Posted on 10/11/2004 2:22:58 PM PDT by the conservative bean
Actually, I leave that to you.
The NRA doesn't pull the "give me every single thing I want, RIGHT NOW, or I'm staying home" crap. They take what they can get now, and work on the rest later.
You have two choices. The Republicans, and get between 50-100% of what you want, or the Democrats...and get ZERO. Which one generates the better result for your agenda?
Keeping your ilk happy enough to generate one additional vote costs the GOP two or more votes in return. That's the reality: y'all priced your votes out of the market, and the GOP went elsewhere out of necessity.
Rove won in 2002 by ignoring you, and he's headed for another win in 2004 because he's doing the same damn thing. He's not ignoring the NRA; he's keeping them happy, because they produce votes.
Make your call. Get in and engage, or get on the bus to irrelevancy. I really don't care which one you do.
First of all I am not sure who Bill Simon is but we are talking about what works in a national election. California politics, if that is where Bill Simon if from, will not work in a national race. California will not vote for a Republican in a national Presidential race to begin with so what does it matter what it takes for a Republican can get elected in liberal California. It means about as much as it would if NY was picking the Republican candidate he would loose the national race.
It sounds your hatred for conservatives and Christians is personal from some local race. If that is the perspective you are using to judge what will win the national election, it is out of whack and all I can hope for is that the higher ups in the Republican party are not like you and out for some type of revenge.
Otherwise we are in for a beating.
You will get the Christian vote this time better than last because in 2000 Christians felt Bush was like his father and paid lip service to pro-life crowd. Remember once he was elected the elder Bush's wife let her view be known and all knew he had been lying.
This president has actually tried to do something.
Deliver consistently and you will get votes. Bush, Dole and then younger Bush were not believable, the younger has proven otherwise.
I believe it is snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. The "true" conservatives on this board were up-in-arms over it shortly after the inauguration, and they've been on a rampage ever since.
2002 GOP candidate for governor--probably the most conservative candidate the GOP fielded in this state since Reagan left office.
And he got a yob' tvoyu mat' from the "true" conservatives.
California will not vote for a Republican in a national Presidential race to begin with so what does it matter what it takes for a Republican can get elected in liberal California.
Well, California might've voted for him, if his so-called "allies" weren't running black propaganda against him. But, since they were trashing him (and using GOP money to do so), I guess we'll never know, will we?
It sounds your hatred for conservatives and Christians is personal from some local race.
From getting repeatedly back-stabbed in multiple races by your drinking buddies, while working for pretty conservative candidates who had a shot at winning.
If that is the perspective you are using to judge what will win the national election, it is out of whack and all I can hope for is that the higher ups in the Republican party are not like you and out for some type of revenge.
Guess what?
They are out for revenge. And they have pretty good cause.
Y'all gave us Clinton in 1992 by jumping to Perot, and then y'all damn near put AL F***ING GORE in office in 2000. Guess what? The GOP doesn't like that kind of stuff! NOBODY DOES! So, you need to either (a) start generating a huge quantity of votes, or (b) you're gonna get slammed.
Right, that is becoming clear. I am done. There is no reason to argue with someone who feels they have been betrayed for some reason and has a grudge to carry. That is something you have to deal with and there is nothing I could say to change the hatred. All I can say is that California politics will not work in a national election and have nothing to do with a national election, and I pray that those running the party know better otherwise if fear disaster next presidential season.
Later.
In other words, you blamed George H.W. Bush for Barbara Bush's opinion.
Does this sound as idiotic to you as it does to me?
I don't drink. I am allergic and get migraines from one drink, beer, wine etc.
Like I said no more politics with you. Good night and good luck.
You mean you don't want to join his, party before country, new and improved, liberal wing of the Republican party? What did he say earlier? "To hell with real conservatives?"
Hey, Joe...
Cynthia Matthews says she supports "the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."
Just wondering...which one describes you?
Gee, I just can't stop myself from answering.
No, I did not blame Barbara Bush for George, George said he was pro-life, but from that moment on there was no way I believed he was telling the truth and neither did most Christians. It said a lot about what he was willing to do to be president.
Though unlike the many Christians who did not vote for him his second term I did. I guess I will take the pro-life lip service because I even voted for Dole, I guess I wanted them to be good men.
There is no way in the world that I will vote for somebody who proclaims to be pro-choice....ever, it tells me all I could ever want to know about what type of person they are and what they are capable of. Never for president.
Think me stupid all you want because I can never bring myself to vote that way even if it is for the party good. This is who I am......Christian to the core, and some things in life are worth fighting for.
I'm not happy about President Bush's domestic spending and his inability to deal with illegal immigration, but that won't keep me from voting for him because the stakes are much too high right now. There are a number of "my way or the highway" conservatives who expect a candidate to be 100% right on all the issues, and if they aren't will withold their support. This happened in 1992 when conservatives supported the fraudulent Ross Perot and we ended up with Bill Clinton. In 2000 enough conservatives stayed home that we nearly ended up with Al Gore. In this polarized political atmosphere there has to be some give and take. Before you true blue conservatives bash away at President Bush, just remember that one of the great conservatives of all time, Ronald Reagan, also failed to halt the growth of government, and he did offer amnesty to illegal immigrants. He had to be a pragmatic politician at times to get what he really wanted, namely tax cuts, passed through Congress. The perfect politician only exists in our dreams.
In other words, (a) you really did blame the husband for his wife's opinion, and (b) it still sounds as idiotic as it did the first time.
Promise?
OK, you and poo can resume the rally. Next time I wont upset the heard by voicing opinions.
See yea!
Farewell.
Why thank you mr. superiority or is it just something mental? Do you get your jollies calling people idiotic or have the meds not kicked in yet?
Can't imagine why fiscal conservatives and the Christian Right did not come out in droves for Bush I's re-electon even though I did. You are either honest with the reasons a candidate fails and learn how to correct the situation or you continue down the same loosing path. If you do not get what I was saying nor the subtle difference of me not blaming Barbara for George, oh well. If you are going to pay lip service to something you should at least do a better job of not looking stupid to those you want on your side. Especially those who live for principle.
Why do I think you wish remain obtuse??? Tell me do you do this on purpose or is this just one of your many talents?
Let's walk through this one more time:
1. George H.W. Bush is elected. He continues Reagan's pro-life policies about as well as Reagan did.
2. Barbara Bush says something that displeases pro-lifers.
3. George Bush gets blamed for Barbara Bush's words, and his deeds are ignored.
Could you explain this in a way that doesn't make it sound really stupid, please?
If you do not get what I was saying nor the subtle difference of me not blaming Barbara for George, oh well.
No, you're blaming George for Barbara, not the other way around.
BTW, do you support making English the official language of this country?
If so...kindly learn how to speak and write it.
Can't imagine why fiscal conservatives and the Christian Right did not come out in droves for Bush I's re-electon even though I did.
The former: because Perot was triangulating them. The latter: beats the hell outta me. Bush was much more pro-life in deed than Clinton ever would be, but a lot of really stupid pro-lifers voted for Clinton in 1992.
Never! Especially if all of his/her wing of the party is so juvinile. What a joke.
Hey, Joe...
Cynthia Matthews says she supports "the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."
Just wondering...which one describes you
Is this person on something or what??? What is its deal??? Can't have a discussion that disagrees with its opinions without personal uncalled for attacks? Think maybe it is a teenager? I guess not he/she has been here since 98.
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.