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

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

[Jim Noble]

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

Well, that's the crux of the argument, all right.

You and your supporters are no more than 30% of the American electorate, if that (30% and falling, BTW).

That is not a sufficient voting bloc to elect a President, or any Senators, and it can probably elect between 70 and 85 Members of Congress. That's it.

To win national elections and affect national policy, you need to cohabit with another large group, or a bunch of small ones.

You are intent on driving away all who would be willing to cooperate with you, and in this, I think you are seeking national destruction.

What you derisively refer to as the "RINO vote" is about 20-25% of the electorate. These "RINOs" would tolerate a government which would give you a lot of what you want, but they will not cooperate with your plan to get it all.

Once you drive them all out, instead of Mike DeWine (for example), you get Sherrod Brown. Instead of Pete Wilson, you get Barbara Boxer.

So far, the "drive the RINOs out" plan has delivered the entire Northeast, California, and Ohio into radical Leftist control.

If you get what you want, the Democrats will have a permanent 65-35 majority and you will have nothing.

If you want to be a revolutionary, that's fine. If you want to get something out of politics, that's idiotic.

[MNJohnnie]

So is what being claimed around here as “Standing on principal” actually standing on principal or is it actually sacrificing principals to personal ego and feelings? The “I am not getting my way 100% so I am taking my ball and going home” thinking?

Standing on principals to me means actively working to achieve those goals not just standing on a soapbox being mad because the fight is tough and not this second going our way.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Anything posted from MNJohnnie is an automatic Barf Alert.

[Jim Noble]

Anything posted from MNJohnnie is an automatic Barf Alert.

I probably disagree with MNJohnnie as much if not more than anyone else around here does, but that's pathetic.

This is a discussion forum. Do you have any opinion about his post?

[Clintonfatigued]

Talk about a cure being worse than the diesase.

[LdSentinal]

8 years of Bill Clinton killed 3,000 people on 9/11.

I will vote against Hillary.

She is pure evil.

[Theodore R.]

What ails the GOP: the failure to enact its own platforms since 1952! Pretty soon, people wonder why the GOP doesn’t even try to carry out its goals. Why does it adopt EMK-HRC type programs all the time?

[Theodore R.]

Haven’t you heard that GWB is said to be “advising” HRC on how she should proceed? Admittedly, his ulterior motive is to keep her from pulling out the troops from Iraq. He is reconciled to her election.

[roamer_1]

You and your supporters are no more than 30% of the American electorate, if that (30% and falling, BTW).

I would argue that, but for the sake of this discussion...

To win national elections and affect national policy, you need to cohabit with another large group, or a bunch of small ones.

Yes, I know. That would currently be the Republican Party.

You are intent on driving away all who would be willing to cooperate with you, and in this, I think you are seeking national destruction.

The partnership within the Republican party is well defined and is embodied within the party platform and identity, and has been for years. That agreement, largely between the Rockefeller wing, Conservative libertarians, and Social Conservatives has not changed and only works if and when it is reciprocal. It cannot be anything, but what it is.

I am doing nothing more than requiring the Republicans to adhere to that agreement, nothing more, yet I am the one who is seeking national destruction? How inane.

What the RINOs don't seem to understand is that it has never, and will never work to try and pull the party to the left, because the agreement between the factions immediately falls apart, and they each vote according to their principles instead of voting Republican.

It is those trying to move the party leftward that are causing the destruction of our country (and our party)- expecting to drag people who largely disagree with them by the nose.

[Jim Noble]

I am doing nothing more than requiring the Republicans to adhere to that agreement, nothing more

This deserves a much longer reply than I can give now.

The short version is that the organized Republican party has never adhered to your "agreement", but they've pretended to to get your votes.

That arrangement is no longer acceptable to you, so some sort of new arrangement has to be worked out.

The new arrangement, however, cannot be that 30% of the electorate tells 70% of the electorate what to do - that's not viable.

[roamer_1]

So is what being claimed around here as “Standing on principal” actually standing on principal or is it actually sacrificing principals to personal ego and feelings? The “I am not getting my way 100% so I am taking my ball and going home” thinking?

Your condescension and trivialization do nothing for your cause.

[roamer_1]

The new arrangement, however, cannot be that 30% of the electorate tells 70% of the electorate what to do - that's not viable.

Then you will have to do without. There will not be a new arrangement that does not contain Conservative values. It will not happen. What marginalizes me will marginalize you as well, as you will not find that "30%" elsewhere.

This is an old and tired argument. The base WILL walk, it always does.

[Jim Noble]

Then you will have to do without. There will not be a new arrangement that does not contain Conservative values. It will not happen.

The most you're going to get is someone to lie to you, like Romney.

No electoral politician, of either party, will commit to using the power of the state to end abortion, since that will make them unelectable.

When the last twenty years of GOP politicians have talked the talk, everyone has known they didn't mean it (except maybe you). This is what W was telling you when he said that America's heart had to change (which is absolutely true, by the way).

The reason that my choice of a candidate does not stand or fall on abortion is that no one who is electable will do a thing to change the status quo until the people are ready for it to change.

Changing those hearts is the work that has to be done - and it won't be done by politics or politicians, IMO.

[Jim Noble]

Then you will have to do without. There will not be a new arrangement that does not contain Conservative values. It will not happen.

The most you're going to get is someone to lie to you, like Romney.

No electoral politician, of either party, will commit to using the power of the state to end abortion, since that will make them unelectable.

When the last twenty years of GOP politicians have talked the talk, everyone has known they didn't mean it (except maybe you). This is what W was telling you when he said that America's heart had to change (which is absolutely true, by the way).

The reason that my choice of a candidate does not stand or fall on abortion is that no one who is electable will do a thing to change the status quo until the people are ready for it to change.

Changing those hearts is the work that has to be done - and it won't be done by politics or politicians, IMO.

[Recovering_Democrat]

No question: the GOP needs to become a more conservative party.

Yet, I do not think a Democrat presidency would be good for America.

Let's look at the past THREE Democrat Presidents:

Lyndon Johnson: In foreign policy, massive deaths of American soldiers (tens of thousands) in Vietnam, because LBJ wanted to micromanage the war. Domestically, expansion of the federal government: the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" that we are still paying the price for! We have an entire generation of Americans dependent upon welfare and/or government programs because of this horrendous legacy initiated by LBJ's programs.

Jimmy Carter: Foreign policy: Oh dear God, where do I start? 444 days of humiliation, giving away the Panama Canal, totally emasculated by the Soviets in Afghanistan...how is that? He points to the Egypt/Israel peace agreement as his one single accomplishment. To be sure, it has held together...but the overall effect to America's standing and respect in the world went WAY WAY down during his tenure.

On the domestic front, ask anyone who remembers: huge inflation, huge unemployment, gas lines, and he had no handle on the problems of the average joe. Hell, the guy couldn't even get his own Democrat controlled congress to work with him.

Impeached 42: Foreign policy: selling secrets to the Chinese, treating terrorism as "law enforcement", ignoring the offer to get bin Laden, sucking up to the U.N. and the Euroweenies instead of leading the world. His Oslo peace talks were ultimately a failure, because he wanted to make nice with Yasser Arafat. His wife even kissed Yasser's wife--after Yasser's wife gave a speech ripping Israel.

Domestically, Clinton tried to socialize health care. He was dragged kicking and screaming into reforming welfare and getting a handle on the deficit by a Republican Congress. If you look at the last year and a half of his Presidency, the stock market was in a tail spin...Clinton proposed nothing to help the economy...we were headed for recession, the bubble Greenspan warned about was bursting, and he continued a futile search for a positive legacy.

Clinton pardoned FALN terrorists in an effort to help his wife get votes.

Clinton vetoed a partial birth abortion ban.

Clinton gave us Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the SCOTUS. Not to mention what he did for the prestige of the office during his impeachment.

No, I really think--as bad as some Republicans can be...Nixon wasn't great, Ford wasn't great, Reagan was great but had some missteps (Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy), GHW Bush and GW Bush all have their faults...but none of them were as bad as these three Democrats.

[roamer_1]

The reason that my choice of a candidate does not stand or fall on abortion is that no one who is electable will do a thing to change the status quo until the people are ready for it to change.

While I agree with your post to a large degree regarding politicians "playing" the Right, I disagree that people don't want abortion laws changed. I think your opinion is influenced by your location. I believe similarly that the country is socially Conservative on most issues, from pornography and homosexual marriage all the way to the Ten Commandments and prayer in school.

Northeastern values may play well in the rust belt but they are far removed from the rest of the country.

The reason the Republicans lost in 06 is the same reason they will lose this election cycle. The Democrats were able to move to the right of the Republicans. That's it, in a nutshell. The same will happen this year- Clinton will be to the right of Guiliani, and the ranks of Blue Dog Democrats will swell because the Democrats as a party will be to the RIGHT of the Republican party. This is an inevitability unless the Republicans find a way to move drastically to the right and damn fast, too.

[LdSentinal]

You are one pathetic Buchanite.

[Theodore R.]

I never call other posters ugly names (it is supposedly forbidden on the forum), but the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

[Jim Noble]

While I agree with your post to a large degree regarding politicians "playing" the Right, I disagree that people don't want abortion laws changed.

I think you are right, up to a point.

Roe v. Wade is the weakest link in the abortion chain, and people can be sold the idea that the people, not the courts, should make the laws.

However, from the rhetoric around here, you get the idea that only politicians who promise to end abortion are acceptable.

All I'm saying is that any politician who promises to end abortion is lying.

After Roe v. Wade is reversed, many incremental changes in abortion practice will be legislated, but it won't end.

And it's my view that a Hillary presidency will put off the reversal of Roe v. Wade by thirty years.