Veretax said:

As much as I like Newt at times I do disagree with him, and he comes with enormous baggage. I’d like to propose one of the following:

Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney

Huckabee – An amnesty supporter
Romney – An incompetent who issued an executive order requiring MA clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. There was no precedent or law that required him to do that. He could have just as well ordered them to NOT issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. The MA Supreme court actually had ZERO power to enforce their ruling so they told the legislature to act on it. But Romney beat them to it and they all just sat back with big grins on their faces!

Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney

As possible candidates sure there must be others too.

Sounds like he might be backing Steele, which is fine with me. We know racism will be thrown at the Republicans over the next 4 yrs, why not MAKE them throw that term at Steele and watch him eat them alive!!!!

On November 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm, lionheart said:

Yes, you are quite brave! Congratulations!

It is always interesting to hear someone with the views you espouse accuse another of marching in lockstep w/anything. But, of course, we all tend to measure others by comparison w/ourselves.

The same thing was said of people who listen to Limbaugh, and the effect is well understood — except to a Liberal mind emotion.

Liberals travel by herd instinct, mobocracy, and so they see everyone as following some pied-eyed piper off the lemming cliff. The actual phenomena involved with both Limbaugh’s show and MM’s board is properly understood as moving in the opposite direction. Not top-down, but roots to leaves.

Rush himself has talked about and accurately described this. It is usually included in the explanation of “Dittos”. A person would call and tell how his show has shown him that there were other like-minded people out there. After the next few, in order to save time someone said “Dittos”. It became more and more common. I was aghast when Rush explained this to those Libs who called and complained about Rush-bots. I thought, (again we measure others by ourselves) that now the Libs would change tactics, since they knew why we were finally making ourselves felt. It has taken all this time for them to understand what the Soviets & Chinese know: you control a people by isolating each member. That’s why they want the “fairness” back.

You think that because you are a creature of the herd, that we too are all just followers. Fine, glad to hear it.

Some of us have studied, and learned, and lived many years, using our intellect enlightened by experience to draw conclusions based on the data we gather.

Conservatism is the way, at least for a while longer. When Conservatism is really no longer the answer, then at that point we’ll have left the Constitution completely behind and the only recourse will be the spilling of blood.

Why such an unyielding view? Because The Constitution is a Conservative Document. Don’t tell me about what Liberal used to mean – it doesn’t mean that anymore, and hasn’t for a very long time. The 3 things granted by The Creator are Life, Liberty, and (originally) The Right to Own Property.

1. Life: because w/o that there is no reason for the other two.
2. Liberty: w/o that you are a slave, owned, a piece of property yourself and #1 becomes meaningless.
3. Right to Own Property: this is simply the right to keep the fruits of your labor. If someone can willy-nilly take those fruits you are a slave. Without this #s 1&2 are meaningless exercises in semantic games.

Now, explain again, please: where is this “Old fashioned” stuff wrong? You talk of mindless butt-kissing, but have you thought of any of this? If you have, why doesn’t it come out in your comments?

First of all, I’m not really a hippy, although I did wear my hair pretty long back in the days when I had hair.

Second, idiot seems a bit strong for my post… although I did call you losers, I meant it in the sense that the Malkin army of hardcore, lock-stepping right-wing robots are destined for permanent minority status (as in losing elections).

Third, I’m not a Kos troll. I am very conservative: small govt., balanced budget, control the borders, pro-life, strong military, etc. I voted for Reagan twice, Bush 41 twice, Dole once, Bush 43 twice, and that idiot McCain once (actually, I was voting for Palin and against Obama). There is nothing in my posts that contradicts this fact. But since I disagree with you on an issue of whether or not Newt is conservative, you resort to name calling.

Newt has not caved to amnesty or global warming. Since I don’t know you personally, I can’t make the blind statement that I am more educated than you on this issue… however, I know that I am well educated on the issue, so I know what he believes (for a synopsis, see Newt’s American Solutions “Platform for the American People”). I’ve read it thoroughly, and am convinced that he is NOT an amnesty suckup NOR a global warming alarmist.

What bothers me more than anything is the mindless sycophancy of the posters here. Michelle could do a 180 on any issue, and the same but-kissers that agree with her on this post would be agreeing with her on the opposite.

There I go, hurling insults again. But it looks like its a moot point- looks like Newt is not pursuing it (per Drudge about 10 minutes ago).

No hard feelings here- I still love Michelle, but guess what… its okay to disagree with her sometimes.

But look at the battle in CA for the Prop 8 amendment. Voting, alone, is not winning these battles anymore. The Judiciary will be deciding many similar issues. That isn’t what we want, but the left is thumbing their noses. They are better organized.

I think the Republican party had better choose its battles, at least for the next 8-20 years. And the abortion issue is not going to win over enough voters to decide any Presidential or mid-term elections in that time, in my opinion.

The differences in our society are not only along abortion lines. In fact, they are much broader. And we conservatives are losing in the trenches, aka the education of our children and young adults.

Funny, but I recall it winning two landslides for Ronaldus Magnus. Conservatism wins every time it’s on the ballot. It just hasn’t been on the ballot since 1994 and arguably even since Reagan’s last landslide.

Why do you think the Libs go @pesh!t whenever an overturn of Roe v Wade is in the off-ing? It would just go to the states, for a vote by the people! There are still too many unbrainwashed women… and a few men… who oppose abortion. That’s why your comment about alienation is so dead-wrong.

The Libs know this – their frontmen in a double-dozen thinktanks, non-profits, etc know this. They also know that Roe v Wade is bad law, and as such, will be a chink in their takeover. I’ll know they’ve succeded when they’re ok with over turning Roe v Wade and willing to bump it back to the states. It’ll mean they’ve tested and found enough brainwashed to be confident of victory.

You are as far off as can be, but the reason – because of false choices and patterns of thought laid on our citizens by 60yrs of increasing Liberal indoctrination – would take much more space to lay out than I have here. The only way to explain how the division between fiscal and social Conservatism is artificial and nonsensical, indeed a dualism used to divide our house, is to read “The 5000 Year Leap”, “The Forgotten Man”, the Federalist Papers, the Ben Franklin autobio, the other thoughts about Freedom, community, and society from our Founding Fathers.

Fiscal Conservatism descends from Social Conservatism. That is why the fiscal would be impossible w/out the social. Why do you think they went after the social underpinnings first? We find ourselves at this pass, but it’d have impossible to move us here if our social underpinnings hadn’t been eaten out from under us by the Termite Liberals.

Those issues don’t seem to be resonating with fewer and fewer voters over time (see the slim margin of Prop 8 in California for a good example). To continue pushing these issues (IMHO) alienates at least as many voters as it attracts.

I know this statement will be unpopular with many here, but I fell it’s the truth. Trying to push candidates based on their stances on abortion, or gay marriage, is unwise. Even when we elect a pro-life candidate, as we did with Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., they don’t change the status quo on the issue. . .so in effect the party has been alienating tons of voters for no appreciable return.