I guess you'll just have to t-t-t-trust me!
This is really for those of us who remember the 80's!
Posted on 02/04/2007 5:09:09 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=POLITICALCORRECTNESS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=PC
CINDY'S NOTE:
*Hatefulness fuels the jihadis.
*The internet is the primary communication tool for the global jihad.
*Political correctness enables and protects the global jihad.
Please surf my FreeRepublic.com profile page for more thoughts and insights on the Global Jihad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~cindy/
I don't accept that the Dhimmicrats won or that anyone voted for them in some great embrace of their positions (which you rightly point out are non-existent, or were during the campaign). The last election was a vote against the incumbent Republicans, particularly a protest vote by the 100%ers out there. They wanted to "punish" them, particularly the RINOs, and "send a message." It was brought about by a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign by the dinosaur media and it worked with a certain simple minded and uninformed class of "conservative" voters. You know, the Perotistas and Buhananites. Clearly not the sharpest knives in the drawer (though they'll put a knife in our backs to "teach us a lesson" in their quest for purity).
I'll look forward to that. (Is it okay to tell Mrs. Morgan in Denver you are sending it to me?) ROFLOL
Excellent analysis you could well be onto his mo.
Yes it was!
I am glad someone else saw it.
It was frightening throughout...but, to me...the worst part was at the end, when E.D. was showing that "moderate Imam" from here, in America, some of the footage, and he STILL insists that Islam does not preach hate against Jews and Christians....
THAT was scary.
I actually agree with you. The point remains, the Democrats did not have any plan they could all support or even explain. Their "plan" was anti-Bush only. Nor did they need a plan because they had been destroying Bush support for over six years.
The Democrats are all over the place as to why they won. We know better. They would not have won had they 1) told the truth, and 2) not found willing candidates who campaigned on conservative issues, 3) not had a scared and willing media, and 4) not convinced enough voters that Republicans are corrupt and wrong, along with President Bush.
Regardless, the job we have now is educational and swaying voters on the truth. And yes, all with the non-help of a willing media trying to stay relevant. (Notice now, old media is going to spend advertising money to promote them as not irrelevant? LOL)
Getting rid of RINO's is not the answer nor why Santorum lost and probably not why Allen lost. There was more to it, and I suggest it was that six years of constant attacks by the media and Democrats did the job. The worst response Republicans offered was no response. Even today we allow these people to say things we know are lies, but combined with so many other things nobody calls them on it.
I don't have a solid answer to overcome any of that but clearly avoiding issues and not responding to these attacks has not worked, IMHO. And, another reason I can only say "deal with it" when the left complains about Ann Coulter, Rush and a few others.
There are few Perot supporters today and Buchanan only attracts the most radical isolationist, right-wing supporters. I really believe there are few Republicans in this generation of voters who will go off the reservation again, not that it can't happen in the future.
I'm beginning to get this feeling that none of the declared candidates at this point, from either party, will end up getting the nominations.
I think we're in for a bloodbath amongst the current field and that someone will emerge in Q3 of this year in both camps to become the front runner and eventual candidate. On the Republican side I see this as a possible opening for Newt and that is what I think he's looking at as well. By September all of the others will be so beat up by their opponents and the media that Newt's "baggage" will look trivial in comparison. I mean, think about Biden's gaff on the same day he announced his candidacy on the Dhimmicrat side. Things like that are going to happen to all of these folks.
I don't have a feeling for the Dhimmicrat side, but I think it is most likely to be a governor. Maybe Phil Bredesen from here in Tennessee or Jon Corzine in New Jersey. Corzine has got the fortune to self fund a campaign. Bredesen is more conservative than his Republican predecessor and I think he could attract second hand funding from early fall out candidates (they can distribute their campaign funds to other campaigns)
I don't have anything concrete to point to, but this idea has been nagging at me. It's just too early for all of this to start for these people to survive the scrutiny. Not in this fickle society.
I should have added this. The assault on President Bush and Republicans was not only orchestrated but clearly done with malice intent. The Democrats, and the aligned media, did not and could care less about America or our citizens. Their only driving factor has always been power, and their quest to get it. Promise anything, say and do anything, as long as they can get back into power.
This is one reason I am grateful the Democrats have begun an early campaign for 2008. This gives us more time to counter them.
Otherwise, although I cannot know, I tend to agree with your post.
Although.... Hillary has enough money to survive it all and destroy any opposition. You know that, and so do I. We can not make the mistake of ever counting Hillary out. Even if Hillary decided to not run, make no mistake... Hillary controls the Democrats. I don't care if it's FBI files, or past relationships or anything else. Hillary is running things. If Hillary conceeds the role of candidate for president, she will remain the power behind the proverbial throne.
Great post but your last sentence really makes a good suggestion, from your mouth to their ears.
I think this also happens with members of Congress. It's difficult to really go at someone if you know them on another level. I suppose it's one of the reasons little actually gets done in Washington.
why can you not discuss the substance and the principles of the issues and conservatism? what are you so afraid of?
Umm E, that is a tactic call diversion. You are not answering my question you are simply throwing out another meaningless insult to avoid having to actually address the point. That is the 2nd time in a row now you have used this tactics. Are you going to discuss the point or simply keep venting?
Again, IS it "meaningless GOP rhetoric" when Newt Gingrich is being nice to Hillary Clinton and starts talking up the same line on Global Warming she is talking or is he betraying Conservative principals and values so now he is totally and forever to excoriated by the 100%ers?
The values and principals of "Conservatism" are not simply something a self elected set of "True Conservatives" and define for themselves and then start accusing everyone else of being hypocrites because they do not share the "100%ers" fervor or point of view. So the question the 100%ers have to answer.
What are you willing to compromise to get those people to support you on Immigration or Spending or whatever? From the self chosen title of "100%ers" it appears the answer is NOTHING. Very well since you have no interest on compromise what you demand is abject surrender to YOUR self defined values and principals.
Umm NO, not going to do that. So now what are you going to do? Argue more, yell more, posting more is not going to change that position. YOU have your values and principals and the other people have have theirs. So since they at odds now what do you do? Apparently NOTHING but be politically irrelevant and angry since to "Compromise" would be to "betray Conservative Principals and Values".
People who disagree with the 100%ers aren't not "betraying the Conservative cause", they simply have a different viewpoint.
So you asked me a question. "What am I willing to compromise on?"
Trade. Frankly what people on the Right are calling "Fair Trade" is economically, screaming idiocy. I cannot think of anything MORE fundamentally ANTI Conservative that advocating MORE Government regulation over the Free Market. Yet that is exactly what the "Fair Traders" are demanding.
It is a recurring thread in American History. Rather then adapting and evolving, the economically obsolete always try desperately to lock the economy is some sort of statist model where nothing will ever change and they can use the force of Govt to make everyone else to pay more for inferior products so THEIR comfortable little world never ever has to change.
Capitalism thrives on the creative destruction of the market. The coming of automobiles destroyed the carriage whip and horse breeding industries. Should we have imposed some sort of "Fair trade" to keep those industries around?
However, I need those people to support what I want on Judges or the War or taxes so I realize I will have to accept the GOP is going to do some things I do not like to address THEIR "values and principals". So E, what are YOU willing to compromise on?
You are welcome, I can see him doing wonderful things, but not as POTUS.
I guess you'll just have to t-t-t-trust me!
This is really for those of us who remember the 80's!
What a load of bull...
this is ME you are talking to..
EVERY thread you are on- you just spout the mantra...
knock it off...
get a grip..
you're better than this Johnnie....
stop selling out your principles for a "party" that treats you like a moron...
get the tattoo off your head that says "CRAFTSMAN" you tool!
you wanna play dirty rhetoric? bring it on!
you wanna talk issues and facts? bring it on...
either way Johnnie- you are selling out the TROOPS AND AMERICA!
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.