Congratulations, our on-site Romney supporters

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thank you. I hope Mittens uses his time wisely, to focus on both what issues he will focus in on, and how, with plausible detail that will survive media inspection as to his claims, and  most important of all, to work on his presentation. He needs some good coaching, and the humility to realize that he sucks at it, and needs to improve, projecting more confidence, and more being at ease with himself. Maybe he needs a real good therapist for that.

Reading the above, and trying to be realistic, rather than pollyannaish, I wonder if I will end up being Mittens' harshest critic around here, even while supporting him.

The best supporters are those who speak what is on their mind, rather than being yes men. I have never been shy to criticize the failures of Romney's campaign team. This should have been over long ago.

Screw you Mittbots.

I am now I-TX. Die in a fire.

Ben Kenobi/Sg0508

"My way or the highway politics, for a better tomorrow"

Even if their ways are polar opposites.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, no, guys, you're doing it wrong!


Senator North Carolina Yankee.

Can you Be on mitt Team?

Ah, that old Polish sense of humor. That was that guy from Iowa, what was his name again? I can't remember now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator North Carolina Yankee.

"Vote for the Whigs, slavery if necessary, but not necessarily slavery".

The GOP is doomed.

No, the Republicans are in a situation much like that of the Democrats in 1860 and 1861. Another party has stolen a large number of voters in other regions and thus made them dependent upon an isolated and shrinking southern base, for whom the numbers going forward are just dreadfull. So to make up for it, that southern base starts making unreasonable, "my way or the highway" demands imposing their beliefs on other regions and peoples who think differently and state that as being the only way to preserve their freedom and rights is to deprive someone else of theirs. And if they don't get their way, theys gonna be gone. The establishment of the party is taking over by them for a few years, which hastens the decline of the party elsewhere. Then the party nominates a northern moderate who appeals to both sides.

What happened next back then:
The base takes a hike and runs another candidate. The opposition wins and gets everything they wanted, the entire platform.  The base goes onto commit treason and gets defeated, its cause eliminated as a legitimate political movement.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What makes you think that the north would win this time? Texas alone could take the rest of you on.

We have already won, again. Take a look at South Florida, Northern Virginia or the Triangle of North Carolina. Texas is changing too. There won't be a "South" as we have known it, in 20 years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Frankly, that's the mood of the south here. The south does not want gay marriage, abortion, unions or the other northern crap, and they willl not vote for a candidate on the record of supporting such.

Romney pushed for gay marriage in MA, pushed for public funded abortion in MA, pushed to force MA to pay for health care coverage. Now you may believe in all those things, but there is already a party that believes in those things and it's called the democrat party.

Just like the Whigs, where a fault line has erupted, the Northern Republican party insists on gay marriage, publicly funded abortion, and health care coverage, and they don't care about destroying the republican party to get it.

Now, you've got it but at the cost of alienating the south. Your strategy is doomed. 100 percent doomed. The south is your last bastion - you cannot win the north.

1) You don't grasp the idea of nuance.

2) The number of people take the exact position you do, is 25%. In what world do you live in that 25% is enough to win an election.

3) I am not the one forcing anyone to take on positions you don't like. I want to utilize states rights and the 10th amendment so that 30 years from now, MA isn't dictating what side of the bed you sleep on. If you want one man and one woman in Texas, you can have that and if MA wants to allow Gay Marriage, that is their call. But that is too much a concession for you guys. Anything less then the FMA and you belong in the Democratic Party. In 20 to 30 years you guys will be facing a different FMA, one that legalizes Gay Marriage across the country and it will be you guy's fault for legitimizing the precedent. That gets us back to point number 1. You guys are shooting yourself in the foot and you don't even realize it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what have you won?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suspect the Yankees said the same back in 1865. Wasn't true then, wasn't true now. There will always be folks willing to stand in defense of liberty and fight for what the country stood for.

Yes, you have 'won' but I suspect you won't like what you've 'won'.

Virginia and Florida are northern states, essentially. North Carolina is basically there as well, thoguh the GOP still likes to pretend it isn't sometimes. The Republican candidate for Governor is a big city mayor who was born in Ohio. South Carolina and Georgia will be like that fairly soon as well. Becoming completely dependent on the "old" South is a loser strategy because soon it will be just Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem Ben Kenobi, is that you may have 50% who are pro-life, but some of which are in favor of Gay Rights. Some of which support big government. There is no 50% block that agrees with you on every issue 100%, Ben. That is my point and that is why your demanding strategy doesn't work. That is why you need moderation and nuance to at least some extent.

The other problem is that Mitt Romney is not who you claim him to be. He is at worst, a man without conviction. He is not pro-gay marriage and he is not currently pro-choice. I can understand not liking Mittens because he is a too politically exediant, but it makes no sense to oppose him on basis of a criteria which doesn't actually apply to him.

People don't vote for for one guy because the other guy didn't offer a contrast. They vote for the guy that offers the best vision for the country and/or plan to fix the countries problems. They will vote against someone they afraid to put in charge of Nukes or fear is too extreme.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ben Kenobi and Yankee need to retake PM test, unless both of you are trolling really hard. This thread doesn't make sense if you look at the scores.

Not really, I am just a really strategic person when it comes to achieving my objectives.

I have argued the same line about "Not being so demanding" against Sg0508 who as you know is the epitome of a moderate Republican. Ironically, both Sg and Ben have a lot in common in terms of their political approach, hence why I suggested they run together a page or two ago.

That said those PM scores are by and large garbage and you really shouldn't place so much attention to them. They aren't worth it. Most are innacurate or fakes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem Ben Kenobi, is that you may have 50% who are pro-life, but some of which are in favor of Gay Rights. Some of which support big government. There is no 50% block that agrees with you on every issue 100%, Ben. That is my point and that is why your demanding strategy doesn't work. That is why you need moderation and nuance to at least some extent.

The other problem is that Mitt Romney is not who you claim him to be. He is at worst, a man without conviction. He is not pro-gay marriage and he is not currently pro-choice. I can understand not liking Mittens because he is a too politically exediant, but it makes no sense to oppose him on basis of a criteria which doesn't actually apply to him.

People don't vote for for one guy because the other guy didn't offer a contrast. They vote for the guy that offers the best vision for the country and/or plan to fix the countries problems. They will vote against someone they afraid to put in charge of Nukes or fear is too extreme.

You seem kind of moderate for your scores.

I haven't really said anything about my positions if you look back through these posts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem Ben Kenobi, is that you may have 50% who are pro-life, but some of which are in favor of Gay Rights. Some of which support big government. There is no 50% block that agrees with you on every issue 100%, Ben. That is my point and that is why your demanding strategy doesn't work. That is why you need moderation and nuance to at least some extent.

The other problem is that Mitt Romney is not who you claim him to be. He is at worst, a man without conviction. He is not pro-gay marriage and he is not currently pro-choice. I can understand not liking Mittens because he is a too politically exediant, but it makes no sense to oppose him on basis of a criteria which doesn't actually apply to him.

People don't vote for for one guy because the other guy didn't offer a contrast. They vote for the guy that offers the best vision for the country and/or plan to fix the countries problems. They will vote against someone they afraid to put in charge of Nukes or fear is too extreme.

You seem kind of moderate for your scores.

I haven't really said anything about my positions if you look back through these posts.

True, but the argument between you and the other poster and considering each one's background is quite odd and hard for me to grasp.

How so?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that a majority of the population is prolife and that a majority of the population is against gay marriage. Ergo, your argument has no merit here. If say 50 percent of those who were prolife, also supported gay marriage, then we should expect to see the exact same percentage voting for someone who was prolife and rejected gay marriage, as someone who accepted gay marriage and supported abortion. See what I'm saying?

Not necessarily. People have different priorities which adds a whole new dynamic to the mix, you are operating the on the assumption that the people will priortize the issue that would lead them to support conservatives. That may not be the case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm willing to moderate on fiscal conservatism, but not on social. Your game.

And there are conservatives who will moderate on social issues but not on fiscal ones. That is why it is best to moderate atleast somewhat on both so that you don't impose too much on one side at the expense of the other. That is a how a coalition works. Otherwise, the more imposed upon will begin to leave. The fiscal cons have been drifting away slowly over time. And you guys threaten to leave over the slightest request of sacrifice. That is what I mean by "my way or the way" and "too demanding".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is another problem.


You are exaggerating the amount of sacrifice. I am talking about 20% tops. And you are exaggerating the gulf which divides the party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"I swear by god if you don't give me every god damn thing I want, I will stay home and not vote for any Republicans ever again. HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE ON ME LIKE THIS?!!!! Asking that I give up something. Really! It's barbaric I say, BARBARIC!!!"


Politics is about sacrifice to achieve priorities.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And the percentage of people who think that Cain and Perry were moderate candidates, is probably 15% if that.