Santorum wins big, Ron Paul moves up..

[Casull]

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative

 
 
Cuts Crooked, these are people identifying THEMSELVES as conservative.  It doesn't mean they are conservative.  The candidates have been identifying themselves as conservative, but you insist that all but RP are RINO's.  If 75% of the candidates (3 out of 4) are not really conservative (by your claim), then might a large percentage of the those polled also not be conservative?

[Cuts Crooked]

Cuts Crooked, these are people identifying THEMSELVES as conservative.  It doesn't mean they are conservative.  The candidates have been identifying themselves as conservative, but you insist that all but RP are RINO's.  If 75% of the candidates (3 out of 4) are not really conservative (by your claim), then might a large percentage of the those polled also not be conservative?

Whoopsey!!!!!! Casull, I do NOT identify 3 out of 4 of the candidates as rino's. Where did you come by that assumption?
 However, I will admit that two of them have a track record that shows they are obviously NOT conservative and have proven that they are more than willing to abrogate our rights and vote against the precepts of our constitution. Of the other two, one I know little about, the other is a staunch defender of the constitution.....and has proven to be right in his predictions of the "future" of our nation rather consistantly.

One can CLAIM conservative values.......obviously that does not make it true, any more than me claiming to be 6'-04", 250 lbs, with Abs of steel would make that true of me.

[teamnelson]

Good point: what constitutes a conservative? I could call myself a helicopter, doesn't make me one does it.
 
For me, conservative relates to constitutional restriction on the federal government's usurpation of rights expressly protected for the people and the States. For me, conservative means that they fiscally willing to live within their means, debt adverse. For me, conservative means that when dealing with other sovereign nations, we restrain ourselves from engaging in activity requiring blood and money that has no direct impact on our nation or her interests. For me, conservative means that we seldom enter into alliances with other nations, and when we do, we take it very very seriously, so as not to lose our sovereignty in the process. For me, conservative means our social policies do not interfere in the operations of the religious institutions and moral agencies to which the vast majority of our country belong. It means religious plurality, not extinction or establishment. It means opportunity to fail, and suffer the consequences, or succeed, and enjoy the fruits. It means willingness to contribute, to sacrifice for the nation, in public service. It means government restrained from messing up any of the preceeding statements.
 
I grew up in the young republicans in Arizona, under Goldwater's and Reagan's influences, so maybe we're not "conservative" by someone else's standards.

[scootrd]

Good point: what constitutes a conservative? I could call myself a helicopter, doesn't make me one does it.
 
For me, conservative relates to constitutional restriction on the federal government's usurpation of rights expressly protected for the people and the States. For me, conservative means that they fiscally willing to live within their means, debt adverse. For me, conservative means that when dealing with other sovereign nations, we restrain ourselves from engaging in activity requiring blood and money that has no direct impact on our nation or her interests. For me, conservative means that we seldom enter into alliances with other nations, and when we do, we take it very very seriously, so as not to lose our sovereignty in the process. For me, conservative means our social policies do not interfere in the operations of the religious institutions and moral agencies to which the vast majority of our country belong. It means religious plurality, not extinction or establishment. It means opportunity to fail, and suffer the consequences, or succeed, and enjoy the fruits. It means willingness to contribute, to sacrifice for the nation, in public service. It means government restrained from messing up any of the preceeding statements.
 
I grew up in the young republicans in Arizona, under Goldwater's and Reagan's influences, so maybe we're not "conservative" by someone else's standards.

Nope we ain't ..

There is no room in the ever shrinking Republican tent.  If your not a far right extremist out on the fringes republican , they don't want you anymore. I agree with all your above statements, and the older I get I find myself leaning more Libertarian on some social issues(strike one)  and have always been fiscally conservative (how about one equal and fair tax system for all? (strike two) on others, and I don't want morality legislated from Govt (oops  strike three). So judging by the narrow standards New radical Republicanism have put in place today as a benchmark, I am apparently not welcome under the republican tent anymore.

My head spins first Republicans are for : and now Republicans are against. Talk about an Identity crisis .

Financial disclosure It was a Republican Idea.
Prominent Republicans have often made the case for transparency. Then ,  "Republicans are in favor of disclosure," Sen.  Mitch McConnell  2000. Now , Boehner and republicans voted no last month on the Disclose Act

Cap and trade It was a Republican Idea
Then , John McCain of Arizona co-authored a pioneering cap-and-trade bill and introduced it in 2003, 2005 and 2007.
Now , McCain calls his own peice of legislation a Job killing Cap and TAX system.

Immigration Reform: It was a Republican Idea
Then , Republicans wrote the comprehensive immigration reform in 2006. McCain, McConnell, Graham, Snowe, Bennett, other republicans all pushed for it. Now , All of a sudden they are against all the provisions they were fighting for in the Act.

 Individual insurance mandate. It was a Republican Idea
Then ,  In 1993, Republicans pushed an employer mandate.Conservatives and Republicans favored the requirement that all or most people buy basic health insurance. Like cap and trade, it was concieved by free Market conservatives as a way to avoid harming the private sector incorporated personal responsibility and the immorality of freeloading. Now,
Republican governors and attorneys general are suing the federal government over the individual mandate in the new health law, saying it is unconstitutional. Romney says the Federal Govt has no right to impose such a plan on all states.

Medicare
Then , Republicans used to be the ones pushing for reductions in future Medicare spending. In 1995, for instance, Republicans proposed cutting 270Billion over seven years. In 1997, McConnell and McCain were among the Republicans who voted for Balanced budget act that cut Medicare by 115 Billion over 5 years. In 2008 McCain Proposed medicare cuts of 1.3 trillion over 10 years. Now , McCain  leads the fight against the Democrats plans to trim Medicare by $500 billion over the next 10 years.

These folks have all lost their mind, Republican party has a major identity crises , they have been hijacked by radical new extremist republicans. The older mature republican statesmen have become truly dyslexic, and now are only trying to protect their own jobs in this radical shrinking republican tent turned upside down world.

Jimmeny Crickets  -  Pick a policy , make a stand and stick with it.  - idgets the whole lot of 'em
Dems and republicans alike. Ron Paul is the only one running who has stayed consistent with his
message and policies. Like him or not up to you , but at least he walks the walk.

You Need to stand for something , or you will fall for anything.
Sorry Rant over.

[Casull]

Cuts Crooked, TeamNelson and scootrd, I think you all might have missed the jist of my last post.  All I was saying is that just because 40% of those polled identified themselves as conservative doesn't mean that they are.  I consider myself conservative and was proud to cast my first two votes in presidential elections for Ronald Reagan.  However, after reading what some RP supporters find to be requirements for being a conservative, it doesn't look like Reagan would be considered a conservative to them.  If we go with those definitions of conservative, I doubt more than 5% of the voters would be "conservatives".

[BUGEYE]

Cuts Crooked, TeamNelson and scootrd, I think you all might have missed the jist of my last post.  All I was saying is that just because 40% of those polled identified themselves as conservative doesn't mean that they are.  I consider myself conservative and was proud to cast my first two votes in presidential elections for Ronald Reagan.  However, after reading what some RP supporters find to be requirements for being a conservative, it doesn't look like Reagan would be considered a conservative to them.  If we go with those definitions of conservative, I doubt more than 5% of the voters would be "conservatives".

good post.  RPs folks accuse others of many things.
what I'd like to know is how the country can become constitutional??  everybody ignores the constitution and we all can't afford to sue the government. so what do we do?  would RP send out U.S. marshals and arrest people for violations? no.  there's too many liberals to ever accomplish a thing.   there's only one thing that will ever return this country to what it was. and I'll probably be gone before the people "grow a set" and act.

[teamnelson]

All I was saying is that just because 40% of those polled identified themselves as conservative doesn't mean that they are.

I got ya; I was just putting up what I thought was the definition of conservative. Reagan was one of the most constitutionally supportive conservatives we've had ... not perfect, but he understood that it was the strongest foundation conservatives have to stand on. Many conservatives today are willing to set the constitution aside in order to pursue conservative ideals ... abandoning the high ground we've always strove to defend. To me, a RINO is someone that while espousing conservative ideals, has no regard for constitutional law.

[BUGEYE]

All I was saying is that just because 40% of those polled identified themselves as conservative doesn't mean that they are.

I got ya; I was just putting up what I thought was the definition of conservative. Reagan was one of the most constitutionally supportive conservatives we've had ... not perfect, but he understood that it was the strongest foundation conservatives have to stand on. Many conservatives today are willing to set the constitution aside in order to pursue conservative ideals ... abandoning the high ground we've always strove to defend. To me, a RINO is someone that while espousing conservative ideals, has no regard for constitutional law.

what is constitutional law other than what comes up in court?  where is the law when cities, counties, states and the feds keep passing laws that infringe on my rights.  they are nowhere.
you say it's strongest foundation we have to stand on, but people keep chipping away at the mortar.  how is it protecting us??

[teamnelson]

All I was saying is that just because 40% of those polled identified themselves as conservative doesn't mean that they are.

I got ya; I was just putting up what I thought was the definition of conservative. Reagan was one of the most constitutionally supportive conservatives we've had ... not perfect, but he understood that it was the strongest foundation conservatives have to stand on. Many conservatives today are willing to set the constitution aside in order to pursue conservative ideals ... abandoning the high ground we've always strove to defend. To me, a RINO is someone that while espousing conservative ideals, has no regard for constitutional law.

what is constitutional law other than what comes up in court?  where is the law when cities, counties, states and the feds keep passing laws that infringe on my rights.  they are nowhere.
you say it's strongest foundation we have to stand on, but people keep chipping away at the mortar.  how is it protecting us??

You're absolutely correct ... there are only 2 solutions to the dilemma: Ignore it, or Restore it. Which would you prefer?

[twoshooter]

Somewhere there is a book I remember that says you can tell a tree by the fruit it produces. If the fruit is the same, the tree is the same, regardless of what you call it.
As far as I see it there are two basic ways to look at things; #1, You dont get to tell me what to do, and I dont get to tell you what to do.
#2 You DO get to tell me what to do, and I DO get to tell you what to do.

Under # 1. We all get to have a gun,..or not, to believe in God.... or not, to have an abortion,....or not, to be free from ..... or not.

Under #2, whoever wins the most recent popularity contest tells you all of the above.

If you have the urge to tell ANYONE else what to do that does not directly and immediately effect you, you need to look in the mirror, because there you will see the person whom is causing the problem.

Oh yes, there is a#3. We engage in eternal vituperative  rhetoric and strife punctuated by violent conflict until one side or the other is annihilated, or remove their heads from their colon, and return to #1.

[teamnelson]

Somewhere there is a book I remember that says you can tell a tree by the fruit it produces. If the fruit is the same, the tree is the same, regardless of what you call it.
As far as I see it there are two basic ways to look at things; #1, You dont get to tell me what to do, and I dont get to tell you what to do.
#2 You DO get to tell me what to do, and I DO get to tell you what to do.

Under # 1. We all get to have a gun,..or not, to believe in God.... or not, to have an abortion,....or not, to be free from ..... or not.

Under #2, whoever wins the most recent popularity contest tells you all of the above.

If you have the urge to tell ANYONE else what to do that does not directly and immediately effect you, you need to look in the mirror, because there you will see the person whom is causing the problem.

Oh yes, there is a#3. We engage in eternal vituperative  rhetoric and strife punctuated by violent conflict until one side or the other is annihilated, or remove their heads from their colon, and return to #1.

I see what you did there    ... nicely put.

[BUGEYE]

under an obama second term, there would most likely be two new judges appointed,,  many new restrictive laws passed, constitutional wrongs would pass quickly through the liberal lower courts into the liberal supreme court where your rights would be flushed down the commode.
what then??

[teamnelson]

under an obama second term, there would most likely be two new judges appointed.

Whoever is President on Jan 9, 2013 will get to appoint at least one, probably two. If its Obama, we'll lose the 5-4 conservative Majority, go to 6-3 liberal majority. This is a big deal yes, but its only a big deal if SCOTUS tried to keep the DOJ and AG in check. We have the majority now, and the AG and DOJ are engaged in all manner of illegality unchecked. The check and balance was removed several presidencies ago by legal precendent, and been abused by every one since.
 
I would only trust Santorum or RP to make good appointments to SCOTUS, and I'd expect both of them to abide by the rule of law on that. I'd imagine Santorum would find the most morally conservative candidates, and RP to find the most constitutionally conservative, which may be one and the same. Romney and Gingrich would give up the majority, and the Senate would play along.
 
But there is an element of "so what?" with all of this. Nov 5 and following of this year are going to be very interesting ... keep your powder dry.

[Ranch13]

They just announced the results from the CPAC conference straw poll.
1.Romney
2. Santorum
3. Gingrich
4. Paul

[BUGEYE]

under an obama second term, there would most likely be two new judges appointed.

Whoever is President on Jan 9, 2013 will get to appoint at least one, probably two. If its Obama, we'll lose the 5-4 conservative Majority, go to 6-3 liberal majority. This is a big deal yes, but its only a big deal if SCOTUS tried to keep the DOJ and AG in check. We have the majority now, and the AG and DOJ are engaged in all manner of illegality unchecked. The check and balance was removed several presidencies ago by legal precendent, and been abused by every one since.
 
I would only trust Santorum or RP to make good appointments to SCOTUS, and I'd expect both of them to abide by the rule of law on that. I'd imagine Santorum would find the most morally conservative candidates, and RP to find the most constitutionally conservative, which may be one and the same. Romney and Gingrich would give up the majority, and the Senate would play along.
 
But there is an element of "so what?" with all of this. Nov 5 and following of this year are going to be very interesting ... keep your powder dry.

that's it in a nutshell.

[blind ear]

Conservative candidates running now: Ron Paul

[Swampman]

And the tiny number of conservatives left in this country will waste their votes on him.

[Ranch13]

The only thing about Ron Paul that is conservative is his fiscal ideas. From there it runs from liberatarian/anarchist, to so far left not even left wing dingbats, like Dennis Kosinich want anything to do with it...

[Cuts Crooked]

The only thing about Ron Paul that is conservative is his fiscal ideas. From there it runs from liberatarian/anarchist, to so far left not even left wing dingbats, like Dennis Kosinich want anything to do with it...

Hmmmm? And how much different is THAT from what our founders intended? And frankly, his fiscal ideas what this nation desperately needs right now. We are preparing to make our grandchildren economic slaves to China if we don't stop the spending on military conquest abroad and social conquest within!

(my apologies gentlemen, I have had to be away from my 'puter rather a lot today, and will be off and on for most of the weekend I fear )

[twoshooter]

I hear alot about my "wasted" vote. I have a problem with that. It is MY vote, not yours, not the Republican party, not the Tea Party, not the politicians. A wasted vote is one I feel bad about the next day. Wasted is what you buy on sale but you cannot force yourself to eat so it eventually expires and you throw it away. How much did you save. Voting for republicans over the last decade has been "Wasted", worse, not only did I get screwed over, but I was conned into actually APPROVING the Swell Old Boys that did it to me. At this point, I will bet money (not 10K) that it will be Romney vs Obama. If that is the spread, I will vote for Obama. If I am in a car going over a cliff I want it to be going as fast as possible. We might even make the other side, but if not, at least I will get the most hang time to see the country. Better than all crunched up looking straight down and thinking I might not be killed immediately, I might last for hours, or even days. I could even just wind up terribly crippled for a long life of misery. Fish or cut bait.

[Lost Farmboy]

  Two shooter I agree with everything except that vote for Obama part. Can't do that. If the libertarians can't find a good candidate I will not vote. A vote for Obama is worse than a vote for a RINO.

[nw_hunter]

I hear alot about my "wasted" vote. I have a problem with that. It is MY vote, not yours, not the Republican party, not the Tea Party, not the politicians. A wasted vote is one I feel bad about the next day. Wasted is what you buy on sale but you cannot force yourself to eat so it eventually expires and you throw it away. How much did you save. Voting for republicans over the last decade has been "Wasted", worse, not only did I get screwed over, but I was conned into actually APPROVING the Swell Old Boys that did it to me. At this point, I will bet money (not 10K) that it will be Romney vs Obama. If that is the spread, I will vote for Obama. If I am in a car going over a cliff I want it to be going as fast as possible. We might even make the other side, but if not, at least I will get the most hang time to see the country. Better than all crunched up looking straight down and thinking I might not be killed immediately, I might last for hours, or even days. I could even just wind up terribly crippled for a long life of misery. Fish or cut bait.

I too have a problem with the wasted vote theory.


I have several Republican friends who held their nose and voted for Obama last time because they knew what they would get with McCain.They took a chance with a Liberal Democrat! They both regret it now!They both said they should have stayed home on election day.I voted, but for neither of the chosen ones."Like you" I feel good about my vote.

I held my nose and voted in the past for chosen one of the GOP! Never happen again!

[scootrd]

I hear alot about my "wasted" vote. I have a problem with that. It is MY vote, not yours, not the Republican party, not the Tea Party, not the politicians. A wasted vote is one I feel bad about the next day......... Fish or cut bait.

I too have a problem with the wasted vote theory............I held my nose and voted in the past for chosen one of the GOP! Never happen again!

I Agree , You have  stand for something , or you will fall for anything.

"'Cause it's better to be hated for who you are,
"Than be loved for who you're not.
"Don't get too high on a bottle,
"Just a little sip ev'ry now and then.
"Fight your fights, find a grace,
"And all the things that you can change,
"And help somebody if you can.
"And get right with the Man.
                              - Van Zant

[Graybeard]

I won't vote for obama but then I won't vote for romney either. If I have no choices other than those I won't vote for president this year. CPAC means nothing other than the republican party wouldn't know a conservative if one kicked them in the butt.

Romney "won" today but only beat Ron Paul by 3%. I figure they will both get the same number of delagates from the caucus. Santorum and Newt were barely a blip.

Romney isn't likely capable of beating obama and if he does so what he is just a lily white version of him. Nothing will change for the better with either of them.

[Swampman]

If I can't win by hitting them head on, I'm willing to flank.  At an early age, I learned to only fight fights I can win.  Losing causes are ok for those who are willing to lose.  I'm a pragmatist......being poor I've had to settle for second or third best all my life.  I'll do it many more times before I die.

[blind ear]

comeing to a head sooner is better than later. Incriments by both parties weaken us gradually. If it happens quickly more people will react. ear

[Casull]

comeing to a head sooner is better than later. Incriments by both parties weaken us gradually. If it happens quickly more people will react.

 
 
Yeah, I heard some saying that same thing last election.  Still haven't seen any great rising up by the majority.

[BUGEYE]

the only "rising up" was the OWSers who potty in the street, destroy property, demand debt forgiveness and free college tuition.

[Swampman]

Am I the only one that thinks we are bailing water on the Titanic?  The ship is sinking, you can bail or pout.  Pouting until RP gets elected won't help anything.

[BUGEYE]

Am I the only one that thinks we are bailing water on the Titanic?  The ship is sinking, you can bail or pout.  Pouting until RP gets elected won't help anything.

that's right.