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 doesn’t 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 America’s 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, “ I’m staying home because I’m 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 America’s 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 America’s future and safety. The bought into the Democrat controlled media’s lies that we can’t 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 don’t 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. Here’s the first week’s “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"
If you were a conservative, it would be considered bashing.
The specific mentions of Reagan in the post election cycle have most to do with how conservative principles were coupled with great communication skills; he could articulate his conservative rationale in a way that more average people understood, without personally insulting his opponents. Those attributes contine to stand out about him, more than any policy or action he took and it is those qualities, not a "Sandra Day O'Conner" appointment that conservatives look to.
But educated conservatives understand that and do not see that as some blind mantra, which it is not.
Excuse me? So it's OK to point out when Bush doesn't do things that are conservative, but when you point to things that Reagan did that weren't conservative it is considered "bashing"? Make sense!
Then you would think she actually learned and knew something about Reagan, which she obviously has not.
Sooner or later the people have to take responsibility for their government. Anyone who needs to be "inspired" just to go and vote, probably really ought to stay home after all. They will only contribute to the error term in the outcome.
This isn't an issue of who is being more "conservative" with their vote, rather it's an issue of who is being more politically saavy with their vote. You don't like the GOP incumbent you'll end up with in the General?...then rouse up support for a more conservative one in the primaries...THAT is when you do the squabbling over who is more conservative and which candidate is more deserving of your vote. However, Once the primaries are over and you decide not to vote at all in the general b/c you don't like the who you felt was a "RINO" candidate, then don't ever complain about the issues the Marxist socialist congressman who was elected in your district has brought forth to the floor. Politics shouldn't be treated liks some zero sum game. The Pro-Life movement finally began to get traction when they began to promote the cause issue by issue (e.g. - parental notification, parital birth abortion, etc...) instead of all or nothing.
You have no knowledge of how many "battles" I can account for and I have been around here longer than you obviously realize.
"The specific mentions of Reagan in the post election cycle have most to do with how conservative principles were coupled with great communication skills; he could articulate his conservative rationale in a way that more average people understood, without personally insulting his opponents."
You'll get no disagreement from me on his ability to articulate his values and our need for such a communicator. What I take issue with is the mindless Hannity types who say, we need to get back to Reagan and, in the very same speech, point to immigration and the deficit -- of all things -- as his main beef with the current GOP!
You get no argument from me.
So you were banned.....I can understand why......
Agreed. Reagan was lucky he didn't have to contend with the pajamahadeen! Of course, his excellent communication skills helped him bypass the dominant media, too.
Ronald Reagan said he was happy to get a chunk of what he wanted, and the opportunity to come back later for another piece. Does that mean Reagan was too unprincipled for you? After all, he never did a lot of things "Principled" conservatives would have demanded.
These are the people who overlook the fact that Reagan gave amnesty to 10 million illegals, spent the budget into a phenomenal deficit, (due to giving into the Democrat majority for alternate favors) and had many scandals connected to his cabinet.
But there is no mention of any of this from those who have declared him a saint.
He was a very good President, but all the praise came long after he was out of office. During his time in office, there was just as much grumbling from both sides about his job performance. (in the low 40% range)
Shame on you! Heresy! How dare you suggest such a thing! You must not be a "real" conservative! ;-)
Post 296 goes for you, too! :-) Goodnight.
Good night good lady!
I know I for one simply can't wait for another stupid vanity post.
Those that stayed home or voted Democrat will have amply
Most especially when it comes from someone who can neither spell nor proofread.
L
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.