TexasCHLforum.com

Grillmark55 wrote:If Jeb Bush even THINKS of running, the Republican party is sunk. Come to think of it, what would be the down side of that?

Can you say permanent Democrat government? And no, I do NOT want Jeb Bush running. We need to block RINOs during the primaries.

G26ster wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is why Republicans lose. They believe that the perfect is the enemy of good, pretty good, darn good, and everybody else. "Boo, hoo, hoo, hoo! I didn't like Romney, he was to dull, too rich, too Mormon, too blond, too this, too that, not tough enough on immigration, not tough enough on taxes, spending, abortion, etc. for me, so I just sat home and glowered!"

The Communists formerly known as Democrats, OTOH, are so enthusiastic, even after cutting each others throats over the nominations, that even their dead guys get up and vote, and some of the live ones vote 2,3,4 even 6 or 8 times!

All your ideas, values, principles, hopes and dreams are WORTHLESS if your guys aren't in office, control the House, the Senate, the White House, the State House, as many as possible.

Do you think for one second that this country will vote for another Bush?! I don't care if he is perfection on every issue. The media has so completely destroyed that name that there is no way he would be elected. It is precisely because of this that I do not want another Bush. We cannot win with him. Is that pragmatic enough for you?

I think you missed the point. I do not believe it was an endorsement of Bush at all. I believe the point was that Democrats unite behind a candidate and VOTE!. Republicans, who do not get everything they want, pout, lose interest, and stay home. That's why we lose. Democrats run some of the worst candidates there possibly can be and still win, because they VOTE and don't stay home. I think his point was Republicans stay home if they can't have the exact person they want, and their reasoning is that the candidate is no better than the Dem running, but it never is true. Then we cry about it when it's too late.

G26ster, I'm with you and JALLEN on this one. I'll take a good enough Republican over a can't stomach 'em Democrat any day. We just need to help get better candidates in the races by utilizing the primaries.

mamabearCali wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is why Republicans lose. They believe that the perfect is the enemy of good, pretty good, darn good, and everybody else. "Boo, hoo, hoo, hoo! I didn't like Romney, he was to dull, too rich, too Mormon, too blond, too this, too that, not tough enough on immigration, not tough enough on taxes, spending, abortion, etc. for me, so I just sat home and glowered!"

The Communists formerly known as Democrats, OTOH, are so enthusiastic, even after cutting each others throats over the nominations, that even their dead guys get up and vote, and some of the live ones vote 2,3,4 even 6 or 8 times!

All your ideas, values, principles, hopes and dreams are WORTHLESS if your guys aren't in office, control the House, the Senate, the White House, the State House, as many as possible.

Do you think for one second that this country will vote for another Bush?! I don't care if he is perfection on every issue. The media has so completely destroyed that name that there is no way he would be elected. It is precisely because of this that I do not want another Bush. We cannot win with him. Is that pragmatic enough for you?

Just because he indicates he might contend for the nomination doesn't mean he would get it. Look how many GOP candidates did that this time. Moreover, hand wringing about specific candidates now is exceedingly premature. It is an eternity in political terms, and a long way up the greasy pole yet.

I am a big fan of George W, and his father. To me, they are the kind of men we need to encourage to serve in office. They bring with them the Cheneys and the Rumsfelds, and other solid performers, intelligent patriotic experienced men and women who can deal with the really tough situations thrown at us constantly.

Jeb is the guy who told his big brother it was OK to park Dad's car on the front lawn, and little brothers cannot be trusted. Seriously, the people of this country are too stupid, too self-satisfied, too easily duped, too vapid, to be able to pick candidates, and wouldn't recognize it if Jeb turned out to be the perfect man for the job. Frankly, after what that family has endured, I wonder why they would bother.

All of us will watch, listen and decide who might be the one, and our conclusions will necessarily be spread amongst a variety of contenders. But, once the decision is made, according to the rules of the party, etc. everyone needs to row the boat in the same direction, rain or shine, sickness or health, or the Commies will take over more and more, appoint more judges, make more rules, spend more and more money, buy more votes, let the borders flow and more besides.

The "perfect" conservative GOP candidate probably cannot win. Presidents win and execute by stitching together big coalitions of voting groups, not just libs or conservatives. Reagan won by emphasizing the 11th Commandment and the Big Tent, and was a tremendous communicator, but measured by conservative principles, was rather a bust. Government grew, the budget expanded, he spent, and did so to bribe the Speaker of the Democrat controlled House into going along with other things he wanted to do.

I realized some time ago that the battle over small government has been lost. Whether the war has been lost or not I can't say, but we have lost every big battle so far, the Wilson battle, the FDR battle, the LBJ battle, the BJ battle, and now Obama. Maybe we will be like the British who lose every battle but the last one!

We need a man who despises politics and has never held elected office - a veteran, without the allegiances that plague the career politician. We need someone who is willing to get his hands extremely dirty, and expose the usurpations. The real question is not which pantywaist neo-conservative or moderate should be coronated; it's how we get back to a United States that has an ideological commonality that trumps the threat of factionalism in the electorate.

Only one of the following will survive the coming elections - statism, or the republic.

Looking ahead to 2016 is certainly something to think about, but it pales by comparison to 2014. In order to achieve his agenda, the POTUS MUST flip the House Democratic. That's his goal at this point, to make the Republicans so distasteful to the public, that they win the 17 needed House seats in 2014. Public pain in the short term doesn't matter to the Dems, in fact it's important, because in the longer term, if they flip the House, they own the gov't lock, stock, and barrel (no pun). That's the only way to achieve their agenda. If the Republicans can hold the House, then they will be blocked. Lose the House, and all is lost. I would be more concerned on who the Republicans are running in House and Senate races in 2014 at this point, than with 2016.

Yeah, we can expect the media to join the Dems to crucify any Republican running for a seat. I'm sick already. What is wrong with the Republican party that they can't seem to field a candidate that can inspire voters? I'm tired of ending up with a candidate I already know will lose and yet have to watch the whole train wreck anyway. I will vote for whomever it is, but come on. We have a lot to lose. We have lost too much already.

TexasGal wrote:Yeah, we can expect the media to join the Dems to crucify any Republican running for a seat. I'm sick already. What is wrong with the Republican party that they can't seem to field a candidate that can inspire voters? I'm tired of ending up with a candidate I already know will lose and yet have to watch the whole train wreck anyway. I will vote for whomever it is, but come on. We have a lot to lose. We have lost too much already.

I think the biggest problem is, there are two types of Republican voters. You have the old line Republicans that tend to be backed by the party establishment. They tend to be big government, big spending, moral majority social conservatives. Then you have the new line who tend to be small government, small spending, and want the government out of their lives.

Unless the party can unite around a candidate willing to focus on the few things both types of voter agrees on, they'll continue to lose. I just don't see that happening. The Cruz and Paul types give me hope, but not much. The party establishment don't like them.

I've held my nose and voted Republican every election because I'm a one issue voter (2nd Ammend). Bush was nothing but disappointment from day 1.

G26ster wrote:Looking ahead to 2016 is certainly something to think about, but it pales by comparison to 2014. In order to achieve his agenda, the POTUS MUST flip the House Democratic. That's his goal at this point, to make the Republicans so distasteful to the public, that they win the 17 needed House seats in 2014. Public pain in the short term doesn't matter to the Dems, in fact it's important, because in the longer term, if they flip the House, they own the gov't lock, stock, and barrel (no pun). That's the only way to achieve their agenda. If the Republicans can hold the House, then they will be blocked. Lose the House, and all is lost. I would be more concerned on who the Republicans are running in House and Senate races in 2014 at this point, than with 2016.

I think this is an excellent deduction of the situation we face now. One election at a time folks.

G26ster wrote:

SATX-Scrub wrote:I'd throw Cruz's name into the hat too, except he was born in Canada. Crap. Someone, oh please someone, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd like to be wrong on this one!

Sorry, Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Yes, but to an American mother, and a father who was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution.

I believe he is a "natural born citizen" due to both parents being citizens regardless of where he was born. I could be wrong, and I am sure the dems and the antiquated media would push this relentlessly, but I believe Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Jaguar wrote:

G26ster wrote:

SATX-Scrub wrote:I'd throw Cruz's name into the hat too, except he was born in Canada. Crap. Someone, oh please someone, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd like to be wrong on this one!

Sorry, Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Yes, but to an American mother, and a father who was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution.

I believe he is a "natural born citizen" due to both parents being citizens regardless of where he was born. I could be wrong, and I am sure the dems and the antiquated media would push this relentlessly, but I believe Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen.

I believe the same myself. Here's a pretty good read on the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-bo ... zen_clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JALLEN wrote:This is why Republicans lose. They believe that the perfect is the enemy of good, pretty good, darn good, and everybody else. "Boo, hoo, hoo, hoo! I didn't like Romney, he was to dull, too rich, too Mormon, too blond, too this, too that, not tough enough on immigration, not tough enough on taxes, spending, abortion, etc. for me, so I just sat home and glowered!"

The Communists formerly known as Democrats, OTOH, are so enthusiastic, even after cutting each others throats over the nominations, that even their dead guys get up and vote, and some of the live ones vote 2,3,4 even 6 or 8 times!

All your ideas, values, principles, hopes and dreams are WORTHLESS if your guys aren't in office, control the House, the Senate, the White House, the State House, as many as possible.

Exactly.

The whole problem is this:

Democrats back their candidate no matter what. He could get caught murdering Nuns, raping their dead bodies and running a Child Porn ring on the side and Democrats will still vote for him.

Republicans on the other hand, will throw their candidate under the bus if he muttered "fiddlesticks" under his breath when he stubbed his toe back in 1962. They might even throw him under the bus just for ever stubbing the toe in the first place.

SATX-Scrub wrote:I'd throw Cruz's name into the hat too, except he was born in Canada. Crap. Someone, oh please someone, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd like to be wrong on this one!

Canada is closer to being the US than Kenya is.

bdickens wrote:

SATX-Scrub wrote:I'd throw Cruz's name into the hat too, except he was born in Canada. Crap. Someone, oh please someone, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd like to be wrong on this one!

Canada is closer to being the US than Kenya is.

Bingo

Jaguar wrote:

G26ster wrote:

SATX-Scrub wrote:I'd throw Cruz's name into the hat too, except he was born in Canada. Crap. Someone, oh please someone, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd like to be wrong on this one!

Sorry, Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Yes, but to an American mother, and a father who was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution.

I believe he is a "natural born citizen" due to both parents being citizens regardless of where he was born. I could be wrong, and I am sure the dems and the antiquated media would push this relentlessly, but I believe Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Unless it was a C Section delivery










Sorry - I couldn't resist

bdickens wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is why Republicans lose. They believe that the perfect is the enemy of good, pretty good, darn good, and everybody else. "Boo, hoo, hoo, hoo! I didn't like Romney, he was to dull, too rich, too Mormon, too blond, too this, too that, not tough enough on immigration, not tough enough on taxes, spending, abortion, etc. for me, so I just sat home and glowered!"

The Communists formerly known as Democrats, OTOH, are so enthusiastic, even after cutting each others throats over the nominations, that even their dead guys get up and vote, and some of the live ones vote 2,3,4 even 6 or 8 times!

All your ideas, values, principles, hopes and dreams are WORTHLESS if your guys aren't in office, control the House, the Senate, the White House, the State House, as many as possible.

Exactly.

The whole problem is this:

Democrats back their candidate no matter what. He could get caught murdering Nuns, raping their dead bodies and running a Child Porn ring on the side and Democrats will still vote for him.

And have!

Republicans on the other hand, will throw their candidate under the bus if he muttered "fiddlesticks" under his breath when he stubbed his toe back in 1962. They might even throw him under the bus just for ever stubbing the toe in the first place.

So... We all need to become Low-information Voters?