|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
The song of the martyr. To me, your reasoning is similar to "I might die in this endeavor so I will commit suicide first." or "If I can't have it no one will." Either way it is defeatist.
There are many different varieties of RINO. There is a big difference between someone who articulates conservative principles but is forced to compromise on implementation, and someone who claims to be a Republican but offers no reason for their slight opposition to liberal programs.
If the Democrats propose a $10B program and it's a horrible idea, the best outcome is for conservative Republicans to oppose it absolutely even if a few RINOs may join the Dems and get the program passed for $10B. If the Republicans say the program will be a disaster, but it gets full funding, the Democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves for its failure, and it may later be possible to cut the program.
By contrast, if the RINOs work with the other Republicans to produce a "compromise" program of $5B, that may seem to save $5B in the short term, but any failings in the program will be blamed on those who cut the funding from $10B. The Republicans won't be able to point out that the program was a bad idea from the start, since they supported giving it $5B. Consequently, the liberals will be able to give the program $10B next year, and when that's not enough, $15B the year after that, etc.
To many people seem to think that compromise always a minimal-risk strategy. It isn't. In poker, there are plenty of situations where a large play would be a sound play, and where folding would also be a sound play, but where a call or a small raise is a completely stupid play. It may seem that calling a $100 bet is a "compromise" between folding or making a $200 raise, but in fact it may be the worst possible move.
Can you identify elections where a RINO politician has helped with the election of an immediate successor who was conservative? I can't think of any around Illinois, but perhaps it happens elsewhere.
My experience is that RINOs sabotage conservatives because if conservatism were really allowed to take hold the RINOs would have no reason to exist. Many RINOs are seen as hypocrites on many issues, because they are; conservatives and conservatism then suffer guilt by association.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
And let's not forget the long term President Pro Tem of the Indiana State Senate, Bob Garton, who was unceremoniously dumped by a no-name in the primary owing in large part to his support and defense of outrageous health care benefits for life for part-time state senators. Garton thumbed his nose at his constituents and the Indianapolis Star (which called for rescission of these benefits) and got it right in the head. Bravo, Hoosiers!
Besides RINOs, we need to be sure to identify and run out of office all pocket-lining pols who use their positions to enrich themselves and their cronies in derogation of the public trust.
And as long as RINOs remain in power, they will try to ensure that the Dems keep that ability, since were it not for the threat of the Dems doing nasty things if they take over, the RINOs would have been tossed out long ago.
When the only other choice is a Democrat? Absolutely. It's so simple I'm amazed you're struggling with it. There's an election with two libs on the ticket. In other words, you can either vote for a lib, or sit out. I'll vote for the GOP lib over the DEM lib and over sitting out. Why? Because having a GOP lib beat the DEM lib means we get more votes on committees than they do. You need to learn how the system actually works. The reason we have them outnumbered on committees, with good conservatives like Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn, et al, is because we are the majority. There's no way around that. Voting 3rd party is doing nothing but splitting the conservative vote, and thus helping the DEMs. If it weren't for RINOs--if they were actually DEMs, as you seem to prefer--we'd be a minority party. You may think being a minority party is preferable, but you're just plain wrong.
That's a great point. But according to folks like Badray and others, we'd be better off if Rudy were a DEM.
I didn't say I wasn't going to vote for Snowe. I said that I will not be putting my time into her campaign because it's pretty much locked up for her anyways. If there were a conservative running against her, I would most certainly vote for the more conservative. But, Snowe is safe. Because of that I prefer not ot waste my time on her and spend more time helping republicans in other states who may be more vulnerable.
So you ARE voting for Snowe?
Thank you.
Broad generalizations that the Hispanic community that I know
have more in common with consevatives than Libs??
I don't think you know enough to even make a comment on this.
Rudy is a LINO. Liberal in name only.
What you do is to write off certain areas of the country and put your effort into electing more conservatives in places which are held by RINOS. Liberals have gradually replaced moderates in the Democratic Party by a similar process.
By the way, just to be as clear as possible, I'm not saying vote for a RINO in the primary because a conservative can't win. It almost sounds like you think that's my line. It's not. Even here in blue NJ, I vote for conservatives in the primary, and whenever possible, in the general. A few years back, the state GOP urged us to vote for a RINO in the primary for governor. It was RINO FRanks vs conservative Schundler. I voted for Schundler. We got trounced in the general by gay-American McSleazey, but I'd do it again. But if Franks the RINO had won the primary, I'd have voted for him without hesitation. Hope that clears things up a bit.
I'm not trying to suggest that RINO'S do not sabotage conservatives.
I believe Rino's are in the service of the globalist elite hell-bent to set up the world government.
I also believe that for various reasons, MOST of the time, MOST RINO's contribute more slowly and less intensely and less broadly to such globalists' efforts
compared to
the DIMRATS. And, I'll take slower to the world government over faster any day.
And, having a technical GOP majority in the Senate and the House has a number of advantages over the DIMRATS being in control of either or/or both by quite a wide margin.
WE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT FACT, imho.
For one, it allows SOME conservative judges to get successfully appointed. That's a major benefit for The Republic.
It's far from ideal. But no need to jump out of the frying pan--not just into the flames but into DIMRAT/GLOBALIST HELL.
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.
