Posted on 05/20/2006 1:16:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Conservatives, nationwide are getting angry about the loss of principle by GOP'ers in office. Big spending in Washington and Sacramento. The inability to control illegal aliens. Failure to protect jobs and the failure to stop the social agenda of liberals in our schools in finally causing conservatives to say NO to GOP incumbents, even if it means we could lose seats in a legislative body. The thought is simple, why protect a Republican running for office if their voting record will differ little from the Democrats.
In Utah, GOP Congressman Chris Cannon could not win his Parties endorsement for re-election--his opponent got more votes in Convention then he did.
In Nebraska, Congressman tom Osborne, and legend in the state, was defeated for the nomination for Governor due to his weak stand on illegal aliens.
In Heardon, Virginia, five incumbent city council members lost re-election due to their creation of a "Day Labor Center" for illegal aliens.
In the California 50th Congressional District Special Election, the Democrat is ahead of the Republican, since the Republican has been portrayed as more liberal than many Democrats--has even supported Democrats in the past.
But, Pennsylvania last Tuesday should have been the two by four to every GOP candidate and office holder in the nation.At least 14 incumbent GOP office holders, including the top two in the State Senate were defeated in a Republican primary, by Republicans. The good news is that if they had not been defeated, many GOP voters would have stayed home in November. This is a lesson for us in California, and the nation, GOP voters have had enough of Republicans acting like Democrats. Our candidates need to stand for GOP principles, then vote and govern that way once in office.
No longer will GOP voters settle for, "well at least they have a "R" after their name." There is a revolt going on in GOP ranks and it is moving across the nation.
Tell that to the "power over principle" Republicans.
Congratulations Pennsylvania!!! WOW they toppled their Majority Leaders and Speakers?
No, but he held them up and delayed them in the hope that some pubbies would vote against them if any dirt was uncovered (or made up).
Specter is only with us when we don't need him.
Really? Maybe this will help you while you second-guess:
Kerry urges immigration reform (in Dem Radio Address)
My two cents? Don't beat yourself up. The 2004 election was the no-brainer of no-brainers. In reality, there was no choice BUT GWB, which is probably how he won re-election. And one last thing, GWB is doing exactly what he promised on immigration, so it makes no sense to second guess now. It's not as if he's changed his position:
Enjoy being a Big Shot while you can, Lindsey! You're on the way out!
I think that you have OD'd on the Party Koolaid.
According to your thinking, we'd be better off with more RINOs and that is just ridiculous.
If we allow McCain or G to survive the Primaries, we only have OURSELVES to blame for Hillary's election, remember that....
You're not suggesting that Newt is a serial rapist???
Prove it.
Specter is only with us when we don't need him.
If having a GOP Senate majority is important, and it's EXTREMELY important, then we need Specter. Like I said, he's part of the reason there's 10 GOPers for every 8 DEMs on Senate committees. Same goes for Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, and all the other RINOs. Actually, the miracle to me is that they're IN the GOP. They don't hurt us by being liberal Republicans. They help us immensely by not being Democrats. Remember Jumpin' Jim Jeffords? Imagine all the RINOs jumped. We're MUCH better off with RINOs than we would be with DEMs. It's not even arguable.
No one is advocating voting for the dem. Why do you jump to that conclusion?
When a RINO is on the ballot, all it does it provide the opportunity for a 2nd chance for a liberal to win and WE'RE FUNDING ONE OF THEM!
The over 700,000 where I live not counting the illegals are Liberal to far left wing.
At one of their 50,000 mexican rally, the Marxist papers, Chea T shirts won't be voting republican anytime soon.
At most there could be a few per cent who or moderate.
The areas they populate, have Liberal Congress, and State reps.
LOL. As Bugs used to say, "He don't know me very well, do he?" Are you kidding me? Anyway, suffice to say, you're way off the mark there.
According to your thinking, we'd be better off with more RINOs and that is just ridiculous.
Nope. I'm saying a RINO beat a DEM every single time. I actually think it's miraculous that so many liberals run and win as GOPers. Clearly, their constituents prefer liberals, and yet, somehow we're extremely fortunate to have these libs run as GOPers, which helps the GOP preserve a majority. That majority makes a tremendous difference. I don't think we'd have gotten Alito or Roberts out of a DEM controlled judiciary committee. No way. I don't get why this is so tough to grasp. It's very basic.
He promised to veto McCain Feingold, but he signed it into law.
Lincoln Chafee ACU rating %12
Hillary Clinton ACU rating %12
Yes, yes, keep the party liberal. It's all about POWER.
GOP LIB: This LIB helps GOPers by adding to their numbers, which is critically important in the Senate especially.
DEM LIB: This LIB hurts GOPerds by reducing GOP numbers.
Simply put, one of the libs makes it LESS likely Pat Leahy chairs a Dem controlled Judiciary committee, the other makes it more likely. Well duh. You'd have to be pretty thick to even have to wrestle with that one.
I say it's for a 2008 run for the White House.
Except that anything bad any of the RINOs do--even if its because they're NOT conservative--will be used by the media to blast conservatives and Republicans. If I had a nickel every time the media called King George the RINO (1999-2002) a "conservative Republican" I'd be rich. Further, replacing a RINO is very expensive. First the party's money goes to fund the RINO's primary campaign. Then money is needed to mount a primary campaign against the RINO. Then after the RINO is defeated in the primary, the challenger still needs money for the general election.
By contrast, defeating a Democrat can be done much more cheaply since one only need fund one election (unless a RINO weasels his way onto the primary and needs to be defeated).
You're crying over spilled milk, which is what babies do. If there is a liberal GOPer running in the general, the fight you're referring to is already over. It's called a primary. In the general, if I have a choice between two liberals, one of whom helps keep Republican control of the judiciary committee (just to name one), and one of whom helps to achieve DEM control, then it's a friggin no-brainer.
The 5 Herndon incumbents were Republican? Herndon is a Dem stronghold. I'm not positive the info is correct on those.
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.