Rick Perry at CPAC: How can the last two elections be a rejection of conservatism when we didn’t nominate conservatives?

posted at 8:48 pm on March 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Ace, skip to 17:00 for the money line. Judging from Drudge, against all odds on a day when both Rubio and Paul spoke, Perry seems to have walked away with the killer soundbite from CPAC. I don’t buy his argument, though. Obama won in 2008 because the public was exhausted with Bush and he represented something wholly fresh and new. He synthesized a particular political and cultural moment uniquely in my memory of presidential campaigns. (I don’t remember Reagan ’80.) A more conservative, or merely more capable, candidate than McCain might have won a few more electoral votes but there’s no reason realistically to think he would have been granted a four-year extension of Republican rule given Dubya’s rock-bottom approval ratings.

Romney is a tougher case because Obama no longer had the Hopenchange mojo working for him in 2012 and had 7.8 percent unemployment hanging over his head. Does anyone think, though, that Romney lost because of RomneyCare and because once upon a time he was pro-choice? He worked hard to position himself as a conservative, especially on immigration and on spending, which is why he put one of the most famous deficit hawks in Congress on the ticket. I think he lost not because he was obviously masquerading as a conservative (although he was) but because of poor retail skills, a poisonous image as an aloof aristocrat who couldn’t relate to the middle class, effective attacks from O (the “war on women” nonsense), an organization that was inferior to Obama’s in important ways, and, strange as it may seem, the fact that the economy was just good enough to make Obama the favorite. The better question here is why Republican primary voters keep nominating candidates like McCain and Romney who are so disdained by the base. Forget whether general election voters would vote for a conservative Republican over Obama if they had the chance. GOP primary voters do have a chance every four years to vote for a conservative. They haven’t done it for two election cycles now. Why not? I’m asking earnestly. I have no answer.

Keep watching after the soundbite for Perry’s impassioned pitch that the GOP can win Latinos over, with Texas as an example. He makes a compelling case, but do note: This is a guy who, despite his long history of electoral success, couldn’t crack 40 percent of the Latino vote in his home state in a year when he won reelection with 55 percent overall. If a candidate as conservative as Perry on electoral terrain as favorable as Texas can’t do better than that, what does a national candidate have to do to improve on it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But where was the conservative candidate? Did conservatives stay home in the primary? Rick Perry was a joke. We tried a bunch of other people and ended up with Romney.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Romney couldn’t talk either, unless it was out of both sides of his mouth. Come on. Where as the conservative? We had four friggin’ years of preparing the field with Romney’s-the-guy propaganda and then you try to say that the only reason we ended up with Romney is because the rest were jokes. It’s utterly dishonest.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Open primaries and incompetent conservatives (I’m looking at you, Perry).

If Perry hadn’t fallen directly on his ass, he had that nomination in the bag.

To some extent, same with Thompson, if Fred had been remotely prepared I think he had a good chance.

John_Locke on March 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Ditto – and I love Perry but man he screwed up!

gophergirl on March 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Fate, destiny, food poisoning, or any combination.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

As further evidence of my point about the disparity in winner-take-all vs proportional allocation, consider the breakdown among those that specifically tie their allocation to results rather than state conventions where the process is simply used to “inform” the decision of the state:

Winner-Take-All states: FL, SC, AZ, MI, ID, VA, PR, MD, DC, WI, CT, DE, NY, CA, NJ, UT

Proportional states: NH, NV, AK, GA, MA, OH, OK, TN, VT, KS, AL, HI, MS, NC, OR, AR, KY, TX, NM, SD

You’ll notice that I put NY and CA in bold. Both winner-take-all, both solid blue states. Although open primaries are an issue, the breakdown of who is proportional and who is winner-take-all is much more destructive.

Stoic Patriot on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

And if you recalled anything that I’ve ever criticized W. on it was definitely MedD, NCLB AND Homeland Security. Numerous times. Whats-his-name can pull up the archival statements of mine.

But you think that fatass Owlgore or the horseface Kerry wouldn’t have done that crap on steroids?

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

They might have. But that is why it is important for us to nominate conservatives that talk the talk and walk the walk and not McCain’s and Romney’s and even George W Bush’s who might win an election or two, but in the end damage the party so much that we are put in the wilderness for another 40 years.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Oh, b.s. Why do you think the Dems took over Congress in 2006?

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

What did I just say? Bush’s deficit for FY ’06 was 461 billion. After that sea hag got hold of the House it increased exponentially.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

I have said it before and I will continue to say it. Any conservative that refused to vote for Romney and sat the election out is a moron. They, more than anyone else, are to blame for Obama continuing to destroy this country for another four years. As for Perry, he was my first choice and I did all I could to get him the nomination.

Jack_Burton on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Open primaries and incompetent conservatives (I’m looking at you, Perry).

If Perry hadn’t fallen directly on his ass, he had that nomination in the bag.

John_Locke on March 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM

It wasn’t so much that Perry messed up, but that the bar was set higher for him since he was trying to overcome The Officially Anointed. You’re going to tell m e that anything Perry said was as bad as Romney’s global-warming crap that he spewed right off the bat?

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

FYI, for more on the primaries, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

Stoic Patriot on March 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Oh, b.s. Why do you think the Dems took over Congress in 2006?

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

What did I just say? Bush’s deficit for FY ’06 was 461 billion. After that sea hag got hold of the House it increased exponentially.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Well there were only two years, and TARP was Bush’s baby in large part.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Forget about that. There never will be another conservative in the Constitutional sense. The country will have to collapse before all these entitlements will ever be taken away.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

This is ecaxtly what I have been commenting here ever since the election.

maybe the elctoriate isn’t going left. Maybe a lot of people are just looking out the window and saying… there’s no difference. What’s the use of voting.

JellyToast on March 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Jack_Burton on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

He had it coming to him. America has it coming to it in spades. Just lay back and enjoy it buddy. There really is nothing you can do to stop it. Even with Romney as a president we would still be headed in the wrong direction of creating more degenerate worthless government subsidized leeches willing to vote for more politicians to redistribute more of the virtuous’ wealth.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Well there were only two years, and TARP was Bush’s baby in large part.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Yet another thing I was hard on W. about. Taking that sack of sh!t Schumer’s advice and appointing Paulson? Give me a break!

I really think Bush threw in the towel after the ’06 elections. But he did manage to find his veto pen.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

maybe the elctoriate isn’t going left. Maybe a lot of people are just looking out the window and saying… there’s no difference. What’s the use of voting.

JellyToast on March 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Exactly. Apathy and fatalism. A lot of it has set in watching the GOP capitulate time and time again after the Tea Party did so much to power their takeover of the House. People start to say, “What’s the point?”

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Forget about that. There never will be another conservative in the Constitutional sense. The country will have to collapse before all these entitlements will ever be taken away.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I know, hence the more mature option, let it burn and be there to be the ones picking up the pieces of our failed nation. I caved and voted for the dirt bag Romney, I will not be repeating that action again for another progressive (R)

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I have said it before and I will continue to say it. Any conservative that refused to vote for Romney and sat the election out is a moron. They, more than anyone else, are to blame for Obama continuing to destroy this country for another four years..

Jack_Burton on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Really? What about the 60% of moderates who voted FOR OBAMA????

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:42 PM

The only hope this country has is limiting who has access to the ballot box.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Jack_Burton on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

You want to know who I think is at fault for the second term of Obama, out side the primary voters? The people who defended Romney at all costs and protected him from the views of people like me who were demanding that he actually lock him self into something, anything concretely conservative as a goal of his first term.

But oh no, we could not possible ask the most progressive person to run on the Republican ticket in many decades to actually promise to do anything for the conservative base of the party, that would keep him from getting the moderate voters that he did not get anyways!

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM

The only hope this country has is limiting who has access to the ballot box.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

I remember fighting with you a long time ago… I am starting to think you are not such a bad guy after all. I agree with this.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

I didn’t say that at all. Romney was the nominee because voters selected him. My point is that Rick Perry and those that say conservatism didn’t lose are insane. There was no alternative to Romney. That’s not dishonest. Newt and Bachman are loons. Santorum is a bedroom policeman. And Perry is a bad impersonation of Josh Brolin impersonating Bush. I am not dishonest. I just realize that conservatism is not popular in our country anymore and blaming a moderate candidate for losing is disingenuous.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

The progressive nature of Bush’s government turned conservative voters off. So of course we got Democrat rule. that is what happens when you do not govern for the people that put you into power, they see no point in reappointing you.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM

99% of the time you’re right astonerii, but this is a load of crap. The only “progressive” move Bush made, (at Karl Rove’s advice) was passing a senior prescription bill that was UNFUNDED. The stupid idea was to take a huge platform off the Dem’s table—that they’d been pushing for ten years. What Rove didn’t expect OR COMBAT, was the narrative the liberal media and the Dems mounted (and the public swallowed) as irresponsible spending of government funds. Now isn’t that a joke compared to what Obama has done in the past four years?

My point is, you may have to expand a bit on what else Bush did that you could describe as a “progressive nature”……confusing at best.

Rovin on March 14, 2013 at 9:48 PM

I didn’t say that at all. Romney was the nominee because voters selected him. My point is that Rick Perry and those that say conservatism didn’t lose are insane. There was no alternative to Romney. That’s not dishonest. Newt and Bachman are loons. Santorum is a bedroom policeman. And Perry is a bad impersonation of Josh Brolin impersonating Bush. I am not dishonest. I just realize that conservatism is not popular in our country anymore and blaming a moderate candidate for losing is disingenuous.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

And anyone other than a nice moderate, specifically Romney, was going to be labeled a loon, or a kook, or an ayatollah, or an unelectable clown. THAT’S how Romney was nominated.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:50 PM

I just realize that conservatism is not popular in our country anymore and blaming a moderate candidate for losing is disingenuous.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Of course not. 2010 never happened. That was a moderate wave.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM

I remember fighting with you a long time ago… I am starting to think you are not such a bad guy after all. I agree with this.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative Rethuglican. You are an unconstrained libertarian. The human mind is too feeble to accept a true democracy. In fact, it would be a paradox – a race of beings capable of true democracy would not need one to begin with. There must be logical limits on society. Homosexual marriage is totally illogical.

Just as I’ve said a country that would elect a Ron Paul would not need a Ron Paul to begin with.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:54 PM

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM

That’s like saying weather and climate change are the same thing. What did 2010 get anyone? Boehner?

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:56 PM

And anyone other than a nice moderate, specifically Romney, was going to be labeled a loon, or a kook, or an ayatollah, or an unelectable clown. THAT’S how Romney was nominated.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Which is why I say Palin should have been the nominee. She’d never have said we had nothing to fear from an obama Presidency or that obama was a nice man, but wrong. She’d have fought hard and eventually throughout the course of the campaign, risen or fallen on her own merits. No more Romneys and no more Senators!

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:57 PM

To some extent, same with Thompson, if Fred had been remotely prepared I think he had a good chance.

John_Locke on March 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM

I liked Fred .. however I think he was there to protect McCain ….
because everyone knows it was McCain’s turn and all ….

conservative tarheel on March 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM

If you want an answer to your question, you have to look no further than Pravda and Izvestia. Obama has yet, to this day, to be vetted. If the MSM had pursued him , like they did Sarah Palin, he would have lost the election. In fact, if they pursued him, like they did Sarah Palin, in the primaries, he wouldn’t have been nominated. It’s really as simple as that.

Also, look at the Romney campaign. The Obama campaign was ruthless going after him, ruthless. Romney may have been the most decent candidate nominated, since Reagan, yet they were able to trash him and so ruin his reputation that voters actually believed he had complete disdain for them. You can’t do that without a lot of assistance from the MSM. I’ll never forget that Candy Crowley made Romney look like a liar, in front of 65 million people. If 10% of them changed their mind that night, based on the fact that Romney was lying, that’s 6.5 million votes. Did it cost him the election? Who knows. What I do know is it didn’t help and the momentum he’d built up to that point was lost.

bflat879 on March 14, 2013 at 10:00 PM

99% of the time you’re right astonerii, but this is a load of crap. The only “progressive” move Bush made, (at Karl Rove’s advice) was passing a senior prescription bill that was UNFUNDED. The stupid idea was to take a huge platform off the Dem’s table—that they’d been pushing for ten years. What Rove didn’t expect OR COMBAT, was the narrative the liberal media and the Dems mounted (and the public swallowed) as irresponsible spending of government funds. Now isn’t that a joke compared to what Obama has done in the past four years?

My point is, you may have to expand a bit on what else Bush did that you could describe as a “progressive nature”……confusing at best.

Rovin on March 14, 2013 at 9:48 PM

1, refused to name our enemy, progressive PC.
2, refused to fight the wars properly, too light and too kind, again another PC thing.
3, eaves dropping on American Citizens without a warrant, Big Brother is certainly a progressive desire, he handed them another win.
4, pushing for no verify loans to the poor, particularly minority voters.
5, who cares what reason he made for creating a bigger welfare state with medicare part D, it is still Marxism.
6, played the game with taxes that allows more people to avoid the pain their votes for spending cause instead of broadening the tax base.
7, increased the child tax credit which supports the degenerate single motherhood culture.
It is 10 pm, I am going to bed, I am not even a quarter done with this list.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:01 PM

bflat879 on March 14, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Great point. I was proud of Romney/Ryan during the last few weeks. Mitt had a huge debate win. And then the media decided to make him a liar. He was right on Libya, Jeep, the 47%, etc.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Just as I’ve said a country that would elect a Ron Paul would not need a Ron Paul to begin with.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:54 PM

I’m no libertarian. I take that as an ultimate insult.
I believe in constitutional government, personal responsibility, private charity. I also believe in allowing the public to use certain degrees of coercion and force against miscreants, deviants and degenerates such as to minimize their numbers and effect on society.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Yeah, I’m goin’ to bed too.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 10:04 PM

I’m no libertarian. I take that as an ultimate insult.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Oh. I thought you were. I stand corrected.

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 10:05 PM

It wasn’t so much that Perry messed up, but that the bar was set higher for him since he was trying to overcome The Officially Anointed. You’re going to tell m e that anything Perry said was as bad as Romney’s global-warming crap that he spewed right off the bat?

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

There was a high bar to clear, but Perry barely cleared the “can walk outside without a helmet” bar in the first place.

It wasn’t his message that I disliked, it was the communication of that message.

Romney’s message may have been a turd early on, but it was an especially well polished turd.

John_Locke on March 14, 2013 at 10:05 PM

pretty beat … I may go to bed … going to lurk for a bit.

conservative tarheel on March 14, 2013 at 10:05 PM

socon = DOA

Bandit13 on March 14, 2013 at 10:06 PM

How can the last two elections be a rejection of conservatism when we didn’t nominate conservatives?

Somebody turned off their irony detector. If conservatives weren’t elected, and their were options in the field, wouldn’t that BE a rejection of conservatism?

Genuine on March 14, 2013 at 10:11 PM

*there

Genuine on March 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Also…

*nominated, not elected.

Genuine on March 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM

How can the last two elections be a rejection of conservatism when we didn’t nominate conservatives?

thank you RP

sbvft contributor on March 14, 2013 at 10:13 PM

It is 10 pm, I am going to bed, I am not even a quarter done with this list.

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 10:01 PM

No, it’s only 7 pm. But get some rest my friend. I’ll argue the gap in our definition of a progressive another time.

Rovin on March 14, 2013 at 10:13 PM

their were

Genius.

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Nice speech by Perry.Very nice..:)

Dire Straits on March 14, 2013 at 10:23 PM

I have said it before and I will continue to say it. Any conservative that refused to vote for Romney and sat the election out is a moron. They, more than anyone else, are to blame for Obama continuing to destroy this country for another four years. As for Perry, he was my first choice and I did all I could to get him the nomination.

Jack_Burton on March 14, 2013 at 9:35 PM

What you say is absolutely true. The implication of Perry’s statement is that Romney would have been elected if the morons were less moronic. It’s a devastating condemnation of some conservatives by Perry. He’s saying that these moronic conservatives re-elected Obama. I doubt that’s true. I think people like stoic patriot, astonerii and ddrintn et al are a small minority.

Basilsbest on March 14, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Obama won in 2008 because the public was exhausted with Bush

Had Bush been a conservative the public wouldn’t have been exhausted with him. Bush was a nice guy and so was Mittens, but it isn’t that we haven’t run a conservative for 2 election cycles… we haven’t run a conservative since 1984

halfbaked on March 14, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Hmm. I definitely agree with that Perry quote, but I genuinely don’t know if a real conservative would have won. And guess what, I don’t care. We needed a distinct and convincing choice. If the American people reject that, so be it. Yes, I’d rather lose with Perry, Palin, Cruz or Paul than lose with Romney or McCain.

Dongemaharu on March 14, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Well obviously Romney was the most electable…oh wait…

When successful conservative governing records and smart policy ideas matter again let me know…Otherwise…

I’ll be in Texas.

Gig Em’

workingclass artist on March 14, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Obama won in 2008 because the public was exhausted with Bush

Had Bush been a conservative the public wouldn’t have been exhausted with him. Bush was a nice guy and so was Mittens, but it isn’t that we haven’t run a conservative for 2 election cycles… we haven’t run a conservative since 1984

halfbaked on March 14, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Obama won because there was no way in hell the Historic Preezy was gonna get canned after one term…No matter how disastrous that term was….The same will happen with any other Historic Preezy.

The PC of Identity Politics…It’s what’s for dinner.

workingclass artist on March 14, 2013 at 10:59 PM

GOP primary voters do have a chance every four years to vote for a conservative. They haven’t done it for two election cycles now. Why not? I’m asking earnestly. I have no answer.

There is the liberal base and there is the conservative base. Then there are all of the other voters just waiting to be sold something. It doesn’t matter if they’re registered dem or republican, they buy what the best advertisers packaged for them.

It’s just marketing. One difference with Obama running, he had the black vote even from conservative or right-leaning blacks.

Vince on March 14, 2013 at 11:07 PM

We win when we have a conservative on the ticket/ McCain and Romeny are not conservatives. Perry is right. And I would vote for him in a minute!

Bullhead on March 14, 2013 at 11:15 PM

I think he lost not because he was obviously masquerading as a conservative (although he was) but because of poor retail skills, a poisonous image as an aloof aristocrat who couldn’t relate to the middle class, effective attacks from O (the “war on women” nonsense), an organization that was inferior to Obama’s in important ways, and, strange as it may seem, the fact that the economy was just good enough to make Obama the favorite

I.e., he was an awful spokesman for a conservative (?) message that he didn’t believe in.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 11:16 PM

The better question here is why Republican primary voters keep nominating candidates like McCain and Romney who are so disdained by the base

Same reason general election voters vote for democrats: that’s what the press tells them to do. And having been educated in government schools, the voters are unable to reason for themselves and mindlessly do what they are told, like lemmings off a cliff.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 11:19 PM

This is a guy who, despite his long history of electoral success, couldn’t crack 40 percent of the Latino vote in his home state in a year when he won reelection with 55 percent overall. If a candidate as conservative as Perry on electoral terrain as favorable as Texas can’t do better than that, what does a national candidate have to do to improve on it?

That a candidate as conservative as Perry can win almost 40% of the Latino vote with the prevalent anti-GOP propaganda that Latinos are constantly exposed to seems like a cause for optimism to me.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 11:23 PM

The better question here is why Republican primary voters keep nominating candidates like McCain and Romney who are so disdained by the base. Forget whether general election voters would vote for a conservative Republican over Obama if they had the chance. GOP primary voters do have a chance every four years to vote for a conservative. They haven’t done it for two election cycles now. Why not? I’m asking earnestly. I have no answer.

Ok. My honest, earnest belief. Republican voters only vote for candidates we are told are “electable”… Democrats however… vote for whoever the hell they want. We need to learn that the guy the media tells us is the most “electable” is usually just the most liberal. Meanwhile the Democrats only have an “unelectable” candidate when they run Dennis Kucinich.
We need to stop worrying about “electability” because it ain’t working. We should be worrying about who best represents our values.

therambler on March 14, 2013 at 11:25 PM

I.e., he was an awful spokesman for a conservative (?) message that he didn’t believe in.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 11:16 PM

.
Well at least he stopped the taxes hikes on the rich – the 1%! What a spokesman he was in stopping those tax increases. That was a strong conservative position that he campaigned on, and the whole country embraced those conservative ideals. That alone should have gotten him elected and dump the purple lipped devil.

But it just wasn’t enough.

FlaMurph on March 14, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Is there even one Republican governor who has actually reduced the overall burden of state income taxes, tolls, fees, property taxes, etc.? On Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/14/jindal-no-more-income-taxes-for-louisiana/ we see Bobby Jindal wants to eliminate the Louisiana state income tax. Whoo hoo, right? Then you read that he is increasing sales and other taxes in a ‘revenue neutral’ way. That is, he did not decrease the overall cost of Louisiana state government in any way. He merely shifted the state tax burden from one group of slaves to another.

I am not ever going to vote for people who pull tricks like that. You progressive Republican Romney voters can use every ad hom and tu quoque non-argument in your extensive arsenal to diss those of us who ACTUALLY want to cut government. We will have none of your ‘revenue neutral’ tax shifting tricks or your fake ‘baseline budgeting’ cuts or your seemingly endless desire to issue public bonds to fund your progressive programs at the expense of future government funds that must be used to pay the interest on those bonds. We in the tea parties will fight you every step of the way.

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 AM

It’s that people who might be nudged into voting for something different will sit home if the choices presented are just Dem and Dem Lite.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Can we call those people “low information non-voters”? You might dislike 75% of the things Mitt Romney would do as president, but if you’re going to dislike 100% of the things Barack Obama would do as president, you’re still better off voting for Romney.

Things are different in the Democratic Party. Obama has a number of supporters who don’t even know what he is doing, but who support whatever it is he does because they like him. (See, for example, the people on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” who supported Obama’s supposed decision to “pardon the sequester and send it to Portugal.”)

J.S.K. on March 15, 2013 at 12:26 AM

You want to know who I think is at fault for the second term of Obama, out side the primary voters? The people who defended Romney at all costs and protected him from the views of people like me who were demanding that he actually lock him self into something, anything concretely conservative as a goal of his first term.

But oh no, we could not possible ask the most progressive person to run on the Republican ticket in many decades to actually promise to do anything for the conservative base of the party, that would keep him from getting the moderate voters that he did not get anyways!

astonerii on March 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Smartest, most accurate thing anyone’s posted on this thread, to date.

Kent18 on March 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM

GOP primary voters do have a chance every four years to vote for a conservative. They haven’t done it for two election cycles now. Why not? I’m asking earnestly. I have no answer.

Yeah, that’s what always gets to me.

I mean. can there be THAT MANY Rockerfeller republicans in Iowa? Or where ever?

But I’m not sure how “open primaries” work, but all I can say is if I ran a political party I would not allow open primaries.

Why the heck would I?

Jocon307 on March 15, 2013 at 12:51 AM

You might dislike 75% of the things Mitt Romney would do as president, but if you’re going to dislike 100% of the things Barack Obama would do as president, you’re still better off voting for Romney.

J.S.K. on March 15, 2013 at 12:26 AM

So, I am completely limited to a choice between 75% bad as opposed to 100% bad. Resistance is futile. You just told me so. Eat this!

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 12:54 AM

Obama won in 2008 because the public was exhausted with Bush and he represented something wholly fresh and new.

Yes, but he also relied heavily on Reaganesque rhetoric to position himself as a moderate, he even referenced the gipper on more than one occasion. Conservatism still resonates in this country when articulated correctly.

Daemonocracy on March 15, 2013 at 2:08 AM

The 4 reasons Republicans keep nominating liberal Republicans…..

1-The establishment gets behind the liberal Republicans.

2-The money bags get behind the liberal Republicans.

3-The media push for the liberal Republicans while attacking the conservative Republicans.

4-The elections are setup to advantage the liberal Republicans.

These reasons give the liberal or establishment candidates a 15-20% head start. These advantages are going to be hard to beat. Especially when the establishment floods the field with conservative tools to split the vote from serious conservatives and pressure quality conservatives from even entering.

The game is fixed and will be tough to beat.

KMav on March 15, 2013 at 2:41 AM

Which is why I say Palin should have been the nominee. She’d never have said we had nothing to fear from an obama Presidency or that obama was a nice man, but wrong. She’d have fought hard and eventually throughout the course of the campaign, risen or fallen on her own merits. No more Romneys and no more Senators!

Lanceman on March 14, 2013 at 9:57 PM

I like the cut of your job, sir.

Is there even one Republican governor who has actually reduced the overall burden of state income taxes, tolls, fees, property taxes, etc.?

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 AM

See above. There are others, too.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 5:58 AM

Obama won in 2008 because the public was exhausted with Bush

Are you certain that it wasn’t the leftist media bashing him 24/7/365 that turned the brainless masses toward the fauz messiah?

Don L on March 15, 2013 at 6:22 AM

“(I don’t remember Reagan ’80.)”

That says it all. Maybe it’s time to do some research.

Conservatives want no part of GOP moderate. That is all we have had since Reagan.

Nothing can extinguish a fire like a watered down GOP moderate. Might as well vote for the Democrat if you are going to get some GOP squish who is more interested in being a member of the club and pushing Chuck U. Screwmer’s agenda than gutting the “District of Corruption” of it’s waste.

I don’t want to be nice. I want to kick some serious statist azz and I am fed up with Bush mafia compassion that is content to keep moving the goal posts left.

Later, get used to losing because a moderate GOP is the permanent minority party.

Many people didn’t vote for McLame because a conservative was on the bottom of the ticket. Those same people stayed home again because they knew who Romney was and knew Ryan never met “Big Government” spending that he didn’t sign up for.

It’s your funeral. Knock yourself out.

Conservatives aren’t fooled. We can write the script. Nobody is buying Rubio’s Big Government Bush agenda.

Jayrae on March 15, 2013 at 6:51 AM

I still don’t see where offering instate tuition to illegals is conservative.

ctmom on March 15, 2013 at 7:52 AM

I still don’t see where offering instate tuition to illegals is conservative.

ctmom on March 15, 2013 at 7:52 AM

If they were brought here as children by their parents and have lived all their lives in the US, it makes no sense to make it harder for them to get an education and become contributors to society.

What’s your solution? Send out thousands of paddy-wagons to knock down doors and round up people in the middle of the night to deport them? Or would you just rather have them on food stamps and/or committing crimes, thus becoming a net burden on society?

The feds have neglected their obligation to protect our borders for a long time, and at this point, solutions aren’t as black/white or cut and dried as a lot of people on our side seem to think.

Perry is a conservative, all right. The difference between him and you is that he has responsiblity to deal with a situation. He doesn’t have the luxury of being dogmatic for the sake of it.

He’d make a damn fine President – the best of anyone in the field last year.

All of that said, it’s clear the GOP needs to nominate someone who gins up enthusiasm in the base AND is congenial enough to attract low-info independent types – because nominating the establishment’s guy “who can win,” – ie, Romney and McCain – isn’t working.

DRayRaven on March 15, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Jayrae on March 15, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Conservatives want no part of GOP moderate. That is all we have had since Reagan.

Exactly! It has been much longer than four election cycles since we had a conservative nominee.

PatientWolf on March 15, 2013 at 8:47 AM

To our shame, we have “won” with nonconservatives. We have not nominated a conservative since 1984.

burt on March 15, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Bad news for everyone…brown/black people don’t vote Republican or Conservative. Demographically speaking we conservatives are headed for the trash bin of history. I’m just glad the process is slow enough that I’ll be gone before the meek entirely inherit the earth…

Doomsday on March 15, 2013 at 9:18 AM

For the Republicans to remain a viable party, they must return to their small government Conservative roots.

A Moderate Republican Candidate will not win the Presidency in 2016. Dole, McCain, and Romney are living proof of it.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 9:31 AM

To our shame, we have “won” with nonconservatives. We have not nominated a conservative since 1984.

burt on March 15, 2013 at 8:48 AM

I agree, but the essential issue is that the country is more brown/black everyday. I have come to believe that had we nominated a true conservative the results would have been worse and even carried down the ballot. Demographic tide is stacked against conservatives (mainly we’re white men). We are doomed!

Doomsday on March 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

You know this headline reminds me that the mainstream media told us that republicans stayed home in the Romney/Ryan election. When the votes were counted…absentee ballots, banked by republicans who “could not wait” to vote, more republicans came out for Romney/Ryan than came out to vote for McCain,who was nominated because he was a war hero.

My calculations, you could check them, show in the Battleground states where Romney could have used just a few more voters:
Florida, 200,000 for 29 electoral votes
Virginia, 116,000 votes for 13 electoral votes
Colorado, 113,000 for 9 electoral votes
Nevada, 66,000 for 6 electoral votes
New Mexico 75,000 votes for 5 electoral votes
New Hampshire 41,000 votes for the 4 electoral votes

We don’t know if being more conservative would have helped, but
Romney needed only 611,000 voters in battleground states to push the electoral vote over the top.

But that is not the 5 million republicans staying home, or conservatives not coming out. If you were a person who cared about your country and the future you did your duty and voted in the November election.

The MSM wanted to cast the Obama win as a landslide.

This morning on Fox news I saw them advertising condos in Florida, and I thought, if 200,000 conservatives from CA went to Florida instead of moving to Texas, they could band together and start working toward the future. The FL election was lost because in early voting, the democrats have paid employees that pick up voters all day every day and drive their buses to the polls, while you are at work.

The best conservative idea to win next time, would be to battle our primary differences out in private and not in front of the MSM camera. And especially, no more candidates planting Obama propaganda out in the battleground states, the way Gingrich put the anti capitalist message out in Ohio, and PA, and the mid west. If Romney could not surmount a messages that democrats said “came from republicans themselves” that Romney was a Robber baron that did not care about the less fortunate…that came from Newt’s pac. So, I turn off the tv when I see him. He has lost all credibility with me.

So, yes, a bit more conservatism next time, stop using liberal ideas like the “1% is evil” to win in the primaries. Romney won the red states with a big margin. That was all he needed there.
He won in MO with more than half of the vote, and the republican senator, an arch conservative lost. In Indianna, he won with 60+% of the vote, Pense won there too, but Mourdock lost.

Were Akins and Mourdock not conservative enough?

Fleuries on March 15, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Newt and Bachman are loons. Santorum is a bedroom policeman. And Perry is a bad impersonation of Josh Brolin impersonating Bush.

Rusty Allen on March 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

You sound like ANY lib, spewing THEIR one-note, biased views of these people. Maybe you should actually listen to them speak(in more than 20 second soundbites) before regurgitating the hate-filled, and wrong, talking points of the left.

Sterling Holobyte on March 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM

What’s your solution? Send out thousands of paddy-wagons to knock down doors and round up people in the middle of the night to deport them? Or would you just rather have them on food stamps and/or committing crimes, thus becoming a net burden on society?

Or, we could not give them instate tuition. Not rewarding them in other ways for being here illegally would be another good start.

The feds have neglected their obligation to protect our borders for a long time, and at this point, solutions aren’t as black/white or cut and dried as a lot of people on our side seem to think.

DRayRaven

Actually, the solutions are pretty black and white. Doing the right thing usually is.

xblade on March 15, 2013 at 10:19 AM

They haven’t done it for two election cycles now. Why not? I’m asking earnestly. I have no answer.

Combination of weak fields, the ongoing divide in the GOP between the social and fiscally conservative factions and the fact that yes, there is a significant bloc of centrist Republicans out there who view McCain/Romney types as being ideal nominees.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Were Akins and Mourdock not conservative enough?

Fleuries

Are you being obtuse? They were both conservative enough. They both said something very stupid too. Otherwise, both would have won easily. Being a conservative candidate doesn’t give you a free pass to be stupid.

xblade on March 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 AM

By moving the cost of government to a consumption based tax, such as sales, it makes each person capable of determining how much they want to support the government by their in state spending. It also broadens the tax base which causes everyone to feel the pain of the spending they demand from the government. There is very little wrong with this sort of set up. In fact, it gives the voters opportunity to feel the pain of the spending and might actually cause them to question if all that spending is worth it. Say they might want to lower the tax a bit by getting rid of state sponsored X or Y. Or, when presented with a demand to fund new project Z and increase the sales tax by % they can choose their priorities.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 10:28 AM

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Out of curiosity, how would you set this up? I agree with a lot of what’s in your post (especially the bit about voters directly feeling the hurt from spending), but I’m curious about what sort of administration we’re talking about.

More directly, one flat rate on all goods and services would definitely be regressive as poorer people would pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes than would wealthier people. While I generally would like to see our tax system be flatter and simpler, a regressive system is something I view as wrong.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM

You might dislike 75% of the things Mitt Romney would do as president, but if you’re going to dislike 100% of the things Barack Obama would do as president, you’re still better off voting for Romney.

J.S.K. on March 15, 2013 at 12:26 AM

So, I am completely limited to a choice between 75% bad as opposed to 100% bad. Resistance is futile. You just told me so. Eat this!

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 12:54 AM

I’m describing your choices, not imposing them on you. You can choose to vote for neither the 75% bad candidate nor the 100% bad candidate if you prefer. But if you abstain from voting, don’t be surprised if the 100% bad candidate wins.

Not voting isn’t going to magically make a candidate appear who you would consider 100% good, or even 90% or 80% good.

J.S.K. on March 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The only true fair tax is the one that is levied exactly the same on all persons of responsibility. In this case it would be adults. This would be determined by spending/adults = tax. That is the only fair tax that there can be. Any increase in spending effects everyone exactly the same.

The next best one I know of is a flat rate consumption tax where each person pays for the government based on how much they benefit from living in the society. Spending money on products and services seems like a good place to determine benefit and ensures that you are getting money from every citizen. You call it regressive, I call it incentive based. Yes, a poor person spends a higher portion of their money on their living expenses and poor people in this nation are far from destitute so I am not sure it is a bad thing to make them pay for the government they vote for. If they want low taxes, maybe it is time to stop giving food stamps to every drug user in the state, or to give in state tuition to the illegal immigrants going to their state schools, or maybe the state should cut back or illuminate spending millions of dollars on trying to attract sports teams or what ever other optional and less than beneficial government activity is.

Hey, do you want a top rated sports team? That is going to be +.5% sales tax for 5 years, now do you still want it? Hey, we were thinking of extending the medicaid program to include such and such a group, only an extra .25% on your taxes. We were thinking of opening up a large piece of state land for mineral extraction, that will be a drop of .37%, what do you say?

Now, that 47% that Romney was talking about might start having some heartburn about voting for the free stuff, it is no longer free to them. Thus, the appetite of the population for spending is likely to be lower if not reverse.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM

So what? Pence won. Romney lost.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 9:16 PM

If the argument is that a conservative would have done better, it’s worth looking at races in which Romney and someone who was more conservative were both on the ballot.

Pence won Indiana by 3.2%.
Romney won Indiana by 10.2%.

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Romney lost because Romney did not want to win. Tagg said so, his campaign post primary proved it so.

For the republican side of the primary, there was never a more vicious negative campaign in recent memory than that of Romney who ran outright false negative advertisements to the tune of 99.9% only two radio ads were not negative for all of the Florida media.

General election, sit back and ride to the finish line. Like McCain before him, when presented with a path to victory he chose instead to reign it in and sabotage his own campaign. McCain got Palin and once it was shown she was a boon had his campaign hacks chew her up. Romney had the first debate where he actually sounded for the first time as if he understood conservative and got a massive boon out of that, immediately after realizing it was working he reverted back to his progressive nature.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Well I won’t hide the fact that I disagree on the regressive tax thing.

I think where common ground might exist is that I favor devolving as many responsibilities from the federal government as possible and leaving it up to the states and even better, local communities, to decide whether they want those services or not. The principle of the idea is demonstrated regularly whenever a local bond issue comes on to the ballot.

Happened a couple years ago in my hometown. The school board wanted to demolish our aging schools and build new ones for $50 million. When people found out that both property and sales taxes were going to go up for 10 years to pay for the thing, suddenly they decided that maybe an $8 million renovation was more prudent.

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Yeah I’m not sure why Romney takes so much flak for the down ballot races. Win or lose, he typically outperformed his fellow Republicans in statewide races. The only dramatic exception coming to mind right now is Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM

You cannot remove those items from the federal level… They are locked in by a majority vote of those who are benefiting from them while not paying for or at least only paying a minor amount towards them. As long as you have the PROGRESSIVE tax system, this will remain the way it is until collapse.

You want something that cannot and will not exist in a society. You want to allow the majority of people to be exempt from paying for government and then expect that majority to do the right thing when it comes to voting for things.

You had the perfect example above in your own post. When confronted with the choice of spending a huge amount of money for new and taking the the tax hit for it and doing a moderate upgrade and taking a much lower tax hit, the people chose wisely I would imagine. What would they have said if the government had instead argued they would just raise the money off the 10% highest earners/property owners and let everyone else off the hook?

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

…You cannot remove those items from the federal level… They are locked in by a majority vote…
astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

But you think a national sales tax will pass because those selfsame people WANT their Federal tax liability to go from nothing to 25%?

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Pence won Indiana by 3.2%.
Romney won Indiana by 10.2%.

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Mr. Mets, are you in Indianna, I am not. My friends would be conservative catholics there, but I am not close enough to understand Indianna politics.

I really don’t understand if Mourdock was not conservative enough, what would that mean? He was portrayed to the rest of the country as a Right Wing Nut, and I understand the media does that. But if he wasn’t conservative enough for the people who back Mike Pense? Why can’t republicans just shove whoever wins the primary thru? Why do they have to be so picky? In Delaware, O’Donnell won, and the party wouldn’t help her because they had backed the other candidate. That is inexcusable. We can’t all have our favorite choice all the time.

Fleuries on March 15, 2013 at 2:06 PM

But you think a national sales tax will pass because those selfsame people WANT their Federal tax liability to go from nothing to 25%?

Ceteris Paribus on March 15, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I was arguing on the state level. The person I quoted was attacking Bobby Jindal because Jindal was only shuffling the sources of the funding, not cutting the actual cost of government.

My argument was based there.

I do think changing to a consumption only tax system would fix much of the federal problems we are seeing. I do not think it is possible because we already have about half the population enjoying the benefits of government and only paying 2.9% of the cost of government through income taxes.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I can’t let a Perry thread go by without at least one comment. I watched on cspan as he gave the speech. I suffered through Begali (and Carlson) to do so. I appreciate his comments. I am at the point that I hope he stays here and forgets the national scene.

jazzuscounty on March 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Your assessment of the “tiredness” from Bush fails to address the point Perry made: Republicans did not nominate a conservative in either McCain nor Romney.

RickCaird on March 15, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2