I have settled on a GOP candidate to support.

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Let me preface my post with the following; The last time my initial primary pick actually won the presidency, it was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although the country should listen to me more, that just often doesn't turn out to be the case. Most of the time, my primary pick doesn't even make it to the nomination, and by the time the primaries reach Alabama, is not even on the ballot anymore. Nevertheless, as a man of principle, who believes in supporting who you think is best man/woman, regardless of party, polls or popularity, I have settled on an initial candidate to support for the GOP nomination.

It might come as a shocker to some on the left, who might think of me as "racist" because of my nickname and avatars, or respect for Confederate veterans, but my choice is Herman Cain. I realize he is a real long shot, and probably won't ever win the nomination or the presidency, but he is the man who I feel is best qualified to be president, who's ideas are most inline with my own, and who's character shines through above all else. Whether the rest of America agrees, remains to be seen.

Cain/Rubio 2012! YES WE CAIN!
 
Dixie said:
Let me preface my post with the following; The last time my initial primary pick actually won the presidency, it was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although the country should listen to me more, that just often doesn't turn out to be the case. Most of the time, my primary pick doesn't even make it to the nomination, and by the time the primaries reach Alabama, is not even on the ballot anymore. Nevertheless, as a man of principle, who believes in supporting who you think is best man/woman, regardless of party, polls or popularity, I have settled on an initial candidate to support for the GOP nomination.



It might come as a shocker to some on the left, who might think of me as "racist" because of my nickname and avatars, or respect for Confederate veterans, but my choice is Herman Cain. I realize he is a real long shot, and probably won't ever win the nomination or the presidency, but he is the man who I feel is best qualified to be president, who's ideas are most inline with my own, and who's character shines through above all else. Whether the rest of America agrees, remains to be seen.

Cain/Rubio 2012! YES WE CAIN!
Click to expand...

Not a chance.
 
I like Herman Cain as far as what I know about him. He is certainly a fiscal conservative. I haven't seen him espouse any of the social conservative issues I disagree with.

We could do a LOT worse.
 
apple0154 said:
Not a chance.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but I think Cain made a LOT of people sit up and take notice, and I think he became a serious candidate Thursday evening. If he keeps this up, you pinheads are going to have to start coming up with some shit to throw at him, and I think you're going to find him very difficult to hit. It's one of the appeals he has to me, he's not a politician, and insider, a beltway boy... he is a well-articulated and successful businessman, who knows how to connect with people on a personal level. After I made this post, I watched Hannity's post debate coverage, where he had Frank Luntz, polling an audience of SC voters who had watched the debate. He asked how many people came in to the debates with Herman Cain as their favorite, and only one person raised their hand, then he asked how many left the debates with Herman Cain as their favorite, and at least 2/3 of the audience raised their hands... pretty damn impressive, if you ask me. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, maybe this was a fluke, or MAYBE the GOP just found their man?
 
Dixie said:
Maybe not, but I think Cain made a LOT of people sit up and take notice, and I think he became a serious candidate Thursday evening. If he keeps this up, you pinheads are going to have to start coming up with some shit to throw at him, and I think you're going to find him very difficult to hit. It's one of the appeals he has to me, he's not a politician, and insider, a beltway boy... he is a well-articulated and successful businessman, who knows how to connect with people on a personal level. After I made this post, I watched Hannity's post debate coverage, where he had Frank Luntz, polling an audience of SC voters who had watched the debate. He asked how many people came in to the debates with Herman Cain as their favorite, and only one person raised their hand, then he asked how many left the debates with Herman Cain as their favorite, and at least 2/3 of the audience raised their hands... pretty damn impressive, if you ask me. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, maybe this was a fluke, or MAYBE the GOP just found their man?
Click to expand...

I think he is a good candidate, from what little bit I have seen.

Besides, anyone who sits in for Neal Boortz has to be ok.
 
WinterBorn said:
I like Herman Cain as far as what I know about him. He is certainly a fiscal conservative. I haven't seen him espouse any of the social conservative issues I disagree with.

We could do a LOT worse.
Click to expand...

One thing that needs to be understood by anyone who professes to be on the right, or planning to oppose Obama in any meaningful way... Social Conservatism is an important part of the conservative philosophy. I thought Santorum made a really great statement about it, and it fits with what I have often argued here with secular conservatives. The very core principles of who we are as a nation, is rooted in the belief that we are endowed rights by our Creator, and among those, are life and liberty. Now, how do you abandon that core principle and remain true to the principles of conservatism? This doesn't mean we have to nominate a die-hard social conservative, but it does mean that we can't abandon their principles and hope to garner their votes. It's something the libertarian secular wing just doesn't seem to get, and I don't know that they are going into this election cycle any differently. You're not going to win without the evangelical vote.... just ain't going to happen. So what you have to have, is someone who can balance those social conservative values with common sense fiscal conservatism, and do it in a way that doesn't offend or alienate the base, but holds the seculars.
 
Dixie said:
Let me preface my post with the following; The last time my initial primary pick actually won the presidency, it was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although the country should listen to me more, that just often doesn't turn out to be the case. Most of the time, my primary pick doesn't even make it to the nomination, and by the time the primaries reach Alabama, is not even on the ballot anymore. Nevertheless, as a man of principle, who believes in supporting who you think is best man/woman, regardless of party, polls or popularity, I have settled on an initial candidate to support for the GOP nomination.

It might come as a shocker to some on the left, who might think of me as "racist" because of my nickname and avatars, or respect for Confederate veterans, but my choice is Herman Cain. I realize he is a real long shot, and probably won't ever win the nomination or the presidency, but he is the man who I feel is best qualified to be president, who's ideas are most inline with my own, and who's character shines through above all else. Whether the rest of America agrees, remains to be seen.

Cain/Rubio 2012! YES WE CAIN!
Click to expand...

He had a very decent evening talk show here in Atlanta. I think he would make the upcoming debates interesting
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
One thing that needs to be understood by anyone who professes to be on the right, or planning to oppose Obama in any meaningful way... Social Conservatism is an important part of the conservative philosophy. I thought Santorum made a really great statement about it, and it fits with what I have often argued here with secular conservatives. The very core principles of who we are as a nation, is rooted in the belief that we are endowed rights by our Creator, and among those, are life and liberty. Now, how do you abandon that core principle and remain true to the principles of conservatism? This doesn't mean we have to nominate a die-hard social conservative, but it does mean that we can't abandon their principles and hope to garner their votes. It's something the libertarian secular wing just doesn't seem to get, and I don't know that they are going into this election cycle any differently. You're not going to win without the evangelical vote.... just ain't going to happen. So what you have to have, is someone who can balance those social conservative values with common sense fiscal conservatism, and do it in a way that doesn't offend or alienate the base, but holds the seculars.
Click to expand...

If he is going to be a republican candidate he will have to come out against abortion. But he would do well to let that remain a relatively minor point. The fiscal conservatism has the greatest appeal to the greatest number of people.
 
I don't really have any worries about who you're going to support Dix. If the GOP nominates Bret Michaels, it will only be about 24-48 hours before you're calling him the next Reagan, and telling the left that they have no idea what they're in for...
 
Dixie said:
One thing that needs to be understood by anyone who professes to be on the right, or planning to oppose Obama in any meaningful way... Social Conservatism is an important part of the conservative philosophy. I thought Santorum made a really great statement about it, and it fits with what I have often argued here with secular conservatives. The very core principles of who we are as a nation, is rooted in the belief that we are endowed rights by our Creator, and among those, are life and liberty. Now, how do you abandon that core principle and remain true to the principles of conservatism? This doesn't mean we have to nominate a die-hard social conservative, but it does mean that we can't abandon their principles and hope to garner their votes. It's something the libertarian secular wing just doesn't seem to get, and I don't know that they are going into this election cycle any differently. You're not going to win without the evangelical vote.... just ain't going to happen. So what you have to have, is someone who can balance those social conservative values with common sense fiscal conservatism, and do it in a way that doesn't offend or alienate the base, but holds the seculars.
Click to expand...

Conservatism isn't conservatism without the social aspect.
 
Dixie said:
One thing that needs to be understood by anyone who professes to be on the right, or planning to oppose Obama in any meaningful way... Social Conservatism is an important part of the conservative philosophy. I thought Santorum made a really great statement about it, and it fits with what I have often argued here with secular conservatives. The very core principles of who we are as a nation, is rooted in the belief that we are endowed rights by our Creator, and among those, are life and liberty. Now, how do you abandon that core principle and remain true to the principles of conservatism? This doesn't mean we have to nominate a die-hard social conservative, but it does mean that we can't abandon their principles and hope to garner their votes. It's something the libertarian secular wing just doesn't seem to get, and I don't know that they are going into this election cycle any differently. You're not going to win without the evangelical vote.... just ain't going to happen. So what you have to have, is someone who can balance those social conservative values with common sense fiscal conservatism, and do it in a way that doesn't offend or alienate the base, but holds the seculars.
Click to expand...

The problem with this country is that we keep focusing on what the candidates are going to do with 'social' issues. How about we elect someone who knows what the hell to do with FISCAL/ECONOMIC issues. Put a moratorium on 'social' issues until the economic/fiscal issues have been solved. It is the social issues that are used by both parties to create the wedges in society. It leads the two bases to knee-jerk rejection of any proposal on economics by the 'other' party because they are pissed about social issue differences.
 
Superfreak said:
The problem with this country is that we keep focusing on what the candidates are going to do with 'social' issues. How about we elect someone who knows what the hell to do with FISCAL/ECONOMIC issues. Put a moratorium on 'social' issues until the economic/fiscal issues have been solved. It is the social issues that are used by both parties to create the wedges in society. It leads the two bases to knee-jerk rejection of any proposal on economics by the 'other' party because they are pissed about social issue differences.
Click to expand...

If the GOP downplayed the social issues, they'd kill w/ independents. I'll get laughed off the board for this, but if there was a good fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republican, I'd even entertain voting for him/her. And I'm not just whistling Dixie - getting the fiscal house in order is the #1 priority right now, and I don't trust Democrats to do that.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Conservatism isn't conservatism without the social aspect.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If we had a candidate (from either party) come out with a sound economic plan, who in turn stated that social issues should be on the back burner until the economic/fiscal side was resolved, they would win in a friggin landslide. Moderates of both parties along with Independents would flock to such a stance. FISCAL conservatism is what people are sorely craving. The social issues are just a continuous repeat back and forth of the same positions that are not ever likely to be 'resolved'. Can we make tweaks to those issues right now? Sure, with a hell of a lot of partisanship from both sides, something small might get accomplished. But we should not be focusing on such matters until the issues that MUST be resolved are taken care of and those issues are FISCAL and ECONOMIC.... not SOCIAL.
 
Onceler said:
If the GOP downplayed the social issues, they'd kill w/ independents. I'll get laughed off the board for this, but if there was a good fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republican, I'd even entertain voting for him/her. And I'm not just whistling Dixie - getting the fiscal house in order is the #1 priority right now, and I don't trust Democrats to do that.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the majority of this board would go for such a candidate.... whether that candidate was Dem or Rep.
 
Superfreak said:
I disagree. If we had a candidate (from either party) come out with a sound economic plan, who in turn stated that social issues should be on the back burner until the economic/fiscal side was resolved, they would win in a friggin landslide. Moderates of both parties along with Independents would flock to such a stance. FISCAL conservatism is what people are sorely craving. The social issues are just a continuous repeat back and forth of the same positions that are not ever likely to be 'resolved'. Can we make tweaks to those issues right now? Sure, with a hell of a lot of partisanship from both sides, something small might get accomplished. But we should not be focusing on such matters until the issues that MUST be resolved are taken care of and those issues are FISCAL and ECONOMIC.... not SOCIAL.
Click to expand...

If that were true then Paul Ryan would be heralded as the messiah.
 
Onceler said:
If the GOP downplayed the social issues, they'd kill w/ independents. I'll get laughed off the board for this, but if there was a good fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republican, I'd even entertain voting for him/her. And I'm not just whistling Dixie - getting the fiscal house in order is the #1 priority right now, and I don't trust Democrats to do that.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is what I have been saying for a long time. The social issues are not critical to our survival. The fiscal issues are what we need to address immediately.
 
Onceler said:
If the GOP downplayed the social issues, they'd kill w/ independents. I'll get laughed off the board for this, but if there was a good fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republican, I'd even entertain voting for him/her. And I'm not just whistling Dixie - getting the fiscal house in order is the #1 priority right now, and I don't trust Democrats to do that.
Click to expand...

goodlord, did Satan just buy skis?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
goodlord, did Satan just buy skis?......
Click to expand...

LOL, I was kinda surprised by that too. But I think it shows how serious people are about fiscal issues. It is the one thing that almost everyone in the country would get behind.

Any candidate willing to tell the masses to STFU about the social bullshit until we get the country back on its feet, would win by a landslide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top