Replies

"It's not about claiming a moral victory. It's about convincing the politicians on the right that if they do not uphold the principles we sent them to Washington to fight for that we will let them lose the next election and replace them with someone else. It's about being willing to lose some battles in order to win the war."

If you honestly think that a loss by Bush would be interpreted by the media, by the voters at large, and even by the Republican Party that he was not conservative -enough-, I don't know what you're smoking, and I definetly -don't- want any part of it.

There is no way whatsoever that your withholding a vote for Bush will be considered a rejection of him for being too far to the left. It will be considered that he was rejected for his being too far to the right. That's the way this election has been framed, like it or not. The predictable reaction to a loss by Bush in 2004 will be that the Republican Party should move even -further- left in order to be able to stay elected. If he wins, then no one would suggest that Bush was too far to the right to be electable.

That's where your entire thesis falls apart. You expect that the message you are intending to send would be correctly interpreted. That would actually assume that the Leftist media would channel your chi. You're nuts if you think that.

Qwinn

There is no way whatsoever that your withholding a vote for Bush will be considered a rejection of him for being too far to the left. It will be considered that he was rejected for his being too far to the right. That's the way this election has been framed, like it or not. The predictable reaction to a loss by Bush in 2004 will be that the Republican Party should move even -further- left in order to be able to stay elected. If he wins, then no one would suggest that Bush was too far to the right to be electable.

You are correct. After 8 long years of BillnHill I am in awe of how stupid, absolutely stupid some people are to think they can shill for the Democrats and get the same response Perot got in 1992.

Are you of the opinion that this is what happened to his father in '92?

And as was shown in '94, what the media thinks or says matters very little when the GOP runs on a strong, conservative platform. I don't recall any of the leftist media being in favor of the Contract With America. Quite the opposite, in fact. And yet there was a sweeping victory for the GOP based in large part (I would say a very large part) on the ideals laid out therein.

But the follow-up has to be there or you end up with more and more people like me who are willing to walk away for an election cycle or two until they clean up their act. The onus HAS to be on the elected officials to carry out that which they were tasked with. If they fail, then they need to be replaced. If you demonstrate to them that you will hold your nose and vote them back into office simply to avoid the Democrat, then what influence do you think you can possibly hold over them?