To the GOP's self-righteous Purists

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | March 5th, 2008 | Burt Prelutsky

[RussP]

...

If there's a single thread that runs through the e-mails I receive from peevish Republicans, it's that none of the current candidates possesses the conservative purity of Ronald Reagan. One could almost get the idea that Dutch was betrayed by Pontius Pilate and crucified on Calvary. But that wasn't exactly the case. The fact of the matter is that Gov. Reagan gave Gov. Jerry Brown a run for his money – or should I say our money? – when it came to raising taxes here in California. But, in spite of the additional revenue, he was responsible in large part for the streets of our cities being turned into public latrines by the unwashed, the unwanted and the insane when, to save a few bucks, he oversaw the closing of California's mental hospitals. He also signed the nation's most liberal abortion bill. Although he had a change of heart a scant six months later, one never hears him condemned for flip-flopping ...

...

What truly confounds me are those cuckoos who would prefer to see such socialists as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican who was only their second or third or even fourth choice. To them I say, before proving that you place your own ego gratification above what's best for America, keep in mind that most of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s or even, in the case of John Paul Stevens, fast approaching 90. Do you really want one of those two Democrats stacking the Court for the foreseeable future? Presidents come and go, but justices go on seemingly forever. Kennedy and Scalia have been on the bench since Reagan put them there. Stevens, for heaven's sake, was appointed during the ...

[calcowgirl]

I'm writing in Bullwinkle...

I like Bullwinkle. But the name reminds me of when McCain was planning to challenge Bush in 2004 and he created a coalition that was supposed to be in the Bull Moose style--they called themselves "Mooseketeers." (No joke!)

[maine-iac7]

If your Catholic don't come here, Jewish don't bother, Mormon’s? not at free Republic...

You forgot "Indian"

It sure isn't the FR it was.

Used to be one could have some civil conversations about things that mattered -

Now, you nailed it on the head, all one has to do is type "Catholic, Jewish, Mormon" or Indian and the Hound of the Baskervilles and all his minions descend.

A thread on the military will be lucky to get 7 hits but if a thread title contains "O.J" or "Paris" or "Brittany" - it'll run on for hundreds of posts.

Not the FR it used to be -

Then there's this - the voting on the side bar:

If it's McCain vs Hillary in the general, how do you vote?

McCain 69.5%

Write-in 9.2%

Third Party 8.9%

Stay home 3.9%

Hillary 3.6%

Leave blank 3.3%

Pass 1.5%

So maybe there's some of the old FR's still lurking?

It seems to me, tho', that FR has deteriorated alarmingly in the past year or so...damn shame

[Just mythoughts]

Don't let them get to you - they're big egos that think they are more important than our TROOPS and the military - wouldn't mind letting hitlery or "O" dismantle it even worse than jimmah did - Truthfully, I believe there are a lot of sleepers that long ago infiltrated FR for the express purpose of discouraging republicans to vote... They saw how successful FR was against them in 2000 - and then more came in after 2004 - and stirred the pot. in 2006, the mantra was "teach them a lesson and let the dimRats win!" and dunderheads fell right in line and marched right off the cliff, giving us Reid and Pelosi - that worked well. I suspicion that a lot of the don't-tell-us-how-to-vote! crowd are being duped into doing exactly what the dimRats want them too...They pat themselves on the back for being super righteous, uber important thinkers - while they march lock-step with the lemmings

I voted in November 2006, did it absentee as I went out of town for a couple of weeks. Oh and in spite of the fact that there was NO moral majority represented by the GOP establishment in the halls of Congress, rather in fact they gave lofty positions of power and representations to perverts, criminals, etc.

I remember why the liberals Foleyized US to repress the Morals Voters, that was their words for the purpose. So HELLO you want to point fingers of blame when the lying no morals liberals out foxed the moderate BIG TENT partying and playing GOP. Somebody went to sleep at the GOP wheel and THEY are responsible for their LOSS.

[calcowgirl]

In other words, 527s are groups with voices who might criticize politicians.

Yep—they simply MUST be silenced (according to McCain).

Dang fascists all around!

[rrrod]

I have no doubt McCain will destroy the conservative movement.

[maine-iac7]

. I can actually smell you from here.

It may be that you're just down wind of yourself?

[Freedom2specul8]

I had no idea how much time he spent on that....

[TigersEye]

Here are a whole bunch more someone compiled eight years ago.

FR links on McCain's record from Feb. 2000. MrChips collection.

[calcowgirl]

"McCain may leave Republican Party to fight Bush in 2004 FR July '01 "

These were the guys that were going to give McCain a starring role through their Project for Conservative Reform. (their plan got disrupted due to 9/11). Whittmann has been at McCain's side for years.

How Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Great Escape
5/28/2001

(snip)

Alienated from the GOP leadership--and convinced by the 1996 elections that its libertarian politics couldn't win-- [Bill] Kristol and [David] Brooks unveiled national-greatness conservatism. There was only one problem: No one, perhaps not even Kristol and Brooks, had a clear idea of what the phrase meant.

... As Wittmann has written on his website, conservativereform.org, "[C]onservatism need not be defined by K Street. As we pursue tax cuts, it seems reasonable to focus on middle-class relief such as cutting the payroll tax." Says Kristol, "I don't have any problems with the safety net." Which raises a question. If national-greatness conservatism scorns the Christian right, jettisons the struggle to shrink government, and champions an idealistic foreign policy more likely to be supported by The New York Times than Dick Armey, in what meaningful, contemporary sense is it conservatism at all?

If you haven't seen much of this heresy in the pages of The Weekly Standard, that's because on domestic policy Kristol and Brooks have become a minority in their own office. Unable to turn the Standard into a vehicle for their movement, they've essentially stopped writing about economics and social policy. Ironically, as its top editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years, the magazine has grown less interesting. Instead, Kristol and Wittmann have started a think tank called the Project for Conservative Reform, run out of the Hudson Institute, with the sole purpose of developing position papers for their movement. And Brooks's next book will aim to infuse national-greatness conservatism with some needed marrow.

[Racehorse]

You asked, previously, for examples of Team Juan's whinnying and snorting hereabouts how we conservatives are "no longer needed," thank you. Did you follow the links from Posts #28 and #63? If not, then why not?

Post #42 provides a link showing how McCain's campaign, drawing virtually no monetary support whatsoever, is already running in the red; a direct result, arguably, of his unwillingness to provide conservatives any convincing reason whatsoever to aid him in that regard. Did you follow that link? If not, then why not?

Yeah, I followed them before my last reply.

Posts #28 is a link to one of your tirades at Juan McCain will either win with conservatives voting for him, or without them. You linked to your own snorting and whiny messages. Good example.

Post #63 is a link to something I already said is wrong: More than wrong. Posted by one wrong-headed poster.

Post #42 is a link to Jim Robinson's McCain gets conservative grassroots support when.. which I commented on earlier. Beyond that, same stuff you toss out every day. Is that what you wanted me to see?

I suppose 1 out 3 is a mark of accuracy for some folks.

Maybe you don't sleep so well after all.

And, I didn't ask for examples of anybody's "whinnying and snorting.". I wrote: "But, I've got to go look at your links. It is inconceivable Team McCain could be discounting any part of the conservative constitency. But, if you're posting it, there must be something there. so I gotto go find it."

In reference to this: If Team McCain is right, and they genuinely don't need us to win, come November... then: why are you all still sniveling and whining, daily, over our not being willing to vote Juan in the first place...?

I'm not the one, however, attempting (presumably) to curry electoral favor for my chosen candidate by making assorted rude noises and gestures towards other, more principled conservatives, am I?

I am thick headed. I do have problems with languages, even English. But, sad to say, there are those who are more muddled and less honest than I. Some even claim to be more principled conservatives.

11/07/08 is going to come as one slow, awful awakening to you and yours, I'm afraid. Here's hoping you at least manage to benefit from the experience... if only just a little.

I don't know what 11/07/08 will bring. I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not so rash as to make silly predictions this far out.

[Freedom2specul8]

I would like to suggest the possibility that some people clicked the wrong selection. :) And what about the voters whose choice wasn’t on the poll? Put them in write in? I think people like Keyes should have been on the poll. period. he’s a conservative that apparently isn’t liberal enough to be repub perhaps?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Standing up for the craven sort of anonymous online coward who'd actually imply an American military vet was "abandoning his colleagues," simply because the latter didn't want to enable the sudden, violent cramming of another 30 or 40 million illegal aliens down our collective gullets, are you?

Congratulations. You've just demonstrated, publicly, that your so-called solicitude for our men and women in the military is thinner than paper, and lighter than air. The very least of any one of them is worth an entire rank, sodden clump of you. [::spits::]

[Freedom2specul8]

Thanks for all your efforts!!

---

This makes me want to vomit. I have to take a break from this thread....Will check in tomorrow.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a389bdcba0dd1.htm
McCain wife ‘pins’ hopes on Hillary
worldnetdaily

” his wife Cindy was photographed wearing the famed “Hillary pin.” The pin, which was prominently displayed on Mrs. McCain’s shoulder, has been gracing Democrat power suits from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend to Betty Currie. “

[TigersEye]

You’re welcome. Some people want information on the candidates. Others? They want more “campaign finance reform.”

[Freedom2specul8]

Sheesh, okay....contemporary conservatism, scorning the Christian right...I’m going to have to read the article tomorrow. The agitation is causing nausea. Thanks for the link.

[maine-iac7]

Congratulations. You've just demonstrated, publicly, that your so-called solicitude for our men and women in the military is thinner than paper, and lighter than air. The very least of any one of them is worth an entire rank, sodden clump of you. [::spits::]

Actually, my concern for our Troops is anchored in knowing what they are going through in some areas that are as tough right now as ever - I have family in harms way - and I think about them night and day -

I know the scum that would like to spit on them are just waiting for a chance to repeat what they did to our Viet Nam vets - to pull the plug on them, snatch their sacrifices and victories from them and hand them defeat -

I will vote for McCain - who was not my 1st, 2nd or even 3rd choice - because he's the best bet we're left with that our Troops have, our military has and - ergo - we have...

And I just spoke with one of my family that is in harms way - and I can bet he and his buddies are worth more than 90% of the posters on this thread tonight -

Smoke it

[driftless2]

" a savior"

You are absolutely correct, but your logic will be lost on the purists of this forum for whom Reagan (who made a few mistakes himself) was not conservative enough. They don't understand that many times in life it comes down to picking not the best but the least worst option. McCain is probably more conservative than someone like Jerry Ford, but that will not satisfy the purists. He's not my first pick either, but he's a darn sight better than Hillary or Obama.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Posts #28 is a link to one of your tirades at Juan McCain will either win with conservatives voting for him, or without them. You linked to your own snorting and whiny messages. Good example.

Lie #1. The link leads back, ultimately --m which you'd know, if you'd actually followed it to its terminus -- to: "He’ll [McCain] either win without conservatives, or with conservatives," precisely as stated. Not only are you a buffoon; you are an ineffectual one.

Post #42 is a link to Jim Robinson's McCain gets conservative grassroots support when.. which I commented on earlier. Beyond that, same stuff you toss out every day. Is that what you wanted me to see?

Post #42 leads to Post #250, on another thread. You know this, of course; what you might possibly hope to gain by playing the perpetual online slackwit -- provided, of course, that it is, in fact, all simply dumbshow on your part -- is more than I can understand, or (for that matter) care to. Good heavens.

I suppose 1 out 3 is a mark of accuracy for some folks.

Aim high, sister. Be the dream!

I am thick headed. I do have problems with languages, even English.

Two honest statements, in a row. A marked improvement; keep up the good work.

I'm not the one, however, attempting (presumably) to curry electoral favor for my chosen candidate by making assorted rude noises and gestures towards other, more principled conservatives, am I?

I repeat the above from my own posting, earlier, as you rather noisily and obviously fell down attempting not to acknowledge how it directly applied to Team Juan's efforts hereabouts, these past few weeks in particular. Just so we both know you didn't actually manage to get away with anything, is all.

I don't know what 11/07/08 will bring. I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not so rash as to make silly predictions this far out.

No one's (yet) questioned the comparative silliness of your predictions, lamb; just the overall efficacy of Team Juan's vote-gathering techniques (in general), and your own (in particular). Sorry that wasn't rendered clear enough for you, from the outset.

[calcowgirl]

Have you ever read of the group (the Phoenix 14) who first gave McCain his start in politics in 1982? One of them was the publisher of the Arizona Republic—a guy named Darrow Tully aka “Duke” (named after Clarence Darrow, no less). He touted himself as an accomplished pilot and war-hero, telling stories of flying jet fighters in the Korean and Vietnam wars, even donning the full uniform of a USAF Lt.Col, medals and all. He became McCain’s good buddy.

It turns out that the guy wasn’t even a pilot, let alone a war hero. He had never even served in the military. He was outed some years ago (he’s even included in Burkett’s book “Stolen Valor” with all of the other fakers.)

You’d think McCain, being a fighter pilot, would realize the guy was a fraud. Nope! He is godfather of McCain’s daughter!

[driftless2]

"evil to nourish"

If you think that by allowing Obama or Hillary to get in the Oval office you have accomplished something positive you are are mistaken. One of the three candidates currently running will be elected in 2008. If you believe McCain is no different than the Democrat candidates, you'll have to explain it to me. Because so far you haven't given a very good explanation.