Posted on 05/10/2006 10:29:57 AM PDT by cryptical
I noticed the latest poll question, which got me to thinking...
A time for choosing: It appears that a significant number of our members are so disgusted with the GOP's failure to secure our borders against illegal aliens that they are willing to risk all by voting them out of office, even if it means Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, et al, are allowed to take charge. Is this the best course of action or should we be working harder than ever to hold the line and actually try to make a difference by getting more constitutionally-minded conservatives elected? Are you willing to give it all up or are you more determined than ever to keep the Marxists out of power?
This understates the problem, and offers a false choice as a solution IMO.
It's not just the failure to secure our borders, it's the growing government by leaps and bounds, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, rewarding RINOs with leadership positions, and in general not advancing a conservative agenda after they have been given all three branches of government on a silver platter.
The false choice comes from the notion that we can hold our noses and vote for the RINOs that the RNC and the state parties put up, and then "work harder" to get more constitutional-minded candidates elected.
If we keep accepting the RINOs that are put up, there's no reason for the Republican Party to change.
I've begun to feel like an enabler for the majority-addicted Republican Party. They keep on promising change, but it's always tomorrow.
Well folks, tomorrow is here. I'm pledging not to vote for any RINOs, and if that means that a Democrat gets elected I'll consider myself to have worked for change in the party.
Agreed, and i had them same reaction to the poll question. I found it odd on a board where we often berate the MSM for their tendencious polls.
False dichotomy. There's no such thing as a "50% conservative". There are liberals in the GOP who call themselves "moderates" and have been pushing us toward socialism and moral decay at a steady pace; and there are self-confessed liberals who would do that tomorrow if they could.
When existing laws pertaining to illegal immigration are not enforced by Local, State, and Federal authorities due to the inconvenience - We've got a problem
When wealthy corporations have enough government influence to override the interests of the American people - We've got a problem.
When the government is typically inconsistent with foreign policy when dealing with terrorism, tech. transfer, and oppressive nations - We've got a problem
When were told that having a diverse national energy policy is imperative to our national security yet is acted upon with little emphasis - We've got a problem.
I could go on and on...........
Correction:
Threads like this make it easy to spot those who will give up their children to save themselves. They're happy to give away their rights (and ours) as long as they think that the alligator will eat them last.
I don't have children and it's not my responsibility to sacrifice for the children of others.
They're happy to give away their rights (and ours) as long as they think that the alligator will eat them last.
This just begs for some specifics.
Regardless of what Bush does, most of this would come to pass. Congress controls the money.
The only way any of this "comes to pass" is through the passage of legislation.
That legislation must be signed into law by "you know who"
Without his capitulation, there is nothing the congress can do.
Don't take my comments the wrong way, I would tend to agree with you.
If the democrats regain control of congress, they would indeed set forth an agenda that is fundamentally different that what we have now.
A strong leader in the WH could stop them, but, does our president have what it takes to stand up to the other party?
Pretty scary, kids..................
On the other hand, what if 'ol gw rose to the occasion and vetoed everything that is on your list, perhaps the democrats would throw a fit and threaten to shut down the government.......................
Now THAT is a scenario I can support!
Can you provide us with a list of pro life, pro gun, pro military Republican 'moderates'?
There may be some, but I've never seen a 'moderate' (RINO) be strong in those three areas. They usually claim their 'moderate' status by agreeing with us on some minor issues, not the biggies.
I'm pledging not to vote for any RINOs, and if that means that a Democrat gets elected I'll consider myself to have worked for change in the party.
So working for change in the party means only accepting those who agree with you as fellow party members. Not much of a team player, are you?
Fact is that Arlen Spoecter and Olympia Snowe are not only loyal Republicans, but they are more loyal than you and all of the other phony party "supporters" who have admitted they will work for the victory of the other party.
Rudi Giuliani has endorsed Ken Blackwell. I applaud him for that. When he failed to endorse Pataki and instead endorsed the 'Rat Mary Matalan properly called him out as "Judas Guiliani".
I'm tired of the Judas Wingnuts around here stabbing the President and other Republicans in the back. Calling other Republicans "Republicans in Name Only" and then in the same worthless vanity declaring that you'll work for Democrat, not Republican victory is prima facia evidence of pathological projection. YOU, and those turncoats like you, are the true RINOS. The only thing weaker than your arguments are your numbers.
Don't go away mad, just go away and vote 'Rat or Turd Party.
Great list.
Send it to the GOP powers that be and let them know what they are risking by not using their majority to the advantage that they promised us.
If those things are so possible and so scary and the GOP has been warned so many times, why do you think that they are not listening to us and making the necessary changes to earn our votes again?
I refuse to run scared. I'm too old and fat. If those things come to pass and the Republic comes to an end, I'll just take up a good position and . . . . Remember that the Republican Party did nothing to stop it.
I disagree with your premise.
In my district, there will be at least three candidates for the congressional seat that is up for grabs. As a responsible citizen, I have the right to vote for which ever candidate I wish. This candidate, if elected, is responsible for representing the district where I live. This person is obligated to do what is best for us, to look out for OUR best interests.
If none of the candidates fit the bill, it would be unconscionable to vote for any one of them.
When it comes to integrity, principle, and conviction - Like Churchill said, "Never give in, never give in, never give in!!"
(nice use of the word "gadfly" in your post, it's a great word!)
Voting for principle is only for ego?
Good Lord. No wonder the GOP is in such sorry shape. We give them permission to misbehave and won't hold them responsible for their betrayal of trust.
Thanks. For nothing.
Republican DOES NOT EQUAL Conservative. Nor does Democratic equal Liberal. If it did, then Hillary's health care plan would have passed in 1993.
Taxes and spending have also been out of control in Ohio, and the Republicans here have had far more control than in Washington, where the Senate has never been under complete Republican (much less Conservative) control due to the filibuster.
Ken Blackwell is running for Governor of Ohio on an explicit platform of restricting spending increases. Hopefully he will win.
But he is unusual. MOST politicians, and most voters, sadly, like the government goodies. Look at the fit Ted Stevens threw in the Senate over his ridiculous bridge.
Exactly! We've been screaming for a few years with no result. Perhaps if a few got voted out in 06 they'd get the message. Only then could we save 08. If we squeak by in 06, and the Republicrats continue their leftward path, people will be so disgruntled, that Hillary would get elected in 08.
Those of use who disagree with the current state of the party only do so to help make it better in order to prevent it from collapsing. We do it to prevent Hillary in 08.
Then please explain Churchill's support of Stalin and the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.
In politics, many times one is required to make hard choices and support something or someone you despise as a means to a more important end.
How they react to the losses they will take, will determine how the GOP does in 2008.
If they continue to act like the Dems I don't agree with, why would I vote for the GOP?
I will vote for an electable true conservative. If the GOP provides that candidate, I'll vote for them. If not and knowing the Dems can't, I'll write myself in.
You think starting a civil war within the Republican Party will make it more likely we'll win in 2008? That would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Nothing lasts an eternity, but eternity and mine will be spent in Heaven, not Hell.
If you told your children (or your wife or employees) that there would be no consequences for their bad acts, do you think that your children would behave, that your wife would be the wonderful wife/mother that you want, or that your employees would always be on time and on the job? Or do you think that they'd keep doing all the wrong things knowing that they had nothing to fear?
Politicians ARE our employees and they are like children that need to be watched and disciplined because if we don't, they will treat us like an abused spouse. We'll get mistreated and screwed.
The poster to which I was replying used the churchhill quote, I just turned it around a bit. I cannot begin to explain why churchhill did anything.
In politics, many times one is required to make hard choices and support something or someone you despise as a means to a more important end.
Yeah, I'm not a politician; I'm just a citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. I don't necessarily agree that the ends justify the means and I cannot imagine a single instance where I would ever vote for a candidate or an initiative that I despise.
ONE ISSUE? Which one?
Ultra-Liberal spending?
Border control?
Expanding gimme programs?
Amnesty for illegals?
Internet control bill?
McCain/Feingold anti-1st Amendment bill?
. . . . If the GOP loses the Senate, what would be different from now? Every bill that showed up on the President's desk in the last 6 years has been signed no matter how liberal.
I'd hate to have Hitlery or any other Dem in charge but if the GOP doesn't act differently than them, it will happen.
Sheesh! If I have to explain, I doubt that you'll get it anyway.
Children == the future. Our posterity. The nation that we leave behind for future generations of Americans. If you don't give a damn about this nation because you don't have children, you are pathetic. I am sorry that you see doing the right thing is such a waste of effort.
Appeasers, like Neville Chamberlain, will negotiate away the rights and liberties of others and themselves in the hope that the 'bad guy' doesn't come after them for a long time or that they'll be viewed favorably and not be destroyed with everyone else. They are short sighted in that they don't realize that they are nothing more than useful idiots and are just being used. They will dispensed with too, once their usefullness ends.
Got it?
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.