The same way we are going to be “stuck with Romney”.
Listen to us. Us being any group of conservatives.
NOT the Paultards. They are wackjobs, not conservatives. The “us” does not include them.
Granted, not everyone is a pragmatist like me. But I wonder if we hear ourselves when we talk about the candidates. Don’t confuse pragmatism with purity. Throwing the label of purity on someone is the last tactic conservatives use when they can no longer defend a position their favored candidate holds.
All candidates have sins. Sin being defined as a position we believe to be contrary to our definition of conservatism. My goal is not a purist “any and all sins are unforgivable and disqualifies a candidate”, but to find the candidate with the least sin. The least sin and the smallest sin. Yes, there are big sins and small sins.
- cutting the military budget 90% is a big sin
- funding the Department of Education is a small sin
Some sins are absolute disqualifiers. Others might piss me off but something I can live with. Huntsman has lady lips that are grotesquely freakish on a man. But if that was his biggest sin, I’d back him. The problem comes in with the placement on the sin scale. We don’t agree on where grotesquely freakish lady lips fall in the sin hierarchy.
Granted, grotesquely freakish lady lips on a man is a silly sin. But some of our own reasons for disliking a candidate are every bit as silly.
I am sometimes guilty of giving silly sins a higher place on the sin scale than a silly sin merits. In the CNN debate on October 18th, Perry had a stance (his physical stance) that made him look like his thong had crawled up his asshole. It was a silly sin but something I noticed and did not like. Only a fool or a democrap would vote against Perry because he looked like a sissy queen trying to act butch.
My objection to Palin is also a silly sin. I don’t like the way she talks. It sounds flowery to me. Flowery meaning trying to impress people with vocabulary. It detracts from any point she tries to make. Keeps me on the edge of my seat wondering when she will use another word incorrectly and struggling to understand the meaning when she gets lost and starts throwing in backwards prepositional phrases.
As of now, here is my sin list.
For me, Romney’s biggest sin is that I have no trust in him. Nor anyone that has changed his position on so many major issues. With all his flip flops, he is still defending Romneycare. For a conservative it can’t be defended. But he still tries. Romneycare is a blatant failure and to try to defend it is insane. I question his judgment on his decision to cling to his foolish excuses. It leads me to believe Romney’s principles are whatever the latest poll tells him they are.
He has a silly sin too. Romney seems greasy to me.
Backed Mike Castle when there was a conservative alternative. I suspect he bowed to the establishment republicans on this.
999. Opening up a new revenue source to the federal government is a HUGE mistake. Rates WILL change. His defense is annoying but not NEARLY as annoying as people that support him. Most of the defense requires you to ignore the implementation of a new national sales tax and dream of other things.
Even Mark Levin addressed Cain’s 999 plan. He said he would support it if the 16th amendment to the constitution was repealed and the income taxes were withdrawn. Really? That would be a COMPLETELY different plan. A tiny step like repealing an amendment is no small task and should NOT be glossed over in a discussion of his plan. Levin was describing the Fair Tax. NOT Cain’s 999 plan.
Two state solution. He had no idea what it was. Really? Running for president and has no clue about that? His supporters sound foolish trying to explain that away.
Cain has a tendency to shoot off his mouth and later claim it was a joke when confronted with his words and the cheering audience is gone. When he can’t claim something was humor, he uses the “misspoke” excuse. He said he would negotiate with terrorists. Then said he misspoke about that. I don’t want anyone that “misspeaks” so often having their finger on the button or negotiating anything.
Perry loves clots. Clotinos. Just like the Bush family. Like the Bush family, he denies it.
He says he wants to stop the flood of illegals over the border and has spent 10 years fighting it. And spent buttloads of money doing it. When you point out that he has failed, we hear “its the fed’s job”. Really? Then why is he claiming success on doing the job he says is not his? Drive down to the Harry Hines overpass in Dallas any morning and you’ll find hordes of them waiting for someone to pick them up for a day job. I have never heard Perry speak out against Houston’s sanctuary city policy. His words don’t match his deeds on this. And using “its the fed’s job” as an excuse, when he is clearly trying to take credit for doing a job that is not his, is greasy.
Granting in state tuition to illegal aliens betrays his words when he speaks about border control.
No conservative would sign an executive order for a STD vaccine. The opt out excuse is, at best, lame.
Its also lame to claim that Perry “created” jobs in Texas. Government, state or federal, does not create jobs. Texas has not chased off employers with regulations and taxes. Perry does NOT pass laws. The Texas legislature (that we only allow to meet once every two years) passes laws. Perry can only choose to sign the laws or not sign them. Credit for the Texas job environment goes to the voters of Texas who have not elected legislators that pass those taxes and regulations.
I’m still looking and not finding many. I do have a silly sin of hers. She has a tiny bit of Palinspeak syndrome. A little unnerving to hear her speak.
And I have been shopping around for her sins. Asked lots of people. Without exception, they struggle for an answer if they try at all to answer it. Their answers are the answer to the “how we got stuck with McLettuce” question.
Crazy eyes. Someone actually said that. They are basing their choice of president on “crazy eyes”. They have a right to do that. I have a right to call them insane. They would rather have a new tax source for the federal government or open borders because they don’t like “crazy eyes”. That is how we got stuck with McLettuce.
Unelectable. This is the most common sin cited. They rail about the media picking candidates for us as they buy into the very tactic that allows the media to have that power. Then blame anyone except themselves when the tactic is successful. Ask them who says Bachmann is unelectable and they cite people they claim to loathe: RINOs. Sometimes they cite “the polls” as if the people polled are from Mars. WE are the people they poll. That is how we got stuck with McLettuce.
Experience. Really? She has experience in government and the private sector.
Social conservative. This is hilarious. What they mean is “I want to be really cool and pretend that gender does not exist or matter.” Or “Hands off my weed. I need it to escape the reality of my sad life.” They deny the meaning of the word marriage. They invent a right that is being denied. They savor “the fight”.
The insanity of their logic is that in congress, Bachmann can introduce a bill banning all gay marriage. As president, she has the option of signing or vetoing a bill presented to her. ONLY a member of congress can introduce a bill. Not a president. Its a non issue. They feel so strongly about it that they will vote for another candidate that has the exact same stand on gay marriage, along with open borders or a national sales tax. That is how we got stuck with McLettuce.
Its lame to deny the existence of a candidate’s sins. It lame to make excuses for them or plead for people to ignore those sins and dream of some other issue. We are really arguing about where their sins rank on the sin scale. If you support Perry, admit that he won’t seal the border and that is something you can live with. For whatever reason. His sins might rank low enough on your sin scale. That is valid. Its not valid to say he has no sin.
A favorite pastime of conservatives is to make up reasons why McLettuce got the nod. The one I hear most is “the republican establishment chose McLettuce for us”. I guess they think that would absolve them of all responsibility. Somehow, a mystical “establishment” subverted all the votes cast in the primary and magically elevated McLettuce to be the GOP candidate.
Here’s the fact. McLettuce got the most votes. The reasons can be debated but he got the most votes in the GOP primary. I think he got the most votes because people bought into the “unelectable” game. The same thing is happening again. And when Romney gets enough votes to secure the GOP nod, we will go back to blaming the magical “GOP establishment” fairy.
“Strategy” voters are not usually as smart as they think they are. They might like Huntsman and Huntsman might have the least sin of all candidates, but they are not backing him. Ask why and you will get “he can’t win” or “he is splitting the <fill in the blank> vote”. Without fail, they got those lines from either “the media” or “the establishment republican” talking heads. They will NEVER be able to tell you the talking heads’ track record of being correct. But they sound good parroting the line. That is how we got stuck with McLettuce.
Way too many of us blindly follow the herd. The leaders in the polls are deemed inevitable so they jump on the bandwagon instead of discussing the poll leaders’ sins. Some also buy into the “speak no evil of a GOP candidate” commandment. As if the democraps won’t know about a sin if we only ignore it in the primaries. That is how we got stuck with McLettuce.
You might not get to vote for the candidate you choose because of the primary schedule, but I don’t think there was a single state that only had McLettuce as a choice on their ballot. I’m not nuts about the way we have our primary set up. But it not why McLettuce got the nod. He got the most votes.
WE are the reason why he got those votes.