Posted on 04/05/2007 7:32:20 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
The real RINOs in this situation are those voters who, although they voluntarily align with the Republican party (whether or not registered as Republicans), decide to quit in the fourth quarter if things are not going their way.
They're the ones doing the selling out and dumping on the their fellow conservatives. And it's the country they're selling down the river.
They're the ones doing the selling out and dumping on the their fellow conservatives. And it's the country they're selling down the river.
Wow. You have an impressive talent for spin. Are you a professional?
Excuse me, you were the one claiming this thread presented a false dichotomy.
I responded to your post with a reasoned and detailed analysis.
And guess what? You suddenly seemed to find the discussion of the fine art of logic irrelevant, and instead began the usual jaw-flapping and foot-stamping and wails about “scare tactics,” as if making the observation-—as I did-—that your response did not demonstrate the application of logic was “scary.”
And then there’s the other last recourse of the cornered: claiming that “I” want you to vote for Giluiani and “I” can’t make you.
Uh . . . DUH. And I never said anything about voting for Giuliani. I said take the quiz and make up your own mind.
Thus far, you have refused to do that. Instead, you ask me to “explain to [you] how a vote for Giuliani is a vote toward restoration of constitutional government.”
“Restoration of constitutional government”? Wow, you’re out there.
Anyway.
Why don’t you take the quiz and explain to me how a vote that effectively elects the Rat party to power is a vote “toward restoration of constitutional government”?
What would you call an individual who declares he is a “Republican” but refuses to vote for the Republican nominee?
I call them RINOs, but I’d be happy to hear whatever nomenclature you think is more appropriate.
Don't I know it. If there were a few more out here with me, the country would be a much better place.
But I believe that constitutional government requires restoration. Does that mean that I believe our current government is materially in violation of the constitution? Sure. Does that mean that I believe our current government is substantially in violation of the founders' intent? Without question.
Do I believe in the Republican Party platform? Yes, I do. I just wish the party would pick a nominee who would actually work to advance it.
I don't know. Introduce me to such a one, and maybe then I'll decide.
I'm registered Independent myself.
Don’t we all wish the candidate would work to advance the Republican party platform.
But it is what it is.
I posed a suggestion on how one might evaluate what is best for the nation if, for whatever reason, it comes down to choosing between a liberal Republican and a liberal Rat in November.
Mostly people keep reiterating generalities as to why they would “never” vote for Rudy Giuliani.
I honestly am wondering if there is a reason persons who claim they have already made up their mind about what they will and will “never” do are unwilling to flesh out their conclusions with facts, with naming some names, with setting out how they do actually compare the two administrations.
And here’s a more clear response to your comment about “restoration of constitutional government”: What I meant was, wow, there is such a thing as focusing too much on the obtaining the whole enchilada in one bite.
Good dodge!
If the GOP, knowing that Rudy is not a viable alternative to a large portion of their members does not offer up another option, then they can expect that portion of their members to go elsewhere
No, there are not more than two viable choices in the general election.
And "go elsewhere"? where would that "elsewhere" be?
Once we get to the general election, there is NOWHERE you can go---not to Refuse to Vote Land, not to Third Party Land---where your action will NOT affect *which of the two major party candidates wins the election.*
Pro-life.
What do you call a pro-life Republican who refuses to vote for the Republican nominee and thereby causes the election of the Rat nominee and thereby brings to power the vehemently pro-abortion Rat party?
Dumb? Hypocritical? Myopic? Smug?
Please cite the relevant articles of the Constitution that validate this statement.
Thirty years of experience tells me you sure aren’t going to get pro-life legislation or regulation out of “penumbrae” supporters.
While we're labeling: what do you call a partisan that campaigns for his position with nothing but ad homenim accusations?
Please ask for a citation that is relevant to the point you apparently are attempting to dispute. Then I would be glad to oblige.
I have already detailed in several posts upthread how it is that, in fact, no way around it, there are only two *viable* choices in the general election.
I agree that there are other choices, but they are not *viable.* Meaning: choosing them does not accomplish anything apart from determining which of the two viable candidates will be elected.
I would be glad to discuss this point with you if you’d be so kind as to engage what I’ve already written. Thanks.
Have you demonstrated that the premise of my question is not accurate?
No.
If it is accurate, and I conclude it is, then it’s completely appropriate to ask whether a person who thinks he’s furthering the-—in this example-—pro-life cause by refusing to vote for the Republican nominee really has his head on right if his refusal to vote actually ends up doing more harm to the pro-life cause.
I’m sorry, but no matter how you cut it, a person who, however sincere, thinks he is avoiding supporting “x,” but actually is supporting “x” in spades is not going to come out smelling like a rose, IMHO.
I agree with you completely.
That said, what if you cannot obtain “pro-life legislation or regulation” from either party candidate in 2008?
Is that the end of the story? Nothing else matters? There are no other issues that are still important to the future of the nation?
You don’t give a whit about the war or anything else?
Yes, life is the most important issue, but if you can’t move forward through the White House for 4 years, it is what it is. The pro-life movement will survive, whether it’s a liberal Republican or a liberal Rat. I know I’m not giving up.
The point of this thread is a reality check to those who state there would be “no difference” between a Rat administration and a Republican administration.
I know at this point in history, regardless of who the president is, I would rather have the Republican party come to power than the Rat party. Period.
You may not agree. But I don’t know how people can reach such conclusions without actually naming some names and comparing the administrations in their own minds.
I set out my lists at #73 (or so). What do you think of the impact of those respective “teams” on the nation?
My point is simply this: (and no, I’m not going to wade through this entire thread to save you effort...you either engage or you don’t) you clearly understand there is no “viable” way for disaffected pro-lifers to force their preferences, but at the same time you castigate them for deciding there is no “viable” way for their agenda to move forward by supporting those who would approach abortion on any but a principled stand.
In effect, you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
I have no clue what you just said.
And I am not “castigating” anyone. I am nice as pie, at least I try to be.
Refutation is not castigation.
Nope.
YOU are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
You are trying to convince yourself that you can refuse to vote for the Republican nominee and at the same time not be responsible for electing the Rat nominee.
You cannot do the first without accomplishing (and being responsible) for the latter.
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.