Too many here think there is something noble about casting their lot with a candidate who has absolutely NO chance of winning ... a la Keyes.
Posted on 01/25/2007 8:32:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
So, retread, what was your previous screen name?
Yes...As I noted I got a wonderful and lengthy email from a Freeper who gave me detailed explanation of lots of FR terminology,lore,inside jokes and history. Freepers are remarkably witty but they do use a great deal of hip jargon and it is easy to get lost in the language. But I'm getting up to speed. Ran into " Are you series?" yesterday. I corrected the poster and then felt like a real dumb ass when the joke was shared with me.
Don't think so. I didn't key this thread.
Must be some other Hoodlum. Identity theft!!!! :-)
You're right. Nixon said it best.. " Your label means nothing if you don't win". Going down to defeat in glorious and righteous manner seems silly to me when the option of winning in measured and effective way is at hand.
Santorum went down to defeat in a magnificent way with all banners flying and guns ablazing. He slipped beneath the waves and there is not even a ripple now. Defeat is still defeat and their is NOTHING glorious in it. Win...let Hillary go down to defeat gloriously. How you win is secondary to winning. Ugly or Pretty...You gotta win above all.
I suppose I will judge the level of the vitriol pointed at me ... and in the Rudy threads it's significant.
I love the complaints last night that the Rudy people come after them! It's only because they descend like locusts on each one that comes out.
Yet, turnabout is NOT fair play in their worlds!
The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat by a mile.
I'm not one of those crazy conservatives who might be faced with Guiliani/Hillary choice next year and decide to write in Ron Paul, instead.
But I'm not a one-issue voter. Some at this forum clearly are.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils because I've never found a candidate, who speaks out on the record on all issues, that I agree with 100%.
But if I wanted a candidate that I always agreed with, I'd run for office myself.
Too many here think there is something noble about casting their lot with a candidate who has absolutely NO chance of winning ... a la Keyes.
Please keep in mind that this is a conservative forum. Take a look at the FR mission statement. Hunter embodies it, Rudy is antithetical to it. Why do people act surprised when Rudy bashing takes place?
Apparently the word 'viability' is heresy to the Hunterites and Keyesters. They seem to believe that crystalline ideological purity as yet untouched by pragmatism is the way to go.
That way defeat lies.... (see Rick Santorum )
And why are Rudy bashers surprised when faced with his supporters? One can avoid it by avoiding the thread.
Even the Keyes supporters had to come down from their lofty perches and vote for the dreaded Gorge Bush.
Wrong...Giuliani is antithetical to YOUR BRAND of conservatism. You don't own the definition of conservatism. And not everyone who disagrees with your brand name is a heretic.
One of the reasons many conseravtives are moving away from the firebreathers is the fact that anyone who disagrees with them is labelled a RINO or Heretic. It is patently offensive. Many of them were conseravtives before you were born.
Usually I think of Democrats when I think of irrational, unrealistic idealists. I guess we have our share.
Actually, we are more often called Liberals. But they AIM to be offensive.
It's partly a question of time.
For instance, I felt comfortable criticizing Bush and the Republicans for offending their base when they did stupid things after the 2004 election, because even if I planned to vote for them anyway, I knew there would be many who would not. But for a month before the 2006 election I pointed out that, with the possible exception of Lincoln Chaffee, the only real choice was to get out and vote Republican.
So, I think we can discuss the strong and weak points of the candidates now, or say that McCain is simply unacceptable to us, or that we'd rather have Duncan Hunter.
But a year from now, the situation will be very different. If Giuliani is nominated, I would likely vote for him unless he repeats his really egregious support of stuff like partial birth abortion. Yet he needs to bring in that part of the base, because even if he doesn't lose my vote, he still will lose millions of other social conservative votes. For years, lots of Evangelicals thought that in this sinful world there wasn't much point in voting at all. They came out in force in 2004, but I think some stayed home in 2006, along with the libertarian discontents.
I honestly can't say at this point whether I would vote for Hillary or McCain if that's the choice we are given, because those two would be almost the worst choices possible. Hillary is evil and McCain is insane. But I can say that we should sort out the candidates without being overly influenced by what the left wing press says about them.
Exactly! Are you a sports fan? My son and I were talking about this on the phone a short while ago. Winning counts -- moral victories do not!
I'm not surprised at all. Disappointed, but not surprised. :-(
Those who refuse to deal with the truth generally are offended by truth.
OK, let's pull out the ol' FR mission statement...
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.I happen to agree with Jim on his definition of "conservative". Would you mind briefly summing up what you feel "conservatism" is.
I was mentioning to another freeper last week that a discussion on what conservatism actually is is LONG overdue here on FR.
I don't know your beliefs enough to make a determination about you, but this tomcorn guy is at least honest enough to admit that he is pro-abortion and anti-gun. I can comfortably say that he, like Rudy, is at least reasonably liberal.
That's fine for the general election, but so many freepers have been saying for years to "vote for the most conservative candidate in the primaries, but then vote for whomever the nominee is in the general". Being that Hunter is unarguably more conservative and that Rudy, Mitt and McCain really aren't that different, why are these SAME EXACT people going against what they've been saying for years? Why aren't they supporting the most conservative candidate?
I really suspect that many of these people were lying all of those 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.