Posted on 03/23/2010 4:38:26 AM PDT by Philo1962
This is an open letter to those who refused to go out and vote for a RINO on Election Day 2008. You have just given us ObamaCare, which (if it is not stopped) will bankrupt America.
The final House vote tally was 219-211. All of the Republicans in the House of Representatives ― all of them, every last one of them, including all of the RINOs ― voted against this bill. In the Senate, John McCain (another RINO you refused to support in droves) is one of ObamaCare's most vigorous opponents. And all of the Republicans in the Senate ― all of them, every last one of them, including all of the RINOs ― voted against this bill. This confirms what I've been saying all along: that ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat.
If we had won just four more House races in 2008, the final vote would have been 215-215 and the bill would have failed, despite the last-minute stab in the back by Bart Stupak and eight other Blue Dog Democrats.
In 2008, the ten closest House races were decided by an average margin of only 680 votes. For example, in VA-5 Democrat Tom Perriello defeated Republican Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. by only 745 votes. This means that if 2,730 more Republican votes had been tallied in four of these districts in 2008, ObamaCare would have failed in 2010.
And if he had been elected president, John McCain never would have signed this bill.
I'm not saying that we should support RINOs in the primaries. Every effort should be made in the primaries to nominate genuine conservative candidates, with true conservative positions on the issues. But once the die is cast in the primaries, and we're stuck with a RINO nominee, we need to go out and get that RINO elected. We need to donate to his campaign, man phone banks for him, hand out yard signs and bumper stickers for him, and walk the precincts for him.
Because as we have just been reminded, in a way that's too loud and too painful to ignore, ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat.
I will be supporting Mark Kirk for United States Senate here in Illinois for this reason.
In your opinion. That is all it is and I do not judge you your actions or reactions to anyone that does not agree are defining you.
Thanks for the ping!
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________
Excellent point.
There is blame to go all around. Most agreed with your voting strategy except that in the primary we must vote for the conservative (establishment candidate or not) who has the best chance of winning in the general. That candidate may or may not be the most conservative candidate.
Absolutely agreed. Well said. : )
Love it. Most agreed and well done. There are Rinos on the left and Rinos on the right! : )
Me too. Sticking with losing candidates who can’t win for ideological purity is not sticking to your principles...it’s sticking to losing candidates who can’t win.
"RINOs to the left of them! RINOs to the right of them! Into the Valley of Political Death rode the six hundred...."
Indeed. And "Republican" Mark Kirk just announced this week that he's backing off his promise to "lead the fight" to repeal Obamacare and we're just gonna have to get used to the fact it's the law of the land for the foreseeable future.
Kirk refuses to say he'll repeal health care overhaul
Kirk Regretting Health Bill Repeal Pledge
Of course, I predicted this would happen when he suddenly portrayed himself as Mr. Anti-Obama in this year's primary, and compared it to Kirk telling GOP voters in 2006 they had to re-elect him because he supported "winning the war on terror", THEN promptly switching sides after his re-election and doing everything he could in 2007 to undermine the troop surge and leading a group of RINOs to the White House to demand Bush withdraw from Iraq.
A bunch of Kirk apologists said I was wrong, that Kirk had had an epiphany and learned his lesson after the Iraq surge and cap n' trade... and they could tell that from his tone that Congressman Kirk was really, truly, sincerely, absolutely, dead set against socialized medicine and committed to overturning Obamacare come hell or high water.
Lo and behold, Kirk backs off his "pledge" to GOP voters again. Shocking!
Ah, the irony of your post, Philo. You got it backwards. It is freepers like you who insisted on championing Mark Kirk type-RINOs on Election Day 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 that have given us ObamaCare. The result is communists with an "R" next to their name holding power. After being elected by GOP voters, "Republicans" like Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Linc Chafee have done everything they could to undermine the GOP and deliver for the left in Washington.
This is one Illinois freeper who voted AGAINST letting my state and my party get taken over and and destroyed by "Republican" George Ryan in 1998. And I have no regrets. I'm damn glad I did everything possible to oppose that marxist "Republican" I failed to defeat Ryan, though. Hopefully I won't fail to take down the socialist traitor Mark Kirk.
"We're stuck with a RINO nominee, we need to go out and get that RINO elected. We need to donate to his campaign, man phone banks for him, hand out yard signs and bumper stickers for him, and walk the precincts for him. Because as we have just been reminded, in a way that's too loud and too painful to ignore, ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat. I will be supporting Mark Kirk for United States Senate here in Illinois for this reason."
But then, in post #162, you contradict that statement and say you've worked against RINO nominees, and that you're willing to go against the Republican nominee if there is a viable third party conservative on the ballot:
" Our organization was raising a lot of money for Doug Hoffman. I was making phone calls to someone I knew in the Scozzafava campaign, urging her to drop out of the race. Little did I know that when she did it, she'd endorse the Democratic candidate rather than Hoffman. When an opportunity (like Hoffman) presents itself, I'll even go against the republican nominee if a third-party conservative stands a real chance to win. <<
Which is it, Philo? Should we 'always' help RINOs in the general election or not? Pick a premise and stick with it.
(For the record, I vote for 90% of the Republicans on the ballot in November, but have never voted for defacto Democrats like George Ryan, Judy Baar Topinka, and Mark Kirk, and I have no intention of changing that and blindly voting for every 'R' from now on. I DO vote for so-called "moderate Republicans", as even a RINO like McCain is well to the right of a socialist like Mark Kirk)
I find it odd that you'd find Kirk acceptable but not Scozzafava. Another pro-Kirk freeper told me that he was totally against ever voting for Corrine Wood in 2002, but voted for Kirk in the 2010 primary. Those positions make little sense in light of the fact Kirk is to the LEFT of the "unacceptable" Scozzafava and Wood.
Scozzafava agreed with Dems on most major issues but was solidly in the GOP camp on one issue -- she had an A rating from the NRA and a reliable pro-gun record. Compare that to Kirk who agrees with Dems on most major issues AND has an D to F rating from the NRA. I can't think of a single issue where Kirk has "always" reliably supported the GOP.
Ditto with Corrine Wood. She loudly touted her "pro-choice" credentials in 2002 and boosted of the fact she was the only Republican running who supported Roe v. Wade. Kirk does the same thing, and gloats about his Planned Parenthood endorsements, but Kirk's so far left on the issue he supports partial birth abortion and opposes parental notification -- and Mr. "thoughtful moderate" won't budge on those positions when over 70% of voters disagree with him. I don't recall Corrine Wood ever pledging to support partial birth abortion, do you?
What I most interesting is Bill Brady is still ahead of Pat Quinn by double-digits in three separate polls, but the media-approved, IL GOP establishment backed, "electable moderate" Mark Kirk is running 3 points behind the most blatantly corrupt Democrat on the ballot. A wet paper bag should be able to beat Ginnolanis in light of the fact his entire "private sector" career was in Broadway Bank and it's on the verge of being shutdown and everyone associated with it being indicted. Kirk is obviously the weak sister on the ballot. Perhaps it's time you called for him to "step down" as the nominee.
Left-Liberal polices hurt the economy, when the economy is hurting people vote against the President's party. Are the democrats making everything worse. Yes, duh. Was it obvious they would, of course. But most voters aren't so politically savvy. When things are going bad they vote against the President's party. 50% of people didn't even know the democrats won congress in 2006. In the same vein the people are now poised to vote the rats out of congress.
McCain still could have possibly won, if he'd acted like he wanted to. Don't blame us. The vast majority of freepers did vote for him.
I attribute hardly any of the congressional losses to any kind of "ideological purity" spats on the part of conservatives. The Oregon Senate race comes to mind where the Constitution party candidate took enough votes from RINO Gordon Smith to elect the rat. It's Smith's own fault. He'd moved appreciably to the left since his first election and he idiotically tried to imply that his rat colleague Ron Wyden and Barack supported him. They both then loudly endorsed the rat and made Smith look the fool.
On the other hand a few house seats were lost do to backstabbing RINOs who NEVER feel it's there duty to elect the conservative when they win the primary. Never ever. RINO Rep. Wayne Gilchrest lost the primary, then endorsed the rat. RINO Rep. Joe Schwarz lost the primary in 2006 to a conservative who was elected, in 2008 Schwarz endorsed the rat. RINOs in Idado helped sink GOP Congressman Bill Sali. In the NY special in 2009 DIABLO scumbag Dede Scuzzobama after falling into a distant third quit and endorsed the rat. If they expect conservatives to be loyal to them how about they show some damn party loyalty themselves? Many RINO ex-officeholders endorsed Obama. Outgoing RINO Gilcrest voted for Obama. McCain wasn't a pure enough liberal for him!
Bunch of damn traitors and closet democrats.
we need to go out and get that RINO elected. We need to donate to his campaign, man phone banks for him, hand out yard signs and bumper stickers for him, and walk the precincts for him.
To specifically address Kirk and other big time RINOs/Diablos like him. Vote for them, you can argue that.
Donate? Volunteer? To that I say you should use you time and money to help conservatives, Bill Brady is running for Governor. 3 conservatives are taking on rat incumbents in the Chicago area. The results of those races are much more important than electing a liberal Republican to the Senate where we'll be lucky if votes with us half the time.
Kirk should be damn grateful if merely you hold your nose and vote for him. People in his district tell of Kirk/Obama signs his camp had made in 2008. He tried to pull a Wyden. Lucky for him his opponent was a total lamer who's electoral strategy seemed to be to try and convince people he WAS Barack Obama. It was a pathetic spectacle.
More likely he would have signed this bill last year and moved on to cap-and-trade and immigration reform with Pelosi. But he would have bragged about beating down the ‘public option’ from democrats and how he made the bill better.
And dont forget how Republicans would continue to get credit for this crappy economy and debt, as opposed to now voters are finally blaming democrats for everything bad (is that a bad thing to have voters hate democrats more than republicans?)
The only difference would be that we got a better sc pick and no world apology tour.
RE :”The only difference would be that we got a better sc pick and no world apology tour.”
Good points. I think Obama has done a much better job at making democrats look bad than Clinton did. Fortunately conservatives are not leaving the SCOTUS.
Actually anyone not consumed by hate of McCain and therefore military votes and therefore a deep want of making sure OBama was elected knows that most likely a health care bill would have gone through but not nearly as extensive. And if anyone thinks cap and trade would have happened they are nuts. And while we may have immigration reform either way it will be much more lenient under Obama.
Like every real conservative who knew the alternative was much worse I held my nose and voted for McCain. Love of country comes before anything else.
I also watched Obama here as an Illinoisan longer than people in 49 other states.
I also will never forgive Jim Edgar for backing out before he even announced to run for Senate in 04. He would have beaten Obama. He is probably the most popular politician in ILlinois in the last 30 years.
How about Sen Gramnesty getting Obama to open those three offshore oil wells in return for cap and trade (maybe)? Who says RINOs cant cut tough deals with democrats?
Funny thing is of all the dems on the ballot I was hoping for Quinn. I always want the best possible person to win the other side so if they win it’s not as horrible as the other.
Kirk will beat Gianoulous wait until some stuff comes out in the late summer. They have something big on him. But they’re waiting until closer to November.
I still haven’t forgiven Jim Edgar for not running for Senate in 04. He would have beaten Obama easily.
And I also think world leaders would have respected and not laughed at McCain the way they do not respect and they laugh at Obama.
And McCain would have found out proper protocol for meeting foreign dignitaries. He might even know it himself.
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.