Posted on 01/24/2008 9:46:42 AM PST by davidlachnicht
I want to speak to every one of you who supported Fred Thompson:
I have long ago combed the websites of the candidates, read the threads that chided or extolled their records,
and tried to gage their character even though filtered and massaged by their supporters and the MSM.
With Fred's withdrawl, and now left without a candidate for the upcoming primary,
I have re-reviewed the GOP hopefuls, and dismayed that I am satisfied with none.
When I go to the polls, I will still be voting for Fred Thompson, and the more I've thought about it, the more I urge Fred-Heads to do the same.
If you believe as I do, that Mr. Thompson was the only Conservative
(that is, the only Conservative who wouldn't allow us to be pushed around by International concensus-ism or slaughtered by radical Islam),
then vote to continue to have convention delegates "promised" to Fred.
IF YOU WANT TO SEND A MESSAGE,
ONE THAT CANNOT HELP BUT BE HIGHLY VISIBLE
TO THE GOP AND THE MSM, VOTE FRED.
I’m trying to understand your position better, since you don’t seem to be alone in your judgment. I would guess than that you think it’s better for the Republican Party long term to elect a liberal Democrat, than a moderate Republican, and better to wait until/unless the GOP nominates a “true” conservative?
LOL!
My thinking, Finny, is that Romney is the best of the sour gruel left, but I too will be voting my conscience for Fred in Pa. Now, in the general, I **WILL NOT** betray our troops or my children by voting for a lesbian demonic force, or a Marxist of ANY color, or by not voting. Best, Bob
Weakling!
LOL!
Wow, you certainly can take off on flights of fancy! Now I’m a bad guy who runs companies into the ground and ruins people’s lives! Well, mine is a one-man company, so I can only ruin me and my family. I’m semi-retired now, and things are great, thanks just the same. My business is to serve others, and I love it.
What you were right about was that just “making you mad” was not the reason I joined the game. Posting around saying “Yeah, yeah, we’ll show them” with the rest of the guys isn’t going to hone your debating skills, you guys needed a challenge to bounce off of, and I provided that. No insult intended toward you, or the others. If we are Fred Thompson guys, we must agree on quite a lot.
Now, as for why I say I am in a win-tie, and you guys are in a win-lose, that refers to the discussion we were having, not the national situation. I want you to think about that a little more, if you care to exercise your brain. There is no hurry, there is always freepmail.
I picked you out because you have passion, I like a powerful cannon. Now if I could just get you aimed where you will have a good effect...
The primaries are for nominating the best Republican to lead the Party.
If the candidate you have supported drops out then you simply need to switch to the next best one.
There will be a Republican candidate running against a Democrat for President, and we need to vote to keep that Party out of the White House.
Agreed, that’s my position, but I’m just trying to figure out the positions of those who would rather stay home.
Yes, alot of sore losers.
The GOP is not the Conservative Party and if the candidate that goes through the primary process wins, he is the one we need to support as Republicans.
If you want a pure party, then you go 3rd Party and feel good but never win any elections.
Meanwhile back in the real world...
... I would guess than that you think it’s better for the Republican Party long term to elect a liberal Democrat ...
When a Democrat candidate triumphs by default -- that is, because disenfranchised conservatives refrained from voting for non-conservative Republicans -- the Republican Party did not "elect" that Democrat. Rather, the Republican Party, by disenfranchising so much of its base, failed to present an electable Republican. While the end result is the same as if the Republicans had "elected" a liberal Democrat, the process was so altogether different as to be apples to oranges with regard to intent.
Before and during the Davis recall and ensuing race between Schwarzenegger and "La Raza" racist Cruz Bustamonte here in California, I would have thought differently about this current issue. But Schwarzenegger made me realize that when the Republican party choses as its representative a politician who rejects Limited Government, that party has rejected the very fundamental underpinning of moral as well as financial freedom. Yes, *moral*, because when the government presumes to enforce its idea of what is moral, we end up with "morally correct" (in the eyes of the government in power) mandates that we CANNOT BY LAW discriminate against flaming, flamboyant homosexuals neither in our personal nor working lives, and that we MUST BY LAW pay for abortions for poor women. That is not moral by MY lights, but it is by the lights of many social Liberals, and it is only because politicians usurped Limited Government principles that those immoral laws have come to pass. Morality or lack of it was not the cause of this abominable reality -- abandonment of Limited Government WAS.
In terms of free markets, government interference in everything from minimum wage to health care to "responsible" environmentalism has profoundly curtailed freedoms at the expense of our labor -- every tax dollar we pay represents our labor. Government oversight always comes at the expense of freedom and labor. Not long ago, it was that the Republican could be trusted to represent a principle that would fight to limit government and defend my freedom. The Republican understood, as did Reagan, that government wasn't the solution, it was the problem! The older and wiser people got, the more likely they were to switch from Democrat to Republican for that reason.
THEREFORE, when the Republican party choses as a representative someone who essentially rejects the true, guiding, core principle of limited government, it is poisoning to death the party's future. In the short run, allowing Democrats to win is bad and has serious consequences. But it is very plain that when the Republican party moves left, all it does is move the Democrat party that much further left, and creates more evil than ever.
Had the Republican party stood up for and defended the Limited Government principle over the past 30 years, we would have ZERO Roe V. Wade and we would have ZERO harsh punishment of free and moral people who reject the cultural normaization of homosexuality.
Bottom line: yes, long-term it is better, perhaps MUCH better, to forfeit faux-Republican victory and force the the Republican party to represent a genuine alternative for voters sick of nanny-state government's horrific destruction of personal freedom, moral society, and confiscatory taxation that leads to "free" slavery in everything from wages to personal health care choices. Short term, Democrats will wreak much havoc.
The old saying goes, "No guts, no glory." After 30 years of doing the same "moderate" appeasment, things have gotten worse. It's no longer just a short-term "risk" to vote for Liberal Republicans, it's a proven long-time loser. It's all about risk -- the better risk, I think now, is to let Democrats get the blame for the destruction caused by Liberal policies embraced by today's "Republican" candidates.
“Pay no attention to the sellouts and shills for other candidates.”
LOL, only on FR will one see a vote cast for a candidate who is actually running be labeled a “sellout”.
Maybe if you guys sit in a corner and hold your breath until you turn blue, Fred will come back in. If that doesn’t work, you can always stomp your feet and squall. Better yet, go for the Cindy Sheehan-esque hunger strike. My favorite would be for you to run away and never come back.
Childish antics, all.
“I’m just trying to figure out the positions of those who would rather stay home.”
Not voting when there is a war on is like giving the middle finger to the military folks who have fought and died. Iraqis risk death and voted anyway yet some American crybabies threaten to stay home because their particular “cult of personality” dropped out. I liked Fred, too. He’s out, time to move on.
I get the feeling some of these folks are the type who call their exes and hang up on them or do 2am drive-bys to see if the ex’s car is in the drive way. They just can’t let go.
This vanity is like saying, “The Packers are out of the Super Bowl but I’m betting on them anyway. They are my team!” Crazy talk.
Just because we won’t support Rudy MCRomnabee doesn’t mean we will “stay home.”
I will be voting for Fred Thompson. You may consider that a lost cause, and you are probably correct, but one never knows.
Even if we could get rid of an inconvenience such as the 22nd Amendment (two terms or ten year limit for POTUS), last I checked having a pulse was a basic requirement for being electable..
That's correct, and Ron and Fred have exactly the same pulse rate in terms of the 2008 election.
It’s not about finding the ‘true conservative’, since that is generally unattainable. It’s about finding someone that doesn’t scare the living crap out of you almost as much as the Democrats, if not more.
I don’t consider GWB to be a ‘true conservative’, but I voted for him twice without question. I disagree with Bush on a number of important issues and I think his second term has been a disaster. However, I’d happily vote for him again if he were a choice, over the crowd of losers we’ve got to choose from.
Mitt Romney scares the hell out of me. His conservative rhetoric combined with his liberal past and decidedly liberal policies on health care and gun control are very dangerous to the cause of conservatism.
McCain is also scary. His willingness to stab conservatives in the back is well known. He believes in man made global warming and using it as an excuse to enact socialist policy.
Rudy is a social liberal. His authoritarian tendencies scare me more than any of the other candidates, Hillary included. And that’s coming from a guy who voted for him twice as mayor and lived in NYC during his entire time as mayor.
Huckabee mouths conservative words, but I’ve seen nothing but liberalism in his actions. His lack of foreign policy knowledge (Never mind experience, just read a friggin newspaper for God’s sake) coupled with his seeming refusal to take serious issues seriously, scare me to death.
The thinking behind what Finny is saying is that leftist policies when enacted by a Republican are FAR more damaging to the party and to our long term cause, than similar policies enacted by Democrats.
There is a reason that polls show that the public sees the Dems as the party of fiscal responsibility and small government these days. It’s because the lines have been blurred between the two parties.
I’m not 100% certain what I’m going to do yet, but I do feel the same way that Finny does and I understand the thought process completely.
When it comes down to it, it doesn’t really matter what we do anyway. We’re going to lose 2008 because our party is fractured. No amount of strong arming or shaming people into voting is going to fix that. Without the excitement from our base, we will lack the enthusiasm to convince the squishy middle to vote our way. That’s why we lost 2006 and why we really have no hope of winning 2008, barring a miracle.
This is a mistake. Fred is out and this is a wasted vote.
Regardless, message or no message, remember that there will be Supreme Court appointments during the next Presidential term. Those will affect our country for a VERY long time, if not flat out destroy it if judges are appointed by Hitlery or Obama.
So before you puff out your chest and have your little protest vote, consider the immediate fate of our nation first.
I understand the anger and frustration that the "Anybody But Hillary/Obama/Edwards" aim toward people like me. I felt the same anger and disgust for the folks who voted for Perot. But I understand now that Clinton didn't happen because of those folks. Clinton happened because the Republican party nominated Bob Dole.
I will also admit that I felt and expressed similar anger and frustration during the Schwarzenegger debacle for those who pushed for Tom McClintock instead of Arnold; I believed then (and believe now) that the votes weren't there in the best of circumstances for McClintock to win, therefore a vote for McClintock was a default vote for Bustamonte.
The difference is that NOW I would vote for McClintock regardless, even if I knew full well it meant Governor Bustamonte. It is all the more of a hard lesson for me because the reason I adopted that strategy was to increase the chances of my beloved Dubya's re-election; my thinking was that California, being such an important part of the national economy, would go down the tubes pronto with Bustamonte in charge, and by the time Bush's re-election came around, California would so skew the nation's economy to the negative that Bush would get the blame and increase the chances of a Democrat win in the White House. Ironically, Dubya, though I voted for him twice and would do so again, has engaged fully in "Moderate"/Liberal Big Government roll-over-to-Liberalism "compassionate conservatism" during his second term, the very thing that I decline to endorse further in the Republican Party.
I am especially grateful for God's gift of Jim Robinson, who provides me and the rest of us this fine forum in which we can develop and articulate our ideas. I hope that what we write here gives helpful and productive insight to voters and politicians.
Ping to my post 119. :^)
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.