I have settled on a GOP candidate to support.

[Guns Guns Guns]

And a couple of weeks ago, you were typing your little fingers off about Trump, trying to destroy him too. Now you have moved on to Cain, because you know deep down, WHOEVER is the opposition to Obama, stands a better than average chance of beating his ass in 2012, if the economy doesn't pick up, which it's not likely to do. ......Cain beat stage 4 liver cancer, he can sure as hell beat Obama!

Why don't you post some of your previous endorsements and predictions so we can see how astute you've been?

​

 

[WinterBorn]

The point you seem to be missing is, the connection between social conservative values and the fiscal issues and problems. Conservatism devoid of social values, is a failed and flawed ideology which is easily exploited by liberals, which is precisely why they are trying to pressure us into 'putting them on the back burner!' Some of you pinhead libertarian types don't get it, you fundamentally don't understand the connection, and you believe social values are something we can compromise on, when they are certainly NOT. You believe these issues are not important, but they are, fundamentally important, and it's fundamentally important we stand up for them and make our case, without fear, without intimidation, and without compromise.

Ok Dixie, we hacve discussed the fact that abortion is a litmus test for conservative yada yada yada.

So what social conservative issues are you so adamant that we keep up front and on the front burners?

 

[Airstrip One]

If the GOP did nominate Cain, we could start a trend of nominating concer survivors. His last name is even similar to his predecessor's!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ok Dixie, we hacve discussed the fact that abortion is a litmus test for conservative yada yada yada.

So what social conservative issues are you so adamant that we keep up front and on the front burners?

Every single one of them, because they are all tied to our principles and convictions, and rooted in what we believe the Constitution stands for. Why do we need to cede our principles here? I am not understanding that! I don't see how you can parse out some of your principles and say they aren't important, and still maintain your integrity. I think it is a mistake, and the exact polar opposite of what we need to be doing. It's fundamentally important for Conservatives to stand up for the right to life, because the Constitution and our founding principles explicitly say this right is inalienable. It does not matter that this also happens to be a position held by religious people! That's no reason to ABANDON it! Other values issues are similarly rooted in our fundamental belief in the Constitution and what it says. The case has to be made on that basis, not on a "religious" basis... I understand that, and I agree with that... but that's not what I am hearing here, I am hearing seculars whine that we need to "put social issues on the back burner" and "those issues aren't important." I simply disagree, they are FUNDAMENTALLY important, and the case needs to be made for that, without the fear and intimidation that this will come at a political price.

 

[WinterBorn]

Every single one of them, because they are all tied to our principles and convictions, and rooted in what we believe the Constitution stands for. Why do we need to cede our principles here? I am not understanding that! I don't see how you can parse out some of your principles and say they aren't important, and still maintain your integrity. I think it is a mistake, and the exact polar opposite of what we need to be doing. It's fundamentally important for Conservatives to stand up for the right to life, because the Constitution and our founding principles explicitly say this right is inalienable. It does not matter that this also happens to be a position held by religious people! That's no reason to ABANDON it! Other values issues are similarly rooted in our fundamental belief in the Constitution and what it says. The case has to be made on that basis, not on a "religious" basis... I understand that, and I agree with that... but that's not what I am hearing here, I am hearing seculars whine that we need to "put social issues on the back burner" and "those issues aren't important." I simply disagree, they are FUNDAMENTALLY important, and the case needs to be made for that, without the fear and intimidation that this will come at a political price.

Dixie, once again please show me where I said anyone should abandon their principles?

And I see that you danced around with lots of vague discussion of patriotism and the constitution. But what actual issues are you saying we should keep on the front burners? Not vague "we must not abandon our principles" or "social conservatism is tied to fiscal conservatism". Give some actual issues. Name them. Name social issues that you think should be up front with our fiscal issues.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, once again please show me where I said anyone should abandon their principles?

And I see that you danced around with lots of vague discussion of patriotism and the constitution. But what actual issues are you saying we should keep on the front burners? Not vague "we must not abandon our principles" or "social conservatism is tied to fiscal conservatism". Give some actual issues. Name them. Name social issues that you think should be up front with our fiscal issues.

Well first of all, I am little confused by you even discussing who the GOP will ultimately nominate, or who Conservatives will ultimately select in the primaries. I have had a lot of conversations with you, and generally speaking, you are a moderate liberal Democrat or Libertarian. Have you now joined the GOP? If so, welcome aboard, but we need to have some kind of debriefing or re-education for you on fundamental principles of conservatism from our perspective.

As Rick Santorum so eloquently stated it in the debates, we can't abandon our principles, they are principles for a reason, and they are fundamental to what we believe, what we stand for, and who we are as a society and culture. You either believe that we are endowed our rights by our Creator, or you don't believe that... there isn't a gray area there, there isn't room for a compromise or an alternative view... you either believe this or you don't! If the issue at question, directly contradicts that fundamental belief, you can not support it! Well, you CAN, but it comes at the price of your integrity and character. You're caving on your fundamental principles in order to be "politically correct" or "liked" by others. That's not the kind of leader I want... it's the kind of leader we currently have... it's the kind of leader we would have had with McCain as well.... I don't think it is the kind of leader we would have with Herman Cain.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

On thing I think we need to look at here, is how things have changed for America since George W. Bush or even Clinton and H.W ran for office. During the Bush campaign, there was really no pressing foreign issue.. radical Islam was barely on the radar, we saw it, but did not see it as the threat it became on 9/11/01. From a collective national perspective, the focus had turned more toward domestic issues, and specifically, social issues. That was what the electorate was obsessing on, and so that is what candidates naturally based their candidacies around. Politics were a different ballgame then, than they are now. The political landscape has completely shifted, and the economy is much more important to everyone, followed by national security and foreign policy, and aside from the concerns of fiscal solvency of programs like Social Security and Medicare, there isn't a lot of focus on the social issues. In that regard, expect to see candidates more focused on what gets them elected, and less on what doesn't matter so much. I think that is what I am hearing in the undertones of what you guys are saying, but it rubs me the wrong way to hear people advocating we "put social issues on the back burner" because it is a sell out on our principles. Why should we sell out our principles to get elected? Why not make our case for why we believe what we believe, and why it's great that every American has the right to believe what they want? Why can't we connect our social values to our proposed solutions for fiscal issues? Is there some unwritten rule about that?

Gay Marriage... I know that's your biggie social issue... Why can't a Herman Cain make the articulate argument for why he is opposed to it because it undermines the cultural importance of traditional families, but he remains open to the idea that Federal Government really doesn't have a place determining these things, and it should ultimately be left up to the people to decide on a state-by-state basis, what boundaries they wish to have for their society? Why couldn't he articulate a principled social conservative view against Homosexual marriage, yet favor an idea like the one I have proposed regarding Civil Unions? I mean, I can see how he could do that, in a way that bridges the Evangelicals with Libertarians, if you will.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well first of all, I am little confused by you even discussing who the GOP will ultimately nominate, or who Conservatives will ultimately select in the primaries. I have had a lot of conversations with you, and generally speaking, you are a moderate liberal Democrat or Libertarian. Have you now joined the GOP? If so, welcome aboard, but we need to have some kind of debriefing or re-education for you on fundamental principles of conservatism from our perspective.

As Rick Santorum so eloquently stated it in the debates, we can't abandon our principles, they are principles for a reason, and they are fundamental to what we believe, what we stand for, and who we are as a society and culture. You either believe that we are endowed our rights by our Creator, or you don't believe that... there isn't a gray area there, there isn't room for a compromise or an alternative view... you either believe this or you don't! If the issue at question, directly contradicts that fundamental belief, you can not support it! Well, you CAN, but it comes at the price of your integrity and character. You're caving on your fundamental principles in order to be "politically correct" or "liked" by others. That's not the kind of leader I want... it's the kind of leader we currently have... it's the kind of leader we would have had with McCain as well.... I don't think it is the kind of leader we would have with Herman Cain.

I have consistently voted for the individual candidate that best matches my values and expresses a vision I agree with.

I am not talking about abandoning anything.

So are you going to list these social issues? Or is this all about vague references to principles and values, without having any real idea of what you mean?

 

[Socrtease]

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.

The evangelical vote is ONLY important in primary politics. It is NOT important in winning the General Election. A secular fiscal conservative can easily win the general election. If evangelicals were so important to the general election Obama would NOT be president of the United States. Centrist dems and independants will decide who will be president. Abortion, God and gay marriage don't matter as much as the economy in a general election. Reagan paid lip service to the social conservatives, but remained at his core a libertarian who believed in small government.

 

[Canceled2]

The evangelical vote is ONLY important in primary politics. It is NOT important in winning the General Election. A secular fiscal conservative can easily win the general election. If evangelicals were so important to the general election Obama would NOT be president of the United States. Centrist dems and independants will decide who will be president. Abortion, God and gay marriage don't matter as much as the economy in a general election. Reagan paid lip service to the social conservatives, but remained at his core a libertarian who believed in small government.

Every social conservative I know believes in small government-it is the socially liberal folks who wish to grow government.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

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!

So the Confederate apologist hasn't picked a winner since 1980.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The evangelical vote is ONLY important in primary politics. It is NOT important in winning the General Election. A secular fiscal conservative can easily win the general election. If evangelicals were so important to the general election Obama would NOT be president of the United States. Centrist dems and independants will decide who will be president. Abortion, God and gay marriage don't matter as much as the economy in a general election. Reagan paid lip service to the social conservatives, but remained at his core a libertarian who believed in small government.

On thing I think you make a good point on, we are really a diverse society, and it's difficult to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to the social issues. This is why it is important to establish your viewpoint around states rights, and how the Federal government really shouldn't have a role in determining these issues for the people. I don't think it is accurate at all to say that Evangelicals do not matter in the general election... otherwise, you wouldn't have Bill Clinton carrying a Bible around for the cameras, and Al Gore or John Kerry singing in the Black Choir. There is a reason even the most liberal president in the history of America, couldn't publicly support Gay Marriage. If you want to downplay this or deny it, that's fine, but the fact remains, we are a largely spiritual nation, and our religious moral values are very important to us. This DOES matter.

 

[Socrtease]

On thing I think you make a good point on, we are really a diverse society, and it's difficult to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to the social issues. This is why it is important to establish your viewpoint around states rights, and how the Federal government really shouldn't have a role in determining these issues for the people. I don't think it is accurate at all to say that Evangelicals do not matter in the general election... otherwise, you wouldn't have Bill Clinton carrying a Bible around for the cameras, and Al Gore or John Kerry singing in the Black Choir. There is a reason even the most liberal president in the history of America, couldn't publicly support Gay Marriage. If you want to downplay this or deny it, that's fine, but the fact remains, we are a largely spiritual nation, and our religious moral values are very important to us. This DOES matter.

I agree, but religious people disagree on the issue of gay marriage, abortion etc. I myself have had a religious conversion of late. But I still believe in gay marriage and the right of a woman to make the horrible choice of abortion. Evangelicals do not believe that religious people can disagree.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have consistently voted for the individual candidate that best matches my values and expresses a vision I agree with.

I am not talking about abandoning anything.

So are you going to list these social issues? Or is this all about vague references to principles and values, without having any real idea of what you mean?

You're the one who talked about putting social issues on the back burner... what social issues were you talking about? And how do you put something on the back burner if that's what you opponent wants to press you to discuss and talk about? Isn't it a far better strategy to not cave on your principles, to step up and make your case for them, and for what you believe in? I mean, regardless of what the social issue is... you name it... I don't need to! Whatever it is... address it... talk about it.... put it out there, what you believe and why you believe it, and why it's important to you! I respect that a helluva lot more, than some politician telling me what he thinks I want to hear, or dodging the question entirely... whether I agree with their position or not, the fact that they stood there and presented their case for their beliefs and convictions, that's what I want!

Cain surprised me when he was the only one on stage at the debate who said he wouldn't release the OBL pictures. I disagree with him on that... there once was a time we would've made 8x10 glossies and dropped them across enemy territory, and never thought twice about it! But after I listened to what he had to say about it, I understood and respected his position... I still didn't agree with him, but I had respect for why he held his viewpoint, and that means more to me than the issue itself.

 

[Socrtease]

My views on gay marraige and abortion may not be yours. The same can be said for many social issues. The federal government need not be involved in these issues. The government needs to protect our borders, encourage business in America and reduce the tax burden on us all. The other issues are personal and have no business being regulated by the government.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I agree, but religious people disagree on the issue of gay marriage, abortion etc. I myself have had a religious conversion of late. But I still believe in gay marriage and the right of a woman to make the horrible choice of abortion. Evangelicals do not believe that religious people can disagree.

Right, so why is this often made into a "religious" issue? It's a cultural issue, I think... certain places in the country, it is accepted as part of culture, and other places it's just not. We often get this silly meme from liberals, that religious people wish to impose theocracy upon us... make us all follow the mandates of the Christian religion or whatever... but we see no evidence of this, we don't have the National Prayer Act which requires us all to recite the Lord's Prayer... that's not happening in the reality we live in. And that won't ever happen, because 98% of the country isn't Baptist. It's just a silly conversation to have to begin with... but when they really have nothing else to talk about, that's what it becomes.

Like I said, I think America has probably grown too diverse to have centralized federal government answer to these issues, which satisfies everyone. Maybe that has been the way of the past, maybe when Puritans comprised 98% of the population in America, then it was acceptable and reasonable. But we live in a nation of 350 million people, and they have a variety of lifestyles as well as liberties. We need to face practicality on these things, and understand, we can't solve the problem until we identify the problem... that's what Cain's message is, and I think he is spot on.

 

[Socrtease]

Right, so why is this often made into a "religious" issue? It's a cultural issue, I think... certain places in the country, it is accepted as part of culture, and other places it's just not. We often get this silly meme from liberals, that religious people wish to impose theocracy upon us... make us all follow the mandates of the Christian religion or whatever... but we see no evidence of this, we don't have the National Prayer Act which requires us all to recite the Lord's Prayer... that's not happening in the reality we live in. And that won't ever happen, because 98% of the country isn't Baptist. It's just a silly conversation to have to begin with... but when they really have nothing else to talk about, that's what it becomes.

Like I said, I think America has probably grown too diverse to have centralized federal government answer to these issues, which satisfies everyone. Maybe that has been the way of the past, maybe when Puritans comprised 98% of the population in America, then it was acceptable and reasonable. But we live in a nation of 350 million people, and they have a variety of lifestyles as well as liberties. We need to face practicality on these things, and understand, we can't solve the problem until we identify the problem... that's what Cain's message is, and I think he is spot on.

Dixie, I have to agree with you. States should regulate these issues. I don't like that states would make abortion or gay marriage illegal, but that is the will of the state. I, in New Mexico, have no business passing judgement on what you in Alabama do.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, I did not miss your point. I addressed it. Ryan is not currently stating nor acting as if he will run. Thus the focus is currently on the crop that is pretending/intending to run. If Ryan does plan to run, he would be smart to wait until November to announce.

I didn't say Ryan was running. I said that his policies are ignored by the so-called moderates that you claim should come rushing to a guy who is fiscally conservative yet is silent about social issues.

 

[signalmankenneth]

The freak show gets freakier

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!

CNN: Potential GOP candidate Herman Cain has indicated that he will formally announce he will run for president at an event to be held in two weeks. And despite many political observers dismissing him as a potential challenger, his campaign’s communications director told CNN on Saturday, “We are running an operation because we are first-tier. We’re serious.”

….In January, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza was the first Republican to officially form a presidential exploratory committee. Cain won the Tea Party live straw poll at a summit in Phoenix in February and has since courted potential supporters in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, among other stops around the country.

I love the line “We are running an operation because we are first-tier” …. you’d hate to see the GOP’s second tier!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

CNN: Potential GOP candidate Herman Cain has indicated that he will formally announce he will run for president at an event to be held in two weeks. And despite many political observers dismissing him as a potential challenger, his campaign’s communications director told CNN on Saturday, “We are running an operation because we are first-tier. We’re serious.”

….In January, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza was the first Republican to officially form a presidential exploratory committee. Cain won the Tea Party live straw poll at a summit in Phoenix in February and has since courted potential supporters in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, among other stops around the country.

I love the line “We are running an operation because we are first-tier” …. you’d hate to see the GOP’s second tier!

Laugh it up... I have a feeling the kind of tiers you'll soon be seeing is spelled differently.