Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time for US to Support Her!

Being well to the right of center myself I agree with most of what I have heard her say. Problem is, someone that far to the right can�t win the center and without the center Obama gets reelected. I would rather have a candidate who can beat Obama than one I agree with on everything.

I�ve heard something similar before, but it was from a liberal when John Kerry was running against Bush. It�s what ideologues believe and tell others.

My feelings exactly. Going for someone in the middle who can appeal to the middle is a recipe for disaster. We don't need someone who is afraid of being conservative, of scaring the middle. We need someone who, like Reagan, can demolish the great deceiver, the incompetent Obama.

I listened to one of Reagan's speeches the other day. He attacked Carter forcefully and without worrying about hurting people's feelings. He called out Carter as the abject failure he was. We need that attitude in our next Republican candidate for president. No Rhino's need apply.

So tell me when a Rhino has ever won the presidency? Never is the answer. Our best Republican presidents have always been conservatives.

I'm voting against Obama.

No candidate will beat BHO without STRONG support from independents and moderates. Nominate someone anathema to the middle and elect BHO. Simple as that.

I have not yet endorsed any candidate.

Depends on your definition of Rhino and conservative. Was Bush with his compassionate conservatism a Rhino or a conservative? Was Bush with his new Medicare entitlement a Rhino or a conservative? Then there�s the debt he rang up. If you want to call him a conservative that puts you to the left of me.

The Republican candidate doesn�t have to excite the conservative base; the chance to beat Obama is all that�s needed. What the Republican candidate must do to beat Obama is win the center. Beating Obama is the goal, if you don�t think so then you�re not just on the wrong page, you�re reading the wrong playbook.

If you are trying to further define yourself as an idiot, there could be no better way.

After two years of proving himself the incompetent impostor I knew him to be from the start, any who still openly support him are either traitors or imbeciles or both. You're in poor company.

+1

Problem is the nomination process favors the right and left wings of the political spectrum. What we really need is a new nomination process that gives equal weight to the center and doesn�t allow the same few states to dominate the process year after year.

You are just flat-out wrong , Spanky.You listen too hard to the "experts" , half of whom are guaranteed to be wrong.

Sitting presidents are defeated by circumstances more than by an opponent.The opponent needs to be disciplined in his [or her]message and inspire the base of his party to attract donations.

Kerry had that , but couldn't unseat Bush.The power of incumbency is about the first thing a smart political observer learns.

The "independent" voter is smarter than the straight party voters.He knows that the ability of a president to bring about change lies mostly in his power of appointments and the backing he gets from his congresspeople.Romney is weaker than most ANY of the other candidates in that area.

I am an independent and will vote against Obama , just like in 2008.

It sure would be nice - and might even jar some of my $$$ loose - if the "R's" would give me someone to vote FOR.

Bachman does it for me.

There are times I like the way you think, not often, but nonetheless certain times! Steve

Middle-schmiddle.

I've said it before here, and I'll say it again: No one can out-lib a lib. The libs will ALWAYS vote for the lib, and the conservatives will NEVER vote for a pseudo-lib. Hence McCain. I don't believe anyone had more middle support than McCain, but many of the conservatives I talked to refused to vote for him no matter how much I tried to sell the "Anyone but Oblahblah" mentality. Most said, "...if Americans are that stupid, they deserve what they get." And they were correct.

There are such things as Conservative Democrats, and they get just as excited about American values as any Republican. Hence Ronald Reagan. Gallop, years ago, took a poll of positions and revealed that over 80% of the country had conservative views, yet the elections are almost always 50%:50% or extremely close to it. We need another polarizing, humorous, just can't hate him (her) Ronald Reagan.

That said, I'm voting against Oblahblah ...I just hope I don't have to hold my nose, again, like I did for McCain.

If you make this your signature you will save time.

I don't know why people who claim to be conservative continue to say that a conservative can't win. A right wing true conservative who can accurately and passionately explain why true conservative principles work will win. The dedicated left will not be swayed but who cares. Show the people in the "middle" how and why conservatism works. Show the advantages of limited government and adherence to the Constitution. What is needed is a great communicator who truly believes in the greatness of the USA.
Well that's my 2 cents.

I have not yet endorsed any candidate :-)

Ernie

Exactly!! We need another Know-Nothing with dementia in the White House!!!!

Problem is most here communicate with most here, hence they do not see the Big Picture. There are many in the electorate who do not see the universe as we do. We of very Conservative demeanor are in the low minority, so to win an election against a popular incumbent it is necessary to send up a candidate that has a chance of winning.

This candidate will not be a favorite of many, if any, in this backwater yet he might defeat BHO. To that end I will endorse the candidate who has the best opportunity to defeat BHO.

I have not yet endorsed any candidate.

It's simply reality. Your way has been tried, e.g., Bob Dole, John McCain. Your kind always recommends that kind of candidate because they're not perceived as staunchly conservative, and therefore will supposedly draw more independent votes. Doesn't work. If the base isn't enthusiastic, no one else will even take a serous look. Reagan won two landslides because the base was enthusiastic. That enthusiasm got them talking to whoever would listen, and their enthusiasm became contagious. Independents started listening to the arguments for traditional conservatism and became converts, or at least willing to give it a try. Eliminate the base enthusiasm element and eliminate this force multiplier factor and lose the election to the democrats, who are always excited about their candidate.

Exactly. I was there and it's all still fresh in my memory. I was one of those Republican base members who was enthusiastic about Reagan's authentic conservatism, and I and others like me were eager to talk Reagan up to whoever would listen. You cannot pay for that kind of advertising. No amount of money can purchase it. It only comes from an enthusiastic base, and that requires a true believer conservative.

Sounds familiar. I recall that precise argument being made by the left when it looked like Ronald Reagan was going to become the Republican nominee. The left assured us that this would drive away the moderates and assure our defeat, that we'd have a much better chance of attracting the moderates with Gerald Ford, someone willing to compromise with the left, which attitude was referred to by the left as being an "adult." I was there. I remember it like last week. Reagan was generally perceived as a true believer in conservatism without compromise, and won in a landslide. The left just couldn't understand it, just as you don't today.

And what about Bush 43? Do you count him as a conservative? Dole and McCain lost because they were dull old men with no vision for the future, not because they were moderate. Reagon was close enough to the center to win over many democrats.