Posted on 06/09/2010 8:57:15 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Carly Fiorina wasn't the first choice among many conservatives. She is not as conservative as DeVore and if Campbell hadn't been in the race, then supporting DeVore would have been a no-brainer. I respect DeVore and his service. I never attacked him personally, (unlike those who attacked Carly and ridiculed her as a "dyke" even though she just had breast cancer and lost her hair) and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. He now has name recognition and a platform of support to challenge Diane Feinstein in 2012, for example, and if he does he'll receive my wholehearted support.
But the important thing is, Carly was more conservative than Campbell, who was the ultimate turn-coat RINO and who would have done nothing to advance the conservative agenda. She has millions to compete with Boxer and being a female and cancer survivor also neutralizes whatever attacks Boxer will throw at her. Remember that Boxer completely destroyed two staunch male conservatives before. It's time to unseat her using a different tactic.
Unfortunately, there are FReepers, who are bitter and angry from the DeVore loss, who have stated that it would be better for Boxer to win than to rally behind Carly. This is completely childish and pathetic. First of all, Carly is not a RINO because she has no public office experience to make a RINO assessment on. We're not talking about holding your nose for a Mark Kirk or Mike Castle-type liberal Republican. We're talking about someone who is reasonably conservative on the main issues and who will slow the Obama agenda. With Palin's endorsement, there's less of a chance for her to go Olympia Snowe on us. I trust Palin, and I doubt that Fiorina would be the West Coast version of Snowe.
Second of all Carly has business experience and while FReepers will laugh at her six years at HP the fact of the matter is she still has experience. Prior to becoming HP CEO Carly was vice-president of AT & T, so obviously HP saw something in her. She worked her way up from being a receptionist to leading a major corporation. What did Boxer do, besides live on the government hog most of her life?
Boxer will whine and say that Carly outsourced jobs but Carly can easily counter and say that conditions created by the government (high corporate taxes and regulations) brought about the need to cut jobs.
My point is that Carly won the primary decisively and exit polls showed she attracted both independents and conservatives. She ran a strong center-right campaign and there's no doubt that will carry over into the general election against Boxer. While she's not pure as the driven snow conservative, she is sufficiently conservative to stop the Obama agenda and promote big-picture issues like reining in spending and lowering taxes. So to quote Sheppard Smith: Don't be a hater.
It falls on deaf ears here. Precious has spoken.
there are many more but i doubt you want to know them.
better for all if we just pick on the things we disagree with her about. /s
As I recall from the comment Carly made, at the time it came out differently they Carly intended and she said so later.
I don’t have a lot of patience with the “puritan’s” they were the one’s who on 1976 the GOP had to lose to rebuild itself and Obama would be good for the country if he won, and some even wrote vanities the day after the election bragging they voted for Obama.... I have always believed you fight out the primary and get behind the GOP in the general election.
was this re the mike. I heard was she said to Greta and seems much mas made of nothing.
I guess the diggers have to keep digging.
I can muster some sympathy for endorsing McLame. For the other RINOs, well, a decent case can be made that she’s taking the likely more electable Republican candidate in primaries rather than the better conservative. In these races, she’s seems to be only endorsing RINOs against current Democrat office holders—and it seems these Democrats are well-entrenched ones.
We didn’t get where we are in one election but over many. So, it is logical to say we need to incrementally move back, as well. For me, it means supporting the best conservative in the primary and then the more conservative person in the general election.
Regardless, six years of someone like Boxer, with her seniority on committees and personal network support is MUCH worse than a newbie RINO-leaning person with no seniority. We can fight the RINO in six years with her own record in the Republican primary at that time, assuming Carly wins this one.
Not voting for the better choice in the general election is really close to cutting off one’s nose to spite their face. Principles shouldn’t keep one from voting in any election. If they do, then the principles are worthless as they will never be evidenced to help shift the makeup of elections.
If I only voted for those who met 100% of my criteria, I’d never be able to vote for anyone. That includes someone like Ronald Reagan, who showed he couldn’t keep his wedding vow of “until death do us part.” (If you can’t trust someone’s most solemn vows, can you trust the lesser things he says?) However, I would gladly vote for such a man at any time because he’s far better than virtually all the other options. If I didn’t vote for such a person in the general election, I would ostensibly be allowing one vote for the Jimmy Carter equivalent to go unchecked. If so, I only screw myself while attesting to my “superiority of principles” in the process.
At some point you need to allow your principles to do something other than allow bad to flourish at your expense and the expense of those you love.
>> I have always believed you fight out the primary and get behind the GOP in the general election.>>
Exactly.
some on FR love with the Left is in charge, it gives them something to gripe about. The malcontents arn’t happy
unless they are bit**ing away.
I always vote, and I always vote the best choice. Even if I have to write it in. CA ain't my state, BTW.
Nothing will change until conservatives stop supporting liberals. Period.
The political establishment knows they have you in the bag to support what you say you hate. What possible motivation do they have to do anything different?
I’m not in California, either, but if I were, writing in myself or someone I know I can trust is a squandering of a vote that could swing the election toward someone more conservative that can actually win that election.
For What It’s Worth (FWIW).
How does not voting for two people add a vote to either column? That’s new math?
We’re talking about a guy who lives in the land of Gregoire, Murray and Cantwell.
How is supporting the more conservative choice at each step supporting the more liberal person in that election? It logically can’t happen.
We can swing elections sometimes in big ways toward conservatives and other times it needs to be in smaller ways.
Since no election has perfect candidates, the best option is to support the more conservative practical choice every time.
So, are you suggesting principled conservatives should not vote for a Reagan if he’s not their perfect choice? Because if you don’t vote for such a person over the more liberal choice, you leave a vote unchecked for the bad guy.
It’s pretty simple to see, pissant.
How did Reagan get in the mix here? I thought we were talking about Fiorina, not a conservative.
That’s a sucker’s game. Took me years to figure it out, but personally, I’m done playing it.
Life is short. Resources of time, energy and money are limited.
Mine now only go to proven personhood pro-life, peace through strength, pro-natural family, pro-constitutional oath, Reaganite conservatives. The rest, who are to one extent or another helping to destroy my country, can fend for themselves.
That was my example in the post you responded to and it makes a good analogy for this election example. You suggest a write-in person over the best-chance conservative-leaning person in the general election. Almost no write-in candidate ever has a chance of winning in a general election, so that write-in vote doesn’t help get a better person elected. Instead, it serves as a protest to all the other viable candidates that actually have a checkbox on the ballot.
My principles could let me do that on every single ballot I’ve ever cast, and I wouldn’t have ever voted for anyone that ever made it to office. Heck, just a few people doing that would have allowed Gore to win in Florida that year—but at least we’d have Gore as our president while maintaining “principle purity,” right?
No, I suggest nothing. What I will do however, if two lying liberals are on the ballot, one with R and one with D, is I will right in if a 3rd party candidate is not acceptable.
I know it seems a “sucker’s game,” but the problem is that people don’t keep the push on for the next better conservative person at each subsequent election. It is only from the collective laziness that the RINO stays. We need to keep that pressure on through the years in office and, especially, in the next primary against the RINO.
But we also have to work on changing the people around us to help them understand why more conservatism is better, either though kind words or though ridiculing their liberal positions, depending on the people.
Reagan was a lying person with his wedding vows. So people should write in a better person next time such an election occurs, right?
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.