Romney is a failure...and Ryan is not happy

[Ebowed]

If we're debating 2000, it's definitely worth noting that McCain was running as the moderate alternative to Bush. (I don't remember the also-rans well, so I don't know if there ever was a plausible Republican nominee to the right of Bush.)

I seem to remember a race between Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

[Averroës Nix]

If we're debating 2000, it's definitely worth noting that McCain was running as the moderate alternative to Bush. (I don't remember the also-rans well, so I don't know if there ever was a plausible Republican nominee to the right of Bush.)

I seem to remember a race between Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes was a candidate in the same sense that Michelle Bachmann was a candidate. Not exactly an important factor in the actual process of choosing a nominee.

The more interesting question is what kind of campaigns candidates like Dole, Alexander, and Hatch were running before each withdrew, and why they failed. (Along with the question of who could have declared, but decided against running.)

[minionofmidas]

I think it's a lot simpler.

Bob is merely confusing cause and effect. Republican candidates try to pass off as less rightwing than they really are when they understand the mood to be against rightwing ideas. No one wants to be goldwatered.

[Badger]

If we're debating 2000, it's definitely worth noting that McCain was running as the moderate alternative to Bush. (I don't remember the also-rans well, so I don't know if there ever was a plausible Republican nominee to the right of Bush.)

I seem to remember a race between Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes was a candidate in the same sense that Michelle Bachmann was a candidate. Not exactly an important factor in the actual process of choosing a nominee.

The more interesting question is what kind of campaigns candidates like Dole, Alexander, and Hatch were running before each withdrew, and why they failed. (Along with the question of who could have declared, but decided against running.)

IIRC, Michelle was the first of the conservative anti-Romneys to take the lead from him in Iowa. But I digress...

[BigSkyBob]

A number of posters in this thread have been punked. They have so filtered objective reality through their political biases that they could not notice an obvious satire.

The article is on to something, however. Since Watergate, every Republican candidate running on a conservative platform [Reagan, Bush I 1998, and Bush II 2000] has won, and, every Republican candidate running as a moderate, or running on a moderate record has lost, with the sole exception of Bush II in 2004 whom had the good fortune of Osama Bin Laden endorsing his opponent just before the election. If Romney pursues a moderate strategy, he will suffer the fate as every other moderate. If that is the case, some folks in the Republican party had better step forward and speak up for conservatism.

Bush ran in 2000 on "compassionate conservatism," which was a far more watered-down version of conservatism than Romney has been forced to pursue thanks to Gingrich and Santorum.

1) First of all, noone, including Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum put a gun to Romney's head and demanded that he change any of his political positions. The person solely response for what positions Mitt Romney takes is Mitt Romney.

2) Our recollections of 2000 seem to vastly differ. My recollection is of the Bush boy positioning himself as the fusion candidate between the various factions of conservatism. He had the tax cuts for fiscal conservatives. He stood fully behind the neoconservative agenda. And, he promised to be pro-life, appoint strict constitutionalists to the courts, and, offer faith-based initiatives the same federal funding as other organizations.

[BigSkyBob]

A number of posters in this thread have been punked. They have so filtered objective reality through their political biases that they could not notice an obvious satire.

The article is on to something, however. Since Watergate, every Republican candidate running on a conservative platform [Reagan, Bush I 1998, and Bush II 2000] has won, and, every Republican candidate running as a moderate, or running on a moderate record has lost, with the sole exception of Bush II in 2004 whom had the good fortune of Osama Bin Laden endorsing his opponent just before the election. If Romney pursues a moderate strategy, he will suffer the fate as every other moderate. If that is the case, some folks in the Republican party had better step forward and speak up for conservatism.

Bush ran in 2000 on "compassionate conservatism," which was a far more watered-down version of conservatism than Romney has been forced to pursue thanks to Gingrich and Santorum. The campaign originally wanted to emulate that rhetoric, but Gingrich/Santorum forced them into a corner. We both want the same thing, but I warned you months ago about the implications of Gingrich/Santorum specifically with regards to female voters. Don't pull the "Romney's not conservative enough" card because he is running to the right of  every presidential contender since Reagan (with the possible exception of Bush in 2004)

This...is...more or less entirely correct.

Except, of course, for Bush's massive expansion of Medicaid, Bush's no child left behind, and his push for "comprehensive immigration reform." Bush's record was that of a moderate, and, he almost paid the ultimate political price except that Osama Bin Laden endorsed his opponent just before the 2004 election.

[BigSkyBob]

A number of posters in this thread have been punked. They have so filtered objective reality through their political biases that they could not notice an obvious satire.

The article is on to something, however. Since Watergate, every Republican candidate running on a conservative platform [Reagan, Bush I 1998, and Bush II 2000] has won, and, every Republican candidate running as a moderate, or running on a moderate record has lost, with the sole exception of Bush II in 2004 whom had the good fortune of Osama Bin Laden endorsing his opponent just before the election. If Romney pursues a moderate strategy, he will suffer the fate as every other moderate. If that is the case, some folks in the Republican party had better step forward and speak up for conservatism.

We both want the same thing, but I warned you months ago about the implications of Gingrich/Santorum specifically with regards to female voters.

1) Don't tell me we want the same things because we simply do not.  For some reason, you wanted Romney as the nominee. I didn't.

2) As to your belief that you are in a position to "warn" me about anything, I strongly suggest that you do what it takes to get Romney across the finish line. Otherwise, the only suggestions folks like you are going to be making to other Republicans is, "Would you like fries with your burger?"

[BigSkyBob]

...Bush/Cheney 2004 was 'moderate'? Dole/Kemp 1996 was not 'conservative'?

No Child Left Behind, the Prescription drug law, "comprehensive immigration reform." The list goes on. But, if I am wrong, then every Republican running on a conservative platform, or conservative record has won, while every Republican running on a moderate platform, or moderate record has lost.

No, that's the case if you're right. If you're wrong and I'm right, then the only Republican Presidential candidate who's been rhetorically much more moderate than any of the others since Reagan is 2000 Bush. Remember, we're discussing the ways in which people run for President, not their positions on purity tests. Nobody in 2004 thought of Bush as a 'moderate' except lunatics, whereas a lot of people in 2000 did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The...the same is true of Rick Perry and Strom Thurmond among others, you know. Also, I see you haven't taken my advice to read up on how pronouns work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm, maybe because he was a tough-on-crime 'Nam hawk, voted against Medicare in the sixties and claimed that there was 'no crisis in health care' in the nineties, was known for being able to interact well and remain on good terms with most factions of the party (which is and was not a centrist party), used Russell Kirk rhetoric in his acceptance speech, picked Jack Kemp as his running mate...?

I should practically rest my case after your statement. If you have to go back to the sixties to find conservative political positions you are reaching. Nor, is using conservative rhetoric proof of anything other than Dole wanting conservative support. Stating, "there is no health care crisis" is an observation, not a statement of political ideology. Hilliarycare was rejected by moderate Republicans as much as conservative ones. Being on good terms with Lugar, Snowe, Spector, Mathias, et al can hardly be construed as evidence of being conservative. I could still be possible, but, it doesn't make that case. And, yes,  the GOP Senate caucus has been to the left of the GOP House caucus for decades.

[Averroës Nix]

If we're debating 2000, it's definitely worth noting that McCain was running as the moderate alternative to Bush. (I don't remember the also-rans well, so I don't know if there ever was a plausible Republican nominee to the right of Bush.)

I seem to remember a race between Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes was a candidate in the same sense that Michelle Bachmann was a candidate. Not exactly an important factor in the actual process of choosing a nominee.

The more interesting question is what kind of campaigns candidates like Dole, Alexander, and Hatch were running before each withdrew, and why they failed. (Along with the question of who could have declared, but decided against running.)

IIRC, Michelle was the first of the conservative anti-Romneys to take the lead from him in Iowa. But I digress...

Oh, Bachmann was ahead in the polls for most of the summer. So what? Cain, Gingrich, and Paul lead in Iowa as well. Hell, Trump lead national polls at one point. It's hardly sufficient reason to take candidate seriously.

[freepcrusher]

i remember BSB, from RRH. He's the guy who actually defended Bill Sali.

[BigSkyBob]

i remember BSB, from RRH. He's the guy who actually defended Bill Sali.

AFAIK, Bill Sali has never faced charges, and, has never been on trial.

[Badger]

If we're debating 2000, it's definitely worth noting that McCain was running as the moderate alternative to Bush. (I don't remember the also-rans well, so I don't know if there ever was a plausible Republican nominee to the right of Bush.)

I seem to remember a race between Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes was a candidate in the same sense that Michelle Bachmann was a candidate. Not exactly an important factor in the actual process of choosing a nominee.

The more interesting question is what kind of campaigns candidates like Dole, Alexander, and Hatch were running before each withdrew, and why they failed. (Along with the question of who could have declared, but decided against running.)

IIRC, Michelle was the first of the conservative anti-Romneys to take the lead from him in Iowa. But I digress...

Oh, Bachmann was ahead in the polls for most of the summer. So what? Cain, Gingrich, and Paul lead in Iowa as well. Hell, Trump lead national polls at one point. It's hardly sufficient reason to take candidate seriously.

Au Contraire. This was a unique campaign in that sense.

And for purposes of comparison, the words "leading for most of the summer" (or ever) and "Alan Keyes" were never even dreamt of in the same sentence.

[Averroës Nix]

If we're debating 2000, it's definitely worth noting that McCain was running as the moderate alternative to Bush. (I don't remember the also-rans well, so I don't know if there ever was a plausible Republican nominee to the right of Bush.)

I seem to remember a race between Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes was a candidate in the same sense that Michelle Bachmann was a candidate. Not exactly an important factor in the actual process of choosing a nominee.

The more interesting question is what kind of campaigns candidates like Dole, Alexander, and Hatch were running before each withdrew, and why they failed. (Along with the question of who could have declared, but decided against running.)

IIRC, Michelle was the first of the conservative anti-Romneys to take the lead from him in Iowa. But I digress...

Oh, Bachmann was ahead in the polls for most of the summer. So what? Cain, Gingrich, and Paul lead in Iowa as well. Hell, Trump lead national polls at one point. It's hardly sufficient reason to take candidate seriously.

Au Contraire. This was a unique campaign in that sense.

And for purposes of comparison, the words "leading for most of the summer" (or ever) and "Alan Keyes" were never even dreamt of in the same sentence.

True, but they're similar in that they had little support from party actors, lacked any real chance of winning the nomination, and weren't able able to leverage significant influence over the party through their campaigns.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative and believe conservatism should be a lifestyle choice rather than a political ideology.

[BigSkyBob]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative

Big government conservatism is bit oxymoronic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is utter nonsense. No Child Left Behind, the massive expansions of Medicare, and support for amnesty are political positions, not "lifestyle choices."

[Marokai Backbeat]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative

Big government conservatism is bit oxymoronic.

Nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is utter nonsense. No Child Left Behind, the massive expansions of Medicare, and support for amnesty are political positions, not "lifestyle choices."
[/quote]

You missed my point. What I meant was that many right-wingers these days feel that, to be a conservative, you must "act" like a conservative in virtually every aspect of your life, or you're a traitor to the cause. You're not allowed to like gay people, ever. You're not allowed to respect your political opponents. You're not allowed to have any centrist or left-wing position on any issue ever. You're not allowed to compromise at any point. You seem to be suggesting that to be a "real" conservative you A) Can't proactively govern in any respect, and B) Must act like a cartoon caricature of a conservative.

[BigSkyBob]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative

Big government conservatism is bit oxymoronic.

Nonsense.

The Constitution posits a federal government with limited, enumerated powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is utter nonsense. No Child Left Behind, the massive expansions of Medicare, and support for amnesty are political positions, not "lifestyle choices."
[/quote]

You missed my point. What I meant was that many right-wingers these days feel that, to be a conservative, you must "act" like a conservative in virtually every aspect of your life, or you're a traitor to the cause. You're not allowed to like gay people, ever. You're not allowed to respect your political opponents. You're not allowed to have any centrist or left-wing position on any issue ever. You're not allowed to compromise at any point. You seem to be suggesting that to be a "real" conservative you A) Can't proactively govern in any respect, and B) Must act like a cartoon caricature of a conservative.
[/quote]

Again, I called Bush II a moderate because he pursued moderate policies such as No Child Left Behind, support for amnesty, and the expansion of medicare. His fiscal record was pretty bleak. Torturing people doesn't make you "conservative."

[Badger]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative

Big government conservatism is bit oxymoronic.

Not in practice, unfortunately.

[Politico]

A number of posters in this thread have been punked. They have so filtered objective reality through their political biases that they could not notice an obvious satire.

The article is on to something, however. Since Watergate, every Republican candidate running on a conservative platform [Reagan, Bush I 1998, and Bush II 2000] has won, and, every Republican candidate running as a moderate, or running on a moderate record has lost, with the sole exception of Bush II in 2004 whom had the good fortune of Osama Bin Laden endorsing his opponent just before the election. If Romney pursues a moderate strategy, he will suffer the fate as every other moderate. If that is the case, some folks in the Republican party had better step forward and speak up for conservatism.

We both want the same thing, but I warned you months ago about the implications of Gingrich/Santorum specifically with regards to female voters.

1) Don't tell me we want the same things because we simply do not.  For some reason, you wanted Romney as the nominee. I didn't.

2) As to your belief that you are in a position to "warn" me about anything, I strongly suggest that you do what it takes to get Romney across the finish line. Otherwise, the only suggestions folks like you are going to be making to other Republicans is, "Would you like fries with your burger?"

We do want the same thing in the sense that we want Obama out of the White House.

Trust me, we will achieve this result. When it comes to getting Romney to 270, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k95TfmeEWAE=#t=31s

[Simfan34]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative and believe conservatism should be a lifestyle choice rather than a political ideology.

Isn't conservatism a lifestyle choice anyway?

[Cobbler]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative

Big government conservatism is bit oxymoronic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is utter nonsense. No Child Left Behind, the massive expansions of Medicare, and support for amnesty are political positions, not "lifestyle choices."

Do you consider Reagan a moderate? He raised taxes several times, was for amnesty, and increased spending dramatically, and signed a prochoice law as Governor of California.

[sentinel]

Has anyone pointed out the disclaimer on the article that this is satire?

[Badger]

Has anyone pointed out the disclaimer on the article that this is satire?

So just to make sure, Ryan in fact did not refer to Romney as "stench"?

The author's afterward indicates the article was satire.

Which is, of course, precisely what Politico magazine is known for.

[TMac3000]

The only way you could view 2004 Bush and Dole in 1996 as 'not conservative' is if you view governing in any proactive way at all as inherently not conservative

Big government conservatism is bit oxymoronic.

Nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is utter nonsense. No Child Left Behind, the massive expansions of Medicare, and support for amnesty are political positions, not "lifestyle choices."

You missed my point. What I meant was that many right-wingers these days feel that, to be a conservative, you must "act" like a conservative in virtually every aspect of your life, or you're a traitor to the cause. You're not allowed to like gay people, ever. You're not allowed to respect your political opponents. You're not allowed to have any centrist or left-wing position on any issue ever. You're not allowed to compromise at any point. You seem to be suggesting that to be a "real" conservative you A) Can't proactively govern in any respect, and B) Must act like a cartoon caricature of a conservative.
[/quote]
Please Google Tammy Bruce