TexasCHLforum.com

just had a live news conferance. Didnt catch it all

It is time not to sleep while others are rallying.

That's disappointing.

Expected....................

This is terrible, but I suppose the writing was on the wall. Why is it that we always have to nominate the guy who's "next in line" as opposed to the guy who best represents conservative values? The Democrats certainly don't seem to have any problems nominating liberal leftists (current POTUS). We have just nominated a man with the personality of a dodo bird and all the charm of a cement brick to go up against one of the slickest politicians this country has ever seen. That should work out well.

BTW, don't you think there's something wrong with the nominating process when the Republican party can pick its nominee without TX weighing in?

matriculated wrote:This is terrible, but I suppose the writing was on the wall. Why is it that we always have to nominate the guy who's "next in line" as opposed to the guy who best represents conservative values? The Democrats certainly don't seem to have any problems nominating liberal leftists (current POTUS). We have just nominated a man with the personality of a dodo bird and all the charm of a cement brick to go up against one of the slickest politicians this country has ever seen. That should work out well.

BTW, don't you think there's something wrong with the nominating process when the Republican party can pick its nominee without TX weighing in?

Roughly half the States right?
Mostly them Northern ones picked their fellow.
Kinda like that election right after Lincoln.
1868

Three of the former Confederate states (Texas, Mississippi, and Virginia) were not yet restored to the Union and therefore could not vote in the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1868" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
DC just keeps makin' us Texans feel more and more welcome all the time.
Like Deja Vu all over again
Only reason we put up with it is cause we are the only State that can fly our flag at the same height as that other Country we joined up wit' since we were the only State to join as a Country rather than a Territory, etc.

matriculated wrote:BTW, don't you think there's something wrong with the nominating process when the Republican party can pick its nominee without TX weighing in?

Blame the democrats for that. The delay in Texas republican participation is directly attributable to democrat litigation over redistributing. I don't think that was an unintentional consequence.

While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

matriculated wrote:BTW, don't you think there's something wrong with the nominating process when the Republican party can pick its nominee without TX weighing in?

Blame the democrats for that. The delay in Texas republican participation is directly attributable to democrat litigation over redistricting. I don't think that was an unintentional consequence.

Fixed it for ya. Republicans don't redistribute, that's what we have the Democrats for.

1 down, two more to go

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

My crystal ball disagrees. Willard has even less of a chance, and on the evening of Nov. 6th, as the major news networks call the election for Obama, we'll all be wondering "Why didn't we nominate a more conservative candidate?"

As he has already told us, this is Etch-a-Sketch time for Willard; in other words, bye-bye conservatives. It's only a matter of time before he starts backing away from the Ryan budget, watch.

As a libertarian (small "l"), Santorum was not my man. His comments on libertarian mark his a conservative authoritarian which is little better than the leftist authoritarians of the Democrat party. The sad thng is that nobody remembers that Barry Goldwater conservatives were much, much closer to libertarianism than are the modern neo-conservatives. Sadly, I don't think that either party is all that committed to the ideals of personal liberty for the masses--just for their own elites.

The situation reminds me of a cartoon I once saw: Two peasants were sitting next to a wall, looking at the tank and soldiers in the village square. One of them asked the other, "I forget; is our Glorious Leader a Right-Wing dictator or a Left-Wing dictator?"

How do they determine the number of delegates? Is it strictly population or do they take into account how many electoral votes the state has delivered for the Republican candidate in recent elections?

matriculated wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

matriculated wrote:BTW, don't you think there's something wrong with the nominating process when the Republican party can pick its nominee without TX weighing in?

Blame the democrats for that. The delay in Texas republican participation is directly attributable to democrat litigation over redistricting. I don't think that was an unintentional consequence.

Fixed it for ya. Republicans don't redistribute, that's what we have the Democrats for.

iPad spell-checker.

So there is a god.

Jokes aside, Santorum was a horrible candidate, every time he opened his mouth it seemed like he wanted to turn the US more and more into a Christian version of Iran.