Posted on 04/28/2006 5:58:15 AM PDT by areafiftyone
the one poll that is out has Senator Geoge Allen up by 30
points (so much a blowout the leftist Richmond Times
Dispatch refuses to publish it.....we only see the smear pieces daily by Tim Kaine mouthpiece reporter Tyler Whitley)
twhitley@timesdispatch.com)
"He's a guy's guy, but he didn't blow me away in terms of substance."
This is a little scary but remember, Ronald Reagan and GW Bush both were tho't to be short on substance.
I'd be interested in hearing your take on Condi Rice.
I am talking about the REPUBLICAN party, not the conservative party. Based on your comments, you are not part of the base of the GOP.
Here's a clue for you: Conservatives consider that an insult, primarily because most of the time, it is a slanderous lie. Just so you know why people are getting their danders up as you cast such aspersions...
Here's a clue for you, the Republican Party is not the Conservative Party. There is a New York State Conservative Party.
I hate to say it, but you're dumb, then.
Ah, now the ad hominen attacks, the last refuge of someone who can't win on the issue. You claim to to be part of the "base" yet you rule out voting for Allen, McCain, Giuliani, Rice, and Romney if one of them becomes the nominee. You fail to provide the name of someone you can support.
You are hopelessly naive or woefully ignorant if you don't understand how the two party system operates in this country. Each party has its constituencies and they all don't agree on every issue. I don't have to agree with the GOP or the WH on every issue, but on balance, I want the GOP in charge and not the Democrats. My most important criterion is national security followed by taxation and government involvement in our lives.
You may consider it dumb to support whomever is the GOP nominee, but then again, you are not part of the base. You would probably feel more comfortable in the Libertarian or Constitution Party.
"Our reforms should be guided by a few basic principles. First, America must control its borders." -- George W. Bush
"Comprehensive immigration reform begins with securing our borders." -- George W. Bush
"I don't think that we ought to be passing anything that rewards illegal behavior or amnesty." -- George Allen
"For the sake of justice and for the sake of border security, I firmly oppose amnesty." -- George W. Bush
"I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. Granting amnesty encourages the violation of our laws, and perpetuates illegal immigration. America is a welcoming country, but citizenship must not be the automatic reward for violating the laws of America." -- George W. Bush
"It may be several years down the road or months down the road - we can get a consensus on how you handle a good temporary worker system." -- George Allen
"We need a guest worker program to fill the needs of employers. The guest workers must be checked out and have background checks, so we know they aren't terrorists or criminals. We also need to expand seasonal visas for people who come just to work and not to live here. We also need to make it easier for people who come here legally to become citizens." -- George Allen
"The vast majority of people coming into this country, even if they are coming in here illegally, want to work. They want a better life for their families, but we need to match up those employers and entrepreneurs in this country who can't find Americans to fill a job." -- George Allen
"The United States Senate is debating a very vital issue for our country, and that is immigration reform. I urge the senators to continue to work toward getting a comprehensive bill; a bill that will help us secure our borders; a bill that will cause the people in the interior of this country to recognize and enforce the law; and a bill that will include a guest worker provision that will enable us to more secure the border, will recognize that there are people here working hard for jobs Americans won't do, and a guest worker provision that is not amnesty, one that provides for automatic citizenship." -- George W. Bush
Expect both Georges to have the same virtual effect on boder security.
It is a hit piece.
I have the link. The point is, you said such "old" information was irrelevant.
No, he is pro-life, and I have linked to pro-life organizations which back that up. You have just bloviated.
They endorsed him on the appearance of his record alone. Wait and see what they do once his abortion position is known to them.
They are shocked when they hear it. Everyone assumed he was pro-life.
If they really want to save lives, they will vote for Allen to prevent her ..
Isn't that dandy.
... for everyone except the unborn who lack a sufficient "quality of life" to qualify for life, per Allen's position.
Allen would do more damage to the pro-life movement than is calculable.
Actually, when asked, Allen has refused to say whether he supports overturning Roe.
The kinds of judicial appointments Allen would make are an open question.
We can't afford to risk our future on a wild card like Allen.
Without me and the millions of other conservatives who believe virtually identically to me...on abortion, guns, gays, national defense, borders, taxes, spending, education, regulation, etc., etc., etc., the GOP would not hold even one branch of national government. It's not even debatable.
Here's a clue for you, the Republican Party is not the Conservative Party. There is a New York State Conservative Party.
Hey, dude. We conservatives can survive politically without liberals. The same can't be said for liberal Republicans. By yourselves, you're just homeless Democrats.
Ah, now the ad hominen attacks, the last refuge of someone who can't win on the issue.
Calling you 'dumb' isn't that egregious, considering that you just said you'd vote for the Republican candidate no matter what. You made that unequivical and without exception. Stupid. There, I upped the ante.
You claim to to be part of the "base" yet you rule out voting for Allen, McCain, Giuliani, Rice, and Romney if one of them becomes the nominee.
I am the base of the pro-life party, the GOP. Read the Reagan platform, bub. None of the proposed candidates you listed meets that platform's criteria.
You fail to provide the name of someone you can support.
I'll do it in my time, not yours or anybody else's.
You are hopelessly naive or woefully ignorant if you don't understand how the two party system operates in this country.
I've been a Republican Party official in the first in the nation caucus state. I've entertained countless presidential candidates in my home. I've worked on three presidential campaigns, and run campaigns at every level of American politics...from county commissioner to the US Senate. I seriously doubt that I qualify as ignorant or naive about our process.
You may consider it dumb to support whomever is the GOP nominee, but then again, you are not part of the base.
Don't twist my words. I said it is dumb to support a candidate just because he or she has an R) in front of the name. I don't support pro-abort RINOs who masquerade as something they're not.
You would probably feel more comfortable in the Libertarian or Constitution Party.
The day that the folks like me leave the GOP is one many will rue...because it will be the beginning of the end for the Republican party.
But for now, we still have the platform, and we still have a solid conservative majority.
And, though I doubt you're knowledgable enough to know it, pro-lifers still have a virtual veto when it comes to nominating a Presidential candidate.
EV's not in the GOP. He left a good while back.
He's even said so on FReeRepublic.
Unless he flip-flopped.
Or the check bounced.
Dear Gelato,
I think that the logical conclusion of his abortion position is that Roe must go.
"Actually, when asked, Allen has refused to say whether he supports overturning Roe."
I've also heard him treat the question gingerly.
He'll certainly have to clarify things in the not-too-distant future. My support for him, should he win the nomination, is certainly contingent on an appropriate clarification.
In fact, that'll be a critical question to close the deal. I remember that President Reagan was very much a pro-lifer, very vocal, used that old bully pulpit, and yet he still appointed "justice" O'Connor, even though it was questionable from the start as to whether she'd overturn Roe.
I'd rather have someone, at this moment, who didn't agree that all abortions should go, but who will say roughly two things (although not necessarily in the same paragraph): "Roe is bad constitutional law." "I will appoint justices who are committed to a close reading of the Constitution, and who realize that judges cannot make the law out of whole cloth."
Certainly, that's all that President Bush, fils, has done. He has not explicitly stated he'd use a litmus test on Supreme Court nominations, but that's been the code.
If Mr. Allen can't do that, then I probably won't vote for him. For now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
sitetest
LOL. So now you are more than a one or two issue guy. You can't have it both ways. I count myself as a conservative, small C, but I don't demand that everyone in the GOP or even those who call themselves conservatives, have to be in intellectural lockstep with me. We are dealing with complex issues where reasonable people can disagree.
Hey, dude. We conservatives can survive politically without liberals. The same can't be said for liberal Republicans. By yourselves, you're just homeless Democrats.
Hey dude, you don't speak for all conservatives, including me. Unlike you, I am also a Republican.
Calling you 'dumb' isn't that egregious, considering that you just said you'd vote for the Republican candidate no matter what. You made that unequivical and without exception. Stupid. There, I upped the ante.
I'll say it again real slow, I will vote for the GOP candidate who emerges from the primary as the party's nominee. It is not dumb or stupid to recognize a political reality. I have four choices: sit the election out, vote for the Democrat, vote for a third party candidate, or vote for the Republican. I will vote for the Republican given the alternatives. You will not, which is why you are not part of the base and a fool.
I am the base of the pro-life party, the GOP. Read the Reagan platform, bub. None of the proposed candidates you listed meets that platform's criteria.
Hey bub, if you don't like the candidates, run for office yourself. We have a primary system where all Republicans can participate to select the party's nominee. Once a nominee is selected, the party needs to rally around the candidate to defeat the Democrats. FYI: It is not necessary to be pro-life to be a Republican.
I'll do it in my time, not yours or anybody else's.
Hey dud, you are just a contrarian who wants to be the center of attention. You have nothing constructive to add to the dialogue. You will not be satisfied with any GOP candidate, which is why I don't consider you to be part of the base.
Don't twist my words. I said it is dumb to support a candidate just because he or she has an R) in front of the name. I don't support pro-abort RINOs who masquerade as something they're not.
You are now back to being a one issue voter. I will support RINOs (except for Chafee who refused to vote for GWB) over any Dem. You continue to be an ideologue, but I want to see the GOP retain its majority in both houses of Congress. It matters a great deal in the real world rather than the alternate universe you seem to inhabit.
The day that the folks like me leave the GOP is one many will rue...because it will be the beginning of the end for the Republican party. But for now, we still have the platform, and we still have a solid conservative majority.
There you go again, presuming to speak for the party and conservatives. I support George Allen who many in the GOP consider to be a conservative. His votes in Congress support the conservative agenda. You are the odd man out, but then again you are a one issue voter.
And, though I doubt you're knowledgable enough to know it, pro-lifers still have a virtual veto when it comes to nominating a Presidential candidate.
We have a primary system to determine who will be the candidate. The candidates will give their views and the GOP voters will decide who is the best nominee and garners the most support from the party. Being pro-life is your litmus test, dude, not mine. Again, you are a one issue voter. My advice, sit this one out and don't bother the rest of us with your negative vitriol.
Dear kabar,
EternalVigilance may express certain truths in ways that are insulting and anti-social, yet nonetheless, there are some important facts in what he says.
There is a conservative base to the Republican Party. I'm a registered, card-carrying Republican, but I'm also a conservative. The conservative base is a coalition of different sorts of conservatives. Most conservatives are conservative on more than one set of issues. It's not unusual to see social conservatives who are also fiscally-conservative, or economic conservatives who might have libertarian leanings, and so on.
The job of the nominee is to represent as much of the conservative coalition as is possible, and hopefully, to even fire up the base.
A nominee who breaks faith with a significant part of the coalition is a poor nominee. If the party nominates someone who wants low taxes and wants to cut government spending, but is not committed to defending marriage, outlawing abortion, defending the right to bear arms, and so on, then the nominee will be unable to hold the coalition together. And he'll probably lose the general election.
The trouble I see is that folks want to blame that part of the coalition that's left out of the equation. So, I've read countless threads where social conservatives have been excoriated because we generally refuse to consider voting for Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney. "You're not really Republicans!" we're told.
Well, many of us ARE Republicans, and we ARE part of the Republican base. The problem isn't that we won't support Mr. Giuliani or others. The problem is that in nominating someone who is diametrically opposed to perhaps 40% of the folks who make up the base of the party's voters, THE PARTY HAS WALKED AWAY from a key part of its coalition. That's what Mr. Bush, pere, did when he raised taxes. He walked away from the supply-siders, who represented a significant part of the Republican base, who were critical to the Reagan Revolution.
If Sen. Allen turns out to be willing to get across the message that he will work to overturn Roe, especially through Supreme Court nominees, if he's willing to make clear that he'll defend marriage, and so on, I suspect that he'll get a lot of support from social conservatives. Most social conservatives are willing to accept a good candidate, even if, from our perspective, he's flawed.
But if Sen. Allen doesn't give us the assurances that we need that our primary issues will be addressed, then he will be abandoning a crucial part of the Republican coalition that elects Republican presidents.
In that case, don't blame folks who have been left out in the cold by the candidate and the party if they don't vote for the candidate.
sitetest
"I have the link. The point is, you said such 'old' information was irrelevant."
If you have the link, post it. And I never said it was irrelevant. I just chuckled at how far back you have to reach. Go ahead, post the link if you really have it.
-----
"They endorsed him on the appearance of his record alone."
No, they rated him on the basis of his voting record. Like I said, actions speak louder than words.
-----
"Allen would do more damage to the pro-life movement than is calculable."
Ridiculous. It's absolutists like you who are the greatest threat to the pro-life movement. Insisting on a GOP candidate who is an absolutist on abortion will only provide ammo for the Dems to paint him as an extremists in the general election. If the Dems win, you've not only lost the election, but millions more unborn babies who will go the way of abortion on demand.
A president can have the most influence over abortion by nominating judges, especially Supreme Court justices, who will eventually overturn Roe based on constitutional principles because Roe, among other things, is bad law. Sen. Allen worked hard for and voted for Roberts and Alito. He helped persuade President Bush that Miers was a bad choice. As president, Allen would himself nominate conservative judges like the majority of Bush's judicial nominees have been.
Name for us a GOP presidential nominee who is an absolutist on abortion and can win not only the primnaries, but the general election in 2008.
"Actually, when asked, Allen has refused to say whether he supports overturning Roe."
And Fred Barnes explains why:
"Mr. Allen's position is carefully demarcated: He would like to see the decision 'reinterpreted' to allow states to decide the legal status of abortion."
"Polls show a solid majority of Americans opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. They presumably think the result would ban abortion. But when the issue is put a different way--letting states decide--their view becomes more favorable."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008274
Any politician who goes against the solid majority is doomed to have a rather short political half-life.
I don't need to be lectured about the Rep Party. I am a registered, card carrying Rep who has contributed time and money to the getting candidates elected. I am also a conservative and have been for 40 years.
But if Sen. Allen doesn't give us the assurances that we need that our primary issues will be addressed, then he will be abandoning a crucial part of the Republican coalition that elects Republican presidents. In that case, don't blame folks who have been left out in the cold by the candidate and the party if they don't vote for the candidate.
I'm not blaming anyone. I will vote Rep for the successful candidate who emerges from the primaries, regardless of who it is. Presumably, that candidate will represent the views of the majority of the Reps. As I stated previously, you have four choices: sit the election out, vote for the Democrat, vote for a third party candidate, or vote for the Republican.
"LOL" I always was. It was you who claimed, untruthfully, that something else was the case.
I count myself as a conservative, small C...
Then why do you seem unconcerned with George Allen's suspicious squishiness on core small c conservative principles?
...but I don't demand that everyone in the GOP or even those who call themselves conservatives, have to be in intellectural lockstep with me. We are dealing with complex issues where reasonable people can disagree.
Your inference being that, of course, I do. Another falsehood.
Hey dude, you don't speak for all conservatives, including me. Unlike you, I am also a Republican.
I certainly don't speak for you. Doesn't mean I don't speak for many. Tally up your claim that I'm not a Republican on your list of lies.
I'll say it again real slow...
Yeah, patronizing folks can take some time...
I will vote for the GOP candidate who emerges from the primary as the party's nominee.
As will I, if he's actually a Republican...one who adheres to the conservative Reagan platform.
It is not dumb or stupid to recognize a political reality.
It is dumb and stupid to support the nominee of a party no matter what. Folks like you are what is known as 'useful idiots' to the Left...and that includes the Left that generally manages to control many of the power levers in our party.
I have four choices: sit the election out, vote for the Democrat, vote for a third party candidate, or vote for the Republican. I will vote for the Republican given the alternatives. You will not, which is why you are not part of the base and a fool.
Again, unlike you Republican Party Uber Alles types, some of us put principle first, and have always made it clear that we are a part of the GOP coalition as long as it meets certain criteria. Sorry that you sell your political loyalties to anyone with an R) behind their name.
Hey bub, if you don't like the candidates, run for office yourself. We have a primary system where all Republicans can participate to select the party's nominee. Once a nominee is selected, the party needs to rally around the candidate to defeat the Democrats. FYI: It is not necessary to be pro-life to be a Republican.
As you will see, it is necessary to be pro-life to be nominated as its presidential or vice-presidential nominee. Has been since Reagan, and the minute that changes, turn out the lights, the party's over.
Hey dud, you are just a contrarian who wants to be the center of attention. You have nothing constructive to add to the dialogue. You will not be satisfied with any GOP candidate, which is why I don't consider you to be part of the base.
Add one more to your lie tally. There are any number of fine pro-life Americans that I'll be perfectly satisfied with, and will work very hard for.
But the Media/RINO list doesn't contain any of them.
You are now back to being a one issue voter.
You reveal yourself as the RINO you are by continuing to use that malicious lie. It's a tired old RINO canard. (I think perhaps you may be the new world-record holder for using that malicious, tired, old RINO slander towards conservatives in one post.)
I will support RINOs (except for Chafee who refused to vote for GWB) over any Dem. You continue to be an ideologue, but I want to see the GOP retain its majority in both houses of Congress. It matters a great deal in the real world rather than the alternate universe you seem to inhabit.
It's your attitude that gives RINOs whatever power they have.
There you go again, presuming to speak for the party and conservatives. I support George Allen who many in the GOP consider to be a conservative.
For a long time, many considered the world to be flat. So what?
His votes in Congress support the conservative agenda. You are the odd man out, but then again you are a one issue voter.
Putting aside your repetitious lying, the first part of your statement clearly shows that you have ignored the evidence presented. Which is standard for people like you.
We have a primary system to determine who will be the candidate. The candidates will give their views and the GOP voters will decide who is the best nominee and garners the most support from the party.
Duh.
Being pro-life is your litmus test, dude, not mine.
Ah, the truth always filters through eventually.
Again, you are a one issue voter.
The strength of your lies isn't increased by repetition.
My advice, sit this one out and don't bother the rest of us with your negative vitriol.
You wish.
Your #230 only presents a small portion of events and the facts, and is therefore an untruth.
But I guess that's the George Allen way...
Because I don't see the "squishiness" and I am not an ideologue like you.
As will I, if he's actually a Republican...one who adheres to the conservative Reagan platform.
An acutal Republican? If he gets the nomination by winning the primaries, that is ipso facto evidence that he is a Republican. I have no idea what adhering to the "conservative Reagan platform" means. An oath of fealty? LOL
I certainly don't speak for you. Doesn't mean I don't speak for many. Tally up your claim that I'm not a Republican on your list of lies.
You speak for no one except yourself as do I. The difference between us is that I am not smug, self-important, and delusional.
It is dumb and stupid to support the nominee of a party no matter what. Folks like you are what is known as 'useful idiots' to the Left...and that includes the Left that generally manages to control many of the power levers in our party.
Add judgmental and conspiratorial to the list. Imagine having the temerity to support the nominee of the GOP? LOL.
Again, unlike you Republican Party Uber Alles types, some of us put principle first, and have always made it clear that we are a part of the GOP coalition as long as it meets certain criteria. Sorry that you sell your political loyalties to anyone with an R) behind their name.
Add irrational and nonsensical to the list. So now there is a Nazi wing of the Republican Party. The objective of elections is to win them. You can have principles but not be dogmatic to the point that you lose the election by narrowing your constituency. You are the one demanding ideological purity and adherence to the Master platform.
As you will see, it is necessary to be pro-life to be nominated as its presidential or vice-presidential nominee. Has been since Reagan, and the minute that changes, turn out the lights, the party's over.
Add one issue and litmus test to the list. Are you satisfied with Bush 41 and 43 positions on abortion? Dole's?
Putting aside your repetitious lying, the first part of your statement clearly shows that you have ignored the evidence presented. Which is standard for people like you.
George Allen's ACU rating in 2005 is 100%. In 2004 it was 92. Lifetime 92. George Allen is a conservative. Case closed.
Go back to your cave and sit this one out.
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.