Is FreeRepublic Pro Harry Reid?

Vanity | 9/17/2014 | Vanity

[Kansas58]

A very disturbing number of Freepers are openly advocating, on Free Republic threads, for the defeat of Senator Pat Roberts and other good Conservative Republicans. Greg Orman, in Kansas, is a pro abortion, anti gun, tax and spend Liberal Democrat who has given tens of thousands of dollars to Obama and Pelosi and the Democrat Party and Harry Reid. I am called an "idiot" for supporting Roberts. However, I think that those on Free Republic who support Harry Reid and Greg Orman should be ZOTTED, kicked off the site. I have had enough of there hate filled, vindictive, misguided trash.

[Norm Lenhart]

He thinks this GOP is more conservative than that of Reagan’s admin. What does that tell you?

[Kansas58]

you are a liar

Orman is a DEMOCRAT

[centurion316]

There is no democrat running for the Kansas seat.

On that point you are quite wrong on several counts. Chad Taylor won the Democrat primary and is the Democrat candidate. The Kansas Supreme Court is probably going to remove him from the ballot at his request, but they haven't done it yet.

Greg Orman is running as the Independent candidate, but he is no such thing. He is a Democrat, has the blessing of the Democrat Party leadership, and is committing a fraud on the people of Kansas.

[Viennacon]

Which is why I said, as begrudgingly as I can, Kansans should vote for Roberts. The same does not hold true in Kentucky and Mississippi.

Tennessee and South Carolina aren’t competitive enough for it to make any difference whatever your opinion.

[Yosemitest]

You can't be serious!
Have you not read?

What a DISAPPOINTMENT!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[Kansas58]

Yes, Roberts supports the Party Platform State and National.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Not really sure what you’re worried about. After all, you got all the candidates you wanted, right? The “electable” ones?

Just leave the conservatives alone. I’m sure you’ll breeze to victory.

[big bad easter bunny]

I love Harry Read and I would be his lover, if I were gay!

[Black Agnes]

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article1447177.html

"The race for U.S. Senate in Kansas no longer has a Democrat in it. In a stunning development, candidate Chad Taylor asked Wednesday that his name be removed from the ballot, paving the way for independent candidate Greg Orman to face U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts head-on in November."

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Because there's a Ruling Class in Washington now.

Republicans are to Democrats what Chihuahuas sitting in expensive designer purses are to rich California valley girls. They want some of the action too, and to be petted and fed by their leftist media masters when they speak out against those other Republicans who "move too far to the right."

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

So what exactly is your strategy for doing that now that the primaries are over?

---

Every election cycle we’ve had GOPe meddling in the primaries. Each cycle we hear “you still have to vote for the GOP candidate or you’ll make baby Jesus sad.”

I voted GOP in the last two presidential races but never again. I’m through voting RINO.

It’s always been, “we’ll fix it later.” Guess what, we should have fixed it sooner because now it’s later.

The only way to fix it is to reject the candidates clearly involved with the Mississippi primary fraud. If we continue to allow the GOPe to screw us over they’ll never stop screwing us over.

[tennmountainman]

It tells me he does not know his history, among other things.

[Black Agnes]

“Greg Orman is running as the Independent candidate, but he is no such thing. He is a Democrat, has the blessing of the Democrat Party leadership, and is committing a fraud on the people of Kansas.”

What’s your view on lifelong democrat Mike Bloomberg serving as the mayor of NYC having run on the Republican ticket?

[Kansas58]

Huh?
You pretend to be an expert on logic, in other threads.

Tell me how your post makes any sense?

Roberts is VERY Pro Life and has been Pro Life even before the prolife movement got its act together.

Orman the Democrat (fake indy) is Pro Abortion to the core!

[Darksheare]

Not supporting the RINO does not equal supporting a liberal.
RINOs tend to be liberal, see Mitt Romney for an example of a liberal wearing an R label.
If Boehner et al cannot take a stand against liberal Obama, they wouldn’t take a stand against liberal Romney.
In other words, many of the current crop of elected reps AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY with the “new direction” our country is going in under liberal leadership, and will do their best to make certain conservatives are not represented at all.
Except to play to us when they want our votes!
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3204934/posts

So your answer is to support, say, Romney who is ideologically the same as his opponent?
Show me how the RINOs are any different from the Dems?
When have they supported US in any meaningful way except to do token useless actions that they knew were futile so they could say “Well, we triiiieid, honest!”

[P.O.E.]

There’s a ton of fake freepers who post

I often wonder about that. Once in a while, I see what looks like someone trying to bait a racist comment or something, and makes me go hmmmmm.....

[Kansas58]

Imagine what the US Senate would be like if EVERY Democrat was replaced by someone as conservative as Pat Roberts -—

Do that and you see how ridiculous the pro Harry Reid, Pro Orman Freepers really are!

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Yeah, hey, if you can convince Cochran and Mitch to resign, I will take it back and be 100% with you. And if they refuse, you know who the real enemies are.

---

But they’re so darned electable! Don’t you want electable candidates?

Look at the sparkly things! Stop thinking for your self and look at the sparkly things!

[Darksheare]

Considering it already is a bit of a flame thread, it might either turn into a bugzapper, OR be more useful as litterbox fill.
I can see no purpose for this thread except to stir up crap.
*Magic 8 ball says “circular file”*

[Black Agnes]

Ok, riddle me this.

Did Pat Roberts vote for Sebelius’s confirmation? Was he totally in the dark about her being close buddies with Tiller the Killer? What was the ‘special relationship’ that Roberts said he had with Sebelius, buddy of Tiller the Killer?