Well as far as the first paragraph I've been called worse and will leave it at that.
I just said you didn't know what you were talking about. We fortunately have a two party system unlike most western countries. We could be like Italy with half a dozen or so!
Everything you said about Obama is true. No doubt about it. That is not the point. Obama's record has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans have nominated liberal
to moderate nominees since Reagan.
We have a primary nominating process. The person who wins is the nominee. It is generally agreed that Conservative voters usually dominate the primaries.
Every four years we give it a pass. Republicans refuse to nominate a conservative. Look at the elections of 72, 80 and 84. Republicans crushed them. Why because they nominated a conservative.
I suspect that Nixon, the 68, 72 candidate was more liberal than Ford the 76 candidate. Ford lost because: 1} Nixon lied! and 2} A lot of people were taken in by "Born Again" Jimmy Carter!
Now look at the elections of 76, 92, 96, 08, 12. Republicans lost. Why because they had liberal to moderate candidates. Elections 00 and 04 Republicans won by the skin of their teeth.
Republicans lost in 1992 because of third party candidate Ross Perot who got almost 20 million votes.
Im sure you remember the 60 election. I am sure you did not like JFK. I was too young to vote but I would have voted for Nixon. The reason i bring this up is this. Kennedy was for tax cuts, a balanced budget, and a strong defense. This is the point. Had Kennedy run against any Republican nominee from 88 on, he would have run to their right. It just shows how downhill the party has gone.
That is nonsense! Conservatives in the Republican Party began the have a stronger voice with Goldwater in 1964. Actually the influence of the North East began to decrease under Eisenhower when he recognized the South as part of the Union. Although Nixon was what I call a big government conservative he ran against two far left candidates in '68 and '72 and the Republicans were wise enough in 1968 to keep the democrats from stealing the election as they did in 1960. Nixon beat Humphrey by less than 1,000,000 votes. Third party candidate George Wallace got ~10,000,000 votes.
The only point I was trying to make if we focus on Obama until he leaves office January 20, 2017, the Republicans will nominate another liberal like Crispy Cream Christy. Then one morning in November 2016 we will wake up and wonder why Democrats won again.
The primary process is what it is, Obama won basically for three reasons in 2008:
1. Bush never defended himself against the rabid criticism from the left so many people believed the criticism.
2. McCain ran a weak campaign. In the 2000 primaries he said he would beat Gore like a drum. When he won the primary in 2008 he hardly made a squeak against Obama and kept anyone else from pointing out Obama's problems.
3. Many people, especially young voters, wanted that warm glow by saying they voted for the first black president. Some are still looking for jobs I expect!
We lost in 2012 because a lot of evangelical Christians sat on their duffs and would not vote for that cult member. These same people voted for Carter in 1976 and look what we got!
I think we are on the same page. We just look at liberal Republicans differently. I respect your stance. Obama has done major damage. I would prefer in 2016 Paul, Carson, Scott of WS, Cruz, Rubio etc over another Romney or Bush.
If Paul wins the nomination I will support him. However, he has the same problem Obama has when it comes to confronting enemies overseas. I would never support him in a primary. He has some of the kookie libertarian ideas his father has! I hope Ted Bush does not run, I will not vote for him in the primary but would support him against any democrat. I just think 3 Bushes looks too much like a monarchy.
Carson, Walker, Kasich, Perry, Jindal, any Republican Governor, except possibly Christy, I could support in the primary. I prefer a Governor over a Senator.
