Conservative Republicans (Page 2)

What completely boggles my mind about Palin isn't Palin....it's her devoted following that think she is the second coming of sliced bread. I mean I have never been able to wrap my head around that one. She is so fiercly defended, so blindly followed.... FOR WHAT?.... pretty much lost hope for my country from that. I feel the political landscape is in such disrepair that we will never recover. Washington isn't the solution, it's the problem. They are leading us to ruin and laughing all the way to the bank while the voting public plays the Party's game.

Suicide for Republicans to pick her. She is even more polarizing than Hillary and I didn't think that was possible.

Hillary should run as a Republican.

I have more in common with Ron Paul vs. any other candidate.   Sadly, he misses the mark on what wins popular vote in this Country, style vs. substance. 

I can still remember when Sarah was introduced as VP candidate.   GOP friends were discussing up-side while I was cursing the decision.   I do think she has been blasted by the press and shown in very poor light, but similar to existing PResident, she simply does not have the experience needed for the office.   I want someone with private sector experience and so far they are few and far between. 

I think the problem on both sides of the aisle is that the primaries tend to play to the fringes (who are more likely to be politically active enough to vote in a primary) while the general elections will have to play to the center (alienating the "base" - which is usually actually the fringe) where the more general populace is likely to vote. It also opens up charges of "flip flopping", or pandering, but I think that is, unfortunately, the system we have now created.  Perhaps the smoke filled back room deals were not so bad after all.

Just need to change hats.

 Another thing with the primaries, the last one in particular was that it was over on the R side before they got to Texas. I never got a chance to vote against McCain.

I too think Paul Ryan will be in the race, his path to prosperity is going to get him that nod.  He may be in a VP spot but I think he's going to be in there this election.  Someone who isn't in the limelight for the GOP is going to come out of the woodwork soon.

If ever there was a time for Republicans to win an election it is right now, take a look at the congressional and senate elections.  People understand if you make $1000 a month and spend $1200 that it is not going to work.  Your credit cards will be maxed, house taken, and no one is going to lend you another penny.  I think America is in favor of some big austerity measures.

No ones going to vote for Palin

I too think Paul Ryan will be in the race, his path to prosperity is going to get him that nod.  He may be in a VP spot but I think he's going to be in there this election.  Someone who isn't in the limelight for the GOP is going to come out of the woodwork soon.

If ever there was a time for Republicans to win an election it is right now, take a look at the congressional and senate elections.  People understand if you make $1000 a month and spend $1200 that it is not going to work.  Your credit cards will be maxed, house taken, and no one is going to lend you another penny.  I think America is in favor of some big austerity measures.

No ones going to vote for Palin

I think that conservatism needs to be split into at least two.

On one hand, fiscal conservatism that focuses on fiscal responsibility, efficient government, etc.

Socially, I think the focus needs to be more mainstream or libertarian.

It is one thing to have a traditionally conservative mindset on values and personal life, but beating that drum to activate your base can do more to isolate the swing voters.

Who cares what the neighbors are doing if they won't be your neighbors after your house gets foreclosed?

The middle of the bell curve will sway to whichever candidate convinces them that their tax money will not be wasted (its all relative, I know), that they will be able to have and keep a decent wage, and they will be able to pay their bills.

To answer the OP's question....

As much as I would love 4 years of Tina Fey's satire, I wouldn't trust Palin to balance my kids' bank accounts.

Therefore, this violates my above-stated logic.

The problem is that neither major party is fiscally conservative.  They just want to exceed their budget on different things.  I can pretty much guarantee that all the top Republican candidates will want to continue military spending, continue feeding financial institutions / insurance cos, and simultaneously cut taxes.

Ron Paul doesn't fit that mold, but I also doubt he'll win the Republican primary, for that very reason.

Every great once in while, someone on this board gets it.

I strongly disagree.  Palin wasn't "edited" to look like a clown.  Did anybody here watch the '08 debates? If you didn't, just google it and check it out.  That "ra-ra-mavericky b.s." wasn't just a soundbyte...those were her words.  She just seemed to lack the ability to talk about issues in an in-depth manner.

The GOP's best hope lies in an economic downturn.  If the economy isn't in the crapper in '12, you could bring back Ronald Reagan from the hereafter and he wouldn't win the election for you.  (yes, mentioned at theonion.com news in '09 I believe):   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyKYiJkvg98

By the way, I really liked eabeam's post.  The smartest thing the Republicans could do would be to nominate a fiscal conservative and social  m o d e r a t e.  In the past, anti-gay sentiment and pro-life rhetoric helped carry elections...swing voters don't want to hear that nonsense anymore.  

The smartest strategy for the GOP is to focus strictly on the economy.  An isolationist message may also do well with independent voters who think (mistakenly) massive amounts of our federal budget are wasted in foreign aid.  

While I agree that Paul Ryan on paper is the best candidate for the GOP...how he can handle himself going toe to toe with a seasoned debater like President Obama will make for an interesting show.

Lisa nailed it on the head there.  If the GOP can find a candidate who can articulate him or herself in the style of conservatives like George Will or Margaret Thatcher, it could only help the GOP's cause.  The GOP's strategic brain, Mr. Karl Rove said it best.  Palin lacks the "gravitas" required of a candidate on a presidential ticket. 

Yesterday Sarah Plain explained that Paul Revere warned the BRITISH by ringing BELLS and firing SHOTS. Zero out of three ain't bad. She failed to address the obvious questions: 1) is she eating paste when we're not looking, 2) is the beastie boys version really more accurate, and the obvious question, 3) is she really smarter than a fifth of gin?

BTW, I'm a Dem but am generally tired of the way elections get won, and am looking for some - any - compelling alternative to the satus quo. Sarah is compelling, but in a TMZ kinda way. Not smart. No vote.

 Unfortunately the smartest strategy and the strategy they choose will likely be different! I bet they take the fat juicy slowpitch that is coming their way and f*** it up somehow.

Herman Cain, anyone?  Why do we keep hearing about the same old people when there actually are others making a run?

can someone find one of those funny picture with a "don't take the bait" or "bite your tongue" caption and insert it here.

Actually she got it exactly right. Reevere was captured by the British and did not get to warn the colonists. There were two other men who did warn them.

Reevere on the other hand warned the british that the colonists were coming. He intentially exagerated their numbers hoping to change their course.

Here are two independent sources:

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage-books.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=morris&book=american1&story=revere

http://www.masshist.org/database/img-viewer.php?item_id=99&img_step=1&tpc&pid&mode=transcript#page1 (refer to page 4)

This is jsut like the "Party like it is 1773" comment People (mainstream media) think they know history and don't. She was speaking to Tea Party members and her comment was about he Boston Tea Party which was 3 years before the Revolution, in ..... wait for it........ 1773.

Well at least they were leaving us our legs.

Honestly I did hear the quote, my SPORTS Radio station was playing it over and over again last night.  You would swear a fifth grade was giving you a recap on what they just learned.  No I would not vote for her in a million years, but I wouldn't mind seeing her try in the primaries, I have to imagine the Daily Show would be hilarious with clips.