One attendee at the meeting earlier this week told CNN they wanted "to see if they could come to a consensus of who they might endorse."...That leaves our Ron Paul and Herman Cain.
"If you want to stop Romney you're probably going to have to have some organization [and] some money," the source said. "Somebody who's at 5% or 6% in the polls, and they endorse, I don't think that does any good."...
Participants were said to have narrowed their focus down to four candidates: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
২৩ নভেম্বর, ২০১১
"Key social conservatives secretly meet to stop Romney in Iowa."
CNN reports:
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৬৬টি মন্তব্য:
Let me cut off my nose to spite my face.
Well, why would they endorse Paul?
He is explicitly not a "conservative" He is a "liberal" (libertarian) and I think conservatives are more scared of liberals than of the Devil himself.
OTOH, he does seem to be doing very well without the help of conservatives, thank you very much.
John Henry
I wish I had said it but I got this from someone else:
Progressives are intent on driving the country to Hell in a handcart. Conservatives think that it is enough if they can get a bit more legroom and perhaps some comfy pillows and a snack on the ride to Hell."
Ron Paul is the only one who is saying "STOP THE CART!!! BACK UP!!!"
He may not be able to make that happen if he is elected. He is the only one who even says he will try.
John Henry
Went with Perry for 1, and I didn't see an option for 2 that made sense. Any reason to stop Romney is going to stem from the fear of Conservatives, social or otherwise, that Milton, once in, will double-cross them on any number of issues across the board, economic first and foremost.
As to John's remarks, everything past the line about Progressives goes in the, "Let me know when you start talking about Earth", bin.
WV "enessest" Something which is the most eness of all.
(I know...)
They want to run Perry against Obama instead of Romney? Really? {sighs}
Rather than Romney, this story is bad news for three of the four selectees. And Cain.
Meanwhile, pure CNN reporting from the grassy knoll on November 22nd: "Secret meeting" of "key social conservatives" to "stop Romney".
As if these "key" people can deliver the vote anyway.
Ron Paul is good on a lot of issues but he is dead wrong on defense, and Israel. Those are two huge factors. Plus the Governmental structure will ride roughshod over him if he is elected.
Not the case with Gingrich, who has a firm grasp of the issues, the lay of the land, the ins and outs, and the ability to give orders. Like him personally or not, he has shown, far and above, his ability to navigate the complicated waters.
It's time to stop being afraid, and stop 'compromising' in order to be liked - spending has to be cut, and drastically. defense has to be beefed up. Regulations have to be cut. the entire mental attitude has to shift in favor of honoring the people who do work and DO pay for everything - and who take PERSONAL responsibility, not putting their hands out for more. He has that spirit - we could do a lot worse - and are, with the wretch in the White House.
I guess what is bothering me is the idea that a strong Mormon is not a social conservative. I would suggest that underneath it all, we are talking anti-Mormon bigotry, which is so 19th Century.
Meaningless. This is an economy election. With regard to Iowa, the ethanol whores hold more sway than the social conservatives. Also, Iowa only matters if you lose it when you are expected to win or win it when you are expected to lose.
OK EDutcher,
Tell me what the conservatives have done to stop the progress of the handcart to Hell?
Tell me why I am wrong when I say that all they want to do is make the ride more comfortable and perhaps a bit slower.
When have conservatives cut spending? Not cut the rate of growth but actually cut spending?
In fairness to many who call themselves conservatives or who, like me get called conservative by others, I think many are not.
I think many "conservatives" are actually liberals but see no place else to go or other name to identify by.
We finally, this year, have a choice between liberal and conservative and many people who might have been conservative in other years are now realizing that they are more liberals than cons.
That is why we see Paul consistently running a strong 3rd behind the not-Romney of the week. That is why we see Paul tied for first in Iowa.
That is why Paul is able to raise almost as much money as all the other candidates combined (excluding Romney and Perry)
What do you think will happen if Paul DOES win in Iowa? Or even if he comes in a strong 2nd place?
John Henry
I was going to comment, but Rose saved me the typing.
What Rose said. Every word is perfect.
Social conservatives will have the best chance of success if they pick:
... Mitt Romney
John Henry: "What do you think will happen if Paul DOES win in Iowa?"
Then the Republicans will end up nominating a Republican, not a Libertarian; and Paul will think he has a real chance this time, and he'll run as an independent and split the vote.
And Obama will coast to a second term, which he will spend punishing those fat cat businessmen who remind him of his father, who abandoned him. And we'll all be right and truly fucked by the economic damage that will linger for decades.
"I guess what is bothering me is the idea that a strong Mormon is not a social conservative. I would suggest that underneath it all, we are talking anti-Mormon bigotry, which is so 19th Century.
"
I don't know a lot about Mormonism, but I've wondered the same thing. I've generally dismissed the view from the left that the religous right will be prejudice against Romney because of his religion, but perhaps I'm giving them more credit than they are due.
Mitt Romney is actually a much stronger social conservative than a fiscal conservative. I don't give a rats ass about social conservatism--without fiscal conservatism there will be no country left.
As a member of the California delegation of the secret cabal of social conservatives, I voted here for Perry. All the candidates have problems from a social conservative standpoint, but Perry, I think, probably has the least (but he has more problems from other standpoints).
Gingrich sure sounds pretty, but he's precisely the problem with politicians these days, much more liable to swing the direction of lobbyist money and personal gain. the Congressional Republicans from the 90s just about killed the party with their Lobbyists First! policy. Newt also, for social conservatives,is very untrustworthy in terms of his relational commitments. The man just sacrifices his commitments for his fancies of the moment. This isn't about the now debunked hospital story... it's about his overall commitment to marriage itself.
When it comes down to it, Newt talks a good political game but is on the side of the political and social elites. Social conservatives won't pick him because they'd struggle getting people to back him, so it'd be a lost cause.
Personally, though, I'm slowly settling into expecting Romney to get the nomination. But we California social conservatives are much more progressive then them Iowans.
So what you are saying, Pastafarian, is that this whole primary election thingy is a sham and a hoax on the American people.
Sounds like you are voicing a real fear that I have which is that if Paul actually does win in the primaries, the Repo powers that be will deny him his victory.
And this is a good thing?
Why?
Why not just save all this money and let the DC elites decide who they want to run?
John Henry
"we are talking anti-Mormon bigotry, which is so 19th Century."
Twenty first century bigotry, on the other hand, never talks about the bigotry, it just comes up with other reasons to excuse its bias.
Those 19th century folks were much more straightforward about their bigotry.
However, I'm not convinced it is bigotry. Someone's religious convictions are not a private matter unrelated to the rest of their life. It shows a commitment to a certain set of issues and approaches to history and reality, which can and should affect how I view the candidate's overall perspective on things.
And because I don't have to list the reasons why I vote for or against someone, using religion as part of the overall package of pros and cons is certainly a rational and acceptable practice.
They left Christine O'Donnell and Sharen Angle off the list. Must be another establishment RINO trick.
I almost voted "Bad, because it will help the social conservatism cause, which I oppose" but that vote takes some figuring out.
If social conservatives push forward a candidate that loses, that's actually bad for social conservatives. And Bachmann and Cain have no shot. They don't have the discipline required for a national campaign. Obama would crush them.
If social conservatives push forward a candidate that wins, that's good for their egos, but the number of substantial social issues on which the president is going to make a difference are very limited. No Congress now will ever vote a return to DADT. Remember that W's biggest social conservative victory was the entirely symbolic stem-cell research compromise. And he compromised.
Same-sex marriage is the one big issue that could be pushed by a socially conservative president. But it is a state issue. Yet Perry, the only social conservative with a chance at victory, is adamantly a supporter of states rights (his single most appealing attribute, in my book).
Social Conservatives need to win governorships and legislatures. The presidency is the wrong race for them.
"Someone's religious convictions are not a private matter unrelated to the rest of their life."
But the issue isn't whether or not Romney's religious. It's that it's the wrong religion, apparently.
John said...
OK EDutcher,
Tell me what the conservatives have done to stop the progress of the handcart to Hell?
Tell me why I am wrong when I say that all they want to do is make the ride more comfortable and perhaps a bit slower.
When have conservatives cut spending? Not cut the rate of growth but actually cut spending?
One point John doesn't address is that most of the time Conservatives had gotten a shot - and this includes Reagan, the Demos have controlled at least one House of Congress. Hard to make a dent when you have to get past the likes of Dingy Harry and Pelosi Galore. We've had some good proposals this time around, including Rand Paul's ideas, but getting them enacted is the trick.
The other issue is that only now the public is finally getting the message that the party's over and we either rein in spending or crash like the Euros - now they're finally willing to listen.
A lot of Republicans' careers were demagogued to death by the Lefties after offering up ideas to put Social Security on a paying basis or curtail welfare. This is why you had the rise of the RINOs - they figured it was no use bucking the Welfare-Industrial Complex and wanted to get some of the goodies for themselves.
So if John is conflating the RINOs with Conservatives, that's a false flag.
PS Since John's a Libertarian, let me ask when have the Libertarians cut spending?
I mean actually done it.
So far the Ronulans are powering his numbers, but how many budget or appropriations bills has he gotten passed into law?
Talk's cheap.
When we're talking about "social conservatives," 95% of that conversation is abortion.
More broadly, social conservatism is about sex. But the whole reason social conservatives are conservative about sex is because we believe in the family, and making a safe environment for babies and kids. And we are utterly hostile to infanticide.
Pagan sexuality leads to baby-killing. Orgies lead to baby-killing. Promiscuity leads to baby-killing. Running around naked in the streets, or saying the "fuck" word on television, we object to that because glib sexuality always leads to baby-killing. In fact I think it's rather stupid that our society punishes people for saying "fuck" on television, but baby-killing we say is private and look the other way.
In fact I think the nexus between saying the "fuck" word and baby-killing is so tenuous that I say that word all the time. I don't object to bad words. I don't even object to people sleeping around. Have an orgy, that's up to you.
But actual baby-killing pisses me off.
In my opinion, Mitt Romney is pro-life. I've read what he has to say. He's almost exactly where I am. I just feel strongly about it, and he's a squishy jellyfish who doesn't want to upset anybody.
So, like many people, I'm looking around for the not Mitt Romney.
Herman Cain is pro-choice. That's why he is out.
He says he's "pro-life," but he's using that term in the way that Ted Kennedy or any other liberal Catholic would use it. He's pro-life like Anthony Kennedy is pro-life.
"I'm pro-life but other people have a right to do abortions."
To a pro-lifer, that's like saying you're an abolitionist, but other people have a right to own slaves. You're squishy and shallow and glib, and we won't give you the time of day.
Ron Paul is pro-life. So it's interesting that social conservatives are dissing him. He's got higher numbers than Bachmann or Santorum. Why kick out Paul?
It may be a moral concern with Paul's isolationist stance. Social conservatives believe in human rights, and they are loathe to reduce all discussions to money. If there is a holocaust going on somewhere, women and children being raped and murdered, a social conservative may be more inclined to want to intervene in that.
But this idea that social conservatism is incompatible with libertarian philosophy is contradicted by Ron Paul himself. He is, in my opinion, both a libertarian and a social conservative.
I think Paul genuinely believes that American foreign policy incites people, and we should be smaller and more humble. There's a moral argument for that. (Paul has not made that case well at all, in my opinion).
Too many libertarians frame their arguments in callous ways that put off social conservatives. Paul is not like that. I remember the expression on his face when somebody clapped at the hypothetical of denying medical coverage to a man because he can't pay for it.
I don't think the exclusion of Paul had anything to do with abortion, or hostility to libertarianism. I think many social conservatives are totally cool with libertarian philosophy and the small government ideal.
Paul is just too out there in terms of foreign policy. He's way too isolationist. We like small, but not that small. That's my sense of it, that the social conservative disregard of Paul is similar to why any other Republican doesn't like the guy.
I'm a social conservative and I see them all as flawed, but Romney looks like a more likely winner. I don't see Newt as being competitive in the general.
This is an economy election.
I think that, ultimately, this will be a foreign policy and national defense election.
Obama and the 99%ers have done a decent job of demonizing fiscal responsibility to the point that promoting that platform will bring as many risks as rewards. (Mitt Romney pretty much looks like the generic picture of a 1%er, no?)
Not to mention that Obama is going to promote things like killing bin Laden and bringing home troops -- and deflect fiscal discussions to "tax the rich" and "pay fair share" (arguments that are difficult to combat with soundbites).
Not to mention that the world is on fire, and the chances that the fire will heat up or explode between now and the election are greater than anyone wants to admit.
In 2008, we focused on the wars. that was the obvious big issue. Then the economy crashed. There were some who saw the crash coming and suggested an econ-minded nominee. Not a bad idea to consider the same logic for 2012, foreign policy, and national security/defense.
----
(As for social conservatism, I think there is an element here that relates to believing the candidate is speaking from the heart rather than the partyline. Abortion, gay marriage, pfft. When Israel calls up the POTUS in the middle of the night to give a heads up that they're going to initiate a massive attack on Iran in a few hours, the "social conservative candidate (that is, apparently, being sought)" is more likely to have a strong moral center* from which to base their decision -- rather than solely considering war game theory and other cerebral/strategic whatnots. There is a difference between not trusting a candidate to stop flip-flopping and not trusting that a candidate truly -- deep down in the depths of their soul -- believes what they yammer about during campaigns.
* a "strong moral center" with which social conservatives can identify and relate to
Bruce Hayden,
I guess what is bothering me is the idea that a strong Mormon is not a social conservative. I would suggest that underneath it all, we are talking anti-Mormon bigotry, which is so 19th Century.
I'm calling bullshit. This is no different than, "If you don't support Obama you're a racist."
You assume that Romney is a "strong Mormon", and conclude that he must be a conservative.
I'm not sure what a strong Mormon is, but I know damned well that Romney is not a conservative -- not a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative, not a conservative period.
I don't give a damn what church he goes to (or if he goes to church at all). He's a big-taxing, big-spending worshiper of big government whose convictions change with the political wind.
Rose,
It's time to stop being afraid, and stop 'compromising' in order to be liked ...
This is Ron Paul. It is manifestly NOT Gingrich, who long ago chose to be liked by Washington insiders.
John,
So what you are saying, Pastafarian, is that this whole primary election thingy is a sham and a hoax on the American people.
If Pastafarian didn't say that, I will.
The elites choose who they want to run, and present their selection to us as if it were a real choice.
When someone they don't choose, like Sarah Palin or Herman Cain or Ron Paul comes along the Republican establishment, the Democratic establishment, and the media establishment combine to ruin them.
This "stop Romney" thing is reminding me a little bit of Nevada in 2010 where the Republican "insider" candidate, Sue Lowden, was taken down in the primary by "outsider" Sharron Angle and also by groups affiliated with Harry Reid which spent money on ads attacking Lowden. And so in the general election, it was Sharron Angle vs. Harry Reid. Needless to say, Reid is still in the Senate.
As a practicing Mormon, I've been hesitant to get excited about Romney because I don't want to support him because he's a Mormon. I want a better reason.
But the only reasons I can find are:
1) He's smart (Harvard, MBA/JD)
2) Business acumen (Bain . . .)
Given that Harvard grads lead us into this mess, I'm hesitant to give too much credit for that (educated idiots and all that), and I don't know how well the investment experience would translate into government, especially when we need to cut spending.
St Croix and other use the word "isolationist" as if it were a bad thing.
I believe that the only legitimate purpose of government, at any level, is protection of its citizens.
We could argue about what that word "protection" means but for the moment I want to focus on military defense of the US. I think we could all agree that this is a legitimate role for the Federal Govt to play.
So how do we best do that? Is it a "forward" defense where we fight our wars in other people's countries?
Or do we be more like Switzerland? Prickly like a porcupine in a way that nobody will attack us. But staying resolutely inside of our own borders.
I favor the second.
Until recently, 911, we had not been attacked since about 1812.
Did we need to go to war with Germany in 1939-Dec 1941? Were they a threat to us? Would they have become a threat to us? Should we have gotten involved?
Ditto WWI
Yes, after they declared war on us in Dec 1941, we had no real choice. But why did they declare war on us? Read their declaration. We had occupied Iceland with troops, we were bombing and depth charging their submarines. Our president had issued orders to the US Navy to "sink on sight" any German ship. We were supplying Germany's enemies with weaponry and on and on.
All with no Congressional declaration of war, BTW.
What has always seemed amazing to me was that they waited so long to declare war on us.
It is an illustration of exactly the type of unnecessary war our policies get us into.
I hope that when Europe descends into another internal war we have a president who has the good sense to stay out of it.
John Henry
Exactly what was "secret" about this meeting?
The Romney bandwagon has no wheels.
That leaves two conservatives in the top tier who are Perry and Cain.
This looks like an attempt to pick Perry as if the run up by Gingrich can sadly be ignored.
Gingrich may surprise some folks. He always does...give him a few days.
John Henry...Nuclear fission devices were coming and the one who won the race won it all. That revelation started WWII.
The Germans were building the long range bombers to reach the USA.
The same reasoning applies to Iran today.
If not for that difficult fact, isolationism would be the best policy.
You forgot one--
NOTA. Vote for Senor N.O.T.A.! (None Of The Above).
Mariner - "The elites choose who they want to run, and present their selection to us as if it were a real choice.
When someone they don't choose, like Sarah Palin or Herman Cain or Ron Paul comes along the Republican establishment, the Democratic establishment, and the media establishment combine to ruin them."
=================
The problem with your narrative is you assume someone of minimal knowledge and minimal experience or some rigid abstract ideology is absolutely electable - you close your eyes and visualize Christine O'Donnell in the Senate or Herman Cain in the Oval Office surrounded by people who know foreign policy prepping him on where Brazil is, and what is important to our mutual relations.
When voters look at these "everyday people" alternatives proffered from the left wing, or right wing, they pass on it - causing the instant conspiracy theories that it wasn't the voters that rejected Sharron Angle or the Goddess Palin - but those darn hoity toity Elites!
I hope that when Europe descends into another internal war we have a president who has the good sense to stay out of it.
One of the reasons we've avoided World War III is that we have stationed American troops in Japan, and Germany, and England, and around the globe.
All the countries where we have troops have avoided war, for the most part. Certainly we have avoided another World War.
We have been a very nice imperial power. We have no real desire to control Japan or Germany or England or South Korea or Australia. Getting our free troops is a damn good deal for anybody who wants under our umbrella.
This has been expensive. And a lot of countries have developed a sort of squishy mindset, which has made them useless in the fight against radical Islam.
But to isolate from the world and let people die at the hands of true assholes is shortsighted, and stupid. And to think you can avoid a fight by hunkering down and hiding is coward logic.
Until recently, 911, we had not been attacked since about 1812.
What was Pearl Harbor, a birthday party?
Christianity, by the way, calls for its followers to confront evil wherever they find it. And to do so non-violently, which means you are very likely to get hurt or killed. So we fall short of Christianity all the time. But to hide and cower, there is nothing pacifist or brave in that. It's pure self-regard, utterly selfish, and malign.
Apparently, they didn't meet secretly enough.
StCroix said:
But to isolate from the world and let people die at the hands of true assholes is shortsighted, and stupid.
So you were OK with Bush's invasion of Iraq?
You would have been fine with going to war against Stalinist Russia or Maoist China?
Hey, I know... Let's invade North Korea!
Where do you stop?
John Henry
you close your eyes and visualize ....Herman Cain in the Oval Office surrounded by people who know foreign policy prepping him on where Brazil is, and what is important to our mutual relations.""
Heh. Did you say Bra-zill? I know where that low-down sh*t be. Those sp*c mutha-f-ers have no idea who they're f-ing with, dawg
St Croix,
Re Pearl Harbor,
Touche. I really had more in mind the United States mainland.
We were also attacked in Alaska and the Philippines (A US colony at the time) by the Japanese.
We might also want to talk about why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not as blatant as what FDR did in Europe but he did keep poking and prodding them. There is a case that can be made that he was trying to goad them into attacking us. A case can also be made that he was not. Me, I am not sure.
Also:
I thought I was clear that if and when we are attacked, we need to fight back against our attackers. I am VERY strong on defense. As it Paul.
I might also mention that Paul (and Perry) both served in the military. Well, at least in the Air Force . When Newt, Mitt, Herman, and Rick were of draft age and sliding out from it.
John Henry
Mitt Romney is actually a much stronger social conservative than a fiscal conservative. I don't give a rats ass about social conservatism--without fiscal conservatism there will be no country left.
This! Most of the objections to Romney have beans to do with social issues. I don't even know what his position is on those things, but I know about MassCare. And I know Massachusettes is more commonly known as 'taxachusettes'.
Mormonism is just a red herring.
OK, this is just absurd. Bachmann and Santorum are just incomprehensible non-starters as alternatives to Romney. They've got no chance.
Perry might also be in that category too, but he really has no obvious "social conservative" credentials that I can see. He was a freaking Democrat until the early 90s.
So we're left with a choice between Romney, a guy who's pro-life, married happily to his high school sweetheart, and actually believes in his religion, or Gingrich, who's a multiple divorcee career politician with very little record for social conservatives to latch onto.
I'm not a social conservative, so clearly I don't understand what they're on about here. Picking Gingrich over Romney doesn't seem consistent with what I understand to be social conservatism though.
So Traditional Guy,
You think we should attack Iran?
As you say, the same reasoning applies there as to Germany in 1940-41.
Perhaps we should just keep poking and prodding Iran, as we did Germany. Eventually they will attack us. Perhaps they will even declare war on us. That will give us an excuse for war.
We should do it soon while we have them surrounded. Iraq and Afghanistan.
John Henry
I would suggest that underneath it all, we are talking anti-Mormon bigotry, which is so 19th Century.
You see that on the left all the time. If Mitt is our nominee, we will see a lot of really foul anti-Mormon prejudice. Mormons hate this, Mormons hate that, Mormons are weird, Mormons aren't Christian. It will be vicious.
There may be a few people on the right who won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon, but they have the decency to be embarrassed by this bigotry. The left is oblivious to their own hatred.
"You would have been fine with going to war against Stalinist Russia or Maoist China?
Hey, I know... Let's invade North Korea!"
Isn't the difference between WWII and your examples that we had two countries who were in the act of rolling over as much territory of the developed world as they could with tanks and bombers? If you want to argue that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq I'll hear you out, but when you say we didn't need to enjoin Germany or Japan, I dismiss you as an unserious person.
"So we're left with a choice between Romney, a guy who's pro-life, married happily to his high school sweetheart, and actually believes in his religion, or Gingrich, who's a multiple divorcee career politician with very little record for social conservatives to latch onto."
Hey, Gingrich married his high school sweetheart too.
One of the reasons we've avoided World War III is that we have stationed American troops in Japan, and Germany, and England, and around the globe.
This is why I've never been on board with all the 'bring the troops home' folks. Yes, it costs extra money to keep bases in other countries but they are there if we need them. They are strategic and it would be stupid of us to give them up for no reason.
Only the wackadoodle wing of a political party would support Santorum.
So you were OK with Bush's invasion of Iraq?
I've always been ambivalent about it. The leftist argument that the invasion was immoral strikes me as utterly dishonest. The whitewashing of the rape rooms, the gassing of the Kurds. Saddam was a vicious psychopath. They cheered in the streets when we took him out.
Invading the country was cheap and easy. But setting up a republic there, expensive and very hard. I hope it was worth it. I'm not sure, to be honest. Iraq certainly seems a lot more stable today than Afghanistan or Pakistan.
I think with a nice speech Obama could have really done something with the uprising in Iran. He voted "present." I found that really bizarre. Here's a guy who thinks he can move mountains with a speech, and given the opportunity, he didn't say anything.
A Paul Presidency would be like that, except more so. Not only would he not say anything, but he would not hinder Iranian attempts to get a nuke. For all I know, Paul might approve. "if we have nukes, why shouldn't they?" Drawing moral equivalencies between fanatical nutjobs and the USA seems to be a point of pride with Paul. There's a humility there, but also a kind of fatalism and a nihilism that I find really weird and off-putting.
I'm afraid that it's more likely that Paul's isolationism would get us into a war, rather than save us from one. If we're going to reargue WWII, can we pause for a moment and reflect on Neville Chamberlain's little trip to Munich.
Bachmann should do well in Iowa. She clearly champions those rural Midwesterners who feel embattled by social change and illegal immigration. "Lyin' Ass Bitch" is a potent symbol of who's on the other side.
Social Conservatives are the bane of the Republican Party, IMO.
Here's what they want to do here in WI. My favorite quote, from an author of the proposed Amendment: "we don't know exactly what it would mean". And yet they want it passed! Just trust us! I could certainly read it to mean morning after pills are illegal.
The recent fiasco in Mississippi has taught them nothing, apparently.
Romney is a big phony and Republicans know it.
He can pretend he is something all he wants it just is not going to stick.
Clouds.
Social Conservatives are the bane of the Republican Party, IMO.
HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!!!
"Social Conservatives are the bane of the Republican Party, IMO."
They have the potential to be the bane of the entire country if they can't see their way clear to uniting behind someone who can defeat President Downgrade.
Mormonism is just a red herring.
Bullshit. Read the history of the reign of King Brigham. Utah's still very conservative and mormon controlled. The LDS moralism--no booze, etc--remains an issue as well--. Apart from the actual religious aspects (heresy, more or less)..mormons are seditionists, in effect (wasn't just Pres Buchanan who thought so--Twain, HL Mencken, others did as well). "Stop Romney" is a rather reasonable and American POV.
Ann Coulter assured me that this search for an alternative to Romney is driven by the mainstream media. Are these "key social conservatives" part of the mainstream media, or just acting on its behalf?
People haven't been picking candidates based on their social conservatism credentials. Not this time around. Whoever these "key" people are, they must be pretty clueless if they haven't noticed that yet.
We've already tried Bachmann and Perry on for size and decided we don't like them. As for Santorum, he's only ever appealed to a small segment of social conservatives.
Newt is the only person they have left and he would probably be better off getting these endorsements without too much fanfare. People need to be thinking about the national elections at this point.
I don't think social issues will get much play in this election. People are worried about the economy, and they're worried about the deficit. There are probably some GOTV efforts in the South that will revolve around social conservatism, but at the national level it's irrelevant.
RealClearPolitics has a story suggesting that Palin may endorse Gingrich.
If this pans out, the race gets a whole lot more interesting.
Romney's flip-flopping has reached the point where I'm starting to think of him as a pathological liar.
I'm aghast that I might have to vote for that lying SOB. He lies when the truth would serve him better.
I might also mention that Paul (and Perry) both served in the military. Well, at least in the Air Force .
;)
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন