Why America Should Not Support Moderate or Centrist Republicans in 2012

Among we conservative bloggers, there are many erudite intellectuals.  Some of these very bright people are capable of making very compelling arguments for positions  that are contrary to positions of most conservatives. Let me describe a recent case in point.

Recently a blogger, for whom I have the utmost respect and who definitely is one of the intellectuals among us, made a very compelling case for Mitt Romney  being the best bet to beat Obama in 2012. Although he admitted that his personal preference was for a candidate much more radically to the right of Mitt Romney, he said he was also a pragmatist. As a pragmatic he had to recognize that our constitution provides for a democratic republic and, therefore he and we should accept that the American electorate elected those Democrats to Congress and the next President was going to have compromise with them whether liked it or not. Now, I have intentionally over simplified his case and I ask you to trust me that he did indeed make a compelling case that Romney would be the best choice for the Republicans.

Although I do not pretend to be an intellectual, I too am pragmatic. It is my hope with this post that I can make an even more compelling case for conservatives and Americans in general not to support the candidacy of Mitt Romney. I do not identify the blogger in question because I do not have an argument with the gentleman himself but only with the premise of his case.

Let me start with this. If, and that is a very big IF, the two parties that make up our government had, over the last many decades, their centers of gravity very close to the center of the political spectrum. 1.) we wouldn’t have the government that we have today and, 2.) I would agree with the principle that in politics one must compromise.

I want to make a few of points at this time:

  1. All governments tend towards tyranny. Governments like to govern and the nature of the beast is to want always want to govern more. They, therefore, write more and more laws and regulations that put more power in the hands of the government and less and less in the hands of governed.
  2. Our Founders understood very well the nature of government. This is why the constitution they produced for this new experiment called The United States of America,  had very specific enumerated powers for the Federal Government and all powers not enumerated were left to the states and the people. We would do well at this point to recall the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin when asked by a woman what they had done for the people, and I paraphrase here, “We have given you, madam, a republic, if you can keep it.”
  3. Over the last many decades, our two-party government has consisted of  a Republican Party dominated consistently by centrist statist and a Democrat Party that for much of the time has been dominated by statist considerably  to the left of center. As a result of the inevitable compromising process,  the structure of our government has shifted more and more to the left or toward bigger more powerful central government; a more socialist government if you will.
  4. The structural changes to the left outlined in point three, has had some spurts but it has mostly been slow and methodical.  Since Barack Obama and the Democrats took control of the government in 2008, slow and methodical approach to change was abandoned in favor of full speed ahead to the left, to a new socialist American government.
  5. We all must understand one thing about all socialist states. They all depend on the wealth generated by capitalism. It makes no difference if it is private capitalism or state capitalism. And, no form of capitalism can long support an ever-growing socialist state.

Keeping these points in mind, let’s assess where we are today. The structural changes described above have our ship of state listing dangerously to the port side; to the left. But unlike a ship, where one could theoretically build structure on the starboard side; the right,  to counterbalance the structure on the port side and allow the ship to right itself, government doesn’t work that way. To right our ship of state, we must dismantle the structural changes that the Democrat and Republican statists have constructed over the years. It is the only way.

America, like much of Europe, is in a very perilous state. We are buried in debt and we continue to take on more debt. Growth in GDP is all but non-existent. True unemployment and true inflation have much of population against the ropes and world markets are saying they have had enough. The regulatory policies of this administration are making a bad situation worse.

In my opinion, if business as usual in our government is allowed to continue with the Republicans making compromises with the Democrats, our ship of state  will surely capsize. It is debatable whether we have already passed the point of no return. At the very least, we are at the tipping point.The elections of 2012 are not just another election cycle. The elections of 2012 will decide the fate of America.

The conservative base of the Republican Party does not yet have control of the Party. We must take control in 2012 and we must put a conservative in the White House and elect as many more conservative Representatives and Senators as we possibly can. We must continue that process in 2014 and 2016.

We can do it! Obama and company won a landslide victory in 2008 by a margin of a little more than 5%. The “swing voters” went with the Democrats because of the economy, in my opinion. The economy is now much worse. We can capture the “swing voters”.  Only by winning the Presidency and control of the Senate can we hope to begin the slow and dangerous process of dismantling the socialist structure of our government and pull our nation back from the precipice.

If we fail or if we win with the likes of Mitt Romney or if we continue to compromise with those bent on a more socialist state, America will never be the same again or at least not for several generations.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

54 thoughts on “Why America Should Not Support Moderate or Centrist Republicans in 2012

  1. I won’t support anyone but a true conservative in the primaries Jim, but if Romney were to win the nomination, I would have to vote for him against Obama. I don’t think that it will happen, I see people too angry with the way things are going, but you never know. I think the bigger risk is that someone turns out to be something other than what they pretend to be. That is one of the fears I have with Perry.

    1. I am so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. What I’ve tried to do today is to convince people that there is good reason to offer the voters a clear choice between two different visions for America.

  2. Moderate and/or Centrist Republicans are nothing more than RINOs, Republicans In Name Only, and are, in all truth and actuality, nothing more than Dem-Lite…

  3. I would hope we would all keep an open mind as we vett these candidates. It is good to hear both sides on all candidates, look at their original statements and go from there. To jump the gun sooner does a disservice to the conservative movement IMO. It is starting to feel that if one presents a counter point to a candidate, the response seems that it is somewhat personal attack. I was going to do a post on Perry, but I knew the response was going to be tin foil hat accusations. Pretty sad that some of us now feel we have to sensor our posts. There I had to get that off my chest!! Thanks you your understanding!!

    1. We should all feel free to express our opinions with passion, Bunker. Please do not let others influence what you feel the need to say. Yours is one of the important voices out there. Let us debate the ideas without getting into personal attacks.

    2. If the candidates that are out there cannot withstand scrutiny or our complaints, they are failures from the get go and that is not what we need. Each person that puts themselves out there needs tempered with fire from all sides in order to show the American people that they are worthy and have the strength to withstand everything that will be coming at them from both the media and the Democrats. I am not worried about what we say against them. If it is anywhere to be found the Democrats would find it and use it anyway. Handling with kid gloves is the worst thing for these candidates and the American people. We need to know that they have been completely vetted and that there are no surprises. As for those elites who have for years made the decisions for us, they were losers then and they are losers now and personally I am not in the mood to listen to the same losers who gave us Barack Obama. It is time for openess and sunlight to clean up this mess and if a few good people get brushed to the side, I am sorry but that may be what is needed to restore our country.

  4. Waiting, watching, researching. We have been burned so many times before, our skepticism is deep and wide. Civilization is at stake… to say the circumstance is weighty is an understatement. My opinion is that compromise is not an option. Romney doesn’t live up. Perry may, but we aren’t sure yet. Bachmann is still a conservative contender. We cannot live through another O term, or another Dem, or another RiNO. So we have only the choice of finding the best constitutional conservative we can find. God help us.

  5. Your well laid out scenario can be followed only as far as the primaries. Even then it can be argued that a primary selection that cannot win is a self-defeating exercise.

    Unfortunately, once you are presented with two final choices, and two choices only as our system requires (third choices are losing choices due to the winner-takes-all voting system), and one of those choices is Obama, the answer as to what choice to take is irrevocably obvious – regardless of weather you are moderate conservative, fundamentalist conservative, Tea Party, Libertarian, or whatever. You end with one choice only.

    The fight for that choice is in the primaries.

    1. A choice between a socialist and an almost socialist is not much of a choice. I hope we can do better than that. The people deserve better than that. If given a clear choice, the people vote to continue down the road that we are on now, so be it. I will be sad but I will have to learn to live with it.

  6. I feel that charged political rhetoric and blind ideology are impediments to solutions.

    “Moderate”, “centrist” and “socialist” are only words that tend to pigeonhole candidates and parties into little boxes that, when all is said and done, don’t really mean a lot.

    We need to break out of those boxes to solve our current economic problems.

    For example, insisting on no new taxes as an absolute is counterproductive. It is the Achilles’ heal of the Republican Party in 2012.

    As a pragmatist you understand there are two sides to the debt equation – spending and revenues. Adjusting both is generally the most practical way to deal with a debt problem.

    The economy is so bad right now that recovery may be impossible without adjusting both.

    Imho, what Republicans need to become junk yard dogs over is insisting that REAL dollar spending cuts of about 3X of REAL revenue increases for each year the revenue increase is in effect. In a law make it illegal to use a revenue increase for anything other than debt reduction.

    That is NOT what is in the debt agreement crafted by Speaker Boehner and signed into law by President Obama early this month! It has only minimal cuts now that project into a lot 10 years from now.

    We have to stop playing the 10-year “projected” spending cuts game like we are doing. That won’t get the job done. That is why we were credit downgraded.

    Bite the bullet. Accept ending what Democrats wrongly call the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” which will raise revenues by about $40-50 billion a year. If you got $120-150 billion in real dollar spending cuts each year to match then we have a start for making real progress toward solving the debt crisis. Under those conditions market confidence would return.

    The only caveat might be to adjust the tax increase further up the income ladder to affect only the “super rich” who earned about 22% of GDP last year. That would have no negative impact on job creation whatsoever.

    We do that and we have the basis of a real solution to the debt crisis.

    But that approach requires statesmanship from both sides of the isle.

    1. I agree that we have to begin looking at cuts as actual cuts, as in “we spent this much this year and next year we’re spending LESS” as opposed to “next year we’re spending not quite as much more as we otherwise wanted to.”

      The revenue side is more complex. I understand your point, however I actually like the Republican intransigence on this point now. First of all, Obama keeps talking about millionaires and billionaires, but the number for the tax hike is still $200K ($250K for couples). When you’re in that range, you ARE talking about small business owners. The problem is that Obama is deceptive and political. How do you negotiate with a bullshitter?

      The revenue solution is tax reform… which is exactly what the Republicans have put on the table. Let us never forget… revenues go UP when rates go down… particularly when loop holes are closed. Taxes have to stop being a political football, with carveouts and loopholes benefiting special interests and big political donors. Give us a level and clearly marked field so we can play the game (capitalism).

      My concern is that we have to find a balance between someone electable, while still having that person be conservative. The truth is that if we can take 60 seats in the Senate and retain control (or extend it) in the House, then whoever the Republican president is will have to be “negotiating” with his own party… we can make him MORE conservative than he’d otherwise want to be. Someone with coattails can help that happen. But if we put up someone who turns the moderates off, turns them against our brand, not only do we not win the White House, but we probably don’t get the 60 in the Senate either.

      My point being that we can put up with an electable but not pure conservative president as long as we have a staunchly conservative congress… the congress can move the president to the right. Preferred choice is a bonafide conservative that is electable who helps bring in the 60 with big coattails. Last choice is a person perceived as a whack job that returns Obama to the White House, limits the pick-ups in the Senate, and leaves us with a divided government–which really isn’t because Obama has already proven that he will legislated through executive fiat via regulations by the various departments.

      Rightly or wrongly, some candidates are polarizing and turn a lot of people off. We really need to avoid these people… Bachmann, Palin, Paul… We should, if at all possible also avoid the squishes… Romney and that other nothing from Utah… it should not be that hard to find a good candidate that is both electable and conservative enough (or preferably right on the money). Frankly, I’m not happy that Pawlenty has already jumped off. But, I’m thrilled that Paul Ryan is considering jumping in. I will personally work my ass off for Paul Ryan. Can you imagine a debate between Obama and Ryan? It’d be like a guy with a squirt gun in a water fight with a guy with a fire hose.

      1. I know that you and I agree on where this country needs to go, Pat. The difference we have is that I think the electorate, for maybe the first time ever, is ready to be polarized against the nanny state; against the statist quo sort of speak.

      2. Your points are well taken and supported. Tax reform can and should be on the agenda.

        Tax reform is a tricky subject. One voter’s loophole is another politician’s economic incentive. The trick is to figure out which are useless loopholes and which are legitimate incentives. That is not easy.

        And the whole process is screwed up because of political favoritism and paybacks disguised as legitimate incentives.

        There is always a flat tax or a fair tax, but those are radical changes to the tax code and probably couldn’t be voted in with the current political climate.

        We’ll probably be stuck with ending agriculture subsides and oil subsidies and maybe a couple other things. They will probably be offset, though, by new subsidies for green technologies.

    2. I could debate your position on taxes, AZ, but today is not the day. Your point about statesmanship is telling. I’m trying to remember the last example of statesmanship I’ve seen. At the moment, nothing comes to mind. What we we really need is something that is probably impossible. That is that the liberals recognize that their vision is not sustainable as a practical matter. So, barring that, we need to elect a lot of conservatives.

      1. I agree that a strong fiscal conservative can win. My point is that a strong fiscal conservative that also appears to be a bit of a whack job (not even necessarily in my opinion, but to the people farther to the center than me) is going to lose. Frankly, I guess we’re talking about two things: being too socially conservative, and being gaffe prone.

        I think the electorate is center-right (polls tell us this), but where we lose people is that those same people are more socially liberal. This doesn’t mean they’re for killing babies, or having a gay marriage on every street corner, or any of that, but that they have bought in to “women’s rights” meaning, among other things, access to abortion (hopefully in extreme circumstances). They don’t see abortion as a “killing babies” issue (sadly). It, like the view on gay marriage is “it’s none of my business” and the left has successfully sold the notion that their social views are unaggressive and questioning them is aggressive (this is upside down, but it is what it is). Weirdly, many of those people probably hold more conservative social positions than they actually espouse, but social conservatism is not seen as being very nice… accommodating, tolerant…

        So what I’m saying is that we can win with a fiscal conservative, but the farther it goes with accompanying social conservatism, the smaller our grasp on the vast center (center-right).

        Right now our issues have to be economic. We win every time. WE appear nice when we can explain that what we’re talking about is improving the economy, the general prosperity, and the opportunity for those who are now hurting. The Dems have only further diminishing of the American Dream and expansion of an unaffordable state going for them.

        In terms of gaffe-proneness, it’s something that is completely unfair and is almost 100% the result of having a left-wing press. But, that’s the world we live in and they are good at making people who are a thousand times smarter than they are look like idiots. Obama should be widely regarded as a complete moron by now, and Biden should be an embarrassment, but they get a pass. Bachmann will never get that pass, neither will Palin, and I am beginning to have my doubts if Perry will either. One thing you notice they have in common… social conservatism. It puts a big f-in’ target on their back. People will not be able to their their fiscal conservative message over the lambasting they get for their social conservative utterances.

        We need a fiscal conservative that stays on message. Paul Ryan!!!

      2. I see your point about social issue and the so-called social conservatives. As I wrote once before, social issue should addressed a the local level, IMO. You here much more of the campaigning than I do. Are the candidates you mentioned campaigning on these social issues?
        I’d love to see Paul Ryan get in the race.

  7. If only…IF only our two parties would govern from the center. After all it is the center that holds everything together. That’s not just good politics. It’s good physics.

    But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. People are beginning to realze they have regulated their freedoms away.

    Of course, since neither party believes in our constitution can you say Doom?

  8. See, I think sometimes conservatives ‘settle’ for the electable moderate. This is especially true when they feel like they’re in a position of weakness: “Oh, the Right is politically toxic right now, better go for the centrist.”

    The thing is, conservatism is in relatively good shape. More importantly, liberalism’s inherent failures haven’t been this obvious since Jimmy Carter or LBJ. Why should the GOP be forced to pick a Huntsman or a Romney this time around? These clowns might be electable–or they might be seen as just a pale imitaion of Obama’s blundering statism. If that’s the case, Obama probably wins and the country is well and truly boned.

    No. Conservatism, bold and unapologetic, is the way to go. Anything less is just stupid.

  9. Trying to out-democrat the democrats is a losing strategy.

    To back up what CoF is saying, imagine McCain had won the presidency. He would have cut deals and compromised with democrats, giving the GOP a 50% ownership in state-owned health care and the economic crash, further blurring the partisan lines.

    Hayek was so right to dedicate The Road to Serfdom to “The Socialists of all Parties”

    1. Than you for that support. To me, we are beyond compromising on ideology. We either pull back from the edge of the cliff or we go over the cliff. Did you here Herman Cain’s latest idea? Something he calls 9-9-9; a 9% corporate tax, a flat 9% personal income tax and a 9% federal sales tax. That is all I know at the moment.

  10. Whoa Pat and Jim. What you are missing on the social issues argument is that those issues are driving both entitlements and discretionary spending. 1.The left has no qualms in throwing their social issues in the faces of conservatives. 2 Their social issues have created the entitlements for the elderly, created victim status for minorities (blacks, gays, whoever.), 3. They now use the environment as a “social justice” issue. 4. Their “social issues” have bankrupted America through the “redistribution of wealth.”

    It is the left socialist (sorry if you don’t like that label) which created all of the programs that are bankrupting the nation. For instance Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to lend to non-qualified buyers, exploded further by Clinton. They used the mortgage industry to soak the tax payers for a “social” issue. It is the left who pushed Affirmative Action..a social issue. It is the left pushing “green building” into the construction industry as a “social justice” issue. It is the left who tries to describe gays as victims of the our cultural definition of marriage, a “social issue.” It is the left who uses the court system to legislate “social issues.” It is the left forcing DOT to spend road money on bike trails for less than 1% of commuters, i.e. socially acceptable modes of transportation only please. It is the left who has now forced insurance companies to provide free birth control and breast pumps for a “social issue.”

    I don’t think conservatives need to either stay out of social issues, compromise cultural values, or apologize for having moral views on marriage and individual responsibility. The left will spit in our faces for these views, but the left will take every penny we have to support their social (socialist) programs. So who is the “whack job, Pat? Maxine Waters or Michelle Bachmann? Barney Frank or Rick Santorum? James Clyburn or Rick Perry? Pick your poison. (and yes, I know you pick Ron Paul who is nowhere in this conversation.)

    You may not like the social views of Christian conservatives, but you might as well face it that the leftists are on your side on that one. As you can see below, the left has no problem addressing social issues…I guess you would just stand silently by and let those pass.

    Here are some of the “social” goals of the communist / socialist party re: America:

    1.Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

    2.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

    3.Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

    4.Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

    5.Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,
    substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

    6.Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

    1. I don’t disagree with anything you have said here, Cheryl. But, I have said before and I’ll probably continue saying to my last day is that not one of these issues are in the purview of the Federal government as I read the constitution. All these laws should at some point be revoked. Only the States and the people have standing on these issues. If I could have my druthers, they would all be resolved on a county by county basis. I do very much agree that no conservative should apologize for their moral and cultural values.

      1. My point is this. The communists in this country are not going to let you have your way re: federalism. They want central planning. So they will force every anti-American concept at us, up to the national level every time. They want amnesty. They want open borders. They want gay marriage. They want to ban gun rights. They want global government. They want their communist “Social Justice,” “Eco Justice,” etc. And they won’t let go…like a tick on a dog. Since all of these “social issues” are being addressed by the left on a national level, whoever the next president is better have a platform to deal with it.

        My first advice would be to take away all non-profit status to organizations who are preaching anti-American hate to our children. Here is an example of that: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2011/08/22/anti-americanism_disguised_as_ethnic_studies_in_tucson_schools (I hope you’ll look at that story.) I would also take away non-profit status to all organizations who are attacking property rights through land grabs for supposed “conservancy” projects. I would then take away non-profit status of any organization affiliated with the UN. This would not be censorship. They can operate on their own money, but I would not allow tax deductions for their operations or donations to them. I would not allow non-profit status for gay rights groups or womens groups or black groups or anything that doesn’t meet the equal protection laws of our country. That would be a start at least.

        The next president does not have a choice but to have a platform on social issues. The leftists have forced us to address those issues whether we like it or not. Federal policies are forcing the nation to have to deal with them. I’m with you on getting the Feds out …but until that happens we are stuck with it.

      2. I have tried without success to find a hole in your arguments, Cheryl. As much as I would like to see social issue separated from the fiscal, monetary and constitutional issues the I want to focus on, you have convinced me now that they are too intertwined and must be dealt with together. Thank you for being so patient in explaining your position to this stubborn old man.

    2. Cheryl, I didn’t say I agree with the left’s social issues. I’m simply talking about dealing with the middle of the electorate. I’m talking about winning, so that conservative ideals will have a chance to be implemented. When we focus on the fiscal conservative issues, we win the majority, not merely because we’re right, but because the leftist position has proven itself so clearly wrong.

      I absolutely agree that the leftist social positions are a (the) driver of excessive spending. Believe me… I became a conservative when I analyzed the unintended (if they were unintended… I doubt it) consequences of welfare. My thought at the time was, “They couldn’t have done a better job of destroying the black family if they’d re-instituted slavery.” Creating a dependent class is destructive of the dependents, and of those productive people who have to support them. The only winner is the power hungry politician who appears (based on results) to care not a whit for society or any individual in it, while outwardly appearing to be caring and compassionate.

      That is a social issue we can address, but come at it from our strength with the “middle” which is why fiscal conservatism is superior in outcome for everyone, including the poor. With the riots in London, France, and Greece, we have plenty of ammunition to talk about the disintegration of the social fabric when the state gets too big. The state becomes a Ponzi scheme, inevitably collapsing and landing on the dependent first.

      I would never argue that leftist crazies like Maxine Waters are closer to the mainstream than Michelle Bachmann. But they’re not running Maxine Waters. They’re running someone who hides his far leftist agenda behind a very smooth and reassuring facade. Unfortunately for him, he now has a track record (actually, he had one before, but they managed not to make it very public… this time it’s public). I don’t think Michelle Bachmann is extremist, but you have to admit she’s gaffe-prone (“Happy birthday Elvis” on the anniversary of his death? Doesn’t she have a staff?) I think she’s extremely intelligent and I think she’d be ten times the president Obama is. My point is that she’s a lightning rod and could disaffect the people we need in order to win so that the very ideals she espouses can see the light of day in government where they count. It’s great to have the right ideas, but it does you no good to shout them from outside the halls of power. I actually agree with Ron Paul on most issues (he’s a strong fiscal conservative and has been at the forefront of making the Fed an issue), but not on foreign policy. When he says things like we shouldn’t care if Iran has a nuclear weapon, I no longer want him anywhere near the Oval Office. I’m not an expert on foreign relations and I can think of a lot of reasons to care whether or not a terror supporting regime with suicide bombing tendencies that is not so calmly awaiting the appearance of the 12th Imam shouldn’t have nukes.

      So I’m addressing this strictly from the perspective of who can win. As I mentioned in one of my posts on this thread, I think that the Congress, with the tea party members in it, can pull a more moderate Republican president to the right, though I prefer a strong fiscal conservative. I was saddened that we lost Paul Ryan. I have hope for Perry. I don’t want a squish like Romney. Even a Romney, though, is far more likely to go along with a conservative congressional agenda than Obama, who will simply ignore congress and utilize both his veto pen and bureaucracy (as he is already) to implement his agenda. What I want is a solidly conservative, tea party driven, Senate with 60 votes and House with a strong majority. To get that, we need a top of the ticket that helps it come to pass, not one that turns people off. Any Republican has my vote, but I’m not in the middle… I understand everything that you said above… the people in the middle don’t understand that and need to be educated about the full extent of what the consequences of the mainstreaming of leftist positions are. But for now, they think they’re being “nice”, because 40 years of propaganda has told them that they are. Let’s win first, and educate second… let’s educate while WE have power for once. Do our educating where it’s easy right now, which is in purely fiscal terms, and we can fill in the blanks after.

      1. Thanks, Jim and Pat…for your thoughtful replies! I sent Jim and article from Town Hall this morning that addresses the education part of what you are saying, Pat. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/08/23/7_reasons_why_liberals_are_incapable_of_understanding_the_world

        I get what you are saying about educating the ‘middle,’ but if they lean liberal left, they won’t listen. This leads me to two endings. 1. The country fails and by doing so the middle learns the tragic lesson by punishing the rest of us. 2. We stand proud of our socially responsible fiscal policies and win….at this point, probably because Obama has proven to be the most destructive president in history.

        Agreed, Bachmann has made some gaffes. But I don’t see her as a “lightning rod” for standing up for traditional marriage. I think if we keep worrying about that sort of political correctness, we are sunk. I also wish that would not become a national issue, but the left forced it, so here we are.

        I have another friend who, like you is very worried about winning (getting Obama out of there), more than standing for ideals. In other words, work with the moderate candidate. At this juncture, it looks like Romney…no thank you. I don’t know how fast we can educate the rest of the public, but I know you guys are trying and so am I…with all we have to give it. Plus, we’ve compromised our Constitution straight out of existence…by worrying about winning over the left or the moderates.

        I’m not sure what “turns people off” as you are saying. Traditional marriage turns people off? Or sovereign borders turns people off? Or supporting private property rights turns people off ? Or the second amendment turns people off? Conversely, Welfare turns people on? Illegal immigration turns people on?? Black unemployment rates were created by who??

        I think the very loud and media connected leftists have convinced some that those things turn people off…but I also think that is a fiction conjured up by the left. (am thinking counter propaganda here) IMHO, the majority of Americans still support traditional ideals, and fiscally conservative policies, but are afraid to say so because the media makes it look like those are losing arguments. i.e. if you don’t support the muslim mosque at ground zero you are a racist, etc. I just think we need to stop being apologetic and fearful of standing up for cultural, fiscal, and social conservatism. But you may be right…maybe people don’t want to hear it or vote for that.

        We’ll see where it all goes. Here’s hoping we get the strongest conservative Constitutionalist and blow the socks off of the world by rejecting the global socialist assault.

  11. I am pretty sure that I read that same article about Mitt Romney and the author did make a compelling case but I am with you; I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and any compromise with the left by definition means less conservatism, and only a slower sinking of the federal ship. The time is now to elect a conservative, Barack Obama can be beaten but only if there is a stark contract between him and the Republican candidate.

  12. Interesting post and comments. I read the same post about Mitt Romney and for what it’s worth, I understand what the author was saying. The ultimate goal is the defeat of Barack Obama and he sees Mitt Romney as the best chance of accomplishing that goal. I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment, but I understand his pragmatism.

    1. I think maybe, Larry, the difference lays with perspective. When I look at our current economic condition combined with treats from outside sources; i.e., the fragile European economy and unrest in the Middle East, and with the policies the Obama administration continues to push forward and with their piling on of more and more economy damaging regulations, I see America as perilously close to disaster. Others look at the same thing and see a bad situation but not so perilous. The latter, therefore, sees room for compromise and wants only to focus on defeating Obama in 2012. I, from my perspective see the need not only to defeat Obama but to place enough solidly conservative people in office so that we can move America out of danger and that would leave little room for compromise.

  13. I’m not sure that the GOP really has a candidate who can defeat Obama in 2012.

    Would I vote for Mitt Romney? I guess so, but in reality I’d be voting against Obama instead of FOR Romney.

    My first priority: getting Obama out of the White House.

    I do think that if we manage to elect a real conservative in 2012, that conservative may well serve only one term. America has terrible days ahead of her — no matter who is at the helm for the next several years, possibly for the next several decades.

    1. I’m more optimistic about beating Obama in 2012. I’m less optimistic that we will elect enough true conservatives to have a chance of turn this country around. I agree that the road to recovery will not be short but it will be much longer if we don’t elect conservatives and the next president must lead the way.

  14. Any moderate or centrist “republican” is just a sock puppet for the federal reserve cartel that runs our country. Period. That’s why you shouldn’t vote one of those weasels. But we have to get rid of Obama, many cry! Honeychild, a moderate or centrist “republican” is paid by the very same people and gets his money out of the very same till as Obama, maybe just on the right side of the drawer instead of the left. The policies will continue and when you clamor for repeal they’ll have a canned bureaucratic answer on why they just can’t do that right now, seriously their hand are tied because of (fill in the blank with a bs excuse).

    If you get rid of the Federal Reserve, you get rid of the source of everything that is wrong in this country. It was only with the ability to print money out of thin air did we get Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which are the domestic entitlements that are bankrupting us. Having a Praetrorian Guard that patrols the world and not America, I know, I know they do it to keep us safe – a moot point when we live in a police state, but anyway, that military industrial complex warned by Ike would not have been possible without the Fed. Neither would the regulatory agencies like the EPA, which be fiat rule is going to make live under third world energy conditions because they say so. The horrible public school demoralization programs that Cheryl speaks are funded by these nonprofits that get their money ultimately through the Fed as they are funded by these big multinationals and bankster types that profit enormously through fiat money. The Fed IS the head of the snake.

    That’s why I’m going to be supporting Ron Paul, because he is the only candidate that actually knows this is how it works and has a rock-solid voting record of taking on the Fed and limiting government. I’m not wild about his lax immigration policies, but unlike Perry, he’s never voted to give illegals instate tuition. Besides, if we fix the Fed, or at least get started, then we might can move in that direction. I’m also voting for him because he is the choice of the troops, who donate to him more than all the other Republican candidates combined. Why? They know the score. I find it hilarious that all the other “conservative” candidates are doing their best Ron Paul impersonation – talking trash about the Fed. Plus, in a general election, Ron Paul has broader appeal than the rest of this central casting candidate pack.

    That’s my 2 cents in 1913 money, anyway.

    1. I agree with you, RM, that the Fed and fiat money are a major cause of the mess we are in. If we had a currency tied to some commodity, they couldn’t create money out of thin air and the politicians would also be limited in what they could do with fiscal policy. I just wish some one other than Ron Paul would champion this cause. I wish Paul could teach Perry about the Fed because Perry would be a better salesman. Paul, for what ever reason, has failed win over converts to his plan and he has been at it for years.
      Thanks for the great comment.

      1. I don’t know what news you’re following, but Ron Paul educated me about the Fed when I knew next to nothing about it. Perry is employed, yes I said employed by the same people who run the Fed. See his reaction or rather inaction on the whole TSA issue. He’ll say whatever he has to to win election. If that means he does his best Ron Paul impersonation talking about the Fed, that’s what he’ll do, but he will -in true psychopath style- forget he said any such thing, just like Obama and the war issue. We don’t need a salesman, we need a patriot. Ron Paul is a true believer.

        I fail to see how anyone can say that Ron Paul hasn’t won converts. Are we talking fellow congressmen? You do know that the vast majority are all bought off by the same people paying for Romney and Perry, right? They have cushy board directorship or foundation positions waiting for them when they exit political life. It’s not Ron Paul’s fault that his fellow congressmen are on the take. Ron Paul is singular in that he always votes his principles and never panders. That irks people on both sides. As for the general population, Ron Paul is almost singlehandedly responsible for driving the Fed debate in the United States. The last time he ran, there were dozens and dozens of handmade Ron Paul signs all over Knoxville. He has placed in the top three of every straw poll so far, which up until recently, the media used as big time indicators of support. Conservatives whine that their candidate can’t make it in these straw polls say Ron Paul is busing in the mob. They don’t want to admit that their guy can’t get throngs of young people, who know that their social security is as good as gone, volunteering and doing whatever it takes to get these ideas noticed. They totally gloss over the fact that the man can get over one and a half million dollars in one day from the grassroots. That’s worth more than all Mitt’s millions. The widow’s mite that the military donates to Ron Paul dwarves the other republican contenders combined and that shows where we’re at. I’m excited at voting FOR someone for a change. There are also liberal democrats that are coming over to Paul’s side that would eviscerate Obama should he be the nominee.

      2. RM, I don’t get US news down here in Venezuela and yes I was refering to his coleges in congress. I love Ron Paul’s fiscal and monetary positions. His position on Iran I think is nieve. But if he wins the nomination, I will support him.
        I do agree that Perry seems to be one that bends with the wind. We’ll have to see more.

    2. I often wonder what “conservatives” want. Period. Not project, or predict, or think can safely happen. What do you want in regards to government?

      I put the “conservative” in parenthesis because I don’t know what it means anymore. I hear bumper-sticker slogans and political platforms all the time, but what assumptions make up their foundations? It seems modern “conservatism” has lost its philosophical roots.

      Remnants like me are still fighting the revolution. After all, man has yet to achieve power over the state. The Progressive Era and New Deal battles are still being fought. Today. Yet year after year, my brothers and sisters in arms wave the white flag and make peace with the New Deal, or start fighting among themselves instead.

      Somehow, someway, in America of all places, the state is no longer the enemy, but my neighbor with a donkey (or elephant) sign on his lawn is?

      It’s time (long past time) to strike at the root.

      Republicanmother is right. End the Fed and we end progressivism. Period.

      It can’t keep going the way it is. It will come to an end. The money doesn’t exist. The police state creates social unrest. The economy is dying. And no amount of Tony Robbins tapes and “positive thinking” can change this reality. If we stick with the status quo … we’re doomed.

      What does it mean to be “conservative?” What are you trying to conserve? Are you a remnant trying to conserve liberty? Or a serf trying to conserve the state? Because that’s where we’re at folks. It’s too late for comromise. It’ time to take a stand.

      1. Absolutely! Some who call themselves conservatives seem to think the alternative is to go over the cliff rapidly with Obama or go over the cliff slowly with a centrist moderate Republican. Our goal, of course, has to be not to go over the cliff at all! I agree with your point about the Fed, which I made in the following day’s post.

  15. Romney certainly is the worst case scenario for the GOP. I have often thought that the the GOP would split if Romney somehow ended up the nominee, though if he won the primaries in a fair fight the possibility of a split would be minimized.
    The bottom line is that we need to elect more people like Paul Ryan from the top to the bottom or I am uncertain that the GOP–or the country–can survive.

  16. The worst thing we can do is elect a Republican that is not a real conservative. All this would do is cause the many “followers” out there to forget what a real conservative is supposed to be like. They will just start making excuses because the guy is a Republican. The size of the Tea Party would be reduced by 80%.

  17. “We must take control in 2012 and we must put a conservative in the White House and elect as many more conservative Representatives and Senators as we possibly can. We must continue that process in 2014 and 2016.”

    That is the key, the electorate has to want conservatives and actively seek them out and only vote for them. Unfortunately i’m not sure that the western world has had its fill of government meddling and socialism to varying degrees.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s