Posted on 12/10/2006 4:46:53 PM PST by FairOpinion
Let me preface this by saying I voted. However, are you really blaming conservatives for either staying home on election day or not voting for Republicans as the reason for the democrats taking over? Conservatives gave Republicans the Congress for 12 straight years and for at least the last six years conservatives have seen a decrease in conservative values and an increase in RINO values. While I wish our friends in Virginia and Penn would have voted for Allen and Santorum, but should true conservatives have turned out to vote for people like Chafee and Dewine? Should non-voting conservatives have sold out their principles just so Congress could be republican? Personally, we should be focusing our efforts on getting back on track for 2008 instead of brooding over last November.
"Did I hit a nerve?"
Yeah you did. My response wasn't really appropriate and I apologize but that's how sick I am of this nonsense.
You have got it backwards. I owe the Republican party nothing. No candidate they have is automatically entitled to my vote. They work for me, not the other way around.
If those Republicans who lost their seats had done a better job pleasing their constituency, they would have likely been re-elected. That is just a cold, hard fact. They work for US. They perform to OUR standards or they don't get to go back. That is the power of a vote.
If you and others wish to surrender that power to some political party, you go right ahead. I'm not gonna.
For the record, I voted for Trent Lott on Nov. 7.
You post makes me just want to sit down and sob.
You and I both know they are wrong.
And what did the Democrats do to earn the vote of conservatives? People who didn't vote for the Republicans "to teach them a lesson" effectively helped the Dems.
But all of their constituency doesn't think like you. I'm not saying that Republicans wouldn't have been better off had they not done some of their core things, such as cutting spending, that they have failed to do, but merely saing something akin to "Ahh! This guy isn't Tom Coburn! If we had run Tom Coburn in every race, we'd win every race," is silly.
You have got it backwards. I owe the Republican party nothing. No candidate they have is automatically entitled to my vote. They work for me, not the other way around.
For the record, I voted for Trent Lott on Nov. 7.
That's fine, and I'm glad you voted for Lott, but those who want to "teach the GOP a lesson" should just admit that they'd rather see the D's in power then compromise. For whatever reason, you'd rather get 0% of what you want then 50%.
That's fine. Maybe there are good reasons for doing that. Sometimes, there are. But should you chose to do that, you should admit to what you are doing and explain why you are doing it and why you think it will accomplish your goal, not just complain that the Republicans "didn't represent me" or whatever. Nobody is a perfect representation for another person. We are individuals. No 2 people, even approaching a problem from a similar mindslet, see the same solution to a problem, or prioritize problems in the same way.
It seems to me to be rational to vote for the guy who most closely resembles your views, even if he's way off on some times. If you don't buy this, fine, but be honest about it and give good reasons with solid logic behind them.
It is not a question of "brooding" over the Republican losses in 2006. It is the question of people claiming to be conservatives learning the lesson, to avoid the same mistakes in 2008 and avoid giving us Hillary.
But apparently many refuse to learn and they will keep helping the Democrats destroy the country, to massage their egos.
I am confident that the Republicans in the Senate would vote to convict on any impeachment charge if the Democrats simply ask politely or angrily. Their spines are as stiff and strong as a strand of overcooked spaghetti.
And the President cannot veto any impeachment, including his own. If the House Republicans, operating from their position of weakness, cannot run interference with the House Democrats, then the Democrats can blackmail the President to do as they please. Pelosi will demand, "sign this tax increase with enthusiasm or we vote to impeach tomorrow morning." And Bush will comply so that he can retain his office and we can prosecute this war. Pelosi might decide to impeach anyway. I expect no resistance whatsoever from the President on any bill or issue except terrorism.
True, but can you imagine the mess the Dems will make of themselves out of this since most Dems will not vote for it. They know Cheney would loom. They know that even the 'stupid' voters they depend upon might actually see that this would be the Clinton revenge move. Of course, the Black Caucus would support it and the Dem lefties but the Blues would not and even the weakened Pubs would relish this battle to win back some of their power.
I can't believe how many Freepers actually believe it's that easy to impeach and boot the President from the White House. It just can't/won't happen. A - dems have got to show the people that they really are more conservative than the pubbies. B - It's very unpopular to mess with a war time President. MY GAWD! RELAX!
Maybe it's not about teaching the GOP a lesson. I'm not even sure what that "lesson" is supposed to be.
Maybe it's more about hiring or not hiring someone for a job. Several of the Dems ran center/right in these races. All politics is local. Given Congress' dismal approval ratings, you really think the average voter cares (or even knows) which party controls it or what that means?
Still, personally, I don't like to give the impression that my vote is a given to any candidate.
Why do people who live in a foreign country (San Francisco) get to have a representative in the US Congress?
There were a lot of them threatening all that before the election but haven't heard any of them bragging about having done so since that Black Day. Course, I just may have missed them.
**** "If she puts impeachment back on the table, I'm confident Bush and Cheney will resign within four months," Foster said during the rally. ****
Oh Yeah: This guys a brain surgeon.
I guess you did miss those posts -- the first few days after the election there were quite a few posters rejoicing that RINOs were defeated -- but they found out that their celebration is not shared by most others, so now they don't admit anything. These people didn't find any Republicans "good enough" to vote for, but they were happy with the Democrats.
But as a guideline, there was a poll taken in CA after the election which showed that 16% of Conservatives, but only 5% of the Republicans actually voted for Angelides for governor, who is on the same page as Pelosi. That shows that it wasn't the "liberal Republicans" but the "unappeasable conservatives" who voted for Democrats. What does that tell you?!
80% of Conservatives voted for Arnold
16% of Conservatives voted for Angelides !!!
92% of Republicans voted for Arnold
5% of Republicans voted for Angelides.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1750175/posts?page=6#6 (link to the poll in the thread)
This is small consolation. Apparently you do not understand the rhetorical inconsistency of your premise. If they actually muster the votes to impeach and remove Bush, wouldn't Cheney, who is reviled even more, be subject to the same? In fact, IF they remove Bush, removing Cheney or forcing him to resign would be a cake-walk.
San Francisco. Hmmm....I think I understand now. After the big quake there many, many years ago,....the sane people left there, after that, we see the remains....
And that ain't jes' hyperbole.
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.