Republican Primary

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m afraid that just makes todays conservatism tomorrow’s liberalism. This country isn’t getting more conservative if you haven’t noticed.

This is my analysis of the breakdown.

Conservatives are moral statists. Liberals are immoral statists.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There may be some truth to that. In same cases pro-status-quo is mistaken for conservatism.

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” —G.K. Chesterton

 

[ishii]

This is my analysis of the breakdown.

Conservatives are moral statists. Liberals are immoral statists.

Simplistic labeling? Sounds fun, can I join?

libertarians are right-wing liberals, socialists are left-wing liberals.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

The COUNTRY has consistently been Center Right. CONSISTENTLY. In fact more people self identify as Conservative now than during the 2008 election (maybe they grew up?).

What we do not have is the bully pulpit in the form of the mainstream media and increasingly our schools, particularly our universities constantly beat the Leftist drum. THis country made a HUGE mistake in electing Barack Obama. People who voted for him tell me he campaigned as a Centrist; and I am talking intelligent, thoughtful people who are reasonably well informed on political matters. I keep thinking they had cotton in their ears and only saw his race (historical!!!) his seemingly great oratory, and his attractive family (read The Obamas and you will learn JUST how important that family has been both in getting elected and when his numbers fall). Obama who likes to campaign but hates to govern turned everything over to the far Left and look what we got.

But the COUNTRY has not gotten less conservative, we just made a dreadful mistake and hopefully the rise of the Tea Party, the 2010 elections, and the strong objections to the HHS mandate indicate that people want to get back to the Constitution in Washington DC too…

Lisa

I think you need to define consistently conservative because if you are talking about the last 100 years you are wrong, but that would be expected since most people wouldn’t know conservatism if it hit them in the face.

True conservatives in this country from oh, the 1700s to the early 1900s would break out into a fit of crying laughter if you made the claim that they were consistent with todays conservatism.

 

[ishii]

I didn’t make this up, it’s a well known phrase and perhaps if one must flesh it out to make this clear, the point is that people who refuse to accept that, other than Jesus, perfection in anything is non-existent (spouse, candidate, child, house). The quest for perfection thus leads to missing a lot of positive elements and focusing more on the negatives. I think it’s counter productive whether we’re talking about a relationship, buying a pair of shoes or picking a candidate.

I am a real believer in the Buckley Philosophy: The most Conservative candidate who can WIN! Failure to consider that plan brought us Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. Need I say more?

Lisa

WFB was right, and so are you. When we nominate the ideologically “perfect” candidate - the true believer, non-compromise candidate, the liberal Democrat wins. We need to nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. Unfortunately, we are dealing with people who still think that there is no difference between the two parties - even after what Obama did with the HHS mandate (and what he did before). They get hung up on semantics and political labels. It is easy to regard everyone else with disdain, secure in the belief that your candidate is the only perfect one and everyone else who doesn’t see it like that is just…stupid. Such a belief is inherently elitist.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

WFB was right, and so are you. When we nominate the ideologically “perfect” candidate - the true believer, non-compromise candidate, the liberal Democrat wins. We need to nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. Unfortunately, we are dealing with people who still think that there is no difference between the two parties - even after what Obama did with the HHS mandate (and what he did before). They get hung up on semantics and political labels. It is easy to regard everyone else with disdain, secure in the belief that your candidate is the only perfect one and everyone else who doesn’t see it like that is just…stupid. Such a belief is inherently elitist.

Ishii

As opposed to the always compromising non believer?

Sounds like the liberal Democrat still wins.

 

[mitex]

Last night’s debate was horrible… Made me not want to vote and just stay home…

 

[ishii]

As opposed to the always compromising non believer?

Sounds like the liberal Democrat still wins.

Santorum’s compromise (for which he has taken a lot of heat by the true believers) helped give us Alito and Roberts. There is a time to hold your ground on principle, and a time for compromise. To not understand that is to live in a dream world.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

Santorum’s compromise (for which he has taken a lot of heat by the true believers) helped give us Alito and Roberts. There is a time to hold your ground on principle, and a time for compromise. To not understand that is to live in a dream world.

Ishii

Yup, there was a dream world…the ones who dreamed it up are a dead and gone now and those of us who still believe in it are watching as the nightmare unfolds.

Compromise does not lead to a more conservative Christian nation.

It leads to things like abortion and gay marriage being forced upon us all.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Just curious, what has compromise gotten you?

What do you think it will get you, or where even?

At what point do you decide nothing’s changing for the better? Or your part of the compromise means you give up too much? When is that? Will you fight for conservatism till the bitter end or change tactics and do things differently?

 

[ishii]

Just curious, what has compromise gotten you?

Nothing for me personally. It gave our country two great supreme court justices.

What do you think it will get you, or where even?

Hopefully it will get our country an oveturning of Roe V Wade in the next few years when one of those “compromisers” gets elected instead of Obama and nominates another supreme court justice or two who will team up with Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts and overturn Roe V Wade.

At what point do you decide nothing’s changing for the better? Or your part of the compromise means you give up too much? When is that? Will you fight for conservatism till the bitter end or change tactics and do things differently?

Well, sticking with the supreme court, I think we can still change things for the better by compromising - that is by electing a candidate like Romney or Santorum who might not be the most ideologically pure candidate. I think you know where I stand on Obama-care and the HHS mandate. The GOP guy would overturn those laws (with help from a GOP congress). Capital gains taxes? Think they’re too high? The GOP guys would lower them. Spending cuts? I think the Paul Ryan budget would be passed with GOP president and congress. Oil pipeline and drilling? They would happen with a GOP president and congress. If the senate remains in the hands Harry Reid, then the GOP presiden would be less effective - but that is reality. I hope this helps you understand that a GOP president and congress that is not perfect, is better than a liberal Democrat congress and president.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

Nothing for me personally. It gave our country two great supreme court justices.

Hopefully it will get our country an oveturning of Roe V Wade in the next few years when one of those “compromisers” gets elected instead of Obama and nominates another supreme court justice or two who will team up with Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts and overturn Roe V Wade.

Well, sticking with the supreme court, I think we can still change things for the better by compromising - that is by electing a candidate like Romney or Santorum who might not be the most ideologically pure candidate. I think you know where I stand on Obama-care and the HHS mandate. The GOP guy would overturn those laws (with help from a GOP congress). Capital gains taxes? Think they’re too high? The GOP guys would lower them. Spending cuts? I think the Paul Ryan budget would be passed with GOP president and congress. Oil pipeline and drilling? They would happen with a GOP president and congress. If the senate remains in the hands Harry Reid, then the GOP presiden would be less effective - but that is reality. I hope this helps you understand that a GOP president and congress that is not perfect, is better than a liberal Democrat congress and president.

Ishii

Good luck with that. Hope it works out better this time around than it has the last 50 years.

I sincerely hope it does.

 

[ishii]

Good luck with that. **Hope **it works out better this time around than it has the last 50 years.

I sincerely hope it does.

Didn’t like my response? I notice you didn’t comment on it at all.

Hope - don’t lose it, bbarick.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

Didn’t like my response? I notice you didn’t comment on it at all.

Hope - don’t lose it, bbarick.

Ishii

My hope is that you guys will be stop taking the medicine prescribed by so called conservative politicians after the next four years, regardless of who gets elected.

 

[Nec5]

I think everyone here should only be allowed to describe themselves using one word. Then you have to answer the truly important political questions that John King asked.

1. Thin Crust or Deep Dish?
2. Coke or Pepsi?
3. Window or Aisle?
4. Paper or Plastic?

Then you’ll truly know who to vote for.

 

[pnewton]

WFB was right, and so are you. When we nominate the ideologically “perfect” candidate - the true believer, non-compromise candidate, the liberal Democrat wins. We need to nominate the most conservative candidate who can win.

In this situation, I could never agree. I am called to be light to the world, not the dimmest glow that doesn’t offend others. We are to be the salt of the World and not sacrifice our saltiness for expediency. Instead of trying to conform to the world as much as possible, we need to be transformed as much as possible as we strive for sanctity, not mediocrity. At least that is how I see the issue of the compromise candidate.

And no, in the end, the liberal Democrat does not win, even if they win the election.

 

[ProVobis]

I am a real believer in the Buckley Philosophy: The most Conservative candidate who can WIN! Failure to consider that plan brought us Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. Need I say more?

Lisa, maybe just a coincidence but I find your naming of two women here to be somewhat interesting. Maybe this whole debate ultimately becomes a men vs women issue? I ask/say this after reading that all the first ladies since Jackie Kennedy have admitted to being pro-choice on the abortion issue. Whether this is completely true or not, I don’t know, but it seems to show that there are deeper issues than whether one calls himself/herself a conservative or not. We end up voting for a whole first family, not just one person. Just an observation, I could be totally wrong.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think everyone here should only be allowed to describe themselves using one word. Then you have to answer the truly important political questions that John King asked.

1. Thin Crust or Deep Dish?
2. Coke or Pepsi?
3. Window or Aisle?
4. Paper or Plastic?

Then you’ll truly know who to vote for.

Great post!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Last night’s debate was horrible… Made me not want to vote and just stay home…

Yeah. I don’t think the candidates were prepared for such lousy questions. Hopefully they learned something and can address the real issues next time. Santorum did a great job in his rant on what we should be focusing.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, maybe just a coincidence but I find your naming of two women here to be somewhat interesting. Maybe this whole debate ultimately becomes a men vs women issue? I ask/say this after reading that all the first ladies since Jackie Kennedy have admitted to being pro-choice on the abortion issue. Whether this is completely true or not, I don’t know, but it seems to show that there are deeper issues than whether one calls himself/herself a conservative or not. We end up voting for a whole first family, not just one person. Just an observation, I could be totally wrong.

Sorry don’t really understand what you mean. I think that Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell were two mistakes made by what I’d call party purists. They were both frankly embarrassing to the Republican Party and to the Conservative movement as well as being an embarrassment to the female sex in our quest to be taken seriously when running for office. I do not think any party does itself a favor putting up ill prepared candidates with a lot of baggage. Could say the same for Al Franken but the Dems in Wisconsin voted for him…although I still maintain a fraudulent election.

That first ladies were pro aborts is an interesting factoid. But let’s ask if any of these were truly women of faith? I think not. Were any of the wives of our current candidates our First Lady I assure you there would be a completely different tone in the White House. So it is not an issue of male vs female. If you suggest (and I do NOT think you do) that females are more likely to be pro aborts, I doubt it. Even if the consequences of a pregnancy land more on the female than the male, I still think our nature is not to kill babies. It is only the propaganda of the Left that has dispensed with the need for a conscious

Lisa