« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

For the Love of God, Make It Stop.

Even me? Even you, Dorn.

My father and uncles used to tell me a story of their time growing up in rural Louisiana (this is when that was simplified as “Louisiana”) that I feel is particularly appropriate for this primary season.

Back then, there was no Bob Barker, just people who’d dump unwanted animals along or in the bayou when they grew tired of them. (This phenomenon led to the nutria population, the hunting of which in turn would provide gainful employment to one of my great uncles between cock fights.) As non-city folk will know, cats turned loose can become a particular problem, as they will return to their state of nature and in a few generations reach a combination of normal cat nastiness and large size that can make them a legitimate danger.

One such feral cat was loose and attacking chickens, kids pulling okra, etc. So my father and one of his brothers, and some next door neighbors, got their dogs and hunted the thing down. They were just teenagers, but they knew that the cat was a danger, and the adults were too busy working to deal with this relatively minor problem. So they took off.

They ran through the briars, they ran through the brambles, they ran through the places that the rabbits wouldn’t go. The dogs finally caught the scent and chased the vermin up against some walls from which there was no escape.

Cats are wonderful solitary predators, but one of the many reasons dogs are better is that, like humans, they hunt well in packs. The dogs in question were mutts with hound and retriever tossed in, and had formed a pack as dogs are wont to do during the chase. They attacked.

Dad wasn’t prone to exaggeration, so when he says the cat weighed upward of thirty pounds of muscle, I’m inclined to believe him. Cats fight dirty, too, so there was a lot of blood in the first pass. The cat was intent on survival and, because it was a cat, sadism. The dogs were intent on killing the threat. My father bitterly regretted not bringing along his bow, and the cat was able to dodge the slingshots before it became a tangle of fur and teeth into which no stones should be shot.

At the end, one feral cat lay dead in ribbons. One of the dogs was so badly cut up he had to be put down, another — my father’s beloved mutt — lost his left eye, the rest nursed wounds. It was a high price to pay, but my father walked away from there proud of the dogs who’d given their love so easily and fought so well. None of the boys were happy, just grimly satisfied.

Mitt Romney is going to be our nominee for the Presidency. It is time for the vanity campaigns around him to end.

I want to stress a few things at this point. I think nominating a man whose favorables in his party and outside it lie so far south of the Mendoza line is madness. No sane person thought John McCain would win in 2008 except for the brief interlude between Sarah Palin’s premature unveiling (screw you, Steve Schmidt) and Lehman Brothers. No sane person believes Mitt Romney will win the Presidency, but he at least has the comfort of absolute nuts believing in him who are not bound to him by genetic relation or marriage.

I am not a huge fan of Newt Gingrich — for reasons so numerous it would take me days to enunciate them all — nor of Rick Santorum, though I admire the latter’s ardent devotion to the pro-life cause. Both are fellow papists, but both are frankly awful politicians and simply have no chance to even win the nomination.

Ron Paul is a gibbering little Nazi.

Having said all of this, it’s time to understand that we are wasting resources hating each other over four men who in a just world would not be allowed near turpentine unsupervised, let alone near the nomination of one of our two major political parties. We are wasting goodwill, we are wasting enthusiasm, and every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth about anything, really, far too large a portion of our party suddenly asks why we’re nominating Barack Obama for the presidency.

This must stop. Now. Today.

I first realized that Mitt Romney would be the nominee when he attacked Rick Perry from the left on Social Security. (Attention, Romneybots: You ask for examples of him driving his finger into the eye of the Party, the conservative movement, and indeed one of our core raisons d’etre? Yeah. Start your list.) It came so naturally to him, I knew he would be the one, the Republican who would be utterly blindsided when fresh off the nomination all of that friendly press turned on him.

It’s something of a fall ritual.

One of the other things we must note is that we already know why and how Romney will lose. Instead of the fearsome integrated force doctrine of the Bush years — air war plus ground ops — the Romney team has already told us they think it’s 1988 and they can win with air power alone. (I guess this is fitting for someone from the House of Dukakis.) Obama has no such compunction. In an election year in which our nominee has almost single-handedly managed to deflate our enthusiasm, the lack of a ground game will simply be suicidal.

Snide remarks aside (er, not really) this makes a certain degree of sense. Mitt Romney is a miserable politician, a terrible party builder, and at best an indifferent governor. But he is one Hell of a businessman, and so he’s falling back on the crutch he understands: Brand identity. Doesn’t mean he won’t get shellacked, though.

But that’s not the point. Better candidates than he underorganized, withdrew early, or didn’t run, and at any rate, didn’t spend six+ years running. We have bought this Pinto. It is time to move on, and try not to get rear-ended.

This is because we have a Senate to win, a House to protect, and state houses to safeguard. We cannot waste time and resources and mutual respect on this disaster.

Newt and Rick must withdraw. Ron Paul can continue playing with himself, it doesn’t matter.

When this is said and done, come December, as we must walk away from the wreckage of the Romney campaign, with a Senate majority and dominance in the House, we will do so with grim, proud satisfaction, knowing that we gave the minimum needed for the rehashing of the Hindenburg, knowing that we didn’t compromise ourselves for a man who will compromise everything, and knowing that we did what had to be done, no matter the damage we took in the process.

The damned cat will be dead. We can hold our heads high and be thankful for that at least.

COMMENTS

  • carolina

    It will help me to laugh about the “dead cat” (that won’t bounce) and get on with electing conservative Senators and Representatives and State legislators and county/city councils and school boards …… all the way down to dogcatcher.
    This is where so much of the rubber hits the road!

    • APA Guy

      “Ron Paul can continue playing with himself, it doesn?t matter.”

      I know the presidency is no laughing matter, but that was funny as h-e-l-l

      :)

      • Flagstaff

        If it turns out to be on the mark, we can say, “All hail Thomas Crown!”

        And his call to arms is right, too.

  • carolina

    It will help me to laugh about the “dead cat” (that won’t bounce) and get on with electing conservative Senators and Representatives and State legislators and county/city councils and school boards …… all the way down to dogcatcher.
    This is where so much of the rubber hits the road!

    • acat

      I do agree with what Mr. Crown has written. It’s time to shift gears, time to stop complaining about Romney…

      … and time to start building the bonfire we’re going to need to hold his feet to…

      Mew

      • elizaliza

        Check out all the polls on swing states, Obama lags severely there, especially in Ohio! It’s not even gonna be close. Dems where stupidly celebrating union rights whatever, couple of months ago, but they were silent about the Health Care measure that was won handily by Republicans, like 60-40. This goes for all swing states, especially Hlorida
        so, i don’t get why yall get so worked up.
        We don’t have to like Romney but he’s waaaay better than obama, so …. ?

        • jamesm

          Where are the libs and moderates. Romney benefits because Obama is the worst president ever. Romney has benefited Obama by giving him cover. Romneycare is anti liberty.

          • elizaliza

            Polls. Swing. States.

            and also: one term president.

          • jamesm

            Romney being behind Obama is meaningless at this point.

          • radicalrighty

            nt

          • redcal

            Obama hasn’t even lazily cracked his knuckles, much less started his offensive. I don’t believe he’s even mentioned Willard’s name once, leaving that to surrogates like Axelrod and Carney. Obama may not raise the once-thought 1B for the general, but he is likely to get $600M+ to spend, with the media’s help, taking out one hapless Willard M. Romney.

            Romney (and the whole GOP) have been attacking Obama by name for 3 years. Like it or not, Obama’s unfavorables are not going to get significantly worse in this campaign, as they don’t for any incumbent president over the post-convention/pre-election timeframe. The only game that can be played here is Obama playing with Mittens’ favorability ratings, which are already underwater due mostly to his own utter lack of a core.

            Thinking that Romney will win is sheer stupidity. Put your money where your mouth is and buy Romney shares on Intrade (it’s at 30% now, vs. 60% for Obama) until they at least hit 50%. Bet your beliefs, in other words. And telling people to ‘support’ Romney because he has (nominally) an ‘R’ next to his name is equally silly. He is no more conservative or Republican than Obama is. I might as well draw an ‘R’ next to Obama’s name and vote for him if it’s “just about winning”, and not about policy or principle.

            300 million people in the United States of America, and we choose the grandfather of Obamacare as our nominee. No matter what happens in November, we will get exactly what we deserve.

          • Warrior

            this is due to all those open primaries in blue states. We have got to stop letting libs choose the least conservative, least objectionable (for them) most beatable Repub cndidate.

            That’s how we ended up with McCain, Bush ’43, etc.and a whole bunch of wishy-washy RINO types…

          • filobeddoe

            Im sorry, do I owe Romney my vote if the candidate I support loses? Ah, that’s not the way it works. If Romney wants my conservative vote, he needs to persuade me that he will be conservative.

            Oh, after Romneycare, there is no way WIllard can persuade me. I dont vote for Democrats…whether they have an R or D after their name

          • garfieldjl

            I’ll go a step further.

            Romney Supporters and Mitt Romney have actually made it so I’m considering voting for Obama over him.

            If Romney wants my vote he has to earn it, spitting in my face is not earning my vote, telling me I’m being a sore loser cause I don’t trust him based on his record isn’t earning my vote.

            If anything, Romney has done nothing to earn my vote, cause I don’t believe anything Mittens says, he’s done the opposite, just about everything he can to alienate me.

            If the only reason to vote Romney is to vote AGAINST Obama and even that is questionable because I have every inclination to vote AGAINST Romney too, he doesn’t deserve to be our nominee let alone President.

          • Flagstaff

            I hear banjo music.

          • Flagstaff

            that just don’t scream.

        • garfieldjl

          The Obama administration wants to run against Romney, he’d be the easiest for Obama to go after. That’s why they are trying to help Romney be the nominee.

          • acat

            (nothing further)

      • Agelaius

        I dislike the metaphor, but I also dislike the message. Although a lot of fur is flying right now, it does help us clarify our identity as a party. Let the primaries continue – we can’t do anything about it, and ultimately a brokered convention may be the first step of a reallignment of the party in which the inherent fissures between tea party activists and middle class, and industrial and financial leaders, become clarified.

        • Thomas Crown

          I own dogs, too.

          Trust me, there is absolutely nothing to love about a third-generation feral cat. They are dangerous, they have no compunction about hurting weaker animals including small children, and they should be exterminated on sight.

          You may dislike the message, but until you’ve seen one of those things, I’d suggest you reconsider the metaphor.

      • buster93

        Yes I check in on Texas Gov Rick Perry . Yes 3,600 more jobs in Austin for APPLE just announced. Also Rick P and Kathleen Seb whatever for Health and Human services regarding Planned Parenthood had a standoff in Houston.. Rick Perry puts his boot down and runs his state and successfully.
        I know he is not running for the big job anymore but I still like to bring him up now and again. Mitt Romney I believe should run as a CEO and quite trying to be our friend . As long as he can upright this sinking ship I’m okay with his boring and aloof personality , Anne his wife seems nice. I don’t believe they will going to Spain and spend millions on the Vaca.
        Still looking for Ronald Reagan, found him but he is not running for the big job anymore

  • mcb508

    Romney does not even have the nomination yet and his supporters from George Will to you are already writing his political obituary. Sad, very sad. It must be very disheartening to support someone you have already decided is a looser.

    Perhaps if Romney had waged a more civil campaign and observed Reagan’s 11th commandment, we would not be in this place with everyone’s negatives up.

    • Thomas Crown

      From which point of contact did you draw the conclusion that I support him?

      • arthurjake

        I would like to see conservatives come out in full force to elect conservatives running for other offices and vote for none of the above for POTUS. I think that is the only thing that would get the establishment’s attention.

    • califgal

      about that Bain Capital thingy.

      • garfieldjl

        Gingrich was calling attention to why Obama wants to run against Romney.

  • Jack_Savage

    I am not fond of Romney for the same reason I am not fond of Obama. It seems that each ran for the Presidency because they wanted to BE something, not because they wanted to DO something.

    Oh, I’ll vote for him alright, but my money will go to House races in NC and George Allen in VA.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Seems too many people want to drag these dead carcasses around a while longer.

    • elizaliza

      btw, didn’t Churchill also say that democracy might be flawed, but that it’s the best we’ve got?
      and………… are you promoting some kind of benevolent dictatorship?

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        *no*text*

  • Bill S

    Won’t vote for him in the caucuses. Will vote for him in the general.

    Won’t write a single thing about him here.

  • texastaxpayer

    While I cannot honestly say I will support Obama err Romney. I will promise my support and everyone I can beg, plead with and bribe to the polls down ticket. I would love to say “hey he is the republican I will vote for him.” But sadly I have done to much of that in my life to continue to respect myself as a principled man. While I am sure I will be the resident leper for taking this stand I just can’t stomach anymore of it. HW twice, Dole and Mccain I have marched into the fire enough to last a lifetime. I can’t swallow anymore for this despicable party. I personally think a third party victory maybe the best thing to happen to American politics…..

    At any rate I loved the post and frankly feel a lot better about getting up and making sure my corner of Texas continues to send reliable conservatives to Washington. Pass out the ammo boys let’s man the barricades……

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      We don’t when it comes to voters that pitch a fit when they don’t get their way. We’ve also had Reagan twice and W twice in the past 30 years, so it looks to be about 50/50. But guys like you expect others to vote for your guy, but you won’t vote for theirs. Most of us stopped acting like that around the 2nd grade.

      So feel free to go out there and create yet another third party. Join the Libertarians or Constitutions that have no influence in politics at all. Mostly people just laugh at them. Yeah, we’ll be laughing at you.

      Oh, and that principled man thing? Don’t kid yourself.

      • elizaliza

        out dems, most of them didn’t really care whether it was clinton or obama

        • texastaxpayer

          Nt…

        • acat

          Unfortunately, they were also an unmitigated failure, but .. well .. Dems. What’cha’spect?

          Mew

      • texastaxpayer

        I can understand your sentiment though not your hostility. Your spoiled child refrence is a little off as I am on the record agreeing to support Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Pawlenty, and even Bauchman. So I don’t think the second grade metaphor really applies. I will still happily vote either Gingrich or Santorum.

        I will not however support a candidate republican or democrat whose policies and beliefs retard the very freedoms this country was founded on. It’s the outcome that I am interested in. The restoration of our prosperity, dignity and position in the world.

        Debt, culture and government power are the three challenges we must address. Our debt is limiting our influence and our ability to secure ourselves. Our culture is under assault on all fronts. Religon is being driven from the public square. Traditional institutions such as marriage are under siege and our ability to even distinguish between right and wrong is deteriorated. The government is now telling us what to eat, purchase and what is and is not acceptable to say. As though we are all five year old children in need of guidance from our federal mother.

        In each of these areas an examination of Romney’s record reveals a man very much in agreement with Barrack Obama. Nothing in Romney’s record leading a state suggests that he would view our basic freedoms with anymore regard than the current president. From socialized healthcare to green energy. Obama has followed the Romney playbook every step of the way. Need to fund more spending? Raise taxes and fees just like Romney. Want green energy to be more competitive? Pass caps and crippling regulations on traditional energy providers just like Romney.

        I have many sins I have to answer for in my life, I am far from a perfect person. But voting for the destruction of America’s soul fiscally and morally will not be among them. Say what you will about me but I can guaranty you of one thing. If there were more people like me unwilling to compromise on core principles we would be in a much better position today than we are. From were I am standing it is the people willing to allow themselves to be manipulated by fear and prejudice into sacrificing what they claim to hold most dear is the problem with our politics. I have said it before but it bears repeating. I am a conservative not a republican and that you can count on my friend. Everytime….

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          If you stay home or vote 3rd party, that’s 1/2 vote for Obama. Make sure you factor that into your core principles. You can ignore it, or try to reason it away, but at the end of the day it’s still there.

          I wish we had better choices, but we don’t. Any of the three left (yes, even Romney) would be better than Obama, and we’ll have another chance for a better man in 4 years. That’s how it works in this country.

          • texastaxpayer

            First, its not over yet. So this is a little premature. Newt and Rick could still work something out and give us a shot at defeating Romney outright. Willing to support Rick if they do?

            Second, Gary Johnson is legitimate. A successful two term governor and businessman. He has a great record, personal story and none of the flip flops , questionable business practices or liberal policies to damage his credibility. My understanding is that he will be on the ballot in all fifty states. He is capable of taking the independents and with support from those of us on the right he has a clear path to victory unlike Romney. So, why not look at the man and decide if perhaps he wouldn’t be a better option.

          • acat

            (I appear to have a troll who does that for me)

            Instead, I’ll argue that, whatever State you’re in, there’s races for the Statehouse (the Ledge, in Texas-speak), the House, and maybe Senate or Governor that you darn well better vote in.

            Get off the couch, man up, and make a difference in those races, eh?

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            I am not setting this election out by any means… I will do my part for my city, county, district and state. I will donate, advocate and vote at all levels regardless of whether the GOP nominates a socialist or not. In the event of a Romney nomination I will most likely make a substituion at the top of my ballot and donate to a different presidential campaign.

          • acat

            We both live in States where the POTUS race is a foregone conclusion.

            There’s no way Texas goes for anyone but the GOP nominee.
            There’s no way Illinois goes for anyone but Obama.

            I feel kind of bad for the poor Ohioans who will end up deciding this thing. They’ve got no choice but to support the GOP nominee, no matter how dreadful, or feel a terrible guilt for the next 4 years…..

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            Though honestly I think Romney is going to have a harder time in Texas than many think. His attacks on Texas during the primaries hurt him here more than I think people realise. Many Many people I know in my community are dead set against him. Gary Johnson has grown alot in popularity here. Very few people I talk to are voicing blanket support for the GOP outside our own borders. Romney is going to have to compete in Texas which in itself is a disaster for the GOP. Short of Rick Perry demanding Texas fall inline I think he will have issues.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            He couldn’t get enough support to even qualify for the debates. And can we really have this running for President?

            Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are mortal enemies at this point. Santorum made sure of that with all the lies he made up about Newt. It might be time for you to back away from the keyboard.

          • texastaxpayer

            Technically speaking Johnson had as much support at the time as Huntsman which is why he filed suit for being excluded from the debates. Second I think when people get a chance to hear his record as governor as compared to Romney and Obama you going to be surprised how much traction he gets. Third I fully expect he will get exposure from the media and a place at the debates as they (the msm) will assume he will damage Romney. Finally I don’t know if have noticed or not but legalized marijuana has a hell of a lot of support especially among younger voters and independents two key demographics…. I think Johnson will be a real problem for Romney as Romney will have trouble rallying the base. 36% support may work in a four way primary its not that impressive in the general.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            It’s not going to pass anywhere else.

            Lots of the remaining 14% of Romney’s support is based on people like me, who wouldn’t vote for him in the Primary, but will vote for him in the General.

            I still think he’ll eventually lose, but not as bad as Santorum would. Only Newt could stand up to the coming media onslaught, and I think a win would even be a longshot for him. I DO think that he’d be more exciting than the other two and more people would show up to vote for races downticket.

            Sooner or later another Reagan will come along. The key to his (or her) success will be the continued support of conservatives for the GOP candidate, even ones that are difficult to vote for. It’s going to be hard to get their support if we stay home when we don’t get our way.

          • texastaxpayer

            Though I am not personally a user, I do know we have been fighting a losing war on drugs for years. He have sacrificed blood, treasure and our constitutional rights in the endeavor for nearly fifty years and what have gained? Full prisons, debt and an ever increasing population of users. My personal view is its time to license and regulate the trade and take the criminals out of it. It’s no accident high school students are more likely to have access to pot than alcohol. People who sale alcohol have businesses and do not want to loose their licence. Drug dealers are by definition criminals and have no such compunction when it comes to committing collateral crimes.

            As long as we “fall inline” as we are told the rhino parade will never end. You mentioned Reagan and W earlier claiming that represents 50% decent candidates. I beg to differ. I was 8 years old in 1980 and 12 in 1984. Reagan was never a candidate I was offered. My first vote was 1992 for George H.W. Bush. In my lifetime the candidates have been HW, Dole, W, Mccain and most likely Romney. So out of 5 I have had one that was at least worth voting for and even he was mister “compassionate conservative” expanding Medicare, growing the federal government with new departments (homeland security) and advocating amnesty for illegals (BTW Reagan also passed amnesty). So 20%….. Just 20% of the candidates from the republicans in my lifetime (since voting age) have been worth a d@mn. Dude I am forty years old and your answer is stay the course? I think we need to shake things up and since everyone thinks we are pretty well screwed anyway what do we loose by doing it now? In fact what better time to make the RNC get the clear message they seemed to have missed in 2010. NO MORE BUSINESS AS USUAL. The alternative is we do nothing and that’s exactly what will change too NOTHING….

          • westcoastpatriette

            Voters passed an initiative to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only. They have voted down complete legalization for recreational purposes.

            Even the medicinal legalization is facing roadblocks, though, because it is still an illegal substance federally. In my county, most local jurisdictions are turning to the feds for assistance in shutting down local dispensaries including confiscating the property of landlords who rent facilities to marijuana sellers. So, like so many other issues that states are trying to address, the feds are in conflict and using their muscle to stop progress. Part of the problem is the initiative was poorly worded and leaves local and state authorities vulnerable to legal quagmires so they are afraid to sanction these facilities.

            I voted against the initiative but agree with those who think this is a legitimate 10th Amend. issue for states to address. But until we succeed at pushing back the monstrous federal government, states will have trouble getting the feds to honor state laws that conflict with federal law.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Assumed you knew that….:)

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            We both know general use won’t pass. That’s all I have to say on that issue.

            You need to be a better student of history. Take a look at the long line of rhinos before Reagan. These guys just don’t come along very often. Most of the time your choice is going to be the best rhino.

            Trust me when I say none of the candidates that ran or were qualified to run this cycle were anything close to Reagan.

            I think we have an opportunity for one or more in 2016 and certainly in 2020. I think of Jindal, Walker, Haley, and Rubio, although I’d like to see Rubio as a governor first. We won’t have an opportunity for any of them if the moderates in the party see that we’re only interested in participating when we get our own way.

            BTW, I’m over 50, and had the chance to vote for Reagan twice, although I voted for Carter in 1980. Proof positive the voting age should be at least 21. In any case, I voted for Reagan in 1984 and every Republican candidate since then. I’ll vote for Romney in 2012 and every other (R) candidate until I can no longer get to the voting booth.

            We go to war with what we have, not what we want. Many people were saying the same thing in 2008 about McCain. “I won’t vote for this Rhino.” “No more moderates for me.” Sooner or later (sooner for me) Republicans figure out that we’re never going to get your vote anyway, so it’s better to go looking elsewhere for votes. That means more moderates, not fewer.

            Lastly, if you’re looking for a Savior, he’s already been here 2000 years ago. He’s not showing up again in Washington D.C. Governments on Earth will come and go, but His Reign will last forever.

          • texastaxpayer

            I think the laws are stupid considering alcohol and tobacco are “legal” and as far as I can tell just as harmful and addictive (if that’s the argument against). I just don’t really care enough that a guy making a tenth amendment argument against a federal ban is a deal killer for me.

            Like i said, not one of my hobbies….

          • Tbone

            “I do know we have been fighting a losing war on drugs for years.”

            I do know we have been fighting a losing war on murder for years.

          • texastaxpayer

            Murder is a violent act were one person TAKES the life of another. Beyond the moral implications it violates the victims right to life as set fourth in the declaration of independence. We hold these truths to be self evident… Perhaps you have read those words in passing?

            Where as an adult smoking pot? Hmmm….. Where in the constitution is the government allowed to dictate to me what I can and cannot ingest in my own body? Who is the victim of this “crime”? How am I causing harm or property damage to a secondary party?

            Yeah that’s the same as murder…. Sure that’s a “logic lesson”….

          • EyeofMitt

            He is refusing to vote in the general election if Romney is the nominee.

          • texastaxpayer

            ;)

          • Tbone

            and he said the last time he saw you, you winked at him.

          • jakeofalltrades

            it seems to have spiked in this hemisphere, and the ultimate cause of that is prohibition. Pharmaceutical companies generally don’t behead each other over the products they legally market.

            Retail sale should not happen, but neither should the creation of a powerful black market that threatens the sovereignty of every nation between Mexico and Colombia and is racking up a body count that will soon be comparable to our losses in World War I.

          • Tbone

            Where in the Constitution does it preclude me from murdering some one?

          • EyeofMitt

            is lame attempts at comedy.

          • Tbone

            you to have a sense of humor, sense of logic or pretty much a sense of anything at all. So far, you are exceeding my expectations.

          • JSobieski

            There is a lot of collateral damage in fighting the war on drugs.

            There are pretty good stats out there to suggest that if you legalize concealed carry, you pretty much win the war on murder (at least of the armed street crime variety).

            Evidence that the drug war is succeeding is far harder to come by.

            I am not necessarily in favor of legalizing drugs, but I am in favor of not releasing violent offenders to make prison space for 3-time drug offenders who are not violent. This is also known as the “Palin position”

          • Tbone

            who buy from your non-violent dealers.

          • aesthete

            Folks, this is what you get when you define deviancy downwards: violence morphs from “an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power” to whatever the hell you want it to be.

          • JSobieski

            There are plenty of people in jail on the basis of “three strikes” who do not have a single incidence of violence on their records.

            Yes, California is releasing violent offenders early in order to house non-violent 3 strikes offendors.

            No amount TBone-chic style points is going to erase the facts.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Please edit the word “mandate” in your signature. It loses its emphasis as is.

          • aesthete

            and thus the success of either should be evaluated on different criterion.

            In the case of a ban on murder, it is justified on moral grounds: i.e., every murder prevented is a good unto itself, or every murderer brought to justice is a good unto itself. The net effectiveness of laws against murder in stopping murder is a secondary (though still important) concern, in that even if it could be proven that legalizing murder would lead to a net reduction in murder, most people would prefer to have laws on the books to bring people to justice.

            Bans of certain drugs are based on utilitarian concerns: that they cause X damage to society, or some such. No one (or very few) people think that preventing a productive, complete individual from using drugs on his off-time is in and of itself worthy of government intervention. There is no true moral component to drug usage sufficient to justify government intervention on its merits. Therefore, the effectiveness of drug laws based on their utility is an argument that is subject to critique and evaluation in a way that laws against murder are not.

          • Tbone

            You actually argued this? LOL.

          • EyeofMitt

            writes as being serious. Particularly as it pertains to politics. It’s always amateur night at the Apollo, doncha know?

          • Tbone

            Is Mitt paying you? After-all, whether it is campaigning or governing, Mitts answer seems to be to throw money at it.

            Maybe you should just take a break, tie your dog to the roof rack and go for a ride.

          • JSobieski

            We would attempt to modify to law to incur less collateral damage.

            All laws are (or should be) ultimately utilitarian in evaluation.
            All laws are (or should be) moral in justification.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Text

          • aesthete

            but I think my point still stands to explain why movement towards a decriminalization or legalization regimen when it comes to murder due to failure of criminalization would not be on the same plane as same when it comes to drugs. Those pro-life folks today or in favor of equal rights in the South during Reconstruction did not necessarily have utilitarian notions on their side, at least in the short term. Long-term utilitarian “analysis” (i.e., longer than 100 years) is useless and non-disprovable at any rate. There is a distinction between these folks, and the Prohibitionists at the turn of the 20th century or drug warriors today.

          • jakeofalltrades
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            But it’s a close call

          • jakeofalltrades

            “How legal” is the question for me. I do not favor retail sale of addictive drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin – those should remain hard to come by. Universal availability should be avoided.

            Marijuana on the other hand, well, we’ve had three presidents who smoked it, so if it’s a gateway to anything, it’s a gateway to the White House.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I’m fine with decriminalizing marijuana but none of the others that you mention as they are too dangerous.

            I think it is time to go full tilt with legalizing and licensing the production and sale of marijuana just as we did with alcohol. Any thing else has proven hypocritical when you compare marijuana use with alcohol use.

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

            According to the Bureau of Justice stats, murder rates have leveled off well below the highs of the seventies to nearly historically low levels. Drug crime rates, primarily possession, have skyrocketed.

            But hey, you’ve never been known to let facts distract you.

          • JSobieski

            I wish TBone and others would follow Palin’s lead on the drug war issue. I think her position should represent a broad consensus of the center-right/right of America.

          • Tbone

            I have always admired your ability to focus on being inarticulately wrong.

          • Tbone

            been winning the war on murder? Dude, what war on murder? The point was that eliminating laws because people are violating them is really not a good excuse, is it? If it were, we could save a bundle on speed limit signs.

            Cripes, I only used murder as a streamer on the lure. If I would have used shoplifting it would have not glittered nearly as much.

            PS: You really don’t have to go hunt up shoplifting statistics. Honest. But thanks for playing.

          • aesthete

            was to reduce usage of illicit drugs to reduce social problems.

            It seems that the opposite has transpired: usage has increased, and social and crime indicators related to drug use have worsened. Anti-drug war folks make a compelling case for why this is due to the drug war’s perverse incentives, and drug warriors have made no case for their own preferred policies — unless you count reliance on old cliches and tropes, and usage of apocalyptic rhetoric, to be a “case”.

            But you guys still have Reefer Madness on your side, and I guess I haven’t seen marijuana-crazed darkies seducing white women with their jazz in quite a while, so you have that on your side.

          • Tbone

            nt

        • krish

          Let us wait for the primaries to play out! If only Newt drops out after losing few other southern states, Rick still has a shot against Romney!

          Texaspayer, you should have the freedom to do espouse your beliefs & stand on your principles here without being bullied by others….especially in the case of Romney!

          There is a big difference between Rick/Newt/Perry/Cain/Bachman & Romney! There are people in this forumn who say they will never vote for Rick Santorum if he is the nominee but nobody pounces on them! But, if people say they will Never vote for Romney for what he had done in MA regarding Romneycare/abortion pill/going against I amendment for Catholic church etc etc. the Rombots are out of their hiding place..But Romney is Significantly different from other primary candidates because he is NOT a conservative …at best a moderate & at worst a liberal.

          Rombots can try their best to bully others but Mittens will be exposed in the general elections & he will lose big! We can thank the blue state republicans for this sorry state of affairs!

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Anyone who’s been here for any length of time knows I go around shilling for Romney all the time.

          • texastaxpayer

            I have seen a lot of people expressing their refusal to support a lot of different candidates on this blog. Yet it is only a Romney refusal that gets you chastised or accused of being a religious bigot. I guess it makes since for his supporters to act like lefties. What is curious is the none Rombots pile on too. Puzzling….

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Pawlenty (first choice), Perry, and Santorum. Some of them (e.g. Cain) would’ve been just as hard for me to vote for as Romney would be for you.

            So I don’t see why it’s puzzling.

          • texastaxpayer

            Over the last several months many posters have stated outright refusal to support for various reasons Perry, Cain, Bauchman, Santorum and Gingrich. I never once saw you give any of them the “we knew we couldn’t count on you” treatment. But boy refuse to support Romney and well just scroll up and read it yourself. Puzzling…

          • acat

            Can you cite someone refusing to vote for Gingrich or Santorum, please?

            Even I will fill the oval for Santorum…
            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            “axistogrind Wednesday, December 28th at 9:24PM EST (link)

            I promise if Santorum wins the nomination, that I will vote for Obama. I will not support Rick Santorum going back to washington in any capacity, and if values first voters fail to coalesce around a conservative who has executive experience, and the ability to last past Iowa, then they at least shouldn?t waste a vote on Santorum, because the rest of us will never take their cacuses seriously again. A vote for him accomplishes nothing. I can?t support Ron Paul either, but I would give money to his campaign down the road to keep Rick Sanctimorium out of office, if necessary. I truly dislike him. He is the John Edwards of the Republican party without the cheating, and I see fake in every fiber of his being. We don?t choose senators for good reason.”

            Shall I continue wise cat?

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

            You managed to pick out a fly-by. First post Dec 12, gone on Jan 9. Find a regular contributor – or even somebody who’s still here – who won’t vote for Newt or Santorum.

          • texastaxpayer

            I doubt you can read but you could prove me wrong by reading the thread. You would then see the context of the conversation. As far as your insulting me personaly. GO F*CK YOURSELF PUNK….

          • Tbone

            I think the quote was “Do you feel lucky, Punk” Not, “Get auto-lucky , Punk”

            BTW, adios, tt.

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

            You’re a jackass.

            You are the one who made the big deal about Redstate posters…

            Over the last several months many posters have stated outright refusal to support for various reasons Perry, Cain, Bauchman, Santorum and Gingrich.

            Kitty called you out on what you want us to believe is a fact, and you come up with a drive-by who was here for about a month.

            You, jackass, are a legend in your own mind. The rest of us recognize you’re simply pathetic. You can’t get simple things right, you don’t don’t know what a fact is and if it’s hyperbole you were trying for, you’re even more pathetic than I first thought (which would be hard).

            Now then, as to the substance of the matter, jackass, where are the rest of the Redstate posters who have said they wouldn’t vote for one of the candidates – other than Ron Paul, who isn’t a Republican and won’t be there anyway – in the general election. Produce some names, and find some that are regular posters and who are still around.

            Jackass.

          • texastaxpayer

            I stated others don’t get attacked for refusing to support “non-Romney” candidates. I proved my point TWICE now. I have provided TWO separate instances for TWO separate posters on TWO separate occasions posting specific accounts of refusing support for Santorum or Newt with literally NO negative backlash. That search box up there in the corner is capable of providing you with dozens of others. Where were you demanding they toe the line? Where are your posts calling them “jack ass”? You are a hypocrite… If you don’t like that f*ck yourself… If you don’t like me f*ck yourself… Your a big man behind a computer screen calling people names eh? I’ll just bet your that brave on the streets too huh punk…. I’ll just bet..

          • lineholder

            Given what we’re up against where Obama and the left is concerned, gutting each other is a senseless exercise in futility that accomplishes nothing positive.

            Time is growing short. The Dems will be using every trick in the book to rig it so Obama wins in Nov. If we haven’t wrapped our minds around that particular reality, then we need to start doing it soon.

            The MSM is already laying the premise that our economy is improving. Obama will use this try to substantiate that his policies are working and that all he needs is more time. And if we don’t get our heads on straight and provide a solid effort to counter this, he’s likely to sway too many of our fellow Americans who don’t pay as much attention to politics as we do to vote for him.

            There are plenty of things to focus on, to accomplish and achieve…gutting each other to the bone shouldn’t be one of our goals.

          • acat

            After all, axistogrind also pledged to not vote for Gingrich either …

            Leaves me wondering just which candidate axistogrind would support, eh?

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            But you do see that little search box up there in the corner. Use it.. I picked a random entry from the first page just to satisfy your request. If that isn’t enough for you and Becker. Well you know where to find more. You can start though by considering my original statement. People on this blog only seem to attack people who refuse to support Romney. Whether you like my example or not it certainly meets the criteria you set fourth and demonstrates my point. If you want to now move the goal posts well that’s on you…

          • acat

            I believe he is the worst possible candidate who has a chance at the nomination this time around. He associated with dirty politicians including Illinois’ Kjellander back in 2008 .. (protip: plug that name into the search box and see how long ago I started warning about that connection) then compare it to the VA ballot issue or the MI delegate shuffle or the ME spam filter that ate the results, or the hijinks in getting the real totals out of IA…

            I believe Romney is a dishonest cretin who uses his perfect-looking family as a prop. Poor Seamus was certainly a prop, not a pet…

            I believe Romney steers by his own lights, and that most of those involve dollar signs, not conservative values.

            That said, I will vote for Willard Romney for one simple reason.

            He is not Barack Obama.

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            First it’s all but yet not over. So we will see my friend perhaps the tide will turn.

            Second this isn’t an either or proposition, there is another path. Frankly a path that could lead to a much needed shake up in the American political establishment.

            Who knows, tomorrow I may get a Brain tumor that distorts my reasoning enough to support Romney. Keep your fingers crossed… Lol..

          • acat

            And, again, if you look at my own posting history, so did I…. back when he was a candidate for the Republican nomination.

            Now that Gary has accepted the Libertarian nomination, the only way I could back him at this point is if he can also pick up the GOP nomination and run as a true fusionist. I consider this unlikely.

            Third parties succeeding is an incredibly rare thing – the GOP replacing the Whigs being the last successful example, the Dixiecrats, the Perot party (whatever he called it…) and the Greens being examples of what not to do.

            The trouble isn’t Johnson – he’s got a very solid fiscal and anti-abortion record – the trouble is he’s going to be saddled under the kooks of the Libertarian Party.

            Johnson’ll have to defend their party platform in any debates he gets to attend, he’ll have one of their apparatchiks as his veep, he’ll be conflated with Ron Paul – the narrative fits – etc. etc. etc.

            This really isn’t a good short-term career move. Worse, he can’t – mathematically – bring in enough votes to do anything other than be a spoiler. A third of the electorate are *reflexively* GOP – they won’t support him… so we end up with 1992 all over again.

            I’ll pass.

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            I remember debating with my father over the merits of Ross Perot’s platform. My father declared a vote for Perot was a vote for the “d@mn democrats”. So on a cold day in November I cast my first ever presidential ballot for a man I didn’t think stood a snowballs chance in hell of winning. George H.W. Bush. Like a good little soldier I marched into the firing squad and voted with the “party” as expected. It is conventional wisdom that Ross Perot cost H.W. the election. I don’t personally buy this theory. Bush cost us that election plain and simple. To blame Perot you must first dismiss Bush’s hugely unpopular tax hikes which led to plummeting popularity numbers. Second you must assume all of Ross Perot’s numbers translate to Bush. As Ross Perot carried mostly disenfranchised voters and independents this is a huge stretch. For my money I will bet on a Clinton win in 1992 with or without Perot. Bush was a squish who had violated a core campaign promise and frankly America was ready for a change. I bet the disenfranchised stay home and the independents complete Clinton’s roles, goodbye Bush.

            Gary Johnson is different in my opinion. Normally I am with you on the third party “tin foil hatters”. Gary Johnson has a successful credible record. He isn’t a Ron Paul nut and he doesn’t come across as one either. I also suspect the media in an attempt to damage Romney will make the mistake of putting Johnson on the stage in the debates. In the interest of “fairness” of course. Picture this….

            Option A Obama. Arguably the worst president in American history. Failed economic track record, hugely unpopular domestic policies and a laundry list of broken promises and outright lies told to the American people.

            Option B Romney. The literal manifestation of the 1%er. A failed governing record, the god father of one of the least popular piece of legislation “Obamacare” in a generation. More flip flops than shoe store and all the credibility of an enron prospectus.

            Option C Johnson. Two term successful REPUBLICAN governor of New Mexico. Balanced budgets, treasury surplus, high approval rating and successful businessman. He has none of the Obomney baggage (healthcare, tax hikes, cap and trade) and all the Perry advantages (reduced spending, favorable job creation record, balanced budgets) plus he can speak… Lol..

            To me the difference is that the foil hat folks finally woke up and got a great candidate. So look at the numbers. 30% automatic GOP. About the same 30% automatic DUMBACRAT. Balance? 40%….. Gary Johnson needs only pick up that independent support and he is in the race. If those of us on the right would throw the man our support and leave the rhinos holding THEIR BAG in November. Bingo…. Obomney is out and a man we can all support is in. As far as the crazier aspects of their platform. The 10th amendment provides a credible argument that will handle most of it as honestly it should. Besides we both know the guy isn’t a wild eyed squirrel hat wearing nut job.

            “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.” Come on wise cat we could for the first time in either of our lives actually see a change to business as usual. I believe a Romney nomination will not only kill what’s left of the tea party influence but will harbinger the second term of Obama. At least my way as crazy as it is has a path to victory. Look at the calendar cat…. It’s 1996…

          • acat

            Look, I’m much happier with Gary Johnson as the Libertarian nominee, but .. I don’t think enough of the GOP and the independents are going to get behind him to make any difference.

            Simple reason – he’s going to be running with the Libertarian party apparatus. They aren’t a national organization, they’re a collection of individuals who couldn’t or wouldn’t get along well enough with others to be players in the GOP, they’re going to be badly underfunded, and they’re going to get their heads handed to ‘em…

            And for what?

            Your dad was right in 1992, and he’s still right today.

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            slides through to reelection because we like now fielded a weak rhino. Obama redefines “horrible” and frankly makes me long for the days of slick Willy.. But I fear we are about to repeat history here and allow a weakened liberal squeak out reelection because our guy is a squishy rhino with all the backbone of a jellyfish.

            Funding and organization can be fixed with support. Though I am not quite there yet. Not excited about the idea of casting a none republican ballot . But it doesn’t hurt to have a plan b. Because plan A is not looking so good. The truth is Johnson is going to be in the race whether we support him or not. With Gingrich or even Santorum I think it affects us less because the base will rally. With Romney I am not so sure. I think he has an effect on a campaign with both men most directly responsible for obamacare as his competitors. Neither of them can match his economic message either…. I think he is trouble for Romney…

          • acat

            Your support of Johnson does bring up one point I’ve made before …

            How do Santorum and Romney, who are still learning the dance steps to Fiscal Conservatism, fend off an attack from their right?

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            W managed to stave off Buchanan because he had a successful record as governor and managed to paint him as a wild eyed extremist. In all fairness it wasn’t a hard sale. However neither Romney nor Santorum have that strong of a fiscal record. Although Santorum as a senator has less exposure in my mind than Romney. Santorum can claim one of many voting while Romney OWNS the Massachusetts fiasco lock stock and barrel. Honestly I don’t know how they respond.

          • texastaxpayer

            “I will never vote for Newt

            courdeleon02 Tuesday, January 31st at 12:22AM EST (link)

            Newt is a fraud. Every other word out of his mouth is lie. The only people who support him are ultra radical right extremists who want o shut down debate and dictate. I don?t care about these unintelligent creatures . Romney will win without them.”

            Wasn’t trying to pick a fight with you wise cat. Just relaying an observation.

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

            A two month drive-by.

            Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.

          • texastaxpayer

            Two examples found in as many minutes… But I guess you can’t handle facts? Unpleasant when reality doesn’t match your pathetic little fantasy? Is that what makes you lash out like a spoiled child?

          • EyeofMitt

            He will be too busy writing one-liners for next year’s Oscars.

          • acat

            and I’m quite sure he’ll be voting.

            Mew

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I’ve given several volumes to my husband for Christmas and birthday gifts. An Oscars mst3k would be awesome indeed. Of course, I talk back to the TV all the time, anyway.

            And so as not to threadjack, I’ll vote for the GOP nominee, but if it’s Romney, I’m gonna need a heavy duty pair of those noseplugs you’ve advertised.

          • Tbone

            ” .”

            Now that I look at that, it looks like a fair representation of the space between Mitt’s ears if he had a mole on his left ear lobe.

          • acat

            goatse

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            So that’s probably why.

          • texastaxpayer

            apology for including you in my generalization…
            ;)

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Hopefully you’ll consider my strong suggestion to vote for the GOP candidate even if it’s Romney. Trust me when I say it won’t be easy for me either.

  • westcoastpatriette

    For the sake of everyone except the damned cat.

    • westcoastpatriette

      carrying on the resistance to Romney is because of the corruption and coercive tactics that he has used to beat us all into submission. Because of that,. it is worth it to me to keep fighting against the bully machine that we refer to as “establishment RINOs.” It would bring me great satisfaction to see Romney unable to amass the requisite number of delegates — even if he still were to win in a brokered convention. That is how angry I am (as well as many others) about having him shoved in our face.

      So, that is why I said I’m almost there last night. Woke up this morning angry again and I want the fight to carry on. To give up and succumb to Romney now would equal defeat for all of us in the conservative camp. I would rather die fighting than submit to this crap.

      • redmymind

        IF they get him, then they can explain to us precisely WHY he lost hands-down to BHO. Let’s see . . . 1996, 2008, 2012 . . .

        The point is, I am sick and tired of the smug, patronizing MO of the establishment and its arrogant presumption that we must/will somehow all eventually gather around their anointed joke of a nominee come the general election. After all, . . . “we wouldn’t want BHO to continue being president, now would we???”

        I call that manipulation, at best, and forcefully cramming down a candidate we don’t want down our throats, whether we like it or not, at worst.

        I personally don’t accept such rude behavior from anyone and will take every satisfaction in seeing their automaton go down in flames before BHO–after which the establishment will lose ALL credibility, AS IT SHOULD!!!

        As a Mark Levin listener and admirer, I for a time went along with his strong medicine that it would be the right thing to support Romney IF he were to be the only one standing (apart from Rue Paul).

        Now, however, I part ways with Mark on this point. The establishment expects all of us to be beat down into submission and fall in line. That just won’t happen with me.

        I’ll just stay home, take out the buttered popcorn and soda, and enjoy seeing the establishment getting ALL of its own medicine right back at its face.

        Some reasons why BHO will SOUNDLY beat BHO Lite (not exhaustive, by any means):

        1. More money, oragnization, and connections
        2. More attack/negative ad mechanisms, including the entire lib media fleet
        3. Biggest issues give-away: Romneycare/Obamacare
        4. BHO can out-debate Romney literally blindfolded (however many debate coaches Rombot goes through with his $$$)
        5. BHO has a charismatic presence, but when BHO Lite speaks, bring a pillow or send footage to America’s Funniest Home Videos containing all of his stupid, awkward gaffes or putrid attempts at “singing.”
        6. BHO, even without his teleprompter, sounds a heck of a lot more human and Rombot in his most “trees are the right height” form.

        The point is, none of the other candidates (Newt/Santo) would have the vast arsenal of resources that BHO would have either . . . BUT . . . unlike Romney, both have credible CONSERVATIVE credentials they can stand on and fight back with. Romney, on the other hand, has no such credibility. His only “edge” would be that of being a better technocrat than the rest of the pack, but guess what??? BHO can play that game too and beat him at it, given the power and the organization to play a lot dirtier at will. HE WHO CONTROLS THE BATTLEFIELD AND HAS THE POWER TO LITERALLY SHAPE ITS TERRAIN WINS. Romney would be a piece of cake . . . or Boston cream pie.

        There is nothing Romney can boast that BHO can’t turn around and do far better . . . out-power, out-spend, out-smart, and yes, “out-principle” as a committed statist/Euopean-school socialist who HAS been consistent in this manner. As a serial flip-flopper, however, what can Romney show for himself? . . . That he can “sing”???

        • westcoastpatriette

          those who insist that it is time to accept that Romney has already won and any further resistance is contraindicated or destructive for the party are wrong on many fronts.

          At this point, it is clear that Romney is not the preferred candidate as the voters are split in many different directions. The people supporting Santorum, Gingrich and yes, even Paul, deserve to be recognized and given a chance to vote. To stop the race now by caving to the inevitability meme disenfranchises the majority of voters, for crying out loud. To make demeaning comments that we are being selfish for thinking this way is absurd. The honorable thing for all the non-Romneys to do is to stay and fight for us. Period.

          • redmymind

            Have a great day. I get to drive out to sunny Palmdale today!!! . . . uhh!!!

          • westcoastpatriette

            sorry, I know you have to go to work but the other nonsensical thing about those who say it is destructive to resist Romney any further is that those same people are also convinced that Romney cannot beat Obama!!! How stupid is that? What have we got to lose if we keep on fighting? We will lose against Obama for sure if we stop fighting. Fighting on is our only hope of defeating the Marxist. Give in to Romney now and we give in to Obama now. No way, Jose.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            to Newt and Santorum staying in the race is to force Romney to address the issues they raise and the conservative solutions to those issues, specifically Newt on energy and Santorum on Obamaneycare and religious liberty. I realize they both stray occasionally, but they are on track enough to make Romney have to talk about those things as well. The more we have him on record, the better.

          • westcoastpatriette

            We need to form a new committee of some sort to start meeting with the RNC and force them to recognize that without us (consevatives) behind them and Romney we cannot succeed in ousting the O.

            Now is the time to make Romney face that he will lose because too many of us cannot help him win — out of principle and also because we are so resentful about how he has campaigned so destructively and torn the party apart. And this is not just rhetoric. It is too much to expect those of us who are the most principled in the party to fight for Romney with any sense of self-respect. We will be betraying ourselves if we fight for him. And I cannot campaign for him with a clear conscience nor would I blame others who feel the same.

            This is exactly why we cannot run a moderate and expect to win. I realize this sounds far-fetched but it is the only feasible plan that I can see that may shake up the race while we still have time to do so.

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            wcp, you are onto something. ;-)

            That’s what I’ve been trying to explain here. A strategy for getting the Party to take heed of the conservatives within it. That could happen, would happen, if conservatives increased their numbers inside the Party at the local committee level.

            Right now, the current crop at the RNC level got there because there just aren’t enough conservatives in the voting member slots of the Party, at the lowest committee level, to outvote, on average, the moderates who run for the Party officer slots. And that’s why the RNC does not lay out, anywhere on their web site (although I’m working on that), the importance of becoming a “voting member” of the Party. Sure, they post the rules of the Party, but there’s no easy-to-read overview of “how it works.” In the RNC, NRSC and NRCC mailers you may be receiving, have you ever seen one word inviting you and encouraging you to get involved in the Party? It’s not in the best interests of the RNC officers or the incumbents to encourage that. They like having everyone in the dark.

            Even if your formed some “committee of concerned conservatives” and even if they were well-known conservatives, and asked for an audience with Reince Priebus, he could reply, “You say you have this army of concerned conservatives really worried about our Party. But where, oh where, are they? They’re not inside our Party. Just look at the makeup of the PC ranks. About half the slots are vacant. The current crop of ‘concerned’ Republicans voted for the state delegates or state committeemen who in turn elected the state chairmen and RNC committeemen, who in turn elected me. I’m a reflection of the make up of the members of the ‘real’ Republican Party. That’s my constituency. We’ve got nothing to talk about.”

            I think a better strategy is to try to get every conservative Republican we can to flood into the monthly Party committee meetings. There are county committee meetings. There are local committee meetings. (Here in AZ, the “lowest” level committee meeting is at our legislative district level — the LD’s each elect two AZ House and one AZ Senate members.) Show up and ask, “I’d like you to give me whatever paperwork and instructions I need to become a voting member of this committee.”

            When I present the Strategy to the tea party groups and 9.12 groups and other grass roots conservative groups I usually run into comments, the first time I broach the subject of registering as a Republican and then attending a local committee meeting, with comments like, “The Republican Party is not conservative enough” or “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, it left me.” My reply is always the same: if you do the math, almost everywhere the grass roots conservatives have sufficient numbers to fill up every vacant voting seat inside their local Republican Party committee and, thereby, if they’d actually fill those seats, would put them in a position to no longer have to complain about the Party, as they’d be running it. As I like to say, the Republican Party is not conservative enough (and now I’m referring to the local, county, state and Party officers) because not enough conservatives are inside the Party as voting members of it.

            Your idea is a good one. Another way to “shake up the race” is to have every local district and county chairman reporting to their state chairman that all of a sudden they’ve had standing room only meetings with concerned conservative Republicans wanting to become voting members of the Party. That means conservatives like us getting to our monthly meetings and taking along with us every conservative we can find. I’ve gone and found them at the tea party and other grass roots conservative group meetings. I’ve asked to speak. Sometimes they’ll only give me a few minutes. Sometimes I get 15 minutes. Sometimes more.

            The Strategy is working here in the Phoenix area.

            Unite and organize locally. Win locally and nationally.

            I hope this helps.

            Thank you.

            CW
            P.S. I did you the Reply to this button. Sometimes I find it doesn’t work. Perhaps because others may have left other comments while I was typing this.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and just for the record, I am totally sold on what you describe here as the answer for transforming the party from the inside. And I am personally frustrated because, due to personal constraints, I am not able to do exactly what you are suggesting. I have done the footwork, know when and where the monthly meeting is and am ready to go but will have to wait until I am free to jump in completely. (My mother had a stroke and I am caring for her as she is unable to walk any more.) So, I cannot leave her alone for long periods of time. If it weren’t for that, I would already be a precinct committeeman.

            But thanks again for the reminder. In the meantime, I stay in touch with the local Tea Party as they understand the strategy also and are doing the educating necessary to get people involved.

          • acat

            Mew

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            rush in bits and spurts as I had some home front issues I was dealing with and did not get a chance to proof it before I hit the Post Comment button. So it contains way too many typos and errors, but I think most readers will figure out what I was trying to convey.

            Thanks again,

            CW

          • acat

            I picked up from a marketing guy back in the early ’90s. “If you want ‘em to think they can do what you do, it helps if you let ‘em think you’re a bit of a bumbler”.

            There’s a pretty clear generational split – sometime in the ’60s – between whether people place more faith in the flawless, polished performance, or whether people place more faith in the passionate-but-rough-edged … I’m on the latter side of the divide… I don’t trust the over-polished.

            Mew

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            Thanks! ;-)

            CW

          • elizaliza

            … his campaign in 2008 because the terrorist might win? or who was that?

          • Thomas Crown

            If the former, your employer can’t be pleased.

      • redeyes

        Thank you

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    -Romney can’t win

    -Gingrich and Santorum should quit, to help Romney NOT win.

    -The attack ads should stop, in a renewed effort to help Romney NOT win.

    -We stop the campaign right now so Romney can’t win.

    -Romney still can’t win, but somehow his campaign ISN’T a “vanity campaign”… even though Romney can’t win (which seems the epitome of vanity, but, whatever…)

    -And Gingrich and Santorum should quit, to help Romney NOT win

    …ad infinitum….

    But wait: What if the campaign continues, Romney stops pouring tens of millions of dollars into vicious assault ads, and instead starts a positive campaign which Newt and Rick want to run, and we spend the next four months debating substance, discussing policy, and informing the public about the righteousness of traditional, constitutional conservatism, and fleshing out with vigor what a disaster Barack Obama is?

    Why can’t we do that?

    Oh, yeah, that’s right: Romney can’t win. So why bother…

    I don’t know about you, Brother Crown, but I don’t think the Republic lasts until 2016 with four more years of Obama. And to fold up the tents with cute-by-half homespun bunkum is a dispiriting and disturbing. After all, Sam Adams shouldn’t have thrown all that tea in the harbor–; it wound up getting brewed anyway…

    • Thomas Crown

      But wait: What if the campaign continues, Romney stops pouring tens of millions of dollars into vicious assault ads, and instead starts a positive campaign which Newt and Rick want to run, and we spend the next four months debating substance, discussing policy, and informing the public about the righteousness of traditional, constitutional conservatism, and fleshing out with vigor what a disaster Barack Obama is?

      HAHAHA, yeah, not gonna happen. Romney has internalized that he wins by air-warring his opponents to death. The others have reached that point that McCain et al. reached early in 2008 and hate him.

      Romney can’t win. Obama can lose. Our only hope is that the latter happens. It’s time to stop wasting resources.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        Romney can?t win. Obama can lose. Our only hope is that the latter happens. It?s time to stop wasting resources.

        Conservatives don’t have to embrace all of Romney’s message, as much as they just need to turn their steely knives toward the Obama. Message received.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          I don’t think resources to save the Country are a zero-sum equation: Dollars spent now = Dollars that can’t be spent later. That’s only true if you accept a weak candidate, a weak message, a weak world-view and so on. I only accept the first, if Romney is the nominee:

          A weak candidate.

          The rest of Mr. Crown’s epistle is rhetorical feint and flourish. What does it really add up to? Instead of insisting that conservatives pack it in, shut up, sit down, and stop voting, we should instead be carpet bombing Romney and tell him to knock it off with the vicious assaults and personal jibes at the conservatives in the race. Insist instead that he engage on the substance, not the personal innuendo.

          THAT’S the message that ought to be going out, loud and clear.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            is that “as long as there is hope of an upset for Romney by a ‘Not Romney’ we’ll keep fighting…” and by upset I am looking at 538′ Nate Silver scenarios as a rule of thumb for a Santorum possibility… and as the article is titled “daunting” possibility. I’m not saying its wrong to fight for your guy… but I see nothing wrong with Mr. Crown’s soliloquy… it’s elegant and relevant.

            So what is it exactly that Newt and Ron are holding out for? cabinet positions? ego? Book deals? Speaking gigs? There’s no path to victory for either of them delegate wise or brokered convention…

            I get Rick Santorum has a slim chance of pulling off an upset, and there is a “path to victory” for him… but it would require commanding wins in pretty much every single remaining contest in March and early April… and some dominating wins in Texas, California, and Illinois.

            What I don’t understand is why do so many “conservatives” not consider Santorum as much as a “weak” or “liability” candidate as Romney? Am I less conservative because I refuse to crown Santorum with titles and platitudes that to me do NOT square with my views?

            I’m sorry… Not one person for all their talking talk around this site has convinced me that Rick Santorum is “the conservative” we should be embracing… for me comparing Santorum and Romney’s economic plans is like contrasting a hammer’s effectiveness on a wood screw, and a screwdriver’s effectiveness on scrubbing a frying pan.

            I’m not for Romney… or Santorum… and I don’t need to defend or root for either to be considered a “true conservative”… or a “party man”…

            The message that I’m getting is that If Mitt *is as close to inevitable* but for a slim chance… than we’re going scorched earth on the wrong fella…

            And the moment that it becomes clear that there is no prospect of winning enough delegates… each of the remaining contenders ought to have the decency that Romney showed McCain in 2008, and work for the team. Otherwise… I’m more inclined to support the lesser jackass of the two remaining frontrunners… but where do I start when one is out-campaigning the other in dollars and delegates (in spite of what many consider is “more negative” than others, which in my estimation is a crock of non-sense), and the other doesn’t have the sense when to quit and be a gentlemen about it?

            That’s my message. Hopefully its loud and clear.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            on ObamaCare and that 2009 USA-Today revelation was devastating, wasn’t it?

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            because Mitt still won Michigan and Ohio…

            I’m not advocating people should give up supporting Santorum, or anyone they “by conscience” want to support…

            I don’t expect to convince people of which tactics are “high road” or not…

            I’m just acknowledging the reality of Mr. Crown’s assertion… it may be time to consolidate our frustrations at Obama, and let the internal discussion be what it is…

            What I hate hearing is the constant “Romney is just Obama”… and “Santorum is our conservative hope”… Rockstar candidates are “devastating”… what was said then, is just as relevant as it is now…

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            we choose a nominee, and any of these 3 should be able to win…imho

      • falconrap

        why not start pouring money into the campaign of either Newt or Santorum, and fight back? News flash: If Romney wins, you will have depressed turnout that WILL affect the down ticket races. We MUST do everything possible to force a brokered convention, or get one of the two conservatives pushed ahead to victory (tough, but technically still doable). Romney is unelectable. He will be portrayed as Gordon Gecko, and the Republican base will not show up in droves (much like 2008, only potentially worse if the primary turnout is anything to go by). Santorum has a shot, but his strongly outward social conservative speeches might make it tough for him, has will his big labor record. Newt probably has the best shot as most of the bovine feces made up about him can be negated with proper advertising and getting the word out. So far, Newt is the only guy that has shown any ability to consistently turn out heavy numbers amongst the base. He’s been able to do that when he’s been perceived to be a viable candidate in a state.

        I would love to see Newt and Rick get together and form a Gingrich/Santorum ticket with a mutual delegate pledge to that ticket. Then they could beat Romney and may be able to start pulling in enough money to make a true national campaign. It’s also a ticket (with Newt on top going directly against Obama) that I think can win. It offsets each candidates negatives and could unite the conservatives in the party. Having the guy less likely to shove social concerns down voters throats as the POTUS would also prevent the moderates from freaking out (which is one of Rick’s weak points).

        Just giving up and letting Romney have it gets us nowhere. Giving up is what losers do, and, I don’t know about you, but I hate to lose and I ain’t about to start quitting.

        • fightnright

          who will not turn out for Romney.

          A team like Gingrich/Santorum that could be profiled by the Obamites as a pair of far right candidates (easy to do; many on redstate see these two as the most conservative of the candidates) will only freak out more moderates, not fewer.

          Also, consider another Obama line of attack, already planned, ‘the war against women’ : Newt (serial philanderer) Gingrich + Rick (‘contraceptives aren’t such a great idea’) Santorum together equals losing a larger segment of the general election women’s vote than you will gain by targeting only conservatives who will stay home rather than vote for Mitt.

          • fightnright

            I’d be really pleased if Newt could actually win this thing. But I don’t think that Gingrich and Santorum together would have a chance of bringing it in.

          • falconrap

            of reasoning. It relies on the meme, built by the liberal media no less, that moderates are the key to elections. If you’ll notice, Dems don’t run candidates designed to appeal to moderates. They run candidates that espouse lefty principles in front of lefty Dem crowds, while talking “conservative light” in front of general audiences. The meme’s whole purpose is to push us to put moderate candidates up. What wins elections are candidates that turn out there base (see Obama and Reagan). Moderates are squishy types that can be molded and tend to vote for the perceived front runner more so than based on principles. Even when moderates decide to vote on principle, they tend to vote economically conservative and liberally social. When the economy is the biggest issue, moderates tend toward conservative candidates. If Gingrich is at the top of the ticket, these folks won’t, in general, have any issues with Gingrich on the social front, and won’t really care if the VP is Santorum.

            This is why this whole “Romney appeals to moderates” stuff is poo. Romney will turn off the base, and you CAN NOT win elections turning your base off. More importantly, moderates, who only decide elections when base turn out is roughly even (something not likely to be the case this year if the Republicans put a conservative at the top of the ticket), tend to base their decisions on the 1 or 2 debates they decide to either watch or see clips of. This is where Reagan came from behind and beat Carter, and blew out Mondale. This is where the Republican candidate must seal the deal. McCain sucked in the debates and his poll numbers amongst moderates started suffering. We need someone who can seal the deal in debates if you want to woo the moderates and eliminate all doubt about who will win. But even then, if your base is more energized than the other guy’s base, you don’t need the moderates.

            We need to stop following the media driven path of putting moderates up for election. The last conservative we put up was Reagan and he won by a large margins. The only moderate we’ve put up that one big was when GHWB won off of Reagan’s coat tails, combined with Dukakis’ stupidity (and the fact that he bled liberal blood for all to see). Generally, our moderates either lose are squeak out a tight win. Neither of which is good for governing, and still leaves us with a POTUS who isn’t necessarily on our page. So lets stop the Romney inevitability junk and start campaigning for our conservatives and get this thing turned around. Even if we manage to see Romney get elected as POTUS, he’ll still not do what we need. Time to get on board with the conservatives and stop this.

          • fightnright

            McCain did not lose because he was a moderate; he lost because he was a lousy candidate. There’s a long list of reasons why Mac lost, so read the link in my tagline for those details, and why Mac’s strategy and circumstances were nowhere near like Romney’s.

            Secondly, even then, McCain was ahead in the polls until the economy crashed and the press was able to put the blame on Bush and the Republicans, making not only McCain lose, but also dealing Republicans major losses in the House and Senate (including, by a huge margin, Rick Santorum).

            You wrote:

            “If you?ll notice, Dems don?t run candidates designed to appeal to moderates. They run candidates that espouse lefty principles in front of lefty Dem crowds, while talking ?conservative light? in front of general audiences.”

            So Dems ARE trying to appeal to moderates. Your own words disprove the claim you’re trying to make.

            Not only do Dems try to appeal to moderates, Dems have cannily declined to run their liberal candidates as liberals. Even with a highly energized base led by MSM cheerleaders, it still took a coalition of moderates, independents, plus unreliable African American voters drawn by a historic contest and moderate Republicans shaken by the economic climate, not just the Dem base, to put Obama over the top. Obama’s independent and moderate voters only discovered how far to the left their candidate would govern when he was already in the Oval Office.

            If you don’t think that Repubs should try to pick a candidate that might help us do better with women voters; that we need not plan to appeal to moderates or indies to win the WH, and that debating skills and/or the base’s enthusiasm and turnout are the only keys necessary to secure a national election, you are not simply in a minority of pollsters and strategists; you are in fantasyland. Apropos of this, instead of relying on bombast and rhetoric to predict future outcomes, take the blinkers off your eyes and look at the numbers in the averages of scientific primary polls to actually determine how well your candidate is doing even within that base.

            Speaking of being misled by a media narrative for success, if you truly believe that those who might be targeted by their opponents as extremist can easily win national contests – make a list of all those candidates who ran hard left or hard right media campaigns who did win the White House (not Dukakis to be sure, whom you admit “bled liberal blood for all to see”), then stop listening to radio and tv entertainers whose objectives might have less to do with politics than the profits of keeping their ratings high by throwing red meat to their own valuable base audiences, and try to disabuse yourself of a poorly supported notion that may prove to be a recipe for failure.

            And nowhere in the above posts or in any other comment I’ve posted in redstate have I ever suggested that Romney is inevitable, so please don’t imply that I might have done so, or that I might believe it to be true. If you have to alter my argument to try to win points on yours, perhaps consider that your own argument might not be winnable. I think any of our guys might win (with the exception of Ron Paul), and I’ll support that nominee; it’s not me but the delegate count, primary polling, and the Presidential head-to-head national polling data that suggest that Romney has the best chance to win the nomination, and a good chance to win the 2012 race.

    • elizaliza

      curmudge got a point there. a really good point.

      • Thomas Crown

        Garbage in, garbage out.

  • Viet71

    I just want to win the war.

    Can Romney beat Obama? Yes.

    Romney doesn’t warm the hearts of conservatives, but he’ll grab indie and Dem votes. Unlike Santorum. And mostly unlike Newt.

    The Dem base, the tame sheep voters, will mostly dutifully vote for Obama. The thinking indie voter who is unbiased will give Romney a good look. That’s the battlefield. That’s where the war will be fought.

    • Thomas Crown

      Seriously, I make Moe look like a piker. (He beats me on sci-fi.)

      So I enjoyed this.

      Romney doesn?t warm the hearts of conservatives, but he?ll grab indie and Dem votes. Unlike Santorum. And mostly unlike Newt.

      The polling data shows and has shown for some time that the last two sentences are true, but the second part of the first is not.

      Oh, and this is worth a page in a Goodkind novel.

      The thinking indie voter who is unbiased will give Romney a good look.

      • steve962

        I kind of agree with you on that. I’d rephrase the original statement as “Romney doesn’t warm the hearts of conservatives, but at least he won’t lose the Republican moderates and libertarians, and might even manage to win some independent votes, too. Unlike Santorum. And mostly unlike Newt.”

      • Viet71

        Which are always correct.

        The part about indie and Dem votes is based on my admittedly narrow perspective from living in Connecticut.

        I like Sci Fi too. Heinlein. Poul Anderson.

        • Thomas Crown

          They’re not predictors of the future, but they’re reasonable snapshots of the electorate. Over time, they point to trends.

          Not one of these jokers has a trendline worth mentioning.

          • jakeofalltrades

            will still hypocritically give blood samples for medical testing.

          • elizaliza

            that romney and even santorum beats obama in all the swing states. So, what’s your problem then?

          • Thomas Crown

            It might be that you’re suggesting an Electoral College win for the Republican and a popular vote drubbing of that same Republican at the same time.

            Or that the most recent polling shows nothing of the sort. So, you know, other than your being wrong, nothing.

          • Viet71

            Continue to believe, however, Romney would give Obama a good run, primarily because he’s perceived as moderate (true or false in fact), which to me means some disaffected Dems and indies would vote for him.

        • elizaliza

          … would be ashamed of the present republican field, mostly about the anti-sex meme.
          I guess Anderson was a Democrat, scandinavian and all that.

          only really Tea party scifi writer is OSC, although it doesn’t show in his writing.

          • Thomas Crown

            That would be Heinlein’s problem. Good writer, disturbed fellow.

  • norfolker

    In general, Republican base will be dejected about the prospect of not winning the Presidency. People will stay home. Tea Party will be gone. After all Tea Party started due to Obamacare…

    • lineholder

      I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Mr. Crown included in the above diary. I do, however, agree with him wholeheartedly in believing that we should put forth the best effort we’ve got into this where Congressional elections are concerned.

      Conservatives talk the talk about protecting the Constitution, protecting our freedoms and liberties, preserving traditional values. Was that all just talk? Or are we willing to follow through with this battle?

  • racetraitor

    I’m thinking of forwarding this post to my Romney-campaigning husband’s e-mail account so that he can read it later; but that might not contribute to marital harmony, eh?

    Now, on to campaigning for Clark Durant in the Michigan Senate primary! Gotta… get… rid… of… Stabenow….

  • quill67

    First, I love the story. But I believe there is a much better moral that should be drawn from it. In your story you say:

    “Cats are wonderful solitary predators, but one of the many reasons dogs are better is that, like humans, they hunt well in packs.”

    We Republicans/conservatives have been acting like cats. While liberals have been acting in packs. Oh not just in this primary campaign but for a couple of decades.

    When one of our own is attacked, Republicans/conservatives scatter. Each refuses to give any ‘blood’ for the defense of any other–particuarly if that person made a mistake.

    Meanwhile, Democrats/liberals have been hunting in packs picking off conservatives…..one…by….one…by one. They look for any reason to pounce and they do so as a group. They coordinate. Contraceptives were brought up in a debate BEFORE Obama announced his health plans when nobody was even talking about it. Rush makes a mistake and they are trying to drive him from the airwaves. The assults on Beck drove him from Fox News.

    We’ve got to stand as one.

    • Common_Cents

      Why we throw ourselves to the wolves one at a time, I’ll never understand.

      • fightnright

        if following Gilbert & Sullivan it is true:

        “I often think it’s comical
        How Nature always does contrive
        That every boy and every gal
        That?s born into the world alive
        Is either a little Liberal
        Or else a little Conservative! ”

        Liberals tend more towards collectivism and activism; in a conservative’s world-view, self-reliance and independence are foundational. Dems have taken advantage of this discrepancy for decades, just the way terrorist networks and paramilitary groups have turned liberal values and the democratic institutions of the west against us.

        It may be difficult for conservative individualists to override their instincts and restructure their very natures to begin political group-think and organizing like a Democrat mob… er, hive. ::sigh::

  • Finrod

    Even if you’re right, Thomas, Romney doesn’t deserve to have the dogs called off him. He has spent a fortune sliming fellow Republicans and deserves to be stuck having this root canal of a campaign all the way to the convention. If he’s going to lose the general anyways, let’s make it clear to any future Romneys that if they try to win by carpetbombing fellow candidates, that they are going to be in for a nasty ugly slog with no holds barred.

  • PGDeFreese

    proved even a cast of misfits like the current GOP can sometimes turn incompetence into victory.

    Until General “Mitt” Sarris excepts the nomination I will remain a Newt holdout.

    Never give up, never surrender!

  • Common_Cents

    Just by design, they seek to discourage the GOP. It was obvious in most of the debates what the intent was by the left wing mods, and then the liberal talking head spin post debate.

    The focus has been a circular firing squad at the GOP, comparing them to perfection and pointing out all their flaws. There has been ZERO focus and vetting of Obama. So he looks “better” in comparison. obama has not been on trial and cross examined yet, and you have given up already?

    Even if that is the case of a lost cause, what are your suggestions in focusing on congressional races? What specific ways can people make a difference? Let’s get RS back to some grass roots conservatism.

    • lineholder

      The energy for this election is on the Conservative end of the political spectrum, not the liberal end. Given that the stakes are high and our backs are to wall, a leader with half a lick of common sense would try to harness that. That’s what I was originally hoping we would see. But Romney is no leader. He’s got too much of the same kind of attitude towards Conservatives that Boehner and McCain have.

      Sure, this is the kind of sentiment that would anger Conservatives in general. What we do with that anger is up to us. We can lash out randomly and accomplish next to nothing. Or we can harness it ourselves, channel it into something constructive, funnel it into with a laser-like focus into tasks that will be advantageous to Conservatives. That’s where the Congressional elections come into play.

      The mods have been posting articles about various candidates for Congress for the last 2-3 weeks now. No one has been paying much attention to them because we’ve all been so focused on the Presidential race. Going back and reviewing those articles and learning more about those candidates is a good place to start.

      You and I both supported Newt, CC. But the odds are against him now, and I’m objective enough to realize that. What I’d like to see at this point is for Newt, Perry, Palin and some others to take the 10A issue to the public. Do something with it. Set up events with music (the Lt. Dan Band, Trace Adkins, Hank Williams Jr., etc. come to mind). Maybe even allow local craftspeople to put up pro-American items. Give these new candidates a venue to meet the public. Do SOMETHING constructive with it!

      • Common_Cents

        I’ve made a few comments noticing RS has gone away from its grass roots conservative activism roots and wondering how we get back on track.

        Let’s put obama on trial, his terrible record and make him defend it. We have fallen into the lefts trap of being discouraged. they have realized the best defense of the worst president ever is a good offense. The left has successfully deflected much attention off of obama’s terrible record.

        We have people giving up already and the battle hasn’t even begun! The analogy is being down on a few of your teammates in the locker room before the game, so are you really going to give up and get your butt kicked by your opponents before the first play even starts?

        We need to put effort into all fronts, Presidential race as well as congressional races. Why does it have to be either/or? and cede the office to Obama before the first general election day has even begun?

        Let’s focus on what each of us can do.

        Longer term, our own party leadership has failed us many times. What action do we take to get better, more conservative leadership in our own party? These questions should be asked and pursued on RS. How?

        In the big picture, in addition to making efforts to get better leadership in DC, we need to realize concentrated power in DC is NOT the answer. We found that out in our last majority. Obviously it’s much better than Dem majorities but not the total solution.

        The long term picture for the best America? Decentralize DC’s power back to the states. I think that is where the real fight will be, and make the most difference. Organizing the states to wrestle back power from DC. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What steps do we take to organize the states and empower the governors to gain some leverage on centralized power in DC?

        Let’s get RS back on track focusing on specific actions people can take to make this happen. All this horse race talk these last few months is fun and entertaining,(i do it too) but is nothing more than mental masturbation.

        • lineholder

          The Dems are very organized behind a common cause. And even though I don’t particularly care to see Conservatives develop any attitude of “collectivism”, especially one that is as unscrupulous as the Libs follow, this is one case where we’d better served all the way around to develop some sort of organized effort.

          This would require having a few people with the clout to do so take the initiative to really step up in our behalf. And it would have to be focused on specific issues that we know would appeal to Conservatives. If we throw in some issues like school choice via states rights, we might even cross-over into other areas of the political spectrum.

          Conservatives aren’t all that supportive of the kind of pretentious that the Libs like to project into their image of themselves. For us, keeping it simple would be more effective. Going after a few goals from the viewpoint of retail politics, i.e. local gatherings, could work very well for us.

          I’m not suggesting that we “cede” anything, CC. And I don’t think Mr. Crown is either. He’s simply being realistic about the fact that Romney is a moderate who has displayed a tendency to drift to the left in policy decisions, and it’s highly unlikely that Conservatives will be enthusiastic about this. But we can be enthusiastic about following through with an ABO sentiment!!

          Decentralizing power is a good approach, and that’s why I think a 10A movement would be effective, especially if we can present it in a marketing format that draws in the general public.

  • winning2012

    For the record, I REALLY wanted someone besides Romney, just like I REALLY wanted someone besides McCain, but it’s over and we need to end this primary now. If we continue on until a contested Convention, we’ll lose no matter who gets the nod.

    No one can really argue with a straight face that Santorum is going to surpass Romney in delegates. It’s basically come down to “let’s blow this thing up because my guy didn’t win, and MAYBE we’ll get Santorum in the VP slot.” If Romney comes in with the most delegates and votes, he’s going to be our nominee.

    Also. I can’t really say Santorum is a much better conservative than Romney, at least on the issues that really matter, and his stances on some ridiculous issues (like birth control among married Protestants or which Protestants are really Christians) are going to hurt him badly in the swing states.

    Bottom line, it’s not like we’re fighting over a transformational figure like Ronald Reagan here, it’s not worth blowing up the party and handing reelection to Obama for someone like Rick Santorum.

  • Frederick

    …can we cut this tires meme of “you have to nominate a centrist to win a general”? The Democrats certainly seem to have learned better.

    Be conservative. Really believe it. Convince the center your way is better. That’s how you win.

    • Ann_W

      when he loses you can say, “I told you so.” Brilliant.

      I obviously think a more solid conservative would be better, but we’ve gotta stop all this doomsday stuff.

      Sure we need a better way of getting good candidates, but this isn’t a new phenomenon. (Think Dole, Ford, Nixon, even GWB) Whatever we are doing does give us moderates so maybe we can try to correct that, but our moderates will not wreak the destruction that Obama has/will.

      • Frederick

        …so I didn’t see your reply.

        You have heard of the Precinct Committeeman Project, right? If you want better candidates at every level, start there.

        As for “running down” the candidate, I’m not saying anything numerous others haven’t: That is, that you don’t win with a moderate squish. You win by energizing your base and showing the center your solutions are better. Mitt doesn’t excite the base, and I sincerely doubt he does much to get a rise out of of the middle. I sincerely hope he wins in November, but I for one am going to focus my energy on winning back the Senate.

  • littlehouse18

    Why must we give up on the presidency in order to fight for congressional seats?

    In this year of all years, “Never, Never,Never, Never give up.”

    I do not like the Romney campaign. Yet I will suck it up if he is the nominee and fight hard for him so that we can have a future.

    Winning the congress only will not get Obamacare repealed. It won’t stop Iran from getting nukes. It will continue the extra-constitutional rule of this increasingly dictatorial regime.

    If we are to win only one branch it is better to win the Executive so that he can at least ameliorate some of Obamacare, and stop the current dictatorship which is intentionally destroying this country from within. And so he can defend this nation instead of throwing it to the wolves.

  • littlehouse18

    I heard one fellow opine that this drawn-out process is good for Republicans. I haven’t been sure of that, but his point is first that it’s giving free media to the Republicans and keeping them and their arguments front and center, Who knows, it could win some over to our side. Nothing negative will be brought out that won’t be brought out anyway by the Dems at their time of choosing. Plus they can’t train their sights too heavily right now on a single nominee.

  • Darin_H

    That’s gold, Jerry, GOLD!

    I can’t believe I’m going to say this….I disagree with you, Thomas. One of the things about this drawn out nomination is that Romney has had to fight – he’s had to learn how to fight. He’s a dirty fighter. We’ll see if he can put together enough of a ground game to win. But the best thing about this nomination contest continuing is that we get more TC diaries – and that’s always a good thing.

  • mike57

    I too long for the primary to end and for the party to unify around our candidate. Because in November, our candidate will be running against the other party, whose candidate favors powerful government, the suppression of our civil liberties, and an expansive foreign policy, all without our consent.

    GOP 2012!

    PS: Ron Paul is definitely not a Nazi. The Nazi was interested in a huge, powerful government, the elimination of civil liberties, and an expansive foreign policy. The GOP would not tolerate a Nazi.

    • Thomas Crown

      The Nazi(sic) was convinced that the black(sic) were little more than animals who would start a race war at any moment. The Nazi(sic) was also convinced that the gold standard was the only proper method of issuing currency. Finally, the Nazi(sic) had a lingering problem with Jews, and liked government-directed and subsidized, nominally private industry.

      So, you know, I win.

      • mike57

        You would like Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Facism.” I confess that I get my ideas on Facism from the book, which I am sure you would like.

        I can’t judge Congressman Paul for racism or anti semitism, but have trouble believing that he is. Can we disagree on this and remain on good terms? :)

        That being said, I am sure that there are a lot of constructive things that you can find to disagree with in the Congressman’s positions, and I don’t carry water for him.

        However, we need to remain respectful, as the young followers of Paul will potentially become faithful supporters of the GOP. I myself was confused and didn’t start voting GOP until Reagan…I have voted GOP ever since.

        I did genuinely like your article. We need to get the current administration out of office; their policies are openly fascist by any measure. (Jonah Goldberg proves it without a doubt) We need to move on and support whatever candidate we have.

        You can win if you want, just so we elect a Republican in November.

    • Dave_A

      ‘the Nazi’ tangentially associated with the GOP is Constitution-Party champion Patrick ‘Crossfire’ Buchannan.

      Ron is more an anarchist, than a fascist. Still a destructive, anti-American nutball, though…

      Can’t believe I just defended Ron ‘Death to America’ Paul…

  • unsk

    Even if the Republican nominee is going to be defeated, he must at least be able to rally the base to go to the polls and vote Republican. Willard is not that man.

    That is why some one other than Willard must be the nominee. People like me don’t vote for Progressive Socialists like Willard, and will be disinclined to vote for those who support them whether they have an (R) or a (D) in front of their name.

    But there is a bigger issue at stake here. Far too many of our politicians, both Dem and Pub, have been bought and paid for and support only special interests to the detriment of all others. This has got to stop. We must make a stand.

    Here in California, we live in a one party state that is entirely controlled by the Public Sector union and Trial lawyers. America is headed down the same road. Big Bank. Big Corporate, Big Union and Big Government interests now control both parties. We are on the verge of becoming a one party state.

    Whether you vote for Obama or Romney the same people behind the scenes will be in power. Romney will govern from the left just as he did in Mass. He will kowtow to the Media and all the politically correct interests. He will never in a million years take on the vast corruption by the TBTF. He will not stand up for America’s interests or our rights. And he likely will be able to get leftist dream legislation like the VAT passed, where Buraq could not.

    Why would I want to ever vote for anybody like that?

    • texashistorian

      voting for the man if he is the nominee. I can’t say that I will. We have a good Texas senate race to worry about, and I am redistricted into TX 25 which has a monster Republican primary with a several outstanding candidates. I will care about those, and not the Presidency. If I had to vote tomorrow and Willard was the choice, I honestly don’t know if I would vote for him- I despise him that much. I will probably feel differently in a few months, or at least could punch the chad without throwing up all over myself, but there are some races here that will matter a lot more to me.

      • califgal

        You wouldn’t vote for him and you despise him because he beat your boy or because you don’t think he’d be better for the country than Obama for the next 4 years?

        • texashistorian

          Neither of the above really captures it. He never “beat my boy” whatever that means. I didn’t like Mitt in 08, and like him less now. I despise him for his utter lack of political principal, which has been well documented here and elsewhere. No matter how Mitt supporters spin it, the man is all over the map and has been more liberal than conservative over the years. He voted for Paul freakin Tsongas! I know, you can explain it all away.

          Will he be better than Obama short-term? Sure, I give you that, but he represents EXACTLY what the GOP needs to not do if it wants to survive as a party, and Mitt is EXACTLY what conservatism doesn’t need to move forward.

          So, no, if I had to vote tomorrow, I don’t know that I could vote for Mitt. It’s a tough dilemma given the alternative is Obama, but I am looking at the longer term health of our great Republic, and Mitt will do basically nothing to solve the larger issues. It ain’t all about the economy- that needs to be fixed yes, but its also, and more crucially, about liberty and the size of government. Mitt doesn’t do much for those, and if you are honest, you will admit to that.

  • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

    Sarah Palin

    There is my choice, as I see no way for us to move forward otherwise.

    • elizaliza

      I mean, do you think Dems would like if Kucinic became the nominee?

      Let’s get real here. Palin, we love her, but not in any way as a C-in-C

      • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

        Framing her might be your game, but she is brr than Mittyboy

        • Dave_A

          She made a good GOP Cheerleader for a while, but she’s not Presidential material…

          If there’s a brokered convention, it will select from the current 2-to-3-man field of contenders…

          EG, you might see the 4th vote combine Gingrich & Sanatorium’s for Rick (in return for Gingrich being given a cabinet post) delegates against Romney & Paul’s…

          Or maybe they’ll offer Santorum the VP slot to get his support for Mittens…

          It won’t be an outsider…

          • Tbone

            if you are a conservative who wants someone with the balls to stand up to the liberals, MSM and Democrats.

            If you want just another big government ahole, then Mitt, Newt and Rick are your dimes worth of mixed candy.

          • garfieldjl

            A lawn gnome would be a better President than Obamney.

          • jamesm

            nt

  • luvnthebigsites

    Can’t argue with this analysis or analogy. (.)

    My argument would be what good is “Super Majorities” if the leadership there is a mirror image of the plastic smile media generated leadership currently queued for the White House?

    My request— Spend some of those “billable hours” raking Boehner and McConnell over the coals. Seems to me they have one thumb in their mouth waiting for the executive branch to act and the other thumb (buried where the sun don’t shine) because they haven’t a clue what to do even “if” we hand them their super-majorities…

    My point— Pick another target. Willard is getting easy and we “constant readers” dont like boring posts…

    /Salute

    • Thomas Crown

      And with due respect, you’re welcome to do what my wife does and ignore anything you find boring.

      I also don’t see much point going after Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum because there is nothing I could say that would alter Midwestern tendencies to love them some pork and bigger government.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      I don’t care who the candidate is, and I haven’t from the beginning.

      Anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive Left, I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you , you’re on the other side!

      Source.

      And here’s another news item I liked:

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/romney-readies-%E2%80%98prosecution-obama%E2%80%99/351591

      Romney fights. Some say dirty.

      If he fights as hard (and as dirty) against Obama as he has against his Republican adversaries, he will prevail. No?

      Thank you.

      ColdWarrior

  • lastgopinillinois

    I dis-agree that the primary should be ended now. I want Newt to stay in the race until the bitter end, regardless of anyone and everyone parroting that he cant win the general.
    I will vote on principal. Newt would achieve more for the conservative cause than any other candidate hands down. So he has got my vote on Mar 20th. Period.

    • Rudy

      and… Amen…
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

  • kipling

    A good sentiment but must will continue to beat a dead horse.

    What more is left to argue between the four?

    • Thomas Crown

      One of my dad’s favorite songs, rest his soul.

  • califgal

    it sounds as if you want your prediction to come true.

    • Thomas Crown

      I won’t lie and say I’m a Mitt Romney fan — nor a fan of his fans — but I see logical way to conclude that he is likely to beat Obama.

      Obama is not a juggernaut. He’s just good enough to beat the B-listers. All we have on tap are B- and C- and theta-listers.

      • carolina

        Continued high (and higher summer) gasoline prices and rising food costs (inflation) may defeat BO.
        Shades of Carter.
        High unemployment & inflation = stagflation again. Bernanke has sure been doing his level best to weaken the $.
        It might not matter WHO the GOP nominates. We’ll see …….

  • vallisitsa

    Romney would make one fine president, no doubt, if we trusted our congress. Can you trust them? Do you think he will fight them or go along and just negotiate DEALS? Answer to yourself, honestly. What happened to 2010 Republicans “victory”? Who squandered its fruits? Your own representative and senator, folks… Look at teary-eyed Bohner signing on another spending spree for a proof.
    Ruling class is apolitical, they turn their side any way the wind is blowing as long as their pockets remain inflated with easy cash.

  • vallisitsa

    In 08 we had political Kathrina blow over DC. We knew it’s coming but we were unprepared It resulted in the disaster.
    In a wake of political Kathrina we still have bands of marauding senators,reps, lobbyists, tzars, cronies- left and right.
    We need to elect somebody to put an end to the rampage of “public servants”, take away their beloved earmarks ands stimulus.
    Look at Russia- Putin & his KGB cronies were Commies and now they are sworn capitalists.Nomenklatura is its name, establishement , ruling class. It will remain in power until you, citizens, understand and see your true adversary, even when covered by your party ticket.

    • jakeofalltrades

      :(

  • Benta_Nordstrom

    Our family was for Rick Perry but we are now supporting Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is the only candidate left who has a conservative stance on the issues and also has a record of being able to lead well. He will “clean house” in Washington D.C.

  • Ann2012

    The only explanation is that we are beneath them (an amazing feat in and of itself) in political acumen, strategic thinking and tactical planning. It?s an embarrassment that beating Obama will actually be difficult in this environment. Have you ever thought to look in the mirror when you criticize the candidates and imply that they are the sole reason for our problems. How many of those here could do better if you stepped into the arena. Could the majority of our ineptitude perhaps be, oh I don?t know, the Republican constituency.

    When people write and I?m paraphrasing: We know that Romney can?t win, but we?re hurting ourselves in the process so let?s just unite behind the losing candidate and focus on the congressional races.

    What does that even mean? First of all the top of the ticket usually helps determine the outcome of the congressional races (which means no Senate takeover if Romney loses) and secondly the Congress can?t do anything of substance if they are met with a presidential veto from Obama. Why not just write, I?m tired, let?s give up and go home, this is just too difficult for us.

    Perhaps a quote from Theodore Roosevelt might help:

    ?It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.?

    The Art of War ? Sun Tzu a Chinese General and military strategist:

    ?It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.?

    ——————————————————————-

    First choice: Rick Santorum ? he brings enthusiasm from the base, he can win the manufacturing states, the Midwest, and the South. And with that voter block he can help to ensure a Senate takeover.

    Second choice: Newt Gingrich ? I used to like him more but now I feel like we?ll get Sheldon Adelson for President but won?t know it at the time.

    Third choice: Barack Obama (I won?t vote for him but he places third)

    Forth choice: Ron Paul (I won?t vote for him but would actually trust Obama with national security more than Ron Paul)

    ——————————————————————-

    Before giving up, keep in mind the following:

    In Tampa, on the night of the first ballot, Speaker John Boehner, who, according to the rules of the RNC will chair the convention, will announce the roll call of the states. At this point, each state will announce whom their delegates are voting for.

    If none of the candidates wins the 1,144 delegate votes needed to clinch the nomination, Speaker Boehner will call for a second ballot. All of the delegates who were bound during the first vote based on their state primaries will be released to vote for whomever they please.

    If the second ballot doesn?t produce a nominee, the voting will continue until someone wins.

    • Ann2012

      Correction: I forgot to include Romney in the above list, he would be third choice, one notch above Obama.

      • texastaxpayer

        Newt (Best of what’s left)
        Santorum ( Settle to vote with the GOP in November)
        Johnson (Last chance to beat Obama)
        Texas Independence ( American is doomed, time to try and save ourselves. D@mn yankees moved here and won’t vote with us… Doh…)
        Civil Disobedience (Refusing to surrender my weapons and personal belongings to “The Justice Collectors”. Obama requires economic parity in the PRA * The Peoples Republic of Amerika*)
        Insurrection (basically shooting the rest of ya’ll over the few remaining twinkies as manufacturing and production has shut down. It now costs $100,000,000.00 for a cookie. Only problem, no one makes cookies any longer can’t afford the taxes, regulations or healthcare.)
        Suicide (No more cats to eat, better than starving. Out of bullets anyway.)
        Obomney…(Try to score some brownie points with Satan the new boss.)

        • Ann2012

          Speaking of Texas though, I think Texas will one day be independent again from the U.S. but instead of the Republic of Texas, it will very gradually become the Republica del Norte (Republic of the North).

          • texastaxpayer

            Nyquil and 4 am are not good combinations for cohernt posts ….

            As to your “republic of the north ” suggestion. My greater fear is that with all northerners and californians flooding in we will become republic of the liberals… At least the mexicans work.

          • Ann2012

            I?ll take that into consideration as I read your post. : )

            I?m originally from California (also part of Republica Norte), I thought all the conservatives were the ones leaving. If not, you?re definitely in trouble.

          • Ann2012

            Edit: I meant ?write to me drugged up? and not ?write to me at drugged up.? Why we don?t have editing capabilities here I?ll never know.

          • EyeofMitt

            N/T

          • Ann2012

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas

            I don?t think human nature and multi-culturism go well together. For whatever reason, people throughout history and throughout all geographic regions naturally separate and feel more comfortable and safe in ?tribes.?

            If you want to destroy a country, it?s easier to destroy it from within. Which unfortunately in my opinion is what will happen to America.

          • EyeofMitt

            I have never heard it referred to as Republica Norte. I wasn’t talking about liking it in that sense. You are right about this site needing editing capability.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      what is that. I do not like Romney, but he is better than Obama.

      • Ann2012

        But if you notice I did make a correction post under my original post because I had forgotten to add Romney to my list. And as you know we are unable to edit our original post.

        My candidate Rick Santorum will win this nomination in my opinion so fortunately I won?t have to choose Romney over Obama.

  • Warrior

    You say:

    “No sane person believes Mitt Romney will win the Presidency…”

    I hope you are wrong. If Obama gets in again, it won’t matter what other offices we hold ….

    • garfieldjl

      Either way Obama’s policies would continue.

      Romney is already on record of being all over the map on Obamacare as to whether or not to repeal it.

      • Mike Ferguson

        we can actually take the decision out of his hands by the house and the senate passing a bill for repeal and sending it to him. He’s not gonna go against the Republican majorities in his first term. I am less worried about him not signing a repeal as I am about him convincing the house and senate that they just need to “fix” obamacare.

  • EyeofMitt

    and no matter how many different ways you write it — simply does not make it true. Period.

    • garfieldjl

      Cause I can and I will back up stuff that I’m saying:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJyOw_JgxE0

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/good-grief-romney-urged-obama-to-embrace-individual-mandate-in-obamacare/

      http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-reason-doubt-romney-would-repeal-obamacare/263116

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5JjBHq8_0#!

  • http://nobletimes.com Franklin Brown

    I say we sit back and enjoy the fight: http://www.redstate.com/fnbrown/2012/03/10/enjoy-the-fight/

    • Thomas Crown

      That’s a big aside, though.

  • GregInFla

    If winning is hurting, maybe it’s not all that bad.

    • Thomas Crown

      And if you think Romney will get the same kid-gloves treatment from the press as Obama did, you need to consider medication.

      • GregInFla

        to never comment on your diaries. I did not ask for your help, Crown. I happen to believe that keeping the conservative message against Obamacare in the news (it will disappear once Romney is the nominee) where the media has to cover it.

        • Thomas Crown

          Glad I could be of help. In the future, you might want to use full sentences in your comments; they may provoke substantive responses that way.

          • GregInFla

            Remind me to never… oh well, what’s the use. Compared to you, Rush is the humblest of men. I guess you must be a doctor since you seem to know who needs meds.

          • Thomas Crown

            I happen to believe that keeping the conservative message against Obamacare in the news (it will disappear once Romney is the nominee) where the media has to cover it.

            This is a complex (complex-complex, actually) sentence that lacks a predicate. It is not complete.

            Rush is a fairly humble guy. He just has a stage persona to maintain.

            I just have a low tolerance for being lectured by people who cannot be bothered to finish their sentences when addressing me by my last name alone.

          • GregInFla

            It’s a new york thing. O’Reilly does it all the time. And congrats on your new career as proofreader.

    • acat

      She should have been able to wipe the floor with a know-nothing no-resume kid – a guy who Bill described as “someone who should be getting the coffee”.

      She wasn’t – in part because she punched down too early, putting him on par, and by not punching down hard enough, leaving him able to continue.

      I’m sure she had political reasons to do so, but the fact is, she copulated the rottweiler.

      Mew

  • Mike Ferguson

    We take the senate and keep a majority in the house, Romney gets whipped like a government mule in the general. If we don’t have enough votes to override his veto, Obama will spend 2 years vetoing anything sent to him, things will continue to deteriorate then in 2014 they will campaign that it is all due to republicans and actually win the house and the senate back. At least this is what my nightmares are about.

    • d_lamar

      it will be easy to blame the GOP for anything that Obama wants to make up. And of course the mainstream media (the propaganda arm of the DNC), the public will likely believe that all the next Dem president needs is new dem majorities in both houses.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I guess it is not an attack, but more like calling him a liar,

    “Liberal websites like Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, as well as Romney?s rivals such as Rick Santorum and blogger Erick Erickson have been buzzing recently about a 2009 op-ed written by Romney in USA Today. In the USA Today op-ed, Romney?s detractors allege that ?Romney advocated a federal/nationwide mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance.? This claim has been brought up again and again by Romney?s opponents, and while we here at Mitt Romney Central are certainly grateful for the increased traffic these websites and bloggers have brought to our site, we certainly feel it necessary to set the record straight.”

    http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/03/04/a-response-to-the-current-buzz-over-romneys-2009-op-ed-on-health-care-a-liberal-buzzkill/

    But then there is this, by the Democrats, because our side is too inept to put something like this out.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      I said that wrong, my bad.

  • Pingback: Claudia Mollere

  • Pingback: How To Get A Boyfriend On It Girl