF wasn’t corporate welfare.

            No point in re-arguing all of that again.

          • gekster

            And as I recall, after our last discussion, you couldn’t prove the corporate wellfare thing.
            Bringing it up again does not make it new, or proves it’s true.

            And just a reminder for those just tuning in, the TEF fund has brought in more money to the state of Texas than has been spent, along with an influx of jobs.
            aaand any corporation that does not brings jobs to Texas after recieving these funds has to pay them back.
            Also there are three different people who have to approve of said funds,
            NOT just Perry.

          • thirstyboots

            Those are the same excuses Obama uses for his corporate welfare programs, the stimulus, etc.

            It’s a bunch of crap.

          • gekster

            Obamas crap wastes money.
            The TEF generates money.

            The very simple fact that you can’t see that shows you are either
            1.willfully blind,
            2. just an avid Perry and texas Hater, (TEF is a Texas program, not a Perry program)or
            3. you have a certain lacking that leaves me to believe you should not post on a political site until you gat more educated on the subject.

            Like I said, go over to Hello Kitty, and leave the grownup table.

          • thirstyboots

            never generates money.

          • gekster

            from:
            http://www.planotexas.org/For_Site_Selectors-State_Incentives.aspx

            excerpt:
            Projects that are considered for the Enterprise Fund support must demonstrate a project?s worthiness, maximize the benefits to the State of Texas and realize a significant rate of return of the public dollars being used for the economic development of Texas.

            and:
            The Governor?s Office works closely with local leaders to tailor incentive packages that best meet the needs of local communities and businesses. Applications for the TEF must be submitted to the Office of the Governor, Economic Development & Tourism Division, which provides information on how funds are to be utilized and how the proposed project meets the criteria of the program.
            _______________________
            Bottom line, they don’t get funded unless they have,
            “a significant rate of return of the public dollars being used.”

            Nothing like the Obama stimulas.

          • acat

            Literally.

            My job went to Texas, and I didn’t. (I was offered the opportunity to relocate, I declined)

            As we parted on good terms, I can say that the guy they hired – in Texas – is doing a decent job, and has quite a nice salary to spend. In Texas. Subject to Texas income tax and property tax.

            I figure it’s a net win if the job stays there for more than a couple years, and judging by results in Texas since the funds’ inception, it has worked out well for them so far.

            Further, Texas is not the only State with such a fund; Illinois has spent quite a lot enticing certain companies to relocate to Chicago. (Moving Boeing HQ to Chicago, or persuading Sears to remain in Illinois, for example) It’s hardly a unique idea, but .. I’ll point out that unlike Texas, these Illinois moves have cost the State quite a lot, and the companies are likely to leave as soon as the terms of the deal end.

            In short, just like the Texas Dream Act and the Obama Dream Act being very different despite the name similarity, the TEF isn’t a handout, and it’s been a success for Texas.

            Pity you can’t tell the difference.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            The TEF Is politicians picking winners and losers.

            Politicians simply don’t have the right to use others people money to subsidize certain businesses.

            But some “conservatives” are always ready to make apologies as long as they like the guy doing it.

            It happened during the Bush presidency and it’s why people give a pass to the obscene levels of corporate welfare that are typical of Texas.

          • Tbone

            Wise up.

          • thirstyboots

            don’t bring any jobs to your state or country.

            Economic illiteracy aka socialism at its worst.

            You want jobs? Let the people who earned that money keep it. Instead of taking it away to give it to some corporations.

          • gekster

            :) :)

          • acat

            You are deliberately ignoring the differences and using the wrong labels.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            My loyalty is to conservative principles, not to elected republican officials.

            Corporate welfare is corporate welfare and the ETF is just that.

            Michael Quinn Sullivan, the president of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, sees in the Emerging Technology Fund a classic example of the perils of government pork. “The problem with these kinds of funds is that even when they’re used with the best of intentions, it looks bad,” says Mr. Sullivan. “You’re taking from the average taxpayer and giving to someone who has a connection with government officials.”

            “It is fundamentally immoral and arrogant,” says state representative David Simpson, a tea party-backed freshman from Longview, two hours east of Dallas. The fund “opened the door to the appearance of impropriety, if not actual impropriety.”

            I’m against politicians using taxpayers money to subsidize companies. It’s a fundamental principle. And I couldn’t care less if the guys receiving the money have a connection to Perry or donated to him or whatever. To me that’s secondary. It’s the principle: it’s not their money to give. The government should influence capital allocation. Quite simple.

          • gekster

            How much money did the Obama stimulas generate for the US.
            How much money has the TEF generated for Texas.

            When you find the answer, compare the two.
            Doing things to make money is conservative.
            Doing things to waste money and pay-off supporters is liberal, and socialistic.
            If you can not see that, even at this late in the debate, you are hopeless.
            Hello Kitty is calling you.
            (I’ll give you one hint. The golden Orb is in the cave on the NE (north east) side of the island

          • thirstyboots

            Both of those programs destroyed wealth. The idea that the ETF “generated money” is laughable. Comes from the same line of thinking that argues that the stimulus stopped the loss of jobs.

            Every time a politician decides to appropriate others people money to make “investment decisions” wealth is destroyed.

            Doing things to make money is conservative – as long as you do things with your own money.

            As the Tea Party patriot said, what Perry does is “fundamentally immoral”.

          • acat

            Your original gripe was about the Texas Enterprise Fund, TEF.

            You are now citing the Emerging Technology Fund, ETF.

            Is this because gekster and others proved, with numbers, that TEF paid for itself and then some?

            As for Tea Party Patriots, they’re not exactly batting a thousand… The Tea Party participants I have a lot of respect for, but the so-called leaders, not so much.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            If you don’t understand that this is about the principle – politicians shouldn’t use others people money to subsidize private corporations – I don’t know what to say to you.

            The idea that the “TEF paid for itself” is as laughable as the idea that “the stimulus paid for itself”. And frankly, I couldn’t care less. It’s not the role of the government to make investment decisions. If politicians want to be investors, they should use their own money like the rest of us. How hard is this to understand?

            Like any other conservative, I’m against all types of corporate welfare.

          • acat

            Money given by the Fed to Solyndra went into Dem pockets.

            Money given by Texas to various companies under TEF was used to create jobs and increase tax revenues in Texas, with claw-back rules stating that if the jobs didn’t last, Texas got the money back.

            You don’t get to, on one paw, claim to be so small-government as to want them to not invest in tourism advertising or Tax Incentive Financing districts or … well, one wonders just what role you do see for government.

            On the other paw, one wonders why you’re so upset with the idea of President Perry, when he’s one of two remaining candidates who has proposed actually shutting down some government agencies, thus reducing the spending.

            Surely you’re not a Ron Paul supporter…

            Mew

          • gekster

            Texas Enterprise Fund From Wikipedia

            The Texas Enterprise Fund is a business incentive fund that was created by legislation in 2003. The fund, which had an initial $295 million investment, is used for ensuring the growth of business in Texas. One of Texas? most competitive recruitment tools, these funds are used primarily to attract new business to the state or assist with the substantial expansion of an existing business as part of a competitive recruitment situation. Sources indicate that since 2003 the Fund has yielded up to $6.3 billion in capital investment in Texas by out-of-state companies[1].

            In 2004, he authorized the fund to grant $20 million to Countrywide Financial in return for a promise “to create 7,500 new jobs in the state by 2010.” The grant (all of which are approved by the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House) is one of the largest made from the fund in terms of the size and the number of jobs promised. In the fall of 2007, while slashing jobs and with its stock price plummeting, Countrywide was eventually acquired in a fire sale by Bank of America. But thanks to the “claw-back” provisions in the program, grantees return all funds to the state for jobs not created.
            ______________________
            Lt’s see.
            Iniial investment, $295 M.
            Initial return, $6.3B in capitol investment.
            It seams you [redacted]

          • acat

            Evidently, you are either dyslexic, or you cannot point to a problem with the TEF despite your earlier claims so have moved the goalposts.

            Mew

          • Tbone

            wouldn’t have thirsty boots.

          • acat

            as female.

            Mew

          • acat

            would have done better against McCain, the consummate D.C. GOP insider who admitted he didn’t have a clue about the economy.

            Mew

          • APA Guy

            …why couldn’t he close out a candidate as weak as John McCain?

            What makes his supporters think Romney will be able to close the deal against a seasoned political foe with a better policy record like Newt Gingrich or someone as tough and well-funded as Rick Perry?

            This will be like any other prize fight…when you look into the ring and see the last fighter standing, then you know who the winner was. My dollar says it won’t be Willard Romney.

          • thirstyboots

            I thought it was great.

            I preferred like 6 candidates over Romney: Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback and John McCain.

            It showed how limited is the impact of those guys who were supporting Romney though. Which is why he’ll win easily this year.

          • acat

            You .. might want to explain that one.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            It’s amusing how you can’t even understand what I wrote.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Correct?

          • APA Guy

            He/she said as much in a previous comment…that he/she preferred McCain and a host of others to Romney, yet now he/she finds Romney so much more appealing.

            I’m calling BS on thirstyboots’ entire contribution during this discussion. No true conservative puts Romney ahead of Perry as both candidates stand right now…NONE.

          • APA Guy

            Let’s see…supporting the one candidate the MSM is giddy over because that same batch of merry libs knows Romney has endless policy flaws and flip-flops, disparaging the best conservative in the race endlessly (Perry), and even giving a shout out to a lib senator in MN.

            Hardly sentiments conservatives share…

          • thirstyboots

            You folks are convinced that conservatives are the ones who like Perry. That’s true for RedState conservatives, but RedState isn’t representative of American conservatives. That’s why Perry is polling in single digits and not running away with the nomination.

            I’m not sure if you’re literate enough to understand my reference to Klobuchar. It wasnt’ a shout out, it was the recognition she’s very, very popular amongst Minnesotan voters and will be basically impossible to beat. I don’t have time to delusions.

            I couldn’t care less who the MSM likes or dislikes. I always have to laugh at conservatives who worry that much about the MSM. As I said, I’m not even a Romney supporter – and, unlike others, I never was.

          • acat

            Klobuchar may be popular, but – as I pointed out above – she’s got some chinks that the right well-funded candidate could exploit very easily.

            Mew

          • APA Guy

            …a job-approval rating less than 60% does not make a sitting senator who is a member of an incresingly unpopular party “very, very popular”. Hers was 54% last I checked…hardly a slam-dunk for re-election.

            For your education, there was a time not long ago when Evan Bayh had almost the same JAR here in Indiana (55%). Shortly thereafter, he decided not to run again.

            Your cheerleading of her is very telling…denial and all.

          • APA Guy

            Once the primary schedule heads south and across the plains and some of the also-rans begin to line up behind true conservatives, you’ll see just how “easy” it will be for Romney to win this nomination. He isn’t as popular in these parts as he is within the Eastern establishment.

          • acat

            That is, a finish in New Hampshire that’s weaker than expected, further shredding Romney’s cloak of inevitability.

            Mew

          • APA Guy

            Not completely out of the question either according to the most recent polls there…I could easily see that state going Gingrich, Paul and Santorum. They are all within 7 points of each others in a state that has fluctuated support many times in the past few months.

            If that or something like it happens, watch how fast Romney’s support dissipates subsequent to that point.

          • acat

            The weather looks to be good and there’s plenty of buzz….

            This one is going to come down to the ground game.

            Mew

          • APA Guy

            He clearly has a superior ground game and plenty of money. If he finishes Top 3, look out rest of the GOP field.

          • acat

            Why shouldn’t Klobuchar be vulnerable? She’s screwed up enough! Go read this to start with.

            Remember that Klobuchar was rather allied with Mark Dayton, the Governor who almost turned Minnesota into a dry state.

            She’s also a one-termer, so .. she doesn’t – by definition – have the kind of long history that Dick Durbin (D-IL) has to keep running on. Her jacket is, by definition, much shorter.

            There’s no reason to not go after her. Besides, by going after her, the Dems must choose to spend to defend her seat, and any dollar spent defending her is one that takes away from other races. Stop thinking small!

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            I’d rather focus resources in places where we actually have a chance of winning. If they are able to recruit Arne Carlson, then that’s another story. Otherwise, I have very little use for ignorant, over-emotional, quixotesque rants.

            Anyway, the point is that, contrary to your claims, Klobuchar isn’t vulnerable + Bachmann would be a very weak candidate.

          • acat

            Also, what grade did you drop out of school? Your reading comprehension has me wondering … “My hope was”. Past tense.

            Bachmann threw away any chance she had of statewide office, and likely of returning to Congress, with her insane anti-science anti-vaccination screeds.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            With or without vaccination conspiracy theories. Again, she struggled to get elected in her very republican district.

            Just look at Klobuchar’s numbers.

          • acat

            to decide what to fix for dinner?

            Klobuchar can be defeated, but it will take a good candidate. Had Bachmann walked away shortly after her anti-vaccination stupidity crushed her lead, she could have done it. Now? No.

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            She won her elections with 52%, 50% and 46% of the vote in spite of running in a district with a R +7 PVI and holding the record for most money spent in a congressional race.

            State-wide, she’s be blown out by even a generic Democrat candidate let alone a powerhouse like Amy Klobuchar.

          • znjs

            We’d get a Republican to keep her house seat and lose Bachmann. It’s probably not possible to beat Klobuchar anyhow, we might as well drop the embarrassment that Bachmann is to the party.

          • thirstyboots

            I hate Bachmann as a national or even statewide candidate but I like her in Congress.

  • nuclear139

    The focus is rightly on the White House but we need to take back senate seats like Montana’s or Missouri’s so that we can regain control of Washington. Please don’t underestimate the power of a Republican controlled congress it can undue Obamacare and fix our economy but we must focus on the races that count like in Nevada. Romney without a Republican congress is a wash because Harry Reid and House Liberals will attempt to dominate the national debate and will never cut our 15 trillion dollar debt. Don’t be fooled Obama must go but if we fail to take back Washington entirely then that twenty year objective will be one hundred again.

    • acat

      The Reagan Revolution took Washington … and receded.

      The Contract with America took Washington … and receded.

      We need to stay this time, so that we don’t have to come back yet again.

      Mew

      • nuclear139

        This is true we need to stay but ever time we take back congress a mark foley or a big government spend thrift republican like george w bush comes along and ruins it for all of us. Winning a congressional majority is one thing but keeping it is another.

        • acat

          but We The People are responsible for checking them.

          When that nice young rotary club member we sent to D.C. 8 years ago stops showing up without an entourage, it’s time to check the sell-by.

          When the wife of that honest businessman we sent to D.C. 4 years back trades in her Camry for a Mercedes, it’s time to check the sell-by.

          When the press releases stop matching the news coverage, it’s time to check the sell-by.

          Mew