AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

At least your are honest about it, That is where I stand on this issue myself but I do have to admit that I feel a bit naive about it as well.
I also admit that if there was more support for whistle bowers no matter how inconvenient it may seem, I would then be less of a conspiracy theorist.

Howard Kurtz, of CNN and The Daily Beast, husband of conservative activist Sherri Annis, on Rupert Murdoch’s possible (here, I am speaking as a journalist) influence on the American presidential election. Sunday, 12 August 2012.

It would be too much to say that Rupert Murdoch pushed Paul Ryan onto the Republican presidential ticket. But he certainly gave the conservative congressman a strong nudge.
The media mogul used a combination of private persuasion, newspaper crusading, and Twitter talk to urge Mitt Romney’s campaign to shake things up. And soon after Romney unveiled his running mate on Saturday morning, Murdoch posted a 140-character message of approval: “Thank God! Now we might have a real election on the great issues of the day. Paul Ryan almost perfect choice.”
The enthusiastic tone was a marked contrast from last month, when Murdoch huddled privately with the GOP nominee and seemed to come away distinctly unimpressed.
“Met Romney last week,” he tweeted. “Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from his team and hires some real pros. Doubtful.”
Romney declined to fire anyone, and Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal continued to ding him in editorials. On Thursday, the editorial page dropped the subtlety and practically demanded: Why not Paul Ryan?
Dismissing “every Beltway bedwetter” who warned that Ryan would be too risky, the paper said, “He has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp–like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP’s new generation of reformers.” And, in case anyone missed the point, the editorial said Ryan would help allay “doubts” about Romney.
The Romney camp says its candidate settled on Ryan a week earlier, but no decision is final until it’s announced. At the very least, Romney advisers may have quietly encouraged the Journal and The Weekly Standard, which also weighed in on Ryan’s behalf, to build public support for the little-known Wisconsin lawmaker.
Why would the Boston gang worry about Murdoch? In a contest against Barack Obama, where else are he and the conservatives going to go?
For one thing, as successive British prime ministers have learned, Rupert controls a mighty media megaphone. In the States, his Fox News Channel and New York Post have a knack for driving press coverage.
It would be hard to get a more favorable headline than on the Post’s website: “Mitt Romney and new running mate Paul Ryan pledge to ‘restore the greatness of this country.’” Not a hint of the tabloid’s usual snark.
Romney faced a fork in the road in making his veep choice: he could attempt to placate the right wing or nod to the center with a less ideological pick such as Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, or Marco Rubio. After all, the Romney high command was acutely aware that Democrats would savage Ryan over his budget, which eliminates capital-gains taxes, slashes domestic programs, and turns Medicare into a voucher program.
But if the conservative media function as a proxy for right-leaning voters, Romney was clearly in trouble with his base as he slipped behind Obama in both national and swing-state polls. Laura Ingraham ripped Romney’s campaign on her radio show, saying that while she “might be the skunk at the picnic,” it was obvious that Romney is losing the election. “You should be killing out there,” she told him. “And instead, you’re being killed.”
National Review felt compelled to publish an editorial titled “Don’t Panic.”
On Saturday morning, National Review hailed Ryan as an “inspired choice,” saying that rather than running “a vague and vacuous campaign,” Romney’s pick “has ensured that the campaign will instead to a significant degree be about a conservative governing agenda.”
What a difference a running mate makes.
The irony here is Romney wasn’t the first, second, or third choice for this whole crowd—Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol, Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, RedState’s Erick Erickson, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. He was too moderate, too ideologically suspect after his tenure as Massachusetts governor. Some favored Rick Santorum, some liked Newt Gingrich for awhile, others openly pined for a conservative superhero to fly in and save the day.
Now the right-wing punditocracy is trying to salvage Romney’s candidacy through the addition of a man they regard as a real conservative. Which is why, at least for the moment, Rupert Murdoch seems happy. But as the coming weeks will make clear, satisfying Murdoch is a very different challenge than winning a closely contested election.

The last paragraph says it all!

I'm wondering how farmers are going to vote in November.


The conservatives are not going to vote to help farmers - or anybody else for that matter.

They're going to cut spending to the bones, so that our national debt will ___________ grow.

The swift-boaters are at it again!

But you fail to realize that if any type of actionable intelligence was leaked from the WH, things like how we intercepted his radio communiques, how we were able to pinpoint him, anything that can be used against our forces or that will cause the enemy to know in advance what we are planning, will put American lives in jeopardy.

I don't know if that happened, but since politicians like to brag about what they know or what they were part of, its possible.

What's your "fear?" When you say "actionable intelligence" then follow it with your own imagination about possible consequences, you're way beyond your area of expertise. Remember Wikileaks?

Ryan is now on tv saying "do we want to follow the current path?"
The so-called current path is the outcome of the GW Bush Great Recession that impacted the world economy. What that means is that any country that had a reasonably growing GDP no longer has that growth. Their own economy is in trouble, and their unemployment rate is higher than ours.

When they have no jobs or money to spend, no company in the US can continue to expand jobs. That's unless Romney-Ryan has some economic secrets they are not sharing with our president and congress in how to grow our economy.

In other words, they're full of bull ****, and many Americans believe what they are saying.

I'm still waiting for the detail in how they're going to accomplish anything they are promising the American people with their rhetoric of creating jobs, the safety of Medicare and social security, and the better future they are promising our college grads.

Still waiting.

It's all a secret like their tax returns, because once we hear their detail, we'll know they're just lying again.

You mean like when a WH leaks the name of a current CIA agent? I'd hate to see a WH do that for political purposes.

They suffer from what eye doctors call myopia.

I am not familiar with the case you are talking about. Has this WH leaked the name of a CIA officer?

So you have no recollection of Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Cheney...?

Sure he does. He is just playing games again.

I remember that. But we are talking about the current admin, not one from the past.
Whatever the Bush admin MIGHT have done has no relevance to the situation, because he is not the president now.

If we aren't going to talk about the past then all leaks are in the past so why are you talking about any of them?

Do you mean to say that mm has no idea that what happened in the past and current administration becomes history? Historians will rate any damage resulting from "leaks" by any administration.

You know that old saw, "politicians don't remember history." And that probably includes "most people."

The funny thing is that dems and liberals only want to talk about past admins if that admin was a republican one.
I distinctly remember that anytime Clinton was mentioned anytime Bush was president, the left, including many people on here, would say that since Clinton was no longer president than he didn't matter and his actions and policies were not important.

So while I am fully aware what Bush is supposed to have done, and while I know historians will argue it forever, it is totally irrelevant to this admin.
Unless you are saying that since Bush did it that means its ok for Obama to do it...in that case 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Ryan is also a liar.

From Yahoo News.


That's a total lie that does not hold up to scrutiny by OMB. On the other hand, the Ryan budget actually "takes out" the money to give bigger tax cuts to the rich, and change Medicare into a voucher program that seniors will have to choose between doctors and higher co-pays that doesn't exist in Medicare today.

Here's the fact check on the Ryan Plan.

Let's stir up this hornet's nest a little. Who is the rightwinger constantly writing on these boards that liberals hate blacks? Well, take a look at this:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/23/oops-a-republican-told-the-truth-they-do-hate-black-people/

While we are stiring up this hornet's nest a little lets add a little fuel to the fire.

Does Mitt Romney love tobacco more than he loves money?