Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee

[mikegriffith1]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets not choose a extremist in 2016! Lets use some logic, common sense and reality!!!

Left needs to be put back into its disgusting little box.

 

[Kosh]

Well within the far left there is no reason and logic, they actually believe they have a choice in the nominee..

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

Well that was not McCain nor Romney.

The far left wants the GOP to run Jeb Bush. Just like the far left wanted the GOP to run Romney.

The problem is the GOP is scared of the far left and their labeling system and I doubt any of the GOP will meet the requirements you have laid out here.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Chuckle, chuckle...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee"

One fails to see the point given the fact the republican political agenda is devoid of reason and common sense.

 

[candycorn]

There is a long way to go and thousands of variables yet to be played out.

The most prominent variable is that there has to be a pathway to the White House meaning that you have electoral college mathematics that MUST be factored in. With the nation divided, you can pretty much pencil in the same states for the R and D contenders with 10 states that hang in the balance. In those 10 states (as many as 12 and a few as 8 in reality), the GOP needs to work out 65 electoral votes to sway.

There is no realistic mathematics that gets you to 65 without Florida. Rubio is the shortest way to get from here to there. I think he does well out west too with CO, NV, and NM. His problem is that head-to-head with Hillary on records, he comes up short. On charisma and future-view (Hope and Change if you will) he can forage a path that way.

 

[LOki]

How's this for an idea? Consistent with reason and common sense...

Choose someone whose policies are not going to be informed by a fairy tale.

Choose someone whose morality is not fundamentally based in fear of some kind of boogey-man.

Choose anyone but some retard who thinks their mythology is some kind of LAW, rather than a useful metaphor when dealing with a difficult reality.

You want to know why the Republican party had to put up McCain? Because Romney, Huckabee, and Santorum are superstitious retards.

You want to know why Obama beat McCain? Because Obama had a proven record of being a better Republican than McCain. (talk about RINO... sheesh!)

The Republican party--if it is going to have any hope of defeating the church of government--must disavow the superstitious right, and put up for election a rational candidate for a change.

That would get my vote.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...the far left..."
What is the purpose of such hyperbole?
There is no functionally 'far left' or 'far right' in America! It only shows you don't know the meaning of such things to use them this way.
Where are the Trotskyists, the Maoists? Where are the Nazis? I mean, other than in some people's imaginations? Sure, somebody is going to say 'in the white house!', but that isn't so. I don't like Obama, but he isn't even a good socialist, let alone 'far left'. I detest Bush. He is a war criminal, but he is not a fascist.
This won't change anyone, probably, but USMB is here for getting thoughts out.

 

[FA_Q2]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

No, Santorum was not supported because he was a big government social republican and that is not going to win the white house - might as well elect the democrat. When you think of selecting a republican with logic and reason then you MUST think of that selection with the middle in mind - anyone else is simply not going to win. Given that I think the middle is very open to a fiscal conservative it should not be to difficult to find an actual republican that can take the center. Unfortunately, it seems that fiscal conservatives are irrelevant in the primaries, losing to social conservatives that cannot take the election. Romney was actually a good choice last go around but there was not beating Obama - the team politics was far to strong.

 

[FA_Q2]

"...the far left..."
What is the purpose of such hyperbole?
There is no functionally 'far left' or 'far right' in America! It only shows you don't know the meaning of such things to use them this way.
Where are the Trotskyists, the Maoists? Where are the Nazis? I mean, other than in some people's imaginations? Sure, somebody is going to say 'in the white house!', but that isn't so. I don't like Obama, but he isn't even a good socialist, let alone 'far left'. I detest Bush. He is a war criminal, but he is not a fascist.
This won't change anyone, probably, but USMB is here for getting thoughts out.

Bush and Obama are actually rather close to each other rather than the far extremes. Unfortunately no one seems to notice or care.

 

[Skylar]

"...the far left..."
What is the purpose of such hyperbole?
There is no functionally 'far left' or 'far right' in America! It only shows you don't know the meaning of such things to use them this way.
Where are the Trotskyists, the Maoists? Where are the Nazis? I mean, other than in some people's imaginations? Sure, somebody is going to say 'in the white house!', but that isn't so. I don't like Obama, but he isn't even a good socialist, let alone 'far left'. I detest Bush. He is a war criminal, but he is not a fascist.
This won't change anyone, probably, but USMB is here for getting thoughts out.

Bush and Obama are actually rather close to each other rather than the far extremes. Unfortunately no one seems to notice or care.

The DW Nominate scale says differently. Putting Bush far deeper into right wing extremes than obama into left wing.

 

[occupied]

If the right wing used reason and common sense to pick their leaders they would be leftists. No, they have to have distinguished looking older gentlemen, younger men who look like TV preachers or sassy white-trash-dressed-up women, with nice tits. All of them have to be able to say callous shit and make it seem virtuous and patriotic.

 

[midcan5]

Reason exists for the conservatives as a background of control. The conservative as I have noted often has no accomplishments other than a support of the status quo. Corporations and big money manage them, give them their thoughts and provide their ideas. A reasonable debate with an American conservatives is a debate with an ideology that appears the same in every one of them. Any debate is the same debate, meanwhile the Fox laughs.

"Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." Corey Robin


"Within the ethos of reason there was also the idea of encouraging generalized education. Education instilled knowledge. Knowledge dispelled superstition, thus making it possible to reason. A man capable of reasoning was fit to be a citizen. But this idea of creating citizens was vague. What did the elites want them for? The eighteenth-century philosophers believed, after all, in permanently established but benevolent authority. Educating the masses was intended only to improve the relationship between the top and the bottom of society. Not to change the nature of the relationship. [..] Like any elite holding great power, the technocrats are not particularly interested in the creation of subsidiary elites. Thus, while a fortune continues to be spent on state schools and universities, the entire system continues to decline. The intellectual muscle needed to give it direction is concentrated instead upon the continued refining of the education of the technocratic elite. Indeed, whatever may be quoted about the need for general education, there has always been an underlying contradiction in what the nation-state wished to teach the citizen. The masses, it was believed, could not be given more than a basic education: basic skills and - nowhere in elite education does this appear - a moral framework. In other words, they were to receive the nuts and bolts of a humanist formation." p130 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

"Lots of early arguments for free speech share Mill’s thinking about usefulness. John Milton’s Areopagitica argues against parliamentary restrictions on printing on the grounds that free speech lets men refute heretical ideas, and Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason is about how free thought and speech allow reason to triumph over religious superstition.

Notice that all these accounts of free speech rely on speakers believing in what they say. This is fair enough in a world where the most common motivation for saying something was believing it, but in the centuries since On Liberty, another motivation has emerged: to make money." Eleanor Gordon-Smith Should freedom of speech apply to the outrage industry - The Philosopher s Zone - ABC Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"I suggest we should go the simpler route, and believe that the cultivation of ‘shocking’ and ‘controversial’ speech has little to do with what the speech expresses and much more to do with the profits it creates." Eleanor Gordon-Smith


No nation was ever founded by conservatives, for in order to do so, you'd need to stop whining and do something - or by clueless libertarians who think all things started at their birth.
Conservative history of the united states US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[rdean]

OK, I'll bite. Which one has common sense and which one is reasonable?

 

[2aguy]

Lets not choose a extremist in 2016! Lets use some logic, common sense and reality!!!

Left needs to be put back into its disgusting little box.

We haven't chosen an extremist in the last attempts....Dole, McCain, Romney....hardly what you would call extreme...they were the picks of the establishment Republicans and they lost...I did vote for all three...who was the last Republican to win....George Bush....twice........

Perhaps we should learn from the winners this time....George Bush and Ronald Reagan...I think they were a tad bit conservative...weren't they...of course Bush spent too much money but he got the war right...till obama came in and wrecked it....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets not choose a extremist in 2016! Lets use some logic, common sense and reality!!!

Left needs to be put back into its disgusting little box.

We haven't chosen an extremist in the last attempts....Dole, McCain, Romney....hardly what you would call extreme...they were the picks of the establishment Republicans and they lost...I did vote for all three...who was the last Republican to win....George Bush....twice........

Perhaps we should learn from the winners this time....George Bush and Ronald Reagan...I think they were a tad bit conservative...weren't they...of course Bush spent too much money but he got the war right...till obama came in and wrecked it....

I voted for Bush and if you spend money on the right things. I personally don't have a problem with it.

 

[toxicmedia]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

 

[turtledude]

"Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee"

One fails to see the point given the fact the republican political agenda is devoid of reason and common sense.

and the Jackass Party's agenda is one of keeping the masses in a permanent state of teat sucking dependence so the rich Democrats get richer

 

[turtledude]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

 

[Contumacious]

Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee

Yes indeed.

"Independent" Americans will use "reason and common sense" (wink, wink) in choosing a presidential nominee.


Factors that will influence their decision are:


1- will he/she support the welfare/warfare police state
2- will he/she feed me
3- will he/she insure me
4- will he/she educate my child until he is in community college
5- will he/she quench my thirst


.
.