Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37
The last election told us many things. One thing that stands out above all others is that the number of people who actually understand what is going on in our country today is frighteningly small.
A small group who get it
Just half of Americans are registered to vote, so right off, we know that half of America doesnt care what happens to itself or the rest of us. They live in a different world. You know who they are so it is not necessary to expand on this point.
Of those who are registered, on a good Election Day, sixty percent vote. That means that only thirty percent of Americans are heard, and even a large percentage of them are ill informed or willfully blinding themselves, even as they cast their ballots.
Of this thirty percent, about fifty percent vote Democrat and by doing so show us they do not understand that the Democrats are a party bent on surrendering our security to our terrorist enemies. To be sure not all who vote Democrat want this result, most of the others vote Democrat because they want socialism, gay marriage and dumbed down schools and/or open borders.
That leaves only fifteen percent, or about 1 in 7, of Americans who understand that we are the only hope our nation has.
This bares repeating: Only about 1 in 7 Americans seems to understand the true murderous intentions of our enemies and/or the destructive nature of socialism.
Nevertheless, in the last election, a certain percentage of Americas 1 in 7 voters, people who should know better, voted in a way that showed they were willing put their own demands for single issue purity over the safety of America. This is the reality of what these voters have brought about by their foolish demands that politicians suddenly toe their line totally or be thrown under a bus along with our nation.
The ill informed nitwits that vote Democrat in a knee jerk fashion, the socialists who, though born here, hate America they are what they are. They must be fought at the ballot box every two years. They are almost like evil little children who will be what they will be, but the, Im staying home because Im so much more conservative than you, so much smarter than you.. 1 in 7 voters must be held to a higher standard. These voters can not claim ignorance. They willfully handed the reigns of power and responsibility for Americas safety over to the Democrats. There were just enough of these willfully blind single issue purity voters to hand the Democrats 16 of their 36 victories; this figure being derived from the fact that for the want of just 63,000 more votes spread across these races, America would not now be in the danger she is in.
These people should have known better. They took their own narrow agendas with them on Election Day. They played make believe with Americas future and safety. The bought into the Democrat controlled medias lies that we cant win the war, the economy is tanking, and open borders would somehow be less threatening if only the Democrats controlled both Houses.
Now these 1 in 7 voters are trying to explain what they did by wringing their hands and complaining about not wanting to vote for the lesser of two evils. Apparently it does not occur to this group that the choices we have are really just the choices we have. They dont understand that failing to vote for the lesser of two evils guarantees that you will get the greater of two evils.
These people fancy themselves as so much smarter and so much more conservative than the rest of the 1 in 7. They are nothing more than conservative useful idiots.
They, and unfortunately us, now have to live with the disastrous consequences of their self delusions that they would somehow get from a Democrat Congress what they couldn't get from a Republican congress, but that would be the only difference. We will all now have to deal with Democrats who will be as disappointing on some issues, but terrifying on other issues, lots of other issues.
These are a series of headlines. This piece is not written to anyone who needs to have them explained. It is written to the conservative useful idiots among us who have joined the fools and socialists to teach someone a lesson. Heres the first weeks lessons.
January 1, 2007 to January 8, 2007:
"Dems Prepare Slew of Oversight Hearings"
"Democrats push for Alaska drilling ban"
"Pelosi, Reid Oppose Iraq Troop Surge (Letter Sent To Bush!)"
"New Muslim congressman avoids loyalty questions"
"Socialism on the move: Edwards pushes Universal Healthcare"
"SEARCH ON FOR TOUGH NEW WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL; expected avalanche of congressional committee investigations..."
"Pelosi's new image as Italian Catholic mom -- more than a 'San Francisco liberal'"
"'IMPEACH!' is message at Nancy Pelosi beach (San Fransicko Alert)"
"What Americans MUST Know About the Incoming Senate Intelligence Chairman"
"(Mother") Sheehan Right to Demand Democrats Act on Iraq (Susan Estrich Barf Alert!)"
"House rules change clears way for tax increases"
With encounters like that, anyone understands why we conservatives do not count Souter as "one of ours" inspite of the fact that a GOP POTUS nominated him. He, Souter, can make Sandra Day O'Conner seem conservative some times.
key word, sometimes. Did you see last week O'Connor swore Napolitano in for here second term here in AZ?
Why are you laughing; jerry asked you to tell him how his life has been effected.
Can't do it?
If that's the case, then why doesn't the U.S. just bomb Iraqi city to the ground?
Boy, they really showed us, didn't they?
You moderate republicans really have your panties in a bunch now. Have fun explaining to us Conservatives why we should vote for Rudolph Julie-annie.
People can vote, or not, for who they please... but if someone -did- actually not vote to "send a message" to Republicans that they need to be more conservative, that had to be the most counter-productive act possible. Elected Republicans are -not- going to interpret a lost election as "we weren't far enough to the right", they're going to interpret it as "we weren't far enough to the left", and will become even more RINO than before. It amazes me how many people think otherwise.
Qwinn
Forget Giuliani. Let's hope you "Conservatives" don't have us confronting the choice of voting for Mullah Omar or getting a beheading in the next election.
You could not be more wrong. The conservative votes in the GOP in the Senate AGAINST THE IMMIGRATION BILL, WERE A MAJORITY OF THE GOP SENATE VOTES. The RINOs were in the minority, in the GOP in the Senate, but the overall GOP majority was not large; so it did not take that many RINOs to combine with the Dims to make a majority. Your pique should be at the RINOs who failed us, but your description of the GOP as a RINO dominated party is (1)a slander, (2)looking for a absolute purity in the GOP that will never exist and therefore there is no number of actual conservative successes (Roberts and Alito for instance) that will ever satisfy you against the failures the minority RINOs help create. Abandoning the GOP, where the only conservatives in government are, simply increases how many RINOs who get the nomination in the primaries; feeding the cause of what you say you don't want. Your defeatist attitude simply reinforces the defeat you say you don't like. Such was the defeat handed to us by our own voters in November.
The Taliban has made a comeback. Osama BinLaden is still free in Afghanistan. None of the improvements to the standard of living we promised the Afghani have been delivered. You call that mission accomplished?
Nonsense. The Taliban have not made a "comeback". They are in control of nothing in Afganistan. Are they still fighting? Yes. They ran to the tribal no-mans land on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where they make raids into Afghanistan, mount some attacks, get repulsed and decimated again, and run back to the border area for rest, recuperation and recruitment to replace those they lost. The fact that they are still trying to "comeback" is not a "comeback". Again, like Vietnam, they are using you and the media to secure what they need for a successful "comeback" - to get us to leave. That is the whole purpose of their attacks, which have not restored any area to their control; just inflict some damage and hope to make it back across the border after the media has recorded the damage and before they get killed or captured. They are counting on you and your spineless defeatist attitude to get our defenses out of their way.
In spite of the war, the Afghanistan GDP grew 7.5% in 2005 and is slated to grow 8% for 2006. Education for boys is no longer limited to religious education and education for girls is permitted again for the first time since the Taliban; with attendance for girls increasing 98% (2004 to 2005) and 31% for boys (2004 - 2005). Is that a completely rosy picture? No. The rural opium fields in the north continue to (a)feed the terrorists and (b)contribute too great a % of national income. Yet infrastructure developments (roads, waterm sewer, schools) continue to spread development, government resources and government favor to more of the country. Its progress under continuing trying conditions. Should more be done" Sure; like mining the border with Pakistan in my opinion - "politically incorrect move that even the most conservative POTUS will have a hard time getting implemented. Shut down the poppy fields? Sure, when the government infrastructure and military operations are string enough to offer the poppy farmers a better life without the poppies. (Columbia still cannot eliminate its drug-crops and gangs, and yet the level of active work with our military and FBI inside Columbia dwarfs any other anti-drug efforts anywhere).
Capturing or killing Osama will not change anything with the Taliban or with Al Queda; anymore than the deaths/loss of power of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, etc. altered the course of international communism, or its plans and operations. Killing Osama is a chimera; great for the media and for no one else.
At no time (even during the Mujahadeen era) was "the CIA " ever winning any war in Afghanistan. The only thing anyone did (2001) was chase the Taliban to the border where they slipped into Pakistan to fight another day. What the Bush people did do is arm the drones that the CIA wanted to use in Afghanistan, and which they and the DOD did use; and, even then, the CIA was not acting alone in the theatre of operations. You have some fantasy that the CIA single handedly eliminated the Taliban and the DOD recreated them. If I knew you better, I'd ask you what you have been smoking.
Name the last President to hold Congress his final two years. Bush did better than most. You have NO argument.
"Did you see last week O'Connor swore Napolitano in for here second term here in AZ?"
No, but if I had I would not have been surprised.
But..but...but.....O'Conner was appointed by Reagan and the mantra since the election has been that we have to get back to the ways of Reagan.
I'm surprised that more people don't take notice of the fact that Republican party hacks now regularly BASH Ronald Reagan in their defense of their party.
Democrats want to defund the war therefore making are guys overseas LESS STRONGER
Anything Republicans want to propose to counter Dems will be squashed in Democrat controlled committees and NEVER see the light of day. The American people will never even know it existed unless they watched C-SPan all day.
The depth of your reading and activism must be very shallow.
First, Reagan had a Democrat majority Senate to contend with and probably did the best he could at the time. Second; on the judiciary specifically, there has never been a mantra of "back to Reagan", while there has been a push for more originalists in the mode of Scalia and Thomas.
Or, maybe you are just pushing Dim talking points, like a troll.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by bashing. I've been accused of bashing Reagan by merely pointing out that his record isn't as purely conservative as people want to pretend it is.
There has been a mantra of "Back to Reagan" by most every conservative pundit since we lost the election. If anything is "shallow", it is that prescription for today's problems.
Why do you listen to media pundits, conservative or otherwise?
What do you read, besides the New York Times?
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.