Posted on 09/17/2007 11:07:54 PM PDT by goldstategop
Then at least we can run against her, oppose her in the legeslator an fight the fight for liberty -elect a RINO and there is no hope for there is no party left to fight for liberty and righteousness. No believe it or not I fear Rudy and Mitt as president more than Hillary - with Hillary conservatives can mobilize to fight; with the RINOs we are sold out and with out hope!
Better to die in battle for a righteous cause than to be stabbed in the back by a pragmatist friend! Either way your dead - one way your death meant something!
That's what they said for the last congressional election - turns out they can go home! Ignore the "value voters" at your own peril!
Before you can ''fight another day'' after a ''tactical'' defeat, you still have to have the means to do so, which throughout American history have been Constitutional means. With an effectively inoperative Constitution, there will be no other means except armed revolt. I don't believe Americans quite have the stomach for that...yet.
FReegards!
She has no use for the Constitution, and, after 8 years of court packing, with a subservient Regress, the 22nd Amendment will be a dead issue.
I will agree that they didn’t turn out in large numbers for a midterm — but will they turn out in large numbers for a Presidential election?
p.s.
No sarcasm intended, I’m really interested in your thoughts on this.
We cannot suffer 4 or 8 years of Hillary judge appointments.
That is a great idea! You have inspired me and I think I may have a variation on your idea that is even better.
What if instead of just listening and reading webpages, we compare what a candidate is saying and then see what he has done on that particular issue?
If your car breaks down and you need a mechanic; Do you care what a guy says about transmissions or do you want someone who has actually repaired one? If one of your pipes springs a leak and is flooding your house, do you really care what someone is saying about plumbing or do you want someone who has fixed a few leaks?
You may be on to something here! If a candidate has a slogan like, oh say, " secure the borders, kill the terrorists", let's start asking that candidate when he ever did anything to kill terrorists or secure our borders. Let's forget the interest groups, media hype and poll numbers and get right down there where the rubber meets the road. We may be onto something big here! :)
This is just asinine.
Actually, yes, the front runners did/do ignore the core of the conservative base.
The so called "value voters" do not represent me or the bulk of the conservative base.
Values voters, as typified by the elements such as evangelicals, make up a much larger portion of the conservative base than you're admitting.
What a bunch of pretentious holier than thous. Value voters? I suppose no one but them has any values nor is concerned about values when voting.
You've just imposed your personal bias into this. They did not claim to be superior or holier than anyone. They are stating that they place a high weight on values...you may base your decisions upon whatever you choose to. If you place a large weight on values such as life then you're likely to agree with these value voters.
Some of the members of this group are questionable at best. The tone of this group, and of this post, is threatening. What a way to get people to agree with you.
Again, your personal opinion as to how questionable some are. Additionally, if every group were judged by a limited portion of their composition one can denounce pretty much every group in the same way you have done here. As for threatening? You're going to have to back that up with something...unless stating that they believe that they represent a very large block of voters and any candidate that ignores them isn't likely to win in their opinion. Do you think it reasonable to expect them to vote for candidates that do ignore them?
Mr. Reagan, I believe, did the best he could under the circumstances, but there hasn't been a constitutionalist conservative in the White House since Mr. Coolidge, nor a conservative-dominated Regress since the days of Henry Cabot Lodge Sr.
That’s only because you haven’t heard that it’s directed by Quentin Tarantino.
Sorry, pal. If you’re leading up to we must support Rudy or suffer Hillary you’re gonna be in for a great fall.
“1. I predict the Values Voter Straw Poll will unify the pro-family movement and determine the nominee.”
I predict the writers at WorldNetDaily have lost their damn minds if they actually believe this.
“Fred Thompson will regret it most. He had an opportunity to establish a connection with the party’s activists and connect on the issues that concerns them - the state of our culture and our society.”
Thompson didn’t miss anything...or hadn’t you noticed that none of the A-listers showed up a all? Just the also-rans.
Like it or not, the reality is that most of the electorate doesn’t much care about values at the moment, other than their home values.
A Modest Proposal:
One Rudy thread per day limited to 45 minutes. All other mentions of Rudy on any other thread at any other time of day to be blocked.
And to all those Rudy lovers out there: I promise you, the guy does not have a chance in a national election.
I predict people will keep watching sports, news, porn, American Idol, and re-runs of Roseanne.
Janet Folger's infomercial is not going to rate well within the strategically important "Under-95" demographic.
As I noted in an earlier thread, in the past month I’ve met a half dozen Wall Street types who have been shown the door. Maybe just coincidence and maybe not.
Not certain where you got the notion that I can even tolerate that hypocrite...(scratching head).
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.