TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, my faith is so tightly intertwined with who I am as a man and as a human being, that I am categorically unable to see the world any other way than through the lens and filter of my faith. To ask me to accept anything else is to ask me to deny my faith. I will not do that..........NOT because I am an extremist, but because I actually believe the things I believe, to the exclusion of those things which do not jibe with what I believe. IF I were any other way, I would be a hypocrite, and I despise a hypocrite as much as the next person does.

So did it bother you to vote for Mitt, knowing he is sort of pro choice when it is politically expedient?

I tell you it bothered me as a fiscal conservative to vote for him. I held my nose and folded like a wet napkin, and have regretted it since. I will never again vote for someone who wants me to compromise my beliefs, beliefs rooted in scientific economic theory. I have as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours, and I will never again compromise. If that makes me extreme, maybe we can get matching scarlet letters.

Upon reading this, it sounds like I am belittling your faith, I am not, but I am not going to edit it. I am a christian, but only lukewarm. I respect your faith and your fervor even if I don't completely share it. But maybe this highlights the problem with the GOP. Trying to get someone to bridge the gap between religious right and fiscal right somehow gets us a person who is lukewarm to both. I am sure there is no perfect candidate for both of us, but I hope (and you can pray) there will be someone acceptable to us both in the next election.

smoothoperator wrote:I think Balkanization is preferable to rule by a totalitarian socialist central government. Now that I think about it, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" sounds pretty good right about now.

simple answer, in my opinion, as to how we got here...... There's been a whole generation (maybe 2) that needed spankings instead of time-outs

discipline and respect for any authority (including God himself) has been thrown out in the last 40+ years


surv

Jaguar wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, my faith is so tightly intertwined with who I am as a man and as a human being, that I am categorically unable to see the world any other way than through the lens and filter of my faith. To ask me to accept anything else is to ask me to deny my faith. I will not do that..........NOT because I am an extremist, but because I actually believe the things I believe, to the exclusion of those things which do not jibe with what I believe. IF I were any other way, I would be a hypocrite, and I despise a hypocrite as much as the next person does.

So did it bother you to vote for Mitt, knowing he is sort of pro choice when it is politically expedient?

I tell you it bothered me as a fiscal conservative to vote for him. I held my nose and folded like a wet napkin, and have regretted it since. I will never again vote for someone who wants me to compromise my beliefs, beliefs rooted in scientific economic theory. I have as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours, and I will never again compromise. If that makes me extreme, maybe we can get matching scarlet letters.

Upon reading this, it sounds like I am belittling your faith, I am not, but I am not going to edit it. I am a christian, but only lukewarm. I respect your faith and your fervor even if I don't completely share it. But maybe this highlights the problem with the GOP. Trying to get someone to bridge the gap between religious right and fiscal right somehow gets us a person who is lukewarm to both. I am sure there is no perfect candidate for both of us, but I hope (and you can pray) there will be someone acceptable to us both in the next election.

Jaguar, I am not offended, and that is a legitimate question. Yes, it bothered me. That's one of the reasons I'm so PO'd about it now. I violated my own conscience for political expediency, and it isn't sitting well with me. Never again.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, my faith is so tightly intertwined with who I am as a man and as a human being, that I am categorically unable to see the world any other way than through the lens and filter of my faith. To ask me to accept anything else is to ask me to deny my faith. I will not do that..........NOT because I am an extremist, but because I actually believe the things I believe, to the exclusion of those things which do not jibe with what I believe. IF I were any other way, I would be a hypocrite, and I despise a hypocrite as much as the next person does.

So did it bother you to vote for Mitt, knowing he is sort of pro choice when it is politically expedient?

I tell you it bothered me as a fiscal conservative to vote for him. I held my nose and folded like a wet napkin, and have regretted it since. I will never again vote for someone who wants me to compromise my beliefs, beliefs rooted in scientific economic theory. I have as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours, and I will never again compromise. If that makes me extreme, maybe we can get matching scarlet letters.

Upon reading this, it sounds like I am belittling your faith, I am not, but I am not going to edit it. I am a christian, but only lukewarm. I respect your faith and your fervor even if I don't completely share it. But maybe this highlights the problem with the GOP. Trying to get someone to bridge the gap between religious right and fiscal right somehow gets us a person who is lukewarm to both. I am sure there is no perfect candidate for both of us, but I hope (and you can pray) there will be someone acceptable to us both in the next election.

Jaguar, I am not offended, and that is a legitimate question. Yes, it bothered me. That's one of the reasons I'm so PO'd about it now. I violated my own conscience for political expediency, and it isn't sitting well with me. Never again.

The problem with this particular "never again" is that there are several versions of conservatism, whereas the liberals/progressives all seem united in their cause (or in lack of conscience). It'll end up being social conservatism vs economic conservatism vs political conservatism vs religious conservatism vs progressivism.

I feel the same as you, but I think the best we'll realistically get is someone who will advocate a small federal government & fiscal responsibility and push the social issues to the states.

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, my faith is so tightly intertwined with who I am as a man and as a human being, that I am categorically unable to see the world any other way than through the lens and filter of my faith. To ask me to accept anything else is to ask me to deny my faith. I will not do that..........NOT because I am an extremist, but because I actually believe the things I believe, to the exclusion of those things which do not jibe with what I believe. IF I were any other way, I would be a hypocrite, and I despise a hypocrite as much as the next person does.

So did it bother you to vote for Mitt, knowing he is sort of pro choice when it is politically expedient?

I tell you it bothered me as a fiscal conservative to vote for him. I held my nose and folded like a wet napkin, and have regretted it since. I will never again vote for someone who wants me to compromise my beliefs, beliefs rooted in scientific economic theory. I have as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours, and I will never again compromise. If that makes me extreme, maybe we can get matching scarlet letters.

Upon reading this, it sounds like I am belittling your faith, I am not, but I am not going to edit it. I am a christian, but only lukewarm. I respect your faith and your fervor even if I don't completely share it. But maybe this highlights the problem with the GOP. Trying to get someone to bridge the gap between religious right and fiscal right somehow gets us a person who is lukewarm to both. I am sure there is no perfect candidate for both of us, but I hope (and you can pray) there will be someone acceptable to us both in the next election.

Jaguar, I am not offended, and that is a legitimate question. Yes, it bothered me. That's one of the reasons I'm so PO'd about it now. I violated my own conscience for political expediency, and it isn't sitting well with me. Never again.

The problem with this particular "never again" is that there are several versions of conservatism, whereas the liberals/progressives all seem united in their cause (or in lack of conscience). It'll end up being social conservatism vs economic conservatism vs political conservatism vs religious conservatism vs progressivism.

I feel the same as you, but I think the best we'll realistically get is someone who will advocate a small federal government & fiscal responsibility and push the social issues to the states.

I've personally spoken with voters in the Northeast. For them abortion is a litmus test. They won't even consider voting for someone who isn't pro-choice. And the media and the Democrats both understand how divisive social issues are so they go right after any candidate on those issues and then dismiss that candidate on the basis of whatever answer they provide. As long as we allow ourselves to get dragged off into the mire of social items, the focus remains off the problems with the Federal government's ever growing power.

I think this discussion is an illustration of one of the problems that the GOP is facing. We put our potential nominees through the wringer during the primaries, forcing the candidates to out-conservative each other. That makes it harder for them to move toward the center for the general. The Dems actually fight each other toward the middle so their message doesn't have to change. It's the political equivalent of eating your young & arguing survival of the fittest.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, my faith is so tightly intertwined with who I am as a man and as a human being, that I am categorically unable to see the world any other way than through the lens and filter of my faith. To ask me to accept anything else is to ask me to deny my faith. I will not do that..........NOT because I am an extremist, but because I actually believe the things I believe, to the exclusion of those things which do not jibe with what I believe. IF I were any other way, I would be a hypocrite, and I despise a hypocrite as much as the next person does.

So did it bother you to vote for Mitt, knowing he is sort of pro choice when it is politically expedient?

I tell you it bothered me as a fiscal conservative to vote for him. I held my nose and folded like a wet napkin, and have regretted it since. I will never again vote for someone who wants me to compromise my beliefs, beliefs rooted in scientific economic theory. I have as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours, and I will never again compromise. If that makes me extreme, maybe we can get matching scarlet letters.

Upon reading this, it sounds like I am belittling your faith, I am not, but I am not going to edit it. I am a christian, but only lukewarm. I respect your faith and your fervor even if I don't completely share it. But maybe this highlights the problem with the GOP. Trying to get someone to bridge the gap between religious right and fiscal right somehow gets us a person who is lukewarm to both. I am sure there is no perfect candidate for both of us, but I hope (and you can pray) there will be someone acceptable to us both in the next election.

Jaguar, I am not offended, and that is a legitimate question. Yes, it bothered me. That's one of the reasons I'm so PO'd about it now. I violated my own conscience for political expediency, and it isn't sitting well with me. Never again.

maybe a dumb question, im sorry if you take it as such ,impolite or worse it not ment to be , but does this mean that you wont be casting a vote if nither party confirms to what you belive in?

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, my faith is so tightly intertwined with who I am as a man and as a human being, that I am categorically unable to see the world any other way than through the lens and filter of my faith. To ask me to accept anything else is to ask me to deny my faith. I will not do that..........NOT because I am an extremist, but because I actually believe the things I believe, to the exclusion of those things which do not jibe with what I believe. IF I were any other way, I would be a hypocrite, and I despise a hypocrite as much as the next person does.

So did it bother you to vote for Mitt, knowing he is sort of pro choice when it is politically expedient?

I tell you it bothered me as a fiscal conservative to vote for him. I held my nose and folded like a wet napkin, and have regretted it since. I will never again vote for someone who wants me to compromise my beliefs, beliefs rooted in scientific economic theory. I have as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours, and I will never again compromise. If that makes me extreme, maybe we can get matching scarlet letters.

Upon reading this, it sounds like I am belittling your faith, I am not, but I am not going to edit it. I am a christian, but only lukewarm. I respect your faith and your fervor even if I don't completely share it. But maybe this highlights the problem with the GOP. Trying to get someone to bridge the gap between religious right and fiscal right somehow gets us a person who is lukewarm to both. I am sure there is no perfect candidate for both of us, but I hope (and you can pray) there will be someone acceptable to us both in the next election.

Jaguar, I am not offended, and that is a legitimate question. Yes, it bothered me. That's one of the reasons I'm so PO'd about it now. I violated my own conscience for political expediency, and it isn't sitting well with me. Never again.

maybe a dumb question, im sorry if you take it as such ,impolite or worse it not ment to be , but does this mean that you wont be casting a vote if nither party confirms to what you belive in?

Not a dumb question, and the answer is "pretty much."

The democrat party is evil, and I cannot vote for evil.

The republican party is fractured and therefore stands for nothing, and I cannot vote for nothing.

The libertarian party (like many democrats) is deluded into thinking that people care more about legalizing pot than they do about national defense, and I cannot vote for delusions.

I will continue to advocate for conservative principles as I see them, the rule of law, and the principles of liberty as understood by the Founders. If a given party's candidate is say a 90% match to my beliefs, I'll vote for him/her; but I will no longer give my vote to a candidate who is a 50% match but who is merely the lesser of two evils.......and that includes any third party candidates so long as those parties' platforms are not to be taken seriously.

One of my first political acts post election is going to be to register as an Independent. For those who care by the way, the difference in Ohio between the Obama vote and the Romney vote was more than made up by the Ron Paul vote. If those voters had voted for Romney, Romney would have carried Ohio, and Ron Paul wasn't even running anymore: The net effect of those votes, as I had argued all along would happen prior to the election, was to hand a center/center right state to a leftist candidate. Texas had a disturbingly shrinking gap between the republican and democrat vote. As the economies in leftist states continue to tank, more and more of those socialist SOBs are going to move here looking for work, and they are going to bring their culture and their politics with them. It has been argued on these pages by many libertarians that their vote for their conscience would not change the results of this state's electoral college votes because the state is solidly republican. That is going to change radically over the next 8 years, or maybe even the next 4 years if things get bad enough in other states, and it is ENTIRELY believable that in 2016 we will be a battleground state. In that case, the stiff-necked third party protest voters in Texas WILL hand this state's electoral college votes to the democrat candidate for president, securing the presidency for democrats for another 4-8 years.

If they do not care, then I don't care either. I'm not going to waste my time on the deliberately hard-headed. And that cuts both ways. If my party for the past 17 years feels like it has to compromise conservative principles in order to get votes, then I don't want to be part of that either.

Mark Alexander's letter of a couple of days ago to his Patriot Post subscribers, which I quoted previously in another thread (or maybe it was this one (I don't remember) gave me courage to fight on—but I am no longer willing to be someone else's pawn. I remain firmly convinced that this election was pivotal, and that we have just witnessed the tipping point in which the nation's slide into totalitarianism rapidly accelerated. When Speaker Bonehead concedes that Obamacare is the law of the land, he is saying that THIS is not the hill on which he and the party are prepared to die. And that has been the history of the republican party for a while now. There is no hill on which they are willing to die. There is no stand for which they are willing to be unpopular.

I know that it must get tiresome to hear me spout on about being 60 now, like that was some kind of magical number, but consider this: LBJ put in place the pieces of his "Great Society" back in the mid 1960s, and it took until the late 1990s to get rid of most of that entitlement burden—over 30 years. Now that I am 60, as long as allegedly freedom loving republicans are conceding that Obamacare is the law of the land and they will not fight against it, it is unlikely that I personally will live long enough to see the end of it. That means that, as MY end of life approaches, it will be some faceless bureaucrat bean counter who will be making the decisions concerning the value of MY life, and how much access I should be given to the medical care that might prolong it or improve the quality of it, because I will be too expensive....just a bad number. Obama has most likely condemned ME to an earlier grave than I might otherwise have faced, and I take that VERY PERSONALLY. So how long will it be before we have government sanctioned euthanasia of the unwilling, like Holland currently has...where faceless bureaucrats make the decision to end a sick person's life, without that person's informed consent? Since the republican party is apparently going to concede that ground, why should I give them any more of my money? And by the way, I gave more money to republicans this time than I have for any previous election cycle, for any party. I gave what was for me fairly painful to give. No more of that, I can assure you.

Since it is highly unlikely that any party will field a candidate or promote a platform with which I can be even mostly aligned, I'm going to refuse to play. Since I am apparently an extremist.....which is a meme I still am struggling to accept because 10 years ago nobody would have said that about me, and I haven't changed that much in 10 years.......I am told that I have to sacrifice fully half of what I believe in— the social conservatism half—by the libertarians and the republicans, or all of what I believe in by the democrats. Forum rules (and my religious inclinations) forbid my use of the kind of language which would adequately express my contempt for any of that.

So for all of these reasons and others, I've decided that I am going to pretty much ignore what any political party says or does from now on. I am going to be a registered Independent, and I will likely end up writing in whomever I think would be a great president, and it probably won't be anyone even remotely interested in the job most of the time. Beyond that, I will concern myself with local politics, because that is the only political participation where I can really have any influence, or hope to have things come out the way I would like them to. I equate this new political paradigm to when I abandoned pro football as a fan because I could no longer countenance a game played by millionaire crybabies. Conversely, I love high school football, and I view it to be the ultimate expression of the game. At all other levels, the game has been corrupted from what should be. Ditto politics. For me, from now on, all politics is personal, and all politics is local....and if it ain't local I'm not going to participate. I will continue to try and influence young people, and distribute the Patriot Post books, and to argue for certain positions or advocacies. I will continue to support the NRA. But I am completely done with being a pawn for any party.

Conservatives of all stripes had better get used to the idea that our day is done. The people have discovered that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. They have discovered that they can blame anything they find hard to swallow or cognitively dissonant on racism. The people are whiners, immature, easily led into deception and corruption, apathetic, and unable to see beyond the childish need for self-gratification. If I were compare the American body politic at this point to Freudian psychosexual development theory, then the democrats could be said to be stuck in the oral stage of development, the republicans in the anal stage, and the libertarians in the phallic.....but nobody wants to be a grownup anymore. And the more we slide in that direction, the more that conservatives will be tempted to get on board and get some before the pie is all sliced up and gone.

I'm so done with it. None of the parties deserve my support.

The Annoyed Man wrote:One of my first political acts post election is going to be to register as an Independent. For those who care by the way, the difference in Ohio between the Obama vote and the Romney vote was more than made up by the Ron Paul vote. If those voters had voted for Romney, Romney would have carried Ohio, and Ron Paul wasn't even running anymore:

TAM,

Ohio results, as seen here (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/r ... dent/ohio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), indicate "OTHER" in your picture not going to Ron Paul, but to third party candidates. If you add in all G. Johnson - Lib, R. Duncan - Una, and V. Goode - CST (unsure what Una and CST stand for) and not the Green party or Socialist Party, Obama still wins Ohio.

As for the rest of your post, wow. I kind of saw that coming but shocking anyway.

Oh, and the lie about how republicans need to learn how to appeal to hispanics? That's a load of manure. It turns out that hispanics don't care about republican immigration policy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/33 ... mac-donald
Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans
By Heather Mac Donald
November 7, 2012 12:20 P.M.

The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the wake of President Obama’s victory. Hispanics supported Obama by a margin of nearly 75 percent to 25 percent, and may have provided important margins in some swing states. If only Republicans relented on their Neanderthal views regarding the immigration rule of law, the message will run, they would release the inner Republican waiting to emerge in the Hispanic population.

If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.

....{snip}...

A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households.

...{snip}...

The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.

So good luck trying to sell a combination of family values and fiscal rectitude to hispanics.....particularly the fiscal rectitude part. They use social services at twice the rate of their anglo counterparts. They bear out-of-wedlock children at twice the rate of their anglo counterparts. They support gay marriage and other liberal social touchstones. So if you try to appeal to their alleged family values, you won't connect with them on that because that family values notion may have been true about hispanics in the past, but it is ancient history today, and that is the only measurement that counts. If you try to appeal to a sense of fiscal responsibility, you will be seen as wanting to take away the social safety net on which many of them depend. No matter what you do or say to change the party, to hispanics the republican party will always be the party of rich white guys who want to keep the brown man down, EXACTLY as it is perceived by most black voters.

The growing population of American Muslims went for Obama by 83%. The Asian population went for Obama by 80-something %. The black population by 95%. And a large chunk of the white population went for Obama too.....I forget the percentage, but it was significant.

The republican party is finished as a major party. What is going to happen over time is that as the republican party continues to shift leftward in the pursuit of elusive minority votes, more and more social conservatives like myself are going to split off from the party. Since we will not have a natural home in the libertarian party, we will likely end up either forming out own party, or joining some other conservative party like the Constitution Party. Eventually that third party will grow large enough that republicans will realize that they cannot win without forming coalitions—much like what happens in Israel today. (And by the way, with this election, if I were Israel I'd be seriously worried about the growing existential threat that is the Obama administration.) At that point, coalitions of republican, libertarian, and other parties may have some success against the democrats, mostly at the local level. But on the national stage, the next 20-30 years is just going to be a succession of democrat presidents, some more radical than others, but each one of them is going to take the country incrementally further to the left.

I keep playing this forward in my head, trying to imagine other scenarios in which conservatism could become ascendent, and it's just not there. There is no pathway to it that does not go through some kind of cataclysmic collapse of our national government for whatever reason to get there......AND NO, I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANYTHING HERE. I really don't want my country to experience the cataclysmic. It's just that progressivism and loss of liberty is becoming so entrenched that we're not far from the point where it is impossible to imagine progressives allowing conservatism to become ascendent again without a serious fight, and I mean a real, physical, fight. Not just at the ballot box. IF you don't believe that, look no further than the histories of China, Russia, the western European nations, etc. My goodness, the Greeks are rioting against their government because the government dares to attempt even limited austerity. And they're a small nation. Imagine 310 million+ Americans that roiled up. That's bad juju. So most people will be willing to suffer than to fight, and that is why conservatism is dead in this country. It still has a pulse and is twitching, but it is dying and all but gone; and there is no way back to it that does not involve a violence that most Americans are too soft and apathetic to endure......not when government handouts are just too easy.

For me, personally, here is the upside: None of this is a surprise to God, and His Word predicts much of what we have been seeing, and will continue to see over the next several decades. I realize that sounds crazy to the non-believer, but I'm OK with sounding crazy......now that I know that I'm an extremist. Anyway, I do take some comfort that God is large and in charge; and the final lesson in all of this for me is to stop putting my hope in man's better nature—because he doesn't have one—and return to putting all of my hope in Him.

Jaguar wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:One of my first political acts post election is going to be to register as an Independent. For those who care by the way, the difference in Ohio between the Obama vote and the Romney vote was more than made up by the Ron Paul vote. If those voters had voted for Romney, Romney would have carried Ohio, and Ron Paul wasn't even running anymore:

TAM,

Ohio results, as seen here (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/r ... dent/ohio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), indicate "OTHER" in your picture not going to Ron Paul, but to third party candidates. If you add in all G. Johnson - Lib, R. Duncan - Una, and V. Goode - CST (unsure what Una and CST stand for) and not the Green party or Socialist Party, Obama still wins Ohio.

As for the rest of your post, wow. I kind of saw that coming but shocking anyway.

This election cycle has been a big learning experience for me about the depravity of man, and how far we've already fallen. I admit that I was naive in continuing to believe that it was all salvageable. I plead only that my naiveté was based in hope, and knowing what could be if people were wise enough. I have no more hope for anything based on the wisdom of men. I cling to the Constitution because I believe it was divinely inspired, but I don't believe that there is a single person, from ANY party, who isn't willing to use the document for toilet paper if it will suit their ends to do so......and that the closer they get to the "throne," the more they are willing to do so to stay there.

I am hearing a lot of talk, often from folks whose opinions I respect quite a lot, about Republicans changing their message to appeal to a broader audience. This flies in the face of a quite a few facts about fiscal and social conservatism, as it ought to be practiced in what has been our Constitutional democratic Republic. The true Conservative message that the Republican party betrayed during the "Compassionate Conservative" days after Reagan left office is -- back to basics here -- limited Government.

The Federal government established by our forefathers should be limited to the exercising the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and no more. This allows States and other more local bodies the flexibility to cater somewhat to different ideologies, including more socially liberal policies in areas where they are desired/tolerated by the populace. Limited Federal government allows the business community to create wealth by staying out of the way, thereby creating a stronger, more resilient economy. This message, at its base, is far more inclusive and truly more compassionate than the view of Conservatism painted by the media and the Liberals that has been watered down and mired in social issues that should not be a part of any national contest. These issues shouldn't be part of the Federal government's business to begin with.

Mr. Romney, though I am certain is a truly nice, intelligent man with good ideas and good people skills, could never effectively carry the Conservative banner. His track record in Mass., including the healthcare law there, gives him no credibility as a true Conservative. As such, and speaking Conservatism as a second language, he could not effectively speak of the real benefits of Conservatism to everyone in the country.

Republicans, or whatever party emerges espousing truly Conservative values, need to effectively articulate the societal upside of limited Federal intrusion into everyday life. Government cannot and never will "correct" every "issue" manufactured by anyone with a chip on their shoulder and it is not the duty of Government to make life "fair" as some would lead us to believe. "Fair" is another way of saying "normal" or "mediocre" and not something to be reached for, desired or dreamed of. People who embrace personal, individual liberty and accountability will solve their problems, whereas Government either creates problems or makes existing ones worse more often than not. Conservatism needs to completely reset the dialog to show how truly poisonous to societyand the ideas of freedom and the American dream the liberal policies are.

I pray to God Almighty that this nation and the spirit of individual freedom that led to its existence will exist after the next four years, and that the people of this land will recognize the power we have to again make the USA a shining light for the world by taking charge of our own lives and pushing Government back to its essential and enumerated powers only.

TAM, I certainly respect your viewpoint and feel strongly aligned to it, but I still strongly feel that some good can come from choosing candidates that are more closely aligned (or less opposed, as it were) to ones own views even when they are not totally aligned. The Conservative cause needs every help to chip away (as Liberalism has done for the last several decades) on the American conscience and each opportunity should be taken.

God Bless.

first off Tam thank you for the reply. I have refused to be part of a broken sell out system for many years. I have worked for everything in my life, I took no grants, no goverment loans for my houses or my eductaion or medical care in my life and have no plan to. I dont belive in redistrabution of the things in my life i have fought to achive. Those that choose to live off the system I personaly have no use for.

Middle Age Russ wrote:The Federal government established by our forefathers should be limited to the exercising the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and no more. This allows States and other more local bodies the flexibility to cater somewhat to different ideologies, including more socially liberal policies in areas where they are desired/tolerated by the populace.

Unfortunately, the States lost all power at the federal level on May 31, 1913. That was the day they gave up the state's voice in congress, and allowed the people a greater say, all in the form of the Seventeenth Amendment. The legislative body as originally conceived, would allow one house to represent the people, and one house to represent the states. Once they signed away their voice in the federal legislature, any hope for respect for states rights were gone, and it was a matter of time before the issue of "state's rights" would be seen as just another extremest view.