Either that or he refuses to be led.

Yeah, you’re probably right. No point in criticizing Obama’s totalitarian HHS work waivers when given a perfect opening to do so. Instead, it’s sooo much better to highlight the “bi-partisan welfare reform of Bill Clinton and the Republicans in the 90s”. :rollseyes:

I see a lot of this kind of Romney supporter over at Hot Air. They will never agree to disagree with you. Either you bend over for Romney, or you are labeled an Oblameya supporter.

ccoffer, I completely agree with that statement.  

 He’s the nominee. Refraining from shitting in your paw and throwing it at him is hardly “bending a knee”. (Unless you’re a monkey) Your hatred does nothing good for your country.

 You aren’t “the conservative base”, you pathetic jerkoff.  You’re some frustrated dickwipe who’s still pissed about his dream date losing in the primaries. The primaries ARE OVER.

Fuck you very much.

I’m a serious America supporter. We have a goddam Communist in the White House.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Ayn Rand was a philosopher. I’m not sure why people want to separate her personal atheism from her philosophy. Atheists don’t generate good philosophy, and her philosophy is a great example of that.  The philosophy she professed was anti-Gospel. Her claim is that no one should ever sacrifice for anyone unless they get something in return. This is why so many on the far Right, who have adopted her views, will say that people on welfare are “leeches.” To say that no one should ever sacrifice for anyone unless they pay them something in return, well, that is opposed to the sacrificial love of the Gospel. Many Catholic conservative bloggers have written articles explaining that Ayn Rand’s philosophy (not her personal atheism, her philosophy) is anti-Gospel. Paul Ryan is on video praising her. It would drive a very serious wedge and many Catholics and protestant Christians alike would be appalled. Stacy says Ryan would “restore confidence.” I’m saying, no, it would drive a horrible wedge.

This is exactly the reason he shouldn’t have been the nominee.  But lets be honest, our choices sucked.

LOL! You want to write off ALL the Catholics? LOL. Hmmm.

Erickson isn’t the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree, but the easiest thing is to just ignore him.  I enjoyed reading a number of the contributors over there, but he and a couple others made it too much of a chore to scroll past them.

Romney was never going to be Reagan Redux, but who the heck EVER was?  Maybe Cheney if he had run (anytime from ’88 on), but even he wasn’t the whole package like the Gipper.  Romney did however make a personal fortune from the ground up by buying into failing enterprises and turning them around, laying off workers and closing inefficient operations where necessary, to be profitable, and with a very high success rate for that field.  He did the same for the Olympics.

No President is going to be able to reform entitlements and cut the waste in the budget; Congress must enact the reforms.  Romney is certainly by experience the best man available to carry out cuts and reforms with efficiency.

And I’d be shocked if he picks Ryan.  First of all, Ryan’s whole life has been spent in Congress, first as an aide, he’s never run anything bigger than his office and committee staff.  Secondly, he is practically indispensable where he is.

Finally, it is a risky choice.  Ryan will be tied both to the unpopular Congress and to his budget plan which, while the best of several insufficient alternatives to our fiscal problem, does indeed “cut” Medicare and Medicaid.  So even if he’s never spit on a sidewalk in Kenosha, he comes with big red bulls-eyes on him.

As a manager and investor, Romney took risks all the time, but NEVER unnecessary ones.

Damn, if only Sarah Palin had run we wouldnt be sweating out this lightweight empty suit Romney…..

 I’m starting to not like your comments.

Has Romney stopped taking credit for it?

I like Mr. West a lot, but my hope is that he and Mrs. Bachmann stage a coup in the House after the election and overthrow Cantor, Boehner, etc.

Fred Thompson is a great idea.  We want someone who will not be a contender either in 2016 or 2020, so that people like Mrs. Palin can have a better shot [if there's anything left of The Republic - and that's a big 'if'].  And he’s qualified to step in if something should happen to Willard and he’s got foreign policy experience.

Fred Thompson [for the reasons I stated above] or how about Andrew McCarthy – prosecutor of Muslims who has run an office?

Why?  He’s not a conservative; I am a conservative.

I’m sitting on the sidelines knowing that whoever wins, I lose.  But I have to admit its less stressful knowing you’re already doomed.

I don’t see a coup happening.  When asked about who they would support this next time around for SotH, I’ve heard conservative Congress members use the phrase, “Boehner is a reflection of the caucus” meaning that the GOP in the House is moderate so that’s why Boehner is. So they think he would be more conservative if the House as a whole was more conservative. 

Unseating a Speaker is very difficult because it causes division in the caucus which no party wants.  Ideally, someone like Price could make a run and in a spirit of comity, there would be no hard feelings if he lost.

But if Bachman makes a run (and she would be a great Speaker) she would be a bulldog and probably ruffle some feathers in the process. Not good for unity – and we do need unity.  This is often why Freshman have a hard time making changes.

Freshman members can’t really change the House in the way that a lot of us would like. They have to vote for things they don’t want to in order to even get a seat at the table or a decent committee assignment.  It will take awhile for enough conservative momentum to build in order to get a conservative Speaker.

As for Thompson, I think it is too good of an idea for Mitt to actually follow.  I personally think he is going to go for a dull, moderate white guy. Who that will be, I don’t know.

That last sentence is the truly scary part.

Encouraging Romney to pick Ryan over Pawlenty is probably the most important thing conservatives can do right now.  Just like conservatives getting Bush to dump Miers for Alito was the right thing to do.  

Yes when you miss the point entirely and then call us “retarded freaks.”  You must have made a right turn and missed “The Raw Story.”  

if Lugar weren’t 80 years old…maybe

 As ccoffer said. Romney tried this ad nauseum in the Primaries. It didn’t work then. It won’t work now. States Rights does not excuse Collectivist Thinking.