8mm
Posted on 02/07/2008 4:18:27 PM PST by wagglebee
To all of you FRiberals out there, and that means all of you Rooty Rooters and Romneyites, it's your fault that the GOP is almost for certain stuck with McCain as the nominee. Now, I don't mean those of you who voted for Romney on Super Tuesday in an effort to split the vote, but the rest of you are culpable.
Conservative FReepers have spent the past year listening to the likes of you tell us that conservatives have "had their foot on the neck" of the GOP for too long. We were told that all that mattered was someone who was strong on terror. We were told that we needed someone with strong name recognition. We were told that generally the GOP decides whose "turn it is" and then nominates that person. We were told that we needed someone who can get independent votes. We were told that ANY Republican would nominate strict constructionists to the Federal bench. We were told that winning was all that mattered.
Now, some of you who said this were supporting Rooty, some of you were supporting Romney. But you were all pretty much saying the same thing: you preferred your candidates to a conservative. Some of you even got so upset with conservative FReepers that you ran away to start a RINO forum
Well, guess what? You were successful, though not in the way you thought you would be. It looks like it's McCain's "turn." But don't worry, McCain is a war hero and strong on terrorism (as long as we don't actually take terrorists into custody or try to keep them from crossing into the United States through open borders), he says he can get independents to vote for him, he says he will appoint constructionists, and most important, he has name recognition.
So, if your real agenda was to destroy the GOP, you very well may have succeeded. If your agenda was to create a "Democrat Light" party, you have almost certainly succeeded. If your agenda was to keep the Democrats out of the White House, you have probably failed.
But regardless of what your agenda was, you have harmed the United States of America -- I just hope it's not permanent.
we had two perfectly good conservative candidates, Fred and Hunter, the RINOs pretended that they didn’t exist.
We had two perfectly good conservative candidates, Fred and Hunter, who did not know how to campaign. There fixed it.
I don’t vote until March 4th here in Ohio.
True and I don’t vote until 22 April so why are we getting yelled at? lol.
Free Republic members must have taken on super human powers to cause such a situation single handedly. FR polling vs the general public voting is vastly at odds. Does that tell you anything?
Ah....the irony! ROFL!
The irony is that you've never read the speech and bothered to put the quote in context. Reagan was telling CPAC that if liberals didn't like the GOP going in a conservative direction, they were free to leave. This speech is generally considered the platform from which Reagan challenged a SITTING GOP president for the nomination.
If you read what I wrote, I made it clear that I WAS NOT referring to the people who supported Romney AFTER all of the conservatives had dropped out.
I was talking about what they have been doing for the last year.
Anybody who tried to push the Fred Thompson Candidacy, after I clearly, from first hand, eyewitness testimony told everyone that I could that he was not a serious candidate, has only themselves to blame. Romney was not a perfect candidate, but given the choices, do the math.
The margin of victory for Romney was stolen by sour grapes Rhetoric of which your vanity is a prime example. Grow up.
Never said he was. I said he was better than McCain. But you’re welcome to McCain.
I don’t “need” to “blame conservatives” at all. You earned it. Hunter and Thompson didn’t have a hope in hell; you knew it; and you sabotaged a couple of pretty good candidates. Enjoy McCain. You deserve him.
Even your poignant post can’t dampen my spirits today. I got my copy of The Federalist Papers signed by Alan Keyes himself this very morning!
To be honest RG, without knowing Buckley's voting formula (until getting on FR), it is the way me and mine have been voting all along. And the way my daddy taught me to vote. It's called common sense and the most logical way to select your candidate.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, for "real" conservatives, "I didn't leave the republican party. The party left me."
I saw a posting here just the other day that I'm starting to agree with... "Republican" no longer implies conservative. And I'm now thinking that the "RINOs" are actually conservatives, since it seems that those in power in the republican party seem to have no use for them any more.
Mark
Well, how dare you weigh in with an opinion if you didn't VOTE! It's ALL your fault! (/sarc)
Mark
I looked for a candidate running on a Reagan pro-life conservative platform who could defeat Rudy and win in the general. That candidate was Mitt Romney. Because he sought and received conservative support, Romney would have had to uphold the conservative principles he ran on, or risk losing conservative support and a second term.
Now we have a candidate, who has many times over stabbed us in the back, and who will win the nomination without us, though he will have to court us to win the general. But McCain won't be nearly as beholding to conservatives as Mitt, additionally because his health might not permit a second term. Furthermore, his candidacy is far more risky than Mitt's because he will not have a prayer if the democratic nominee is Obama, and he will have a harder time defeating Hillary than Mitt.
I'm proud of my choice. It was the right one, and in the end, most conservatives followed. But unfortunately it was too late.
“Hunter and Thompson didn’t have a hope in hell; you knew it;”
I don’t think that you can honestly say that either one of them didn’t have a chance in the beginning. As time went on it became increasing clear the Hunter was not going to gain traction, but Fred was picking up some steam and did appear to have a chance. Regardless, why should I abandon the candidate who I believe will most represent my conservative values just because a pretend conservative like Flip appeared to be more electable? I don’t support liberals, not democrat liberals, not republican liberals.
“and you sabotaged a couple of pretty good candidates.”
Pal, you are giving those of us who opposed Flip way too much credit. I understand your need to find someone to blame, but the blame rests squarely on your candidate’s shoulder for his failure to get the numbers he needed to win the nomination. You obviously were not bothered by Flip’s liberal record and his recent conversion to conservatism. Many of us (conservatives) were bothered by it. Conservatives don’t support RINOS, and since this is a conservative forum, why would you expect us to support a RINO?
I think you ought to spend more time with your like minded friends over in WAnkerville. Playing the victim card and blaming conservatives for not supporting a RINO is not very conservative of you. By the way, who was the other “pretty good candidate” that we sabotaged? Rooty? If that’s the case, you definitely have different values and goals than those of this conservative forum. FR isn’t RINO.com, it’s CONSERVATIVE.com. Get used to it or...well, you know.
“Enjoy McCain. You deserve him.”
If more RINOS like you would have supported the real conservative candidate in the race, like Fred, he might have been our nominee instead of McPain. If you want to play the blame game then look no further than your mirror.
Excellent point!
I've been hearing a lot of Republicans lately talking about the good of "the Party." Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear people talking about "the Party," I am reminded of commies. I've heard the 'Rats talking about the good of "the Party" for a long time, but it's only very recently that I've heard Republicans start using that phrase.
I NEVER remember Reagan talking about the good of any party, he spoke about the good of America. He understood that conservative interests were what was best for America. He WAS NOT looking to gain more power for the GOP, his motivation was what was best for the country. Unfortunately, today's Republicans seem far more concerned about their own power, and not very concerned about what is best for the country.
That was well made and very, very illustrative of the flipper.
“We did what William Buckley suggested we do -— choose the most viable and electable conservative.”
I don’t disagree with that, but the problem is, we didn’t have a conservative in the race after Hunter and Duncan dropped out. After they left it basically became a “beauty contest”. It was all about how tall, how handsome, how telegenic, how beautiful his smile is, how pretty his hair is, etc. The honest people here, who supported Mitt, agreed that he was no conservative, but he was the best looking candidate, therefore, he was the most electable candidate. Thankfully, enough people saw Mitt for what he is—a flip flopping liberal who could not be trusted.
By the way, if Mitt spends the next four years building a conservative record for himself, and fights for conservative values, he’ll have my support next time around if he choses to run again. Like the great Ronald Reagan once said, “trust, but verify”. I will trust Mitt AFTER he proves that he IS the conservative that he claims to be.
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.