[TheRealThing]

Listening to the news, I heard Romney announced today that he would not run again for President.

A lot of people put him the same company as John McCain and Jeb Bush though, I do not. Romney was hard to get to know, in fact, I can't really say I knew him until late into his second run. Without belaboring already posted opinion, let's just say that to my way of thinking he was no RINO and would have made a very good President, both at home and for our interests abroad. At any rate, and for what ever reason, though the man himself is a good communicator whose effectiveness is in no way tied to a teleprompter, somehow his campaign staff managed too great a barrier between his candidacy and the voting public. That separation, plus the fact that they allowed the Dems to define him using distortions innuendo, added to his failed candidacy. Therefore a great leader will pass from prominence, discarded by the voting public via the most superficial of whims.

That's the thing about Republicans that I find nerve-wracking. Taking the high road with the voters by not responding to dirty political maneuverings, excludes the very members of the electorate which are susceptible to being influenced by such schoolyard name calling. I believe they must give the low information voter a reason to think about their vote. In not responding forcefully to the slander associated with today's elections, they (Republicans) seem willing to cede those votes in the form of a gift to the Dems who never feel pressed to scrap for them. Contrary to DNC generated propaganda, Republicans are not disconnected and big feeling anymore than are vacuous elitists like Pelosi and Reid. I mention Reid because of the statement he made from the floor of the Senate, citing an anonymous source in charging that Romney had not paid taxes for 10 years. Now, people like me and others on here, will not need any help making up our minds but if the Republicans want to get some of those lo info votes, they have to respond.

One more thing. Republicans cannot hope to claim the moral high ground if they're going to harken back to the same authority that the Dems do, which of late has been to espouse the social fad of the day. If homosexuality was wrong back in 2007 when Mr Obama was making his run up to the white house, then it was wrong in 2010 during the repeal of DADT. If certain social behavior is wrong, then a ticking clock cannot change that. And, if it is wrong when the able bodied will not work, neither will the clock have any impact. Dems call such things "change" or "moving the country forward." Such is the true face of this idea that men are evolving. As evolution is a lie, so is the idea that men are getting better. America of 2014 accepts some pretty incredible behavior as the new norm. The slaughter of 70 million innocent babies lies in our rearview, with the promise of many more to come. Welfare is a government subsidized choice, not a predicament. Laws are being penned by the scores which benefit the homosexual, which is now a new class of it's own in this land.

Just going by the evidence, I would say men are showing the symptoms of decline.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Romney would have gotten my vote had he run again.
Im inclined to think ill be voting Bush in 2016 as nobody else entices me.

[TheRealThing]

Romney would have gotten my vote had he run again.
Im inclined to think ill be voting Bush in 2016 as nobody else entices me.

Honestly I am afraid that Jeb will be the man. Which would mean that he'd have to explain or otherwise atone for every perceived sin of his brother. Dems threw a lot of crap at the wall from 2000 to 2008 and an awful lot of it stuck. All that would be recycling fodder with a Jeb Bush candidacy. Frankly, I find that I'm more than a bit suspicious when I hear Dems supposedly recoiling in fear of another Bush come to the plate. I think in a perfect (liberal) world, that Dems believe of all possible candidates, Bush would be their choice to pick a fight with if Hillary does run. It is my opinion therefore, that they're sandbagging in hopes that Jeb will get the nomination. And, since money is becoming ever more the key, it looks like he may already have a leg up.

That is what I heard caused Mitt to back out, the money was already committed to Bush. Along with many of his former campaign staffers/managers. So, if Jeb was to get the nomination, and the same people use the same playbook again this time, they may get their heads handed to them, again. I think the last person Hillary wants to stare down other than Romney, who I believe she was truly worried about, would be either Scott Walker or Marco Rubio. Though Ted Cruz may be a great President, I think Dems believe they've got mud enough to sling in order to win against him.

But, I'm totally with you. If the choice comes down to Hillary or Bush, he'd definitely be the lesser of two evils.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
My biggest reason is I do not see any of the other candidates beating Benghazi, I mean Hillary.

Bush is not his brother or his father, and truth be told, has always been more qualified that GW to run this country. However, if I were Bush, one thing I may consider doing is picking up Romney as a VP running candidate. Talk about a win win on the voting block. That would almost assure the primary win.

Another interesting tid bit is Hillary still hasn't announced. Now I have no doubts she will run for President, but there are many things that can doom her, and lets face it, Billary will be pushing 70 on election day. There is always the possibility of a decline in health at that age.

[Hoot Gibson]

I hate to hear that Romney withdrew because it makes it more likely that the GOP elitists will be able to manipulate the nomination process to ensure that another RINO runs in 2016. The last thing that I want to see is another Bush v. Clinton campaign - unless it would be a Christie v. Clinton race.

I Republicans must run a moderate, why can't it be Ohio's John Kasich or Wisconsin's Scott Walker? Both men have outstanding records as governors and would have appeal among conservatives.

I don't know anybody who is excited about a Bush III presidency and I don't think any amount of campaign cash will light a fire under the base if Bush gets the nomination.

[TheRealThing]

I hate to hear that Romney withdrew because it makes it more likely that the GOP elitists will be able to manipulate the nomination process to ensure that another RINO runs in 2016. The last thing that I want to see is another Bush v. Clinton campaign - unless it would be a Christie v. Clinton race.

I Republicans must run a moderate, why can't it be Ohio's John Kasich or Wisconsin's Scott Walker? Both men have outstanding records as governors and would have appeal among conservatives.I don't know anybody who is excited about a Bush III presidency and I don't think any amount of campaign cash will light a fire under the base if Bush gets the nomination.

I agree wholeheartedly. But speaking of the record, both Walker and Romney's were stellar. Both walked into a situation characterized by overwhelming fiscal problems to get resolved, left behind by governors too weak willed to make choices.

The picture we are left with in comparing the Walker/Romney examples, with that of Obama goes as follows. Voters faced the same choice as the one you cited above in 2012. And yet as I have mentioned, Romney's campaign manager was so terrified of the RomneyCare deal that he wouldn't call out the many things Romney did so well in Massachusetts. Therefore, when all the lies started to swirl, instead of using the record to call Dems out for their innuendo, there was silence from the Romney camp. So, if Jeb really did sign up Matt Rhoades to lead his campaign, we'll just have to see.

But, in returning to the choice mentioned above. We have the excellent examples of fiscal management demonstrated by the governors, who now enjoy state surpluses. And then there is the 20 plus trillion in debt example of Obama. What else could a campaign ask for, unless it would be a disastrous foreign policy record? And after all, is that not what governing is all about? Managing the people's money instead of handing it out in an effort to appease the handout crowd with the side effect of seizing political power? I really don't know where some of these political hacks get their ideas. But take the movement among the left where universal health care is concerned.

The love affair with that notion has been ongoing for some time now, as the first major push for passage occurred during the Clinton era using first lady Hillary at the point. They couldn't make it work back then on purely financial grounds but, the following 20 years of rationalizations have mitigated the laws of mathematics. So much so that suddenly, in 2009, universal health care was a financial slam dunk. Regular folks were to get an average of 2500 dollars a year back in savings, resultant of the glorious efficiency of the newly reformed health care industry. In fact, the whole thing would not cost the American tax payer "one dime."

Not one dime huh? Here is the latest revelation regarding the cost of ObamaCare to the TAXPAYER; "A bombshell report from the Congressional Budget Office reveals that it will cost the federal government $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under Obamacare law.
According to the Daily Mail.com, the astounding figure was "buried" in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's budget forecast for the next 10 years."

Read http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/CBO-rep...z3QPvk4hsu

LOL, they say that truth is stranger than fiction. Not so with this administration, the fiction rules, and from a much stranger perspective. Let's hope that Republicans will learn the art of speaking plainly this time around. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree wholeheartedly. But speaking of the record, both Walker and Romney's were stellar. Both walked into a situation characterized by overwhelming fiscal problems to get resolved, left behind by governors too weak willed to make choices.

The picture we are left with in comparing the Walker/Romney examples, with that of Obama goes as follows. Voters faced the same choice as the one you cited above in 2012. And yet as I have mentioned, Romney's campaign manager was so terrified of the RomneyCare deal that he wouldn't call out the many things Romney did so well in Massachusetts. Therefore, when all the lies started to swirl, instead of using the record to call Dems out for their innuendo, there was silence from the Romney camp. So, if Jeb really did sign up Matt Rhoades to lead his campaign, we'll just have to see.

But, in returning to the choice mentioned above. We have the excellent examples of fiscal management demonstrated by the governors, who now enjoy state surpluses. And then there is the 20 plus trillion in debt example of Obama. What else could a campaign ask for, unless it would be a disastrous foreign policy record? And after all, is that not what governing is all about? Managing the people's money instead of handing it out in an effort to appease the handout crowd with the side effect of seizing political power? I really don't know where some of these political hacks get their ideas. But take the movement among the left where universal health care is concerned.

The love affair with that notion has been ongoing for some time now, as the first major push for passage occurred during the Clinton era using first lady Hillary at the point. They couldn't make it work back then on purely financial grounds but, the following 20 years of rationalizations have mitigated the laws of mathematics. So much so that suddenly, in 2009, universal health care was a financial slam dunk. Regular folks were to get an average of 2500 dollars a year back in savings, resultant of the glorious efficiency of the newly reformed health care industry. In fact, the whole thing would not cost the American tax payer "one dime."

Not one dime huh? Here is the latest revelation regarding the cost of ObamaCare to the TAXPAYER; "A bombshell report from the Congressional Budget Office reveals that it will cost the federal government $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under Obamacare law.
According to the Daily Mail.com, the astounding figure was "buried" in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's budget forecast for the next 10 years."

Read http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/CBO-rep...z3QPvk4hsu

LOL, they say that truth is stranger than fiction. Not so with this administration, the fiction rules, and from a much stranger perspective. Let's hope that Republicans will learn the art of speaking plainly this time around. :biggrin:

Kasich has not received much media attention, but his fiscal record both as a Congressman and as Ohio's governor towers over the other potential candidates, IMO.

Not only was Kasich a key player in pressuring Bill Clinton into agreeing to the last balanced budget, he won all but two Ohio counties in the last election. If Fox News and the GOP elitists are bound and determined to nominate a moderate, then a Republican who carried Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, and Columbus should be at the top of their list.

I will vote third-party before I cast a ballot for Bush or Christie in 2016. The Republicans can and should do better.

[TheRealThing]

Kasich has not received much media attention, but his fiscal record both as a Congressman and as Ohio's governor towers over the other potential candidates, IMO.

Not only was Kasich a key player in pressuring Bill Clinton into agreeing to the last balanced budget, he won all but two Ohio counties in the last election. If Fox News and the GOP elitists are bound and determined to nominate a moderate, then a Republican who carried Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, and Columbus should be at the top of their list.

I will vote third-party before I cast a ballot for Bush or Christie in 2016. The Republicans can and should do better.

Agree totally, all except for actually casting a vote that could wind up helping Hillary. My heart is with you on that but my fear is that another 4 to 8 years with a rabid liberal at the helm would be the end of us.

[Hoot Gibson]

Agree totally, all except for actually casting a vote that could wind up helping Hillary. My heart is with you on that but my fear is that another 4 to 8 years with a rabid liberal at the helm would be the end of us.

Bush supports immigration "reform" and there is no way that he will push for repeal of Obamacare. The only thing that a vote for Bush would do is slow the decline of this country just a little bit. The Bush and Clinton families are tight for a reason. Bush v. Clinton is really not much of a choice. Ditto for the loudmouthed Chris Christie in a match-up with Hillary.

If we keep voting for the slightly less evil that the two parties offer, then my children are doomed to a much lower standard of living than our parents enjoyed.

[TheRealThing]

Bush supports immigration "reform" and there is no way that he will push for repeal of Obamacare. The only thing that a vote for Bush would do is slow the decline of this country just a little bit. The Bush and Clinton families are tight for a reason. Bush v. Clinton is really not much of a choice. Ditto for the loudmouthed Chris Christie in a match-up with Hillary.

If we keep voting for the slightly less evil that the two parties offer, then my children are doomed to a much lower standard of living than our parents enjoyed.

Very astute of you to pick up on my delaying tactic. I suppose I'm looking at it from a view that the delay would give us a better chance at survival by keeping the boat afloat a bit longer. Could be that more people will wake up during that time. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but things are unraveling so fast these days, I worry the decline you envision may be far worse than a lower standard of living. At any rate, the basement generation could well be more than a financial glitch.

BTW, love the sig.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I hate to hear that Romney withdrew because it makes it more likely that the GOP elitists will be able to manipulate the nomination process to ensure that another RINO runs in 2016. The last thing that I want to see is another Bush v. Clinton campaign - unless it would be a Christie v. Clinton race.

I Republicans must run a moderate, why can't it be Ohio's John Kasich or Wisconsin's Scott Walker? Both men have outstanding records as governors and would have appeal among conservatives.

I don't know anybody who is excited about a Bush III presidency and I don't think any amount of campaign cash will light a fire under the base if Bush gets the nomination.

The problem is the people of this country no longer vote for who is the best candidate. Its nothing more than a popularity contest that is controlled by the internet and people believing what theyre told. I would have no problems with a fresh face like a Walker coming out of no where and winning, but its a wasted vote in todays time. Add that to the ridcolous way money is allowed to be spent on campaigns and its even harder.

I do look at it this was. If Hillary doesn't run or dies before she gets the chance, the Republicans have a 99% chance at winning the white house back. They have no one else with enough popularity to win the race.
I think if she announces that shes not going to run, then Romney will change his mind.

[Hoot Gibson]

The problem is the people of this country no longer vote for who is the best candidate. Its nothing more than a popularity contest that is controlled by the internet and people believing what theyre told. I would have no problems with a fresh face like a Walker coming out of no where and winning, but its a wasted vote in todays time. Add that to the ridcolous way money is allowed to be spent on campaigns and its even harder.

I do look at it this was. If Hillary doesn't run or dies before she gets the chance, the Republicans have a 99% chance at winning the white house back. They have no one else with enough popularity to win the race.
I think if she announces that shes not going to run, then Romney will change his mind.

The media does not select candidates, a handful of people who have a stranglehold on the two main parties do. Unfortunately, the people pulling strings in the GOP has been doing a very bad job hand picking nominees. I supported Romney, both in 2012 and 2008, but Romneycare forced him to pull too many punches against Obama in the general campaign.

The only choices that the GOP elites want us to have are Bush and Christie. The party stacks the deck in favor of their favorites. That is how we ended up with so many horrible candidates like Romney, McCain, and Dole. George W. was not a particularly good candidate, but he was blessed with extraordinarily bad opponents, Kerry and Gore.

I hope that Romney does not run. He had two shots at the White House and he had the party's backing in 2012 against a horrible incumbent and still managed to lose.

Honestly, John Kasich is easily the most qualified potential candidate to be president, but Ted Cruz would be my first choice.

Desperate times call for desperate action, and if something does not change drastically soon, then drastic times will follow within a few years. The national debt will destroy our way of life and neither Clinton, Bush, nor Christie will anything to change the current course.

[TheRealThing]

^^Run has a point about the candidates that the Dems have staged to follow up Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of cookie-cutter liberal zombies in the wings, but no charismatics. As I have said in the past, Republicans tend to stay to the right, at least to some degree. And that gives them the edge in my book. But, they have a revolting tendency to veer left especially on social issues, as was demonstrated in the post election loss of 2012. I heard many of them blubbering about the need to move to the left. Given that errant example regarding their perception of the mindset of the voter, one wonders whether in spite of their sweep, the lessons of the 2014 midterms have totally escaped them.

Traditional American values are a way of life. Not some stack of planks that may be culled or included in their political platform for whims of light and transient causes. I really wish they would wake up to that fact. That is their Achilles heel. Dems proclaim their wide eyed liberalism openly and unashamedly. Republicans on the other hand, seem to waiver or demagogue a bit when confronted about what they stand for. Hence the fence sitting products of the mushy middle that GOP power brokers keep running. Just spit it out and quit fence riding and see what happens. After all, it isn't like they have a lock on the Presidency right now.

I would love to see Ted Cruz as President. The problem with him is not his politics. It is the number of voters he identifies with. Even among Republicans, many take him the wrong way. I mean, talk about irony. Dems managed to hang the so-called government shut down on Cruze while dodging their own responsibility in the matter. I would gladly accept a Kasich as well.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^Run has a point about the candidates that the Dems have staged to follow up Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of cookie-cutter liberal zombies in the wings, but no charismatics. As I have said in the past, Republicans tend to stay to the right, at least to some degree. And that gives them the edge in my book. But, they have a revolting tendency to veer left especially on social issues, as was demonstrated in the post election loss of 2012. I heard many of them blubbering about the need to move to the left. Given that errant example regarding their perception of the mindset of the voter, one wonders whether in spite of their sweep, the lessons of the 2014 midterms have totally escaped them.

Traditional American values are a way of life. Not some stack of planks that may be culled or included in their political platform for whims of light and transient causes. I really wish they would wake up to that fact. That is their Achilles heel. Dems proclaim their wide eyed liberalism openly and unashamedly. Republicans on the other hand, seem to waiver or demagogue a bit when confronted about what they stand for. Hence the fence sitting products of the mushy middle that GOP power brokers keep running. Just spit it out and quit fence riding and see what happens. After all, it isn't like they have a lock on the Presidency right now.

I would love to see Ted Cruz as President. The problem with him is not his politics. It is the number of voters he identifies with. Even among Republicans, many take him the wrong way. I mean, talk about irony. Dems managed to hang the so-called government shut down on Cruze while dodging their own responsibility in the matter. I would gladly accept a Kasich as well.

I agree with most of what you and RIUTG said above, but let me point out a couple of things. First, five years before Obama was nominated by the Democrats, nobody could have imagined that he would have been the nominee in 2008. He had given one good speech in 2004 at the Democrats' convention and had less than two years experience in the U.S. Senate before he decided to run for president. If Democrats could get a totally unqualified candidate such as Obama nominated, then there is plenty of time for them to find another incompetent nominee who can read a teleprompter.

My second point is that it was not the Democrats who tagged Cruz with the blame for the government shutdown, it was the Republican establishment. All of the usual suspects helped make Cruz the scapegoat and they continue to lie about the political damage that the shutdown did to the party. Karl Rove, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Steele,...the list goes on and on of Republican moderates who disparaged Cruz for doing the right thing.

Sure, Democrats were happy to play along, but the GOP party "leaders" are the ones who stabbed Cruz in the back. IMO, they did so because they agree with much of Obama's agenda or lack the political courage to oppose it in any meaningful way.

[TheRealThing]

I agree with most of what you and RIUTG said above, but let me point out a couple of things. First, five years before Obama was nominated by the Democrats, nobody could have imagined that he would have been the nominee in 2008. He had given one good speech in 2004 at the Democrats' convention and had less than two years experience in the U.S. Senate before he decided to run for president. If Democrats could get a totally unqualified candidate such as Obama nominated, then there is plenty of time for them to find another incompetent nominee who can read a teleprompter.

My second point is that it was not the Democrats who tagged Cruz with the blame for the government shutdown, it was the Republican establishment. All of the usual suspects helped make Cruz the scapegoat and they continue to lie about the political damage that the shutdown did to the party. Karl Rove, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Steele,...the list goes on and on of Republican moderates who disparaged Cruz for doing the right thing.

Sure, Democrats were happy to play along, but the GOP party "leaders" are the ones who stabbed Cruz in the back. IMO, they did so because they agree with much of Obama's agenda or lack the political courage to oppose it in any meaningful way.

When speaking of Republicans stabbing the likes of Cruz, I wish I could honestly say that I didn't know what you are talking about. But I have seen it from Karl Rove on a couple of occasions. I make my judgments based on relatively less information than you are likely privy to within the beltway, and I did not pick up on the fact that Cruz was victim to the interests of party elitists. Although I was aware of the shots that John McCain has taken at him. People like those you have mentioned need to stop trying to rig the system and allow the will of the voter to prevail.

To my way of thinking, there are two major threats to our system of governance. The first one, and one that the founders could not have envisioned IMHO, is the affect of television. Using that resource, attempts to manipulate the minds of voters have been made with some success from both sides of the aisle. The other was anticipated by the founders and that is the worry that the white house could be bought for a price. The affect of MONEY, in other words, and is part and parcel to your observations about the string pullers. So, to me it all boils down to one fundamental problem. Integrity. If politicians are willing to lie in order to gain or maintain power, then it becomes obvious that the common man is toast.

Unfortunately, those alabaster halls may full of the putrefied bones of dead men. They still look the part from the outside, but true integrity cannot be bought.

[Hoot Gibson]

When speaking of Republicans stabbing the likes of Cruz, I wish I could honestly say that I didn't know what you are talking about. But I have seen it from Karl Rove on a couple of occasions. I make my judgments based on relatively less information than you are likely privy to within the beltway, and I did not pick up on the fact that Cruz was victim to the interests of party elitists. Although I was aware of the shots that John McCain has taken at him. People like those you have mentioned need to stop trying to rig the system and allow the will of the voter to prevail.

To my way of thinking, there are two major threats to our system of governance. The first one, and one that the founders could not have envisioned IMHO, is the affect of television. Using that resource, attempts to manipulate the minds of voters have been made with some success from both sides of the aisle. The other was anticipated by the founders and that is the worry that the white house could be bought for a price. The affect of MONEY, in other words, and is part and parcel to your observations about the string pullers. So, to me it all boils down to one fundamental problem. Integrity. If politicians are willing to lie in order to gain or maintain power, then it becomes obvious that the common man is toast.

Unfortunately, those alabaster halls may full of the putrefied bones of dead men. They still look the part from the outside, but true integrity cannot be bought.

I don't live inside the Beltway. I am at least 100 yards outside of the Beltway, a little closer if you include the on-ramp. :biggrin:

As I always said before I moved to this area, people living in DC are not any smarter or any better informed than people living anywhere else across the country. In fact, people that live in this area are less informed in many ways than most Americans.

If you live here and don't travel around the country some, it is easy to begin thinking that this country's economy is doing well. There was a recent Washington Post article claimed that a person living in Washington needs to make $108,000/year to live comfortably and I believe it.

I am not privy to any more information about national politics than you are. Most of my information comes from the internet and from occasionally listening to a couple of political talk shows (WMAL Washington on the MAL on my morning commute and The Mark Levin Show). I am not sure whether listening to Mark Levin has made me more cynical about national politics or if he just echos and reinforces what I already believe, but I have grown to despise the GOP leadership almost as much as I hate the Democrats' leadership.

In general, if a candidate seems to have the approval of Reince Priebus, Karl Rove, and John Boehner, then my first instinct is to oppose them. These guys have made it clear through their actions that they are not conservatives and will do everything in their power to pull the party to the left and marginalize people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. I am not sure that the GOP brain trust would not prefer Hillary over Cruz in the White House.

The media plays a role in the effort, but mainly by amplifying what RINOs like Boehner are already saying about conservatives.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I agree with most of what you and RIUTG said above, but let me point out a couple of things. First, five years before Obama was nominated by the Democrats, nobody could have imagined that he would have been the nominee in 2008. He had given one good speech in 2004 at the Democrats' convention and had less than two years experience in the U.S. Senate before he decided to run for president. If Democrats could get a totally unqualified candidate such as Obama nominated, then there is plenty of time for them to find another incompetent nominee who can read a teleprompter.

My second point is that it was not the Democrats who tagged Cruz with the blame for the government shutdown, it was the Republican establishment. All of the usual suspects helped make Cruz the scapegoat and they continue to lie about the political damage that the shutdown did to the party. Karl Rove, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Steele,...the list goes on and on of Republican moderates who disparaged Cruz for doing the right thing.

Sure, Democrats were happy to play along, but the GOP party "leaders" are the ones who stabbed Cruz in the back. IMO, they did so because they agree with much of Obama's agenda or lack the political courage to oppose it in any meaningful way.

Very true.
But lets not sugar coat it. People and money came from everywhere to elect a black president. You would be hard pressed to find any celebrity or athlete in 2008 who would say Obama was shit because of fear of being labeled a racist and dismissed among inner circles. I look at it this way. That garbage is over now. I agree we need someone further to the right than more centered, and it needs to be someone who stands firm on all important issues.
It seems candidates think running to the center will help them gain votes, when, as weve seen time and time again, you get your own party out more the further you run to the right.
Liberal democrats tried to play the center in November and it killed them.

[TheRealThing]

Very true.
But lets not sugar coat it. People and money came from everywhere to elect a black president. You would be hard pressed to find any celebrity or athlete in 2008 who would say Obama was shit because of fear of being labeled a racist and dismissed among inner circles. I look at it this way. That garbage is over now. I agree we need someone further to the right than more centered, and it needs to be someone who stands firm on all important issues.
It seems candidates think running to the center will help them gain votes, when, as weve seen time and time again, you get your own party out more the further you run to the right.
Liberal democrats tried to play the center in November and it killed them.

That's a good point. What we're seeing, is no spat between classic Dems and Republicans. The answer to why Dems are so driven to dominate the political scene that they are willing to play a high stakes game with the fate of 'the people,' is at it's root, ideological. The modern day liberal movement has it's fanatics to be sure. And, they have gotten support from factions of society through charges of racism, (which affords them very convenient moral 'cover,' for not working out their own fortunes in the land of equal opportunity) that, and the promise of social reparations via the federal government. The system is trying to correct itself through the election process but, as Hoot mentions, elitists think they know better. None the less, we have a Republican controlled Congress again so, even though they're (libs) among the Republicans to a much lesser degree, we'll see.

Liberals are finding their way into government as well as the news media. As I have mentioned, the one two punch of federal overreach and the worshipful main stream media, drone out the liberal message 24/7. That and the liberally laced academia, make the indoctrination nearly airtight, as they have achieved the perfect platforms from which to both preach and initiate the tenets of their religion. And despite a very carefully preserved and concise record, they've got a potent, though superficial age-old tool to use in the destruction of the conservative argument. That is to use deriding rhetoric to declare conservatives old fashion or just plain stupid. The perfect example of how well the tactic works was played out in grand scale during the second Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. When Candice, in a transgression of debate rules, validated Obama's absurdly weak assertion that he'd called the Benghazi attack terrorism. The two of them teaming up, and with no means other than his memory to refute them, Romney was taken completely off stride. The shame of it other than the fact that he was right, is that people of integrity are never ready for that kind of deceit, especially deceit on the global scale.

No society is ever more than a generation away from decline, owing to the fact that each successive generation must be taught the rules on which their society have been founded, and an undistorted picture of their own national heritage. Needless to say, America has failed on epic scale to adequately convey those truths, and we're now allowing the indoctrination of our second in succession generational failure. Students across this land are being taught a boat load of lies. America is surely the salt that has preserved the well being of mankind in general, but, they're being taught that our greed caused the wars we sacrificed so much in order to win. Likewise, the noble aspirations of our own founding fathers have been skewed so far left I'm surprised NASCAR hasn't assigned them all numbers.

But specifically to your point that I have bolded. The drumbeat propagandist line that we keep hearing, is that liberalism is a rising juggernaut that is supported by a majority of the people. Which obviously, as the midterms of 2014 have amply demonstrated, is patently false. :biggrin: