Posted on 08/05/2015 12:20:14 PM PDT by jfd1776
You fight with the army you have. I don’t buy the argument that RINOs aka soft conservatives hurt. Giuliani is a RINO, yet he made NY wonderful and livable. Democrats just make things worse. I know. I live with their destruction every day. I can work with RINOs. I have done it successfully. It just takes leadership.
I’m not going to cut off my nose to spite my face and let Democrats continue their destruction of all I hold dear. If, at best, the RINOs just destroy things a little slower it’s an improvement.
You and I have had this same argument repeatedly and we don’t agree.
Giuliani is a poor example to use, since he came in and did accomplish cleaning up the city from its ghastly level crime rates (2,000+ murders per year). As far as NYC residents were concerned, he WAS a Conservative. If he had moved up to Albany as Governor and had to deal with other issues separate from municipal law & order, we may have seen a different story and outcome.
However, where RG does make my point is that he was succeeded by a left-wing RINO in Bloomberg, who then paved the way for the Communist Wilhelm de Blasio. It is almost inevitable when a liberal R is elected they will be succeeded by an actual Democrat and not the other way around. Look at any Governorship in the country and that’s virtually how it plays out.
Had Dubya been a Conservative President like Reagan or Coolidge, he would not have been succeeded by a Communist.
Had Dubya been a Conservative President like Reagan or Coolidge, he would not have been succeeded by a Communist.
When I read ridiculous stuff like the above I just cannot take you seriously. Coolidge was followed by Hoover. Hoover started the policies that FDR would follow and by them extend the contraction into a full out depression. (BTW Roosevelt hammered Hoovers 'big government' programs during the election)
Reagan was followed by HW Bush his VP who rode his coattails into the Presidency. Your commentary there is more accurate because Bush was defeated by his breaking a tax pledge and Perot's 3rd party run. Without Perot Bush would have defeated Clinton and we wouldn't have gotten Obama because Clinton made an Obama Presidency possible. Dubya served two terms and cannot be faulted because America let a commie become POTUS.
So you have a single example. Look up any RINOs score on ACU, Heritage, et al and, at least for Senate, it's better than the most conservative Dem.
Any old POS wearing the GOP-E label, right?
I voted for Gianoulias last time but I won't vote for Comrade Quack Quack or, of course, for Nancyboy Kirk. Living in Illinois means there are always worthy minor party candidates in every race.
I did not vote for leftist Romney last POTUS election and I will not vote Republican for POTUS unless and until the GOP-E gets the hell out of the way and a patriotic, socially conservative, pro-gun, etc., candidate is nominated.
You may want to cuddle up to the sort of trash that infests the GOP-E Senate caucus (Nancyboy Kirk Thad Cockroach, LAMAR!!!, Robert Corker, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Jeff Flake and many more of their ilk). They carry the kneepads of the US Chamber of Crony Commerce. eager to service the greedheads at a moment's notice and the voters be damned.
Unlike you, I prefer that my country not be destroyed, quick or slow. Likewise the Republican Party.
The Devil you say!
So you agree with me that RINOs are always more destructive than Democrats ? Didn't think so.
"When I read ridiculous stuff like the above I just cannot take you seriously. Coolidge was followed by Hoover. Hoover started the policies that FDR would follow and by them extend the contraction into a full out depression. (BTW Roosevelt hammered Hoovers 'big government' programs during the election)"
You've misunderstood what I've said again, plus you're also making my argument in the same paragraph. #1, like Bush won Reagan's 3rd term, Hoover won Coolidge's 2nd. I said Conservative Republicans are often succeeded by ANOTHER Republican. I did not say what kind ! Bush, Sr. misrepresented himself as one who would continue Reagan's policies, when he did not believe in them, and proceeded to screw the proverbial goose on breaking his word on taxes.
Hoover, who started out a Progressive Wilsonian initially wanted to run for President in 1920 as a Democrat, but recognized the brand was so damaged, he'd be committing political suicide and became a Republican and later secured a Cabinet posting. He also claimed he would continue as a regular Republican following in the footsteps of Coolidge, but eventually moved away from that in dealing with the Depression. Because he opted to start going with "Progressive" policies rather than stand firm and ride out what should've been the Panic of 1929, it gave FDR and the Democrats an opening. Like Clinton in 1992, he also attempted to run to Bush's right (as FDR did 60 years earlier) on taxation.
Point being these were RINOs who won on the prosperity and success of their Conservative predecessors (whose policies only reared their heads in time, and undid all the good work). If Dubya had followed in the footsteps of Reagan instead of going with the big spending Congress (1st RINO, then Democrat), he'd have paved the way for a Republican successor. Instead, we got Zero and the Dems got a substantial enough majority to force down the throats their radical agenda. The RINOs made that happen, nobody else. So please stop insulting us by telling us how much better they are. RINOs were responsible for giving us the most corrupt and disastrous regimes throughout the 20th century and leading into the 21st.
Your argument is a logical fallacy named: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Unless a viable conservative candidate shows up, I’m voting for Kirk.
As a follow up, no Bush, Sr. would not have defeated Clinton with Perot out of the race in 1992. Clinton would’ve needed not even 1/3rd of the Perot vote to win, and there were enough people mad at Bush that that would’ve occurred. Bush needed over 2/3rds to win. He wasn’t getting it. Not in 1992, not with that terrible, weak campaign, not without Lee Atwater.
Nope. I answered your points, and you didn’t even realize you agreed with my argument in your own words.
You can vote for Kirk if you so choose, but nobody will pat you on the back for it. You’re voting for a Socialist who is corrupt and takes his marching orders from the same cabal that installed Zero. You were told that almost 6 years ago, and it is no less true today.
Your response is to vote Republican no matter how odious. That’s your choice, but understand what it means to people who have ideologically Conservative principles. No party automatically earns my vote. Only those candidates with whom I agree or feel possess the character, honesty and integrity to serve in the office they run for. That’s why I voted for Virgil Goode for President in 2012, and if the GOP runs another anti-Conservative Socialist (like El Jebbe, Gary Condit’s Eskimo Bro Kasich, Krispy Kreme Stay Puft or the buffoon crew, they can go screw).
You’ll have to prove that. Perot’s entire job was to stop Bush from winning. Remember when he pulled out and Bush surged?
My response is to vote Republican because the Democrat is more odious.
Giannoulis instead of Kirk?
Duckworth instead of Kirk?
How are either of those better?
I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for the perfect candidate. It’s always a choice in politics between preferences, imperfect preferences. The only time I get what I want is in the free market.
I’ll not turn the Senate over to Dems just to satisfy some masochistic urge.
So you don’t have to prove yours and everyone else in opposition to you has to prove theirs, eh ? Trolling tactic.
Yes, I do know Perot was there for the sole purpose of stopping Bush, but ultimately, I don’t think it would’ve mattered because Bush’s candidacy died of self-inflicted wounds. I was following that race every day, since after all, it was my Senator and neighboring Governor, leftists both, that had me alarmed for what they were planning.
Perot at one point scared himself out of the race when he took the lead (with Bush in 2nd and Clinton in 3rd). But your recollection of what happened when he pulled out before reentering is faulty. It was Clinton, not Bush, who surged when Perot pulled out, surging to 1st place and Bush never recovered, and it had little impact when Perot reentered. A substantial bloc (which turned out to be 62 1/2% of the electorate) ended up being anti-Bush.
Funny thing is, Clinton maintained the Democrat bedrock vote of 43% or so, virtually just a point or so below what Dukakis got (so it meant he didn’t have to get that much of the opposition bloc that went to Perot in order to score a win).
Bush failed to keep even the GOP bedrock vote of 43-45%. He got below Goldwater’s level in 1964, indeed the worst performance since Alf Landon in 1936. Again, Bush only had himself to blame. Had he stayed on course, kept his word on taxes and stood up to the Democrat thugs in Congress, he’d have coasted to an easy reelection victory. But that’s what you get when you elect a RINO squish that doesn’t believe in Conservatism.
Why are the Dems better ? Because they’re not lying about their true leftist agenda. Kirk is. They won’t get the GOP and the downballot candidates painted with his ineptitude, corruption and horrible voting record.
If you’re going to elect a leftist, let it be the Democrat. Let them wear the mantle of corruption, failed policies and statism. The GOP and its candidates should stand for the polar opposite. Honesty, pro-Constitution, pro-Conservatism, pro-family and pro-God.
Kirk is none of the latter.
BTW, what’s the current “Majority” leadership in Congress under RINOs Weeping Boner and My Bitch Mitch doing to stop Zero’s agenda ? Not a damn thing.
Don Quixote already has you for a squire. I’m sure 1010RD could find better use of this time and money. State legislative candidates that actually have a chance to win for example.
My feeling has always been 1992 WO Perot would have been close but Clinton probably would have edged it out, same thing in 1996. Bush would have gotten appreciably more Perot votes (dems claim it would have been 50/50 I don’t buy it) but Clinton would have gotten some (My late great aunt was a liberal democrat and she volunteered for Perot) and many others still wouldn’t have voted. In 1996 I think the great percentage would have gone to Dole but Clinton was close to majority victory that he’d have likely got it.
So Perot may not have cost Bush a win but he did make the possibly of Bush winning much less likely.
His dropping out when he was leading and then getting back in was highly suspect.
Dem Congress passed Obamacare, the next evil thing will be passed by a dem Congress. Just say no to dem Congress. Oh how I wish the throughly contemptibly losers Boner and McConnell were in charge in 2009.
I’ll give 1010rd a little pat on the back. We share a grim duty. Chemo (Kirk) > Cancer (The legless wonder)
Kirk needs to be euthanized.
There’s a jail cell with Kirk’s name on it, just like all the other Illinois politicians.
Good thing that RINO Governor is in place if there is a vacancy.
I’m sure he’d be happy to cough up a RINO turd just as odious, offensive and Combiner-connected. Tom Cross, perchance ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.