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.
Hillary and McCain you could argue was not a huge difference.
Nobody with a brain can argue there is a big difference between Obama and McCain.
That’s why I wanted Hillary to be the dem nominee. I am no fan of hers but if the other side won I didn’t feel she’d be half as bad as Obama has been.
The thing I left off on my list of things that would either not happen or gone through but not nearly as bad under McCain is the civilian trials.
McCain headed the Indian Senate affairs, and penned CFR. He helped Obama SO much. He excluded Indian tribes from giving amounts like everyone else, and then Obama cleaned up on the Indian $$$.
In fact, I can’t think of one piece of McCain legislation that wasn’t hand in hand with the democrats or that ever did one ounce of good for America. Can you?
[snip] Many of the tribes that have given the most to help Sen. Obama are rich with gambling revenue. They’ve used a loophole in campaign-finance law that allows one tribe to donate more than $200,000, unlike corporations or trade groups, which can’t give any money.
The Seneca Nation of New York, which operates casinos upstate, gave $213,000 to Sen. Obama’s committees, according to campaign-finance data compiled by CQ MoneyLine. Three other tribes have each given more than $100,000 to his campaign or to party coffers he is using to get out the vote: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and two California tribes, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Viejas Band.
The Indian vote, which has traditionally been overwhelmingly Democratic, could be pivotal in a number of swing states, notably New Mexico.[snip]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523468911877799.html
Nothing wrong with that. Many conservatives, moderates (who loved him ) and RINOs did too. Being against Obama in 2008 was the seeds of opposition to him now.
But wishful thinking about how a Republican president McCain would have cut better deals with Pelosi on HR, amnesty and Cap and trade (the last two he promoted) is not realistic.
McCain losing not only got republicans (and RINOS) to stand against these things in unity, but motivated the tea parties. Obama was tied up over a year on HR and now immigration and cap and trade are very unlikely to pass. McCain would have promoted them and likely passed them with bipartision support tearing republicans apart much like in 2007 with Amnesty proposals.
RE :”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.”
We have not had anyone showcase liberalism the way Obama did since Jimmy Carter. Voters will not trust democrats for a long time, For the first time in about 4 years likely voters distrust democrats more than republicans. You dont think that would have happened under President McCain do you?
My issue is with conservatives in the Tea Party movement, and at Free Republic, who have indicated that they'll vote for the Republican candidate 70% of the time, or 50% of the time, or not at all. The special election in NY-23 presented a unique opportunity: a combination of deep disappointment (Dede Scozzafava's completely left-wing positions) and a very pleasant and exciting surprise (Doug Hoffman's amazing surge in the polls). Unlike most other states, New York has a well-established conservative alternative to the Republican Party. The New York Conservative Party has had a line on the ballot for many years. They're well-established, but only in one state.
That kind of opportunity — a truly left-wing Republican nominee, and a conservative third party candidate who has a genuine chance to win — happens far, far less than 1% of the time.
I believe all of you have heard of Ronald Reagan. I don't believe that I need to prove his true conservative bona fides. Reagan had an excellent response to those conservatives who want to bad-mouth the Republican Party, or cut the legs out from under every RINO who wins a Republican Party nomination. Notice that he was speaking to the CPAC Convention in 1977, but his words are just as true today:
... We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority. Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves "conservative" are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well. ...
What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority. This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.
I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for "ideological purity." Whatever ideology may mean — and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it — it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country "ideology" is a scare word. ...
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain. ... The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.
Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. ...
If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.
Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights? I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends — perhaps including some of you here tonight — who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.
And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club/big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply "making room" for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.
I vote for the Republican candidate in 90% of the races on the ballot. In November, I'll probably be voting Republican for Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, County Board President, Cook Co. Clerk, Cook Co. Treasurer, Cook Co. Board of Review, Cook Co. Sheriff, Cook Co. Assessor, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, U.S. Congressman, State Senator, State Rep., and judicial races.
I have no problem voting for "moderate" Republicans who disagree with me on some issues.
I will NOT vote for socialist DIABLOs (Democrats In All But Label Only) who call themselves "Republican" but do the bidding of the far-left Democrats on most major issues. They are liberals, and I do not support liberals regardless of what they label themselves on the ballot. People like George Ryan, Linc Chafee, and Mark Kirk can take a long walk off a short pier.
I am not opposed to these socialists because I'm a "purist" or "single issue voter". In fact, if you check my posting history, you will find I've been extremely outspoken against the cut-off-your-nose crowd who said people like Norm Coleman (who votes the right way 75% of the time) "deserved" to lose to a far-left marxist because he didn't agree with them on every issue.
Based on Mark Kirk's voting record, I am calling BS on the Kirk supporters who claim he is "with us" 90% of the time. Kirk sided with the Democrats "when it counted" far more than he sided with us, as I've repeatedly pointed out with his voting record over the past decade.
Ronald Reagan said "It makes no sense to turn over the party to so called 'moderates' who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition". He was right.
I believe Alexi is more liberal than Kirk on the issues overall, but Kirk is in a position to do far more damage to this country over the next six years. Alexi will lucky if he survives six years without being indicted and having to resign in disgrace. He's a Chicago machine hack and no one will care if Obama's basketball buddy endorses his latest scheme. On the other hand, the liberal media loves Mark Kirk and will try to brainwash the public into believing a "popular influential Republican Senator" gave a thumbs up to Obama's latest scheme. Kirk has long considered himself a "leader" of the RINOs and will be working hard behind the scenes to get other "moderate Republicans" and blue-dog Dems to support the Obama agenda.
People like Kirk add numbers to "our side" on paper, but in reality they do nothing but advance the agenda of the left.
Except that neither McCain nor Kirk are actually Republicans.
No you are correct, but McCain is worse than a Democrat. He is a judas goat with power and money behind him. He can sway other dumb a$$ Republicans to join him on amnesty, and cap n trade, whereas the Republicans would fight a Democrat promoting the exact same thing.
Well put!
There certainly is a big difference between Obama and McCain. Obama is a communist, McCain isn't. Obama has forced government healthcare upon us, and McCain has voted against it.
I could go on, but I think we both agree on that.
My hope is that JD Hayworth wins the Arizona primary and McCain gets to retire as he can be an unreliable conservative. That's an election where there is some difference between the two candidates, Hayworth and McCain.
Look you cannot deny the fact that obama had a much better gotv effort as well as a huge anti bush sentiment that was out there.
Many freepers fit that Bill. I sure ain't never been to a country club. Like you said that's a question of image.
Republicans need to start telling the working class and poor the truth. Socialism is keeping us down. Democrats are keeping you down. Republicans that go along with big government schemes are keeping you down. I know for a fact without state socialism at 4 levels of Government, me and every other poor to middle class person in this state who's not a welfare queen or someone on a ghost payroll would have more money in our pockets. That's one of the many reasons why I hate socialism.
Unfortunately that truth is sharply "ideological".
BTW the NY Conservative party is pretty pathetic mostly a patronage outfit. They cross-nominate RINOs all the time, even Scuzzobama for State Assembly and even some democrats. Hoffman was their best moment since the election of Buckley in 1970.
If what you mean to say is that a similar 3rd party challenge is much less likely to succeed in the Illinois Senate race. You are unfortunately correct. The circumstances are very different. For 1 in NY there was no primary and conservatives were angry. Here conservatives were bullied into supporting Kirk early on, they did and he won the primary in a walk.
Kirk fits the profile of Senators who have seriously screwed us like Specter and Chafee Jr. You must understand our reluctance to support him. Every conservative that did not vote for Arlen and Linc in their last general elections was retroactively proven right to have done so. Fact is even under lenient standards people as far to left as Kirk just don't belong in this party. And they show little to no loyal to it.
And those socialist bastards were more bad enough. Nationally the rat party hasn't been a "fine party" since the age of Grover Cleveland, the last "Democrat". Every rat potus since then has been a socialist and makes up my list of the worst 8 Presidents of all time. And they keep getting worse. If things keep moving that way then one day they will be rat President that makes Obama look like a freedom-loving patriot. Of course America would be dead on that day.
You are right. No denying that.
Except we won't have another democrat elected president in a long time, assuming Obama continues to own the economy and the deficit as is likely. (It's much less likely than 2008 anyway, not saying that republicans cant lose it.)
Recall in 2008 every poll showed democrats trusted more than republicans on everything, economy, defense, health care. Obama and Pelosi have flipped those polls to republicans for the first time in many years. And republicans have only had to say NO to democrat proposals to regain this advantage from democrats, simply by being in the minority. (Remember when 2008 polls were claimed to be all the media's fault brainwashing the voters? Then where are they now?)
The “RINOs will save us” theme goes like “It was conservatives that elected Obama”. That is the David Frum theme. He just came out on all the liberal networks saying that “Republicans just had their biggest defeat in history on health reform by not working with democrats”. That is the RINO cry.
To those believing the RINOs will save us, you might get your wish with Romney.
I agree!
“That is the David Frum theme. He just came out on all the liberal networks saying that “Republicans just had their biggest defeat in history on health reform by not working with democrats”. That is the RINO cry.
To those believing the RINOs will save us, you might get your wish with Romney.”
Frum is SCUM. The Democrats froze the Republicans out of health care on day one. They even blocked C-SPAN, for God’s sake. If you meet Frum, slap him upside the head. It might help.
Frum is either a good Useful Idiot, or an agent provocateur. Or maybe a bit of both.
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.