Chemo For GOP: President Hillary (GOP Needs Complete Cleansing - Patient Is Sick Alert)

Orange County Register ^ | 10/13/2007 | Steven Greenhut

[Caipirabob]

I just don't agree with this premise. A Hillary presidency would split this nation to the point of militant resistance.

[MNJohnnie]

Well this is utterly moronic drivel without even the slightest hint of a shred of a possibility of intellectual merit.

After 70 years of Liberals running the Supreme Court the Conservatives are ONE seat away from taking back control of arguable the most influential portion of the Fed Govt. So now the moronic wing of the Conservative Movement, in the last 100 years of that Marathon of struggle, want to sit down and throw a temper-tantrum because the finish line isn’t their personal favorite shade of red!

Idiotic. 70% of something is way better then 100% of nothing. Adult minds understand that, children throw tempertarums about it.

On Judges alone the GOP has in the last 7 years done far MORE good for the future of the Conservative movement then all the pathetic posturing by Media “Conservatives” has, or ever will, do.

Wonder what this purist would of wrote about a President that signed 6 tax hikes? A Real Illegal Alien Amnesty? Double Federal Spending in 8 years? Spent record Deficits? Ran away from a Muslim Terrorist threat? Appointed a Liberal to the Supreme Court? Played diplomatic footsie with the Mullahs of Iran?
-
-
-
-
-
That President was Ronald Reagan.

Nothing in life is ever perfect. Not even the greatest US President of the 20th century Ronald Maximus Reagan. This instance on tilting at political windmills by the Purists is the behavior of petulant children, not rational adults minds.

The real life Reagan would of never been able to compete with the mythical Reagan that has been manufactured by Talk Radio since he left office. Perfection can be found in God, and no where else. It certainly is not to be found in politics.

In real life, and in politics, one is continually forced to take the good with the bad. Only in recent years has this dogma of “perfect Conservative” reared it ugly ignorant head. There is no such thing.

The best you can hope for is at least 51% of the time they move in the direction you want them to go. The GOP does that for Conservatives. Hillary and the Leftist move the ball 100% AGAINST the Conservative agenda. It would be pure idiocy for anyone to think Hillary would in any way help the Conservatives.

On Judges alone the GOP has done more good for the Conservative Movement’s future then all the whining from the Purists with their arrogance ignorance of how a Constitutional Republic work ever will.

Elections are won by those who can best harness a coalition of interests, not the one who demagogues the purist dogmas best. No one who can win in politics is ever going to measure up to this dogmatic demand for perfection. Not even Reagan could have.

[rb22982]

Most libertarians vote Republican. There are a lot more out there than you think. Most dont even know the term ‘libertarian’ — they just want government out of their wallet and out of their lives. Social issues should be handled at the state level anyway. Things like Roe Vs Wade is a serious abomination on our Constitution and States’ rights.

[rb22982]

I do agree that the Supreme Court & Courts in general is probably the most important part of the election. Every time I hear some retarded ruling based on feeling it is almost always a Clinton appointtee. Of course, if someone like Guiliani gets the Republican nominee, I’m not sure we’d have conservative judges. I could probably hold my nose and vote for any other Republican (assuming Hillary wins the D nom)

[Jim Noble]

Dump Guiliani and the party unites.

That's also surrender monkey talk.

Dumping Giuliani is fine, IF you retain his 30+% of GOP primary voters. If you don't, the party's over.

The Giuliani voters have been receiving incredible flak and aren't shooting back (or else they get zapped). However, this is a huge voting bloc in the party, if not a huge FReeping block.

We hear over and over again that the GOP cannot win without, is doomed without, etc, etc, etc the socon faction. Fine.

But Rudy is leading or second in every GOP primary voter poll. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are under 5% everywhere.

Do without Rudy? Of course.

Do without the Rudy voter? Impossible.

After Rudy is dumped in the way you would have him dumped, how can you possibly imagine the remnant of the GOP can assemble a national majority?

[dforest]

Dump Guiliani and the party unites.

I totally agree. Get him out of the race and all this angst goes away.

He is the problem and will cause a defeat.

It makes no sense to run a candidate that too many oppose.

[olde north church]

I wonder if three failed marriages would make Rush Limbaugh an unacceptable presidential candidate?

[Jim Noble]

There are many more rinos than you can count who also have to go

Yeah, that'll work.

Look at California.

[ought-six]

“Social issues should be handled at the state level anyway. Things like Roe Vs Wade is a serious abomination on our Constitution and States’ rights.”

Precisely.

[MNJohnnie]

Putting your hands over your ears and screaming “no-no-no-no” every time anyone around here points out how a Constitutional Republic works does NOT magically change Paulbot idiocy to wisdom.

[jonathanmo]

Perhaps some context will be helpful for the lurkers since the speech Giuliani gave, essentially about personal responsibility and respect for authority, is an excellent expample of why he is the front-runner...

"We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.
[ Another interruption. ]

At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government. . . .

The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.

If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

[roamer_1]

Well this is utterly moronic drivel without even the slightest hint of a shred of a possibility of intellectual merit.

You may whine about it all you like, it ain't gonna happen.

If the Pubbies want the base to vote, they should only allow candidates that actually stand for the things the base expects them to stand for.

[Reily]

To all
Yes I fear 8 yours of a Hitlery presidency.
She is a differetn type of power-seeking poltician then her husband. Bill Clinton was a “good-time Charlie” who would be conservative if he thought there was enough “sex-n-drugs, rock-&-roll and babes” in it. He was not out to “make a difference” the only difference he cared about was having a different honey to play with. Remember Hitlary and her ilk know whats best for each and every one of us! She has said this in public enough times, you would have thought the level of threat would have sunk into people.
The opening salvos of changing the Constitution profoundly have already been fired. Think of all the whining in 2000 about the Electoral College. Think of the recent threats to regulate the Internet either through the UN or through more domestic control. Think Larry Saboto’s recent article about the need to change our Constitution to make it more “democratic” Let me just say any constitutional change under a Hitlery presidency & Democratic Congress will certainly make the Constitution more “Democratic” ! I think much of our problems are due to the fact that too much democracy has been introduced, the direct election of Senators is perhaps the best example. The ancient Greek political writers and our Founding Fathers understood the dangerous of too much democracy.
You let a Hiltery presidency in coupled with a Democrat Congress, a couple of SC justices and this forum will disappear for the “good of the children”.

[roamer_1]

After Rudy is dumped in the way you would have him dumped, how can you possibly imagine the remnant of the GOP can assemble a national majority?

OMG! We'll lose the RINO vote! What ever shall we do?

There is absolutely no way that his 30% polling translates into the general vote. If Rudy is the candidate the Republicans will lose. period. end of story. He will not win in any but a tiny few of the red states. If you think he can turn blue states red, you may have some sort of chemically induced delirium.

[rb22982]

I’m not a Paulbot. Your ad hominem attacks are pretty funny though. Your post tactics are similar to the style that liberal use: Slander, name calling, and exaggerations.

[johnny7]

The strategy that worked so well in 2006 so why not do it again theory?

[MNJohnnie]

I am curious. Do the “Always Pouting” around here actively work for the Democrat Party or are they just so politically ignorant they don’t realize that is the logical result they achieve with their pathetic daily whining? Don’t they realize that they are acting, knowingly or unknowingly, as PR agents for the Democrat party?

So which is it? Political fools or political frauds?

[roamer_1]

So which is it? Political fools or political frauds?

I will say it again, only this time I'll type real slow so you can understand:

If you want the base to vote, give them candidates to vote FOR.

See? It's not so hard.

[mo]

“8 years of President Hillary could cure the GOP....”

Mash here....

http://alamo-girl.com/0463.htm

There WON’T BE ANY opposition to speak of after the first 2 YEARS of a Hillary presidency...much less two terms....

[RichInOC]

Greenhut: “8 years of President Hillary could cure the GOP.”

facedown: “And kill the country.”

In that case, let the GOP die. The price is too high. In fact, if the conservative movement at large thinks that a term or two of any of the current Democrat field (or even Al Gore if he drops in), and Hillary in particular, is an acceptable price to pay to pave their way back to power, then frankly, the conservative movement can die on the side of the road, as far as I’m concerned.