"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Reagan said losing does not help.
This article is just surrender monkey talk.
Dump Guiliani and the party unites.
8 years of President Hillary could kill the country. Remember what a mere four years of rule by that asshat Jimmy Carter did . . . not to mention fiddling by Bill for eight.
And kill the country.
This is the same kind of defeatist attitude that allowed some really sorry candidates to win in 06.
Well, cutting your leg off will cure an ingrown toenail, doesn't make it a good cure.
Ping
There, fixed it.
The first thing those people will do is make sure that they are never out of power again.
This “it’s better to lose now” attitude before even a vote is cast is what the GOP suffers from.
He did nothing of the sort. His lame-brained pseudoanalysis of the situation at hand goes no more thoughtful than his Hillary as Chemo metaphor. He pumps Ron Paul as "the only supporter of liberty in the bunch." And while Greenhut does reference another columnist's bemoaning of the Bush White House and GOP Congress' abandoning of fiscal conservatism, he spent more of his own words providing details about Rudy Giuliani's failed marriages.
The thing that reveals that Greenhut is either intellectually dishonest or just plain feeble-minded is that he writes himself in a circle as he wraps up his rant. Of Rudy, he wrote: "What the media call Giuliani's "unconventional" personal life certainly contradicts the party's support for family values." So one would think "family values" was important to him, and one aspect of the GOP he would want to hold on to, right? WRONG! Here are the third and second-last sentences in the column:
So Rudy's lack of "family values" are an important enough reason to reject him, says Greenhut, but the people who would are 'enemies of liberty' too! They're only useful when it comes to getting Hillary in to issue a near-fatal wound to the Republicans.
Even the party's social conservative wing, its most powerful grass-roots force, is ready to bolt if socially liberal Giuliani gets the nomination. Religious Right notables such as Focus on the Family's James Dobson and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer met recently in Salt Lake City to discuss backing a third-party candidate. These folks are no friends of liberty, either. Still, their defection could assure that increasingly likely Clinton victory.
Greenhut offers no ideas on how the GOP could be rebuilt, how long that would take, and doesn't factor in what could happen in the meantime, such as another devastating terrorist attack. He seems to take it on faith that the Republican Party will re-emerge from its terminal condition as something that he likes. Well, the Dems were out of the White House and a minority for six years. Now, they're back. Did they change their spots?
IMHO, Greenhut lacks the courage to say what he really seems to mean, which is: "Elect Hillary and let her kill the Republican Party dead because I want the opposition party to be the Libertarians."
Greenhut seems to blame President Bush for the fact that the Islamists chose his watch to unleash their war on the American homeland.
Greenhut appears to prefer a President who is more amenable to surrender than any of the current crop of Republicans except for the loopy Ron Paul.
I am not sympathetic to Greenhut, even on his issue of internal security. Railing against magined “police state” Bush Administration tactics do nothing to enhance his credibility, and in fact makes him look like he has more than one loose screw.
I think Greenhut would be more comfortable in the surrender party and suggest he move there forthwith.
Perhaps someday his children and grandchildren will find it possible to be grateful to others for the sacrifices their own forebear wasn’t willing to make to save our nation and our liberty.
Meanwhile, Steven Greenhut can take it to Air America or the daily Kos. They seem to have an appetite for this kind of drivel.
And any one who can buy into the notion that either the Republicans or the nation would be better off for a dose of President Hillary Clinton has ALL his screws in serious need of a screwdriver and a firm grip.
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.
I wonder if three failed marriages would make Rush Limbaugh an unacceptable presidential candidate?
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.
The strategy that worked so well in 2006 so why not do it again theory?
“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....
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.