When people ask me who I am backing, I say I don’t care. I am backing the Republican Party candidate because Obama is so terrifically bad. He is the worst President in a generation, and may be the worst President since 1900.
Via Instapundit. Once our party settles on a nominee, we’re going to have to rally around him for that man is the individual who will have the best (indeed, the only) chance of preventing Barack Obama from serving a second term. And if his first term is any guide; his reelection will keep the federal government on a holiday from the nation’s real problems.
As president, Obama has so far failed to put forward a budget which keeps spending in check — and to propose a plan to reform entitlements to prevent their accelerating costs from pushing the federal government even further into debt. His jobs bill is a mere repacking of a program which has been tried and failed.
Not all the Republican candidates have signaled an understanding of the tasks facing our next president, but there are leaders, with powerful positions in both houses of Congress, who know what’s at stake. And they will have far more influence in Washington with a Republican chief executive.
Absolutely. We have no option but to vote “republican”. Fortunately, Obama is so horrific that everyone I have spoken to ( independendents included) agree. We can vote for a “person” in 4 more years, we need to use the ipacec this go around!
I live in the midwest, I just pray the coasts don’t kill us. If Obama gets 4 more all bets are off.
Fortunately, it is not Anybody But Obama because those left standing are a far better choice and a real chance for recovery than four more years of Obamunist destruction.
I watched the forum Huckleberry conducted on Fox with three state Attorneys General as questioners and I was amazed at the scope and depth of these candidates. Huntsman was not involved. But even Ron Paul was induced to make sense on many of his prickly promises.
I will get behind the Republican candidate who becomes the nominee with a steadfast determination to see him elected and to send Obama packing. My preference, however, if that the Republican nominee be one with a track record of conservative principles.
someone was commenting somewhere about if Romney gets the nomination….. said if he does, he will go in and pull the lever for Romney, but it will not be a vote for Romney. It will be a vote against Obama. We need to back whoever gets the nomination, for anyone will be better than what we have in there now
Anyone but Obama?
Probably, unless Bachmann or Paul’s involved.
And definitely Hillary if it’s Bachmann vs. Clinton.
Neither principles nor Party solidarity involve a suicide pact.
Food for thought.
Some moderate Democrats and Republicans voted for Obama because “he wasn’t Bush”, and look how that turned out.
Meanwhile, we have Big Government Conservatism on full display. So I guess if any of these three win, we’ll have a Marriage Czar?
And you wonder why I have such contempt for social conservatism.
I agree, sadly. That doesn’t mean it won’t physically hurt to vote for Romney though….
Love the title of that link, Sonic: “….to investigate LGBT community”.
Which blows up when you actually see what the pledge says.
establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed
Which is rather entertaining, since the LGBT community has been at the forefront of demanding that religious organizations be investigated and documented as harassing and threatening gay and lesbian people for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections.
It appears that the LGBT community is having a screaming fit that anyone else would demand – dare we say it? – equal treatment.
Hence, I don’t have a problem with this. Conservatives should not be required to unilaterally disarm. If the LGBT community doesn’t want to be investigated, it shouldn’t be demanding investigations of others. Since it has and is demanding laws and prosecutions to punish people who dare disagree with it, it can have the full force back against it.
Conservativism is equal enforcement of the law. The LGBT community is anti-equal enforcement.
As your orgaization is a hardcore social liberal organization, what are you going to do when Gingrich takes down Romeny in order to reestablish his credibility with the conservative base? He knows that maintaining illegal immigration/potential amnesty and continued wage suppression while ignoring commodity price inflation will not endear himself to the working class, let alone the conservative base. Are you prepared to cast a vote for Santorum/Gingrich or Santorum/West? I’m betting as true libertarians, you will not cast your vote for a federalist/conservative. Fortunately, hardcore social liberals, whether progressives/libertarians, make up a minority of the voting electorate. “Don’t move to the middle.Let the middle come to you.” Newt Gingrich 2011
Even if Romney, Gingrich, or even Huntsman isn’t exactly what we would like as a Republican nominee… aren’t they good enough? I think conservatives have become like beaten dogs, just waiting for the next betrayal (thank you Bush and McLandslide), attacking reflexively because… we just expect our leaders to betray us. And we’re usually right.
ABO…I agree 100%…right now I like Romney…he is polling the best with independents without whom no candidate will win IMO. Newt is just not polling well with indies at this point in time…
Sonic – I think the pledge is silly and using the term “investigate” is a poor choice of words.
I do support a climate where people can express their views without threat of intimidation. The Prop 8 campaign was shameful… I lived in San Diego county at the time and voted no on 8 but I was ashamed at the gay assault on the LDS church, picketing a small restaurant in LA and some homo who punched out an elderly man (in SD or OC) just to mention a few outrages.
At this point I’d vote for anyone the GOP is likely to nominate. I’d vote for a yellow dog.
But can we please get the Senate? Don’t forget the Senate!
Herman Cain’s “supension” of his campaign has put this into perspective for me.
From Sonicfrog’s link:
It’s about time. This is what the part of the pledge quoted by the article says:
Maybe I’m just naïve, but what exactly is so horrible and hateful about that? I would be uncomfortable with the power given to government, but it’s about time the untouchable gay community loses its immunity from scrutiny. And if the rights of Christians to “organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage” is being threatened by overzealous gay activists, there’s something wrong. I’m not sure this pledge and what it entails is the best option, but it’s a possible solution and I don’t see what is so deserving of incendiary remarks about it.
My thoughts exactly…
The suggestion of a Marriage Czar and paranoia over social conservatism and the imagined crusade “….to investigate LGBT community” brings up a basic point. Are we campaigning for the freedom “of religion” or the freedom “from religion”?
We’ll get the senate. Palin is going to out and endorse house and senate candidates like she did in 2010 and pull whomever the GOP nominee is to the right. Social issues are going to be irrelevant in 2012.
Not to the elitist team killers, apparently not. However, team killers are usually childish little shits and I’ve no doubt they change much.
NDT… Loved how you completely danced right around my point, which was you guys, social conservatives, are not really for smaller government. Sure, you might cut a few little programs here and there, but you have no problems creating new departments or commissions or Czars to serve your purpose.
If anyone in the “LGBT Community” broke any laws, local authorities or the FBI are more than capable of handling it. We don’t need yet another bureaucracy set up to investigate a bunch of idiots.
I thought we were campaigning for less government. This is just more government interference into the lives of Americans.
NDT… Loved how you completely danced right around my point, which was you guys, social conservatives, are not really for smaller government. Sure, you might cut a few little programs here and there, but you have no problems creating new departments or commissions or Czars to serve your purpose.
Which again is hilarious, because I don’t see you calling out the LGBT community for making similar demands – OR slapping them down when advocating for the removal of such commissions and laws is greeted with cries of “homophobe”.
You want equal treatment? Treat and act equally. If you’re so against government control, go slap down these commissions, state that the LGBT community that demands them is pushing for “big government”, and that their cries of “homophobia” if said commissions and laws are removed are stupid. Live up to your own standards.
So, if you support limited Government, that means you have to stand idly by while people are being harassed and threatened for exercising their Constitutional rights? That sounds more like a childish “gotcha” than an argument a serious person would make.
Limited Government doesn’t mean no Government. Grow the hell up and stop making childish arguments that are beneath you.
Sonic. . .this is really making NOM squirm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6O2kFuCsnY
Sonic, I am really disappointed in your twisting and turning here.
Limited national government does not mean I favor getting rid of the interstate highway administration or the national crime registry. Nor does it mean that we can not reexamine the relationship between the state and the institution of marriage.
I read the pledge you brought here and it is my first exposure to it. I see no Marriage Czar in it. I would call that a figment of hysteric imagination. I see no “investigation of the LGBT ‘community'” in it. I would call that a figment of paranoid imagination.
Yes, indeed, I am a social conservative. I favor zoning bars out of most areas of the town and keeping drug shops, strip joints and porno pits away from churches, schools and leafy streets where rows of tidy bungalows are largely inhabited by old widows and their cats. I dare say that many of the “standards” I value are also standards that liberals uphold.
Now, along come the gays who want the fundamental definition of marriage reworked so they can marry one or more same sex partners. Fine by me if a compelling case can be made for overturning history. But what case is made? Attacks on social conservatives, attacks on people who say gays are sinners, attacks on the logic that marriage is a civil right and the partner in marriage is up to the two or more people involved and what makes them “happy.”
I oppose gay marriage. I have not met straight liberals who consider it a burning issue. I have met straight liberals who think it should be allowed and cannot understand why I oppose it. But they can not make a compelling case for it other than the old “fairness” and “happiness” theme. In other words, I do not think gay marriage has much of a straight liberal backing if push comes to shove. But that is just my assessment.
So, frankly, I think it is well past time for us to have a frank discussion about all of this and to see if bigoted attacks on religion are involved. You clearly have the right to pee on a Bible in your demonstrations. But I have the right to see you as morally bankrupt if that is how you choose to wage your battle.
Bachmann, for instance, is categorically opposed to gay marriage. Do you imagine that if she were elected to the presidency that she would go after that hammer and tong before the several thousand other things that would be on her plate? Do you so worry about an inability to justify gay marriage that you fear a commission giving you your say? Do you see the courts as the only way of cramming gay marriage into existence?
Maybe you might apply yourself to how you can carry out your gay agenda by gaining the support of various factions instead of having continuing hissy fits over the gloomy power of Neanderthal, knuckle dragging religious conservatives.
As I have often stated, I favor “civil unions” to clear up the legal problems that the state has created for gay partners. That is a position that I educated myself into. I have a lot of fellow social conservatives who disagree with me, but at least there, I have actual legal circumstances to argue. Really, the “civil unions” issue should inform any gay marriage advocate that civil rights and gay marriage are not one in the same.
Bachmann is on Glenn Beck radio and she has just said that she opposes civil unions. I may not have known that, but it is clear to me now. I would like to hear her reasoning. Her brief explanation is that inheritance, visitation rights, etc. are contractual rights that can be handled under current law.
Bachmann has a point that inheritance, visitation, and other marital rights can be secured under contract law, but I don’t think that’s an adequate substitute unless there is a contractual mechanism (like a civil union) that makes them as easy and accessible as marriage does.
Increasingly, I’m of the opinion civil marriage ought to just be abolished as a state institution. Replace civil marriage with universal civil unions, make marriage a religious institution, and attach the state benefits of marriage to families with children, not couples.
Yeah, and lets do yet another commission on balancing the budget while we’re at it. What is there to be re-examined? Some people favor extending marriage to gay couples, and some don’t.
Of course she would…. It’s low hanging fruit. FMA… Hello! I mean how many times did Conservatives keep trying to pass the flag burning amendment, even though it was certainly never going to pass.
On a side note. Some are calling this “McCarthyist” tactics. People forget he was not the originator of those methods. Once WW2 broke out, FDR had the FBI looking into those who were against our involvement in tat conflict. Granted, there were not many who opposed our involvement, but a main reason for opposition was severe distrust of one of our new allies, Joseph Stalin. But because Stalin was now an ally, those who were critics were labeled as “Anti-American”. And even though they were not targeted because of their political affiliation per see, those who were investigated happened to belong to the party that was seen as foes of the FDR administration, which happened to be the Republican party. So, in a way, McCarthy was payback for the sins of FDR. Of course, J Edgar was as happy as a clam to use his agencies tools in both cases. It gave him that much more power.
And a smaller Government with fewer resources has less money to spend harassing the citizenry.
Better an incompetent Pres. Obama to a extremist Pres. Bachmann. ….Just saying.
And it’s outrageous that social issues are still driving the selection of the Republican candidate for 2012 when “…It’s The Economy, Stupid” is Issue-One. Europe’s economies are on a collision-course with the Euro iceberg and a 2012 European recession. China looking at a property-bubble and a potential hard-landing with HUGE civil and security implications. And Mexico and the Mexican-US border is a drug-fueled war-zone.
No infrastructure proposals?
No realistic energy programs?
No profits repatriation National-Economy Re-structuring Bonds?
No comprehensive tax reforms for Growth now that 9-9-9 Godfather’s is out of the building?
The Gods must really HATE us…
Ted, Rick Perry has proposed both wide reaching tax reform and a revamped energy policy.
Agreed. But you actually have to cut programs, and stop doing frivolous stuff like this. As we’ve already seen, starving the government of funds DOES NOT translate into less spending or smaller government. They just go out and get more money, any way they can. Politicians have to put their butts on the line a actually eliminate things, not just propose doing it, but doing it. It’s the only was to shrink government.
Oh, and speaking of, remember the earmarks ban? Word is that has crumbled. And as is the case, they are getting around the ban by calling the process a different name
And remember, Newt was NOT a lobbyist.
Without earmarks, the only people making spending decisions would be unaccountable bureaucrats. I’m not a fan of earmarks, but they are a distraction from the real drivers of the deficit. 1. Entitlement spending 2. Baseline budgeting that builds spending increases into every budget.
Sonic, I still don’t get it. Obviously your ox is being gored and you are in high dudgeon over it. I understand that. However, you really don’t oppose social engineering because you are attempting to have the government socially engineer in your behalf vis a vis gay marriage.
We have a near limitless bloated leviathan government. Lets cut it by 40% (to choose a number.) Shall we have a commission or two to study and recommend the procedure? That is to say, shall we create a new bureaucracy to plan radical surgery on the combined bureaucracies?
It is passing strange to me, that commissions you may oppose for social engineering purposes suddenly become a violation of the concept of limited government. Do you feel the same way about studying veteran’s benefits? Looking at double dipping in government pension programs? Examining “usurious” lending practices?
Uhm… We’ve already had two. How’d that turn out? You can tell when Congress doesn’t really want to act on something and instead kick the can down the road when they create a commission to study said problem.
And it isn’t my ox per see that is being gorged… It’s all of us, the tax payers.
I would prefer the government stay out of marriage, no matter who’s marriage we are talking about! Do not give favors (tax breaks) to those married, do not give favors (tax breaks) to those who are single, and do not decide who can marry (so long as they are of legal age, in this case, 18, but I think if you are not old enough to drink at 18, perhaps marriage should follow the 21 standard so that you can at least get loaded at the reception.) In the military, if you are married, you get paid more…regardless of whether your spouse works! If you are single, you are the first punted to the sand box when the holidays roll around…and forget about having any say in the squadron social events since the spouses rule that aspect.
I would just prefer to have social conservatives (who are progressives as well since they believe they can legislate morality a la Prohibition, drug laws, prostitution, marriage, etc.) be silenced when it comes to the federal government which is why I am in favor of states/local governments deciding those kinds of issues. If you are against alcohol, put it on the ballot and convince your neighbors to go dry. You want to live where prostitution, gambling, etc. are legal? Put it up for a local vote.
But, for the love of Pete, stop having a one size fits all mentality that states the feds can determine how the rest of us live. The point of this election needs to be getting the current regime out before anymore damage can be done to our economy and state’s rights, before the union card check is a fact of life for everyone, and before it becomes illegal for me to buy ammo, stock up on gold, food, or water. In Colorado, it is already illegal to collect my rain water or snow melt…WTF??? These creeps need to go. (And thanks, I will pass on Santorum as he is a loser in his own state, tyvm, and is a little too uptight in his positions, er…so to speak.)
oops, meant whose, not who’s
Shhhhhh! Be quiet! California might here you!!!! 🙂
I agree with your first paragraph. I think if you’re old to join the military, which include what could be the ultimate sacrifice, giving your life for your country, if that is age 18, then you should be able to do everything else… Drink, Get married, etc.
First, I was under the impression that the commission “to investigate LGBT…” was a Presidential commission, not a Congressional commission. I agree that Congressional commissions are normally cowardly and a shirking of Congressional duty.
Because we have had commissions in the past and sometimes done the whole commission thing over again, does not mean the commissions have failed. The failure comes in the application of the recommendations.
Frankly, I favor a strong president who will direct the Secretary of Education to shut the department down. In order to do that, the Secretary will have send a bunch of legislative proposals to Congress which authorize the closing of various programs. Perhaps a special commission on government department closures would be more effective rather than to have each department designated for vast reduction or closure handle the job internally.
The defense department has to respond to massive realignment and cuts and their decisions have enormous impact on the economy and special interest pressure from Congress and state governments. Most often, the process is subject to an independent commission, because special interests have a much harder time “persuading” them.
Then, a year later and thousands upon thousands of dollars down the rabbit hole, the “special commission” would come back with recommendations, which one side will demonize as too draconian, and the other will object because it doesn’t go far enough, and, as is usually the case in the current political system, the proposal will die, but it will give great sound bytes to be used in the next election.
But, at least that commission had a goal of reducing government. The stupid thing we’re talking about is simply more government intrusion and Big Government Conservatism on display. As it turns out, the big government tendencies of George W Bush have not left the building.