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

You sound more right than wrong.

Yeah sure sounds like our man

No offense but I'm getting tired of this bullschit theory because it isn't based on reality or proven by history at all. Why is it that people claim a conservative can't win? What's your proof? Who says the "middle" wouldn't vote for a conservative over Hussein? The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then? A friggin landslide victory with PLENTY of middle voters. Just the contrary to what you and others have claimed on this subject. We nominate a "moderate" like McCain and we lose to the most under qualified candidate to ever hold office. Show me ANY conservative in the last 50 years that ran on the republican ticket and lost- name ANY. You can't. And because of that, I will never accept this attitude ever.

I thought you were voting Obama. Oh...you weren't being sarcastic! Gotcha.

Never said a Conservative couldn't win. Reagan won because he was up against a very unpopular incumbent. That was then this is now. The Republican will be going against a popular Black incumbent who has the MSM in his pocket. Unless that Republican can capture a large percent of the middle BHO will glide to a second term.

Send up a rightwingnut and sit back to endure four more years.

Romney will be the nominee.

I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.

And just how was Reagan a conservative? He more than tripled the debt. He may have played the part of conservative, but remember he was an actor. His actions tell a different story. Of course, he had Alzheimer's during his second term.

Get used to it, fellas---- Obama 2012!!!

FOAD

It isn't a "fact". Hate to break it to you "Your Eliteness" but your opinion is just that, an opinion.

How can anyone consider somebody with a 40% approval rating a popular president???? Outlaw Patriot was exactly right about conservatives being able to win the mysterious "middle".

[ The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then?

Lets not pretend that Regan was all about tax cuts guys! He spoke well but he also was the king of expanding big government and tax increases.






http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

Conservatives love Regan for what they wanted him to be but not so much for who he was.

Why is it that no one can ever mention Reagan without having 10 people go off on a damn tangent about his record being conservative or not? The point was that no one here can name a conservative that was on the ticket and lost in the last half century- period. So, when people make this generic claim that we have to somehow cow tow to the wishy washy "middle" in order to win an election, it's based completely one someone's subjective opinion of a hypothetical election. So why should be sell out the conservative cause and sacrifice our principles because someone has a gut feeling that a conservative can't get any "middle" votes?

Romney is Obama lite. He instituted state run healthcare. He's supported ethanol subsidies that are depleting our topsoil for no good reason. He's personally granted same sex marriage licenses as governor despite his claim to oppose it. He's talked about supporting the global warming agenda. He lost to McCain who lost to Obama. He's now talking about reaching across the aisle right when the country needs a man of character to stand up for the opposition and draw a line in the sand.

He's a RINO republican from a blue state. The left wants Romney to run. They think they can beat the man because he doesn't represent anything radically different than their own candidate. And if he did win, they can manipulate him into giving into their agenda to at least a lesser degree.

I agree, but what the Democrats mean when they disingenuously suggest the Republicans are intentionally trying to ruin the economy is that what the Tea Party Republicans are doing is that, e.g., refusing to raise the debt limit and such.

Oh yeah. That will excite the Republican base alright. This is going to be Clinton vs Dole all over again with that loser.

Well said.

I'm always suspicious of folks claiming to be conservative Republicans with the recommendation that Spanky is constantly putting out there, because it's identical to the recommendation Republicans invariably receive from the radical left, i.e., folks who don't have the best interest of the Republican Party at heart. Makes me very suspicious indeed. Why is Spanky's advice to Republicans identical to that of radical leftists? I know why they give us that advice (because they're hoping we're stupid enough to follow it). Why does he, is the question.

You want to win? Then take the advice given to the Republican Party by the radical left and turn it on its head.

OK, that says it all right there. Those two sentences reveal that you are no conservative. A conservative understands that conservatism is a winning message because it makes sense once competently explained and defended. Reagan won because conservatism, competently explained and defended, is a winning political philosophy, and that because it's grounded in reality. Calling "rightwingism" (i.e., the advocacy of constitutionally limited and decentralized government) nuts reveals you as a non-rightwinger. You slipped, my friend.

He had a Democrat Congress.

For the current discussion, it doesn't matter whether or not he was truly a conservative (I say he was, but that's irrelevant for this discussion). The important question is whether the American people believed he was. They most definitely did (that was also the constant message from the MSM), and he was elected in two landslides.

Hawk, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes

Hate to break it to you but my statement is fact not opinion. Anyone who believes the Presidency can be won without a significant share of the "middle" vote is delusional.

BHO's approvals are in the 40's now but wait till next year this time after the MSM has has pushed him above 50%. It will be impossible to defeat him with a Ron Paul or other rightwingnutcase.---Spano, the Elite one.

I have not yet endorsed any candidate

No one denies that. You're railing against a straw man with that one. The only question in consideration is how that objective is achieved. History shows that your way leads to Clinton defeating Bush and Dole in two consecutive elections, and Obama defeating McCain. Our way leads to Reagan defeating Carter and Mondale in two consecutive landslides.

George H.W. Bush, Dole, and McCain were portrayed as, and believed to be, compromisers who would appeal to the middle. Reagan was portrayed as, and believed to be, uncompromisingly conservative. Reagan's approach drew in the independents, while G.H.W. Bush (term run number two), Dole, and McCain, failed miserably to do so.

G.H.W. Bush won his first term only because he was Reagan's vice president, and people thought they were voting for four more years of Reagan, i.e., uncompromising conservatism, which goes to disprove your theory (and the theory held by the left in general) that the Reagan phenomenon was strictly a personality thing. Only when G.H.W Bush proved to be a compromiser who could deal with the left and thus "appeal to the middle" was he defeated by a leftist Democrat.