Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MNJohnnie; jedward; TitansAFC; Rush4U; stephenjohnbanker; indylindy; Liz; Kevmo; ...

The goal of CONSERVATIVES is to make sure that the GOP nominates a CONSERVATIVE, thus it is MANDATORY to do anything necessary to defeat Rooty Toot. Now, I understand that this might not have the support of your WAnker comrades, but that’s how CONSERVATIVES feel.


24 posted on 10/13/2007 11:31:25 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee

“The goal of CONSERVATIVES is to make sure that the GOP nominates a CONSERVATIVE, thus it is MANDATORY to do anything necessary to defeat Rooty Toot. Now, I understand that this might not have the support of your WAnker comrades, but that’s how CONSERVATIVES feel.”

Wanker....your UK slip is showing :-)


30 posted on 10/13/2007 12:08:44 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

If Republicans are willing, I’m fully prepared to battle for a viable conservative candidate in 2008. So far Fred Thompson fits the bill nicely.

If that doesn’t work and the GOP is ready to nominate a liberal to be the party standard bearer in 2008, I’m fully prepared to vote third party and begin work on creating a true “Conservative Party” for 2012.

When the Democratic Party took a serious leftward turn in the late 1950`s and early 1960`a, Ronald Reagan officially joined the GOP and became a Republican.

If the GOP goes further leftward, I expect many conservatives will bolt for greener pastures. Happened before, it can happen again.


46 posted on 10/13/2007 12:40:20 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
The goal of a conservative should be to fight like hell to nominate a candidate that will do their absolute best to limit government. Since the congress, and not the president, makes legislation, the most a president can do -- for domestic issues -- is use a veto and appoint justices to federal courts.

Knowing the scope of the presidency, what do you believe is most important: setting a guiding moral agenda that will fall on the deaf ears of a Democrat controlled congress? Or, use what power is available to shape the courts and veto shitty legislation that would expand government?

If need be, maybe the SoCon should check their piousness at the voting booth. God will judge us all in the end and make determinations based on how we fared in those areas inside our circles of influence...he'll probably judge us individually and not as a collective, too. So, if the candidate is Rudi, hold your nose while you vote. But, more than that, pray for him (and Democrats and, most importantly, anyone who would engage in bad activities) to adopt moral beliefs.

92 posted on 10/13/2007 9:49:22 PM PDT by LowCountryJoe (I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm


95 posted on 10/14/2007 3:33:49 AM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson