I want to Thank all "Conservative" Non-Voters

November 18, 2006 | new yorker 77

[new yorker 77]

Thank you for giving us blanket amnesty for illegals.

Thank you for courageously abandoning our troops.

Thank you for handing victory to the terrorists.

Thank you for guaranteeing higher taxes.

Thank you for guaranteeing no more conservative judges.

Thank you for empowering John McCain.

Thank you for bringing back universal health care.

Thank you for endless investigations.

Most of all, I want to thank you for showing complete disregard for the tens of thousands who spilled their blood to give you your right to vote.

Your callous, self-serving apathy has guaranteed the government actions that you so bitterly complained about.

---

A final reality check to all you non-voters who still call your self conservative:

You are not a conservative.
You define un-American.
You define un-patriotic.
Please stop pretending to care about the troops.

---

To all you people who actually voted.

Thank you for defending our Constitution.

[Gaffer]

Allegiance to conservatism for "conservatism's sake" in the midst of an epic battle of good against evil is like being the Magical Wizard in the battle against Evil in Dungeons and Dragons. It is fantasy for fantasy's sake and accomplishes nothing based in the reality of here and today.

[CindyDawg]

What can I say? I'm a fixer. I try not to get impatient with people that come with problems but no solutions. In-house fighting, blaming and pointing fingers is non-productive IMO. Let's get to work. Check out this voting system, forgive those that have lost hope and didn't vote, reach out to the conservatives that feel they are being abandoned, start exposing media lies and STAND UP AND FIGHT back.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

So in the epic battle of good versus evil, it's prudent for the good to compromise with the evil.

Makes perfect sense.

[Gaffer]

NOt what I meant....compromise with the side closest to your bent. If you think Republicans are closer to evil than the Democrats, well, then that's your problem and maybe you should be over at DU.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I think there was some fraud

You better believe there was fraud. Anybody who believes Rick Santorum lost by 19 points, when all the polling had him down between 4 and 12 points, is living in a dreamworld.

We had our chance to do something about the massive fraud in places like Philly and St. Louis when he had control of Congress. The GOP did nothing. Who knows when we'll have that chance again.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

If you think that's what I said, maybe you should be in a remedial reading class.

[RFEngineer]

"For the past two years there has been back channel propaganda aimed at us conservatives...."

"back channel"? Is anyone that disagrees with the direction of the party a "back channel operator"? if so, we truly are doomed as a party....

"....saying that the GOP is not conservative and that we shouldn't vote for the GOP."


Aw, geez. The GOP did not lose because conservatives stayed home. They lost because they didn't get enough votes.

Perhaps someone was able to perform "non-exit polling" on people who did not vote.


"But notice the resistance from some posters including (maybe) yourself."


I was one of the posters who was vigorous in pointing out the GOP was not conservative and as such, risked losing in the election. I myself voted GOP. If my comments encouraged people not to vote for the GOP, then people made their own decision, whether rational or irrational. But I suspect the GOP as a party has a bit more influence over their fate than me, some guy posting on the internet. I cold be wrong about that, though ;^)

Don't blame vociferous conservatives for the GOP failure, when conservatives (like me) voted for the GOP. Politics is rough-and-tumble.....I am waiting for the tumble part on against the RATpublicans (thanks for that one, BlackbirdSST) and so far it hasn't happened.

If it doesn't happen and the GOP takeaway from the recent election is that "We just weren't moderate enough" - as appears to be the strategy of the president, then we'll be an even smaller minority in the wake of Nov of 2008.

GWB was wrong, per the voters, and the overall GOP just has to listen. It doesn't help that GWB is still the head of the GOP and continues to caucus with the democrats.

But, hey, moderates, by definiton, have no standards, and so far the GOP hasn't noticeably changed it's tune from the pre-election failure. It's still early though.

[Ditter]

We certainly agree on Newt, he is brilliant, but let's talk about his baggage. Was it worse than any number of dems? No it wasn't but you would never know that if you only listened to the MSM. Our side and everyone in it has been bashed continually for years, that is tough to fight, even if we do have Fox, Rush and Hannity.

I remember hearing Pelosi rail on about the Republicans "culture of corruption" at a press conference. Talking about the misdeeds of some Republican when a brave reporter asked her the same question about her own financial affairs. She quickly snapped "we aren't talking about me" and the presser was over. I heard from Rush that she was more guilty than the Republican she was hammering on. I did not, however, read about her in the paper, just the Republican.

[CindyDawg]

We need receipts. Every person that votes should get a number with an e-mail address, so that they can go on line and make sure their vote was recorded correctly. I voted all republican but how do I really know? We have check and bill statements and get a receipt for all our purchases. It is so important , to avoid theft, many merchants will offer free merchandise if you don't receive one. Voting, one of the most important things we do, has no paper trail. We are asked to trust a country of a hostile leader that makes the things. Machines disappeared. Cards disappeared. Voters were rejected. Polls stayed open late, a soft wear company admits there were problems and who knows what else but we are supposed to trust the system?

[pollyannaish]

LOL.

First, this thread is depressing and full of all kinds of misinformation all the way around.

Second, I WISH we could refer back to FreeRepublic threads during the Reagan Years. I absolutely positively KNOW that he would not have been considered a "Super Conservative" at the time and we would have seen the petty squabbling, infighting and issues we see today.

The revisionism about Reagan is hysterical. Uberconservatives HATED President Reagan at the time and were VERY vocal about it. Which just goes to show, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Ditter]

I'm for that! "Start exposing media lies" How many times can I *cancel* the Houston Chronicle? If I stop taking it how can I read and reply to the liberal biased editorial page?

[CindyDawg]

An example , I heard on the day of election was how high the deficient was with this administration. What was missing was that it was much lower than when GB took office. People don't hear that though.

[RFEngineer]

"Reagan's record on spending, immigration, foreign policy, judges, taxes... was not better than our current president."

Reagan was not perfect, true enough, but our current president did not have the ideal environment for conservative growth that our current president had for the past 6 years.

There was never a question about Reagans conservatism.

[RadioCirca1970]

Don't stress out so much, the goofballs that sat it out this time around have and had the most to lose...If their precious agenda wasn't advanced under Bush and the GOP--well guess what...under Pelosi and Reid, IT REALLY WON'T get advanced...and we'll get tax hikes on top of it...

It's gonna be funny watching the angry base-ists implode for the next 2 years....enjoy the show...I know I will!

[Gaffer]

....So in the epic battle of good versus evil, it's prudent for the good to compromise with the evil...

Nowhere even close to what I said. Your interpretation of obviously means you interpret that Republicans (the status was) is/was evil. You can't polish that turd...

[RFEngineer]

"Reagan's record on spending, immigration, foreign policy, judges, taxes... was not better than our current president."

**CORRECTION**

Reagan was not perfect, true enough, but REAGAN..did not have the ideal environment for conservative growth that our current president had for the past 6 years.

There was never a question about Reagans conservatism.

[FreeReign]

For the past two years there has been back channel propaganda aimed at us conservatives....

"back channel"? Is anyone that disagrees with the direction of the party a "back channel operator"? if so, we truly are doomed as a party....

Why do you have to start your post with a rhetorical question based on a straw-man. I never said in any way shape or form that all who disagree with the direction of the party is a back channel operator.

It's inappropriate to even post that to me.

Don't do it.

Should I continue with the rest of your response after getting that?

[RFEngineer]

"I heard on the day of election was how high the deficient was "

Yes, the deficient turned out in high numbers on election day.......

[FreeReign]

Then, posters like me come along and point out that many GOP pols do vote conservative; that we should have voted for these conservative pols and that we lost 25 good conservative seats in the House and 4 good conservative seats in the Senate.

The GOP did not lose because conservatives stayed home. They lost because they didn't get enough votes.

I didn't say the GOP lost. I said 29 good conservatives lost. Your response is disconnected from my point.

[RFEngineer]

"Why do you have to start your post with a rhetorical question based on a straw-man."

Ok, friend, if you don't want someone else to interpret what you mean by "Back Channel" then kindly define it yourself.

My interpretation of what you meant by "Back Channel" was entirely in context of your statement. If my interpretation was incorrect, then define what you mean when you throw out terms that imply a negative.

So, before castigating me for being inappropriate, be appropriate yourself.

What does "Back Channel" mean in the context of your statement, if it is not what I interpreted it to mean?