Posted on 10/17/2008 5:52:38 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
“Moderates” are liberals in other clothes.
Well I have supported every Republican since Nixon ran the first time. I was strong for Goldwater and Reagan in particular so your assumption as to who I would support is erroneous. So it's not the candidate that would bother me but the folks who consider themselves the base who are willing to throw the election away because a candidate isn't conservative enough for them.
Bush is NOT a conservative. He is, however, a Republican.
Please, don't confuse the two. This is precisely what the article is talking about. "Republican" has somehow become a synonym for "Conservative".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
RINOs need to be defeated, PERIOD.
Vote Conservative, ONLY.
That has nothing to do with it. Conservatives vote for Conservatives. Why is that so hard to understand? The support given to Republicans by Conservatives is deep and wide, and longstanding. But it must be within certain and well known parameters. As long as Republicans are within those Conservative borders, they are supported with out fail, and with all the loyalty one could possibly ask for.
In fact, It is so much the case that Republicans take it for granted. But it is *not* the case, nor has it ever been. When Republicans are not Conservative, they are dropped like a hot rock, and when the party suffers likewise, it can expect the same treatment.
We will be represented, or we will not participate. We have all the muscle, and can certainly go build a party of our own, and I think it high time we do.
WRONG. Throw the bastards out. Anyone who voted for amnesty. Anyone who voted for bailout. See ya.
If Republicans want seats, they can get them the hard way. EARN THEM.
As to whether the RINOs are in control or the Dems are, there is little difference at all.
rabs is dead-on right, most of the way around. I am glad to see Conservatism in the next generation, and it takes an extra large pair of onions to stand and take it from the rhinestone Republicans hereabouts and not waver. THAT is a Conservative quality that is growing quite rare.
If half the Republicans hereabouts had the conviction of this growlin' pup, Hunter would be getting elected this November. Try and remember that before you try to turn him to the dark side.
Many, many Conservatives are no longer party members. Everyone I know used to be Republicans... Now I a pretty hard pressed to think of anyone I know who is a Republican... Right off hand I can think of two. the rest are all indys now.
We are not beholden to your party-line bullcrap anymore (not that we were before anyway).
I guess we are skipping the 2010 mid-term elections.
Well said.
This little childish tirade that has continued since McCain was nominated is more about ego and self-aggrandizement than sound judgment and conservatism.
It sets up a straw man argument that says the only way conservatives can regain control of the GOP and majority in electoral office is if the dhimmicrats win.
In fact, a dhimmicrat victory will lead to state suppression of conservative thought and expression in the guise of fairness, racist labeling and class warfare. They will bring the full weight of government at every level to silence and suppress us. Our democratic political process, currently being criminally manipulated by the dhimmicrat party, will be controlled by the dhimmicrats, holding monopoly power, using the same tools of manipulation unchecked by defanged legal and political systems.
I dare say this election is more than about ridding the GOP of RINOs (which must occur)...it is about the survival of pluralistic democracy so we are able to fight another day in the marketplace of ideas.
To hope for a nObama win is unthinkable and wrongheaded.
...and replace them with.... Democrats? LOL Like I said, a lot of good that did us in 06. We may never have had an amnesty vote or bailout vote if we had legislative control based on number of seats. If you think a Democrat supermajority will ignore bailout, amnesty and even worse legislation, you are diluting yourself. You are, as Ayn Rand said: ..reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies...
Or, as Sir Winston Churchill said: In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.
Your thoughts are appropriate for primary season, we have history to show it destroys us if we take them to the general when we don't have a better option.
Sorry, there are no “fundamentalists” in any successful politics, just as there were not when this nation was founded.
You can stand on the sidelines and hang onto your fundamentalism, like the Libertarians have, and have little or no affect on actual political outcomes.
Or, you can build alliances with whomever you can most of the time even though you may not always agree with those allies all the time.
You will always be more successful; you will always be more often “in the house” and working with others instead of standing outside and complaining because no one in the house is as pure as you.
Just getting in the house gives your point of view a better chance.
There are many of us Conservatives who will remain Conservative and remain in the GOP fighting for Conservative causes.
Should you help elect an avowed Marxist this year, don’t expect any alliances with the majority of Conservatives, who will still be in the GOP after you help them lose.
Well said.
The internationalist RINOs are so deeply embedded in the Republican party that McCain has based his whole campaign on out RINOing Bush. The hallmark of a RINO campaign is to first demonize Republicans who are not RINOs. Having had success in reducing conservatives to a remnant, they tried but without the same success, in applying the same tactics to Democrats.
The lesson for Republicans is that conservative principles would have pointed out that nation building at home should have been their top priority. Time for a Contract with America for 2010 to recapture Congress.
The problem with the Republicans is that the alliances they form are almost always lop-sided and in favor of the Democrats and other Big Government freaks.
This election is no longer about compromise but rather about a wholesale sellout of conservative principles. And, I for one, am unwilling to allow myself to be sold down the river by the treacherous bastards in the GOP.
In the primary I supported Hunter. He is one our our 5 San Diego congressmen.
Like Hunter, I am supporting McCain in the general election.
I have spent many hrs. with other here facing down the Code Pinkos and one of those who countered over 50,000 Mexican marchers here a few yrs. ago.
Also worked for Reagan when he first ran for Gov.
while also working for many many years in the leagal field with the County Attys.
This Conservative walks the walk while faux conservatives don’t walk or talk conservative, just push for antiwar wingnut third pary male wannabes resulting in Marxist Obama vistory.
ROFLMAO!! The founders are the very definition of fundamentalists! It is the squishy middle that is of no consequence- never have been, never will be- they are vapid, and self serving; without conviction, they follow whim.
You can stand on the sidelines and hang onto your fundamentalism, like the Libertarians have, and have little or no affect on actual political outcomes. Or, you can build alliances with whomever you can most of the time even though you may not always agree with those allies all the time.
You may not have noticed, but libertarians vote with Conservatives. They are not considered different from Conservatives, they have a place at the table here. And libertarians effect political outcomes all the time. Have you heard of Ross Perot? How about Ron Paul?
That Libertarians grow so strong and rebellious is indicative of the illness within your party.
You will always be more successful; you will always be more often “in the house” and working with others instead of standing outside and complaining because no one in the house is as pure as you.
That you see me in terms of purity instead of terms of conviction belie your claims of Conservatism. This isn't religion. That you would further serve your purpose and accuse me of complaining merely accentuate the point.
Should you help elect an avowed Marxist this year, don’t expect any alliances with the majority of Conservatives, who will still be in the GOP after you help them lose.
Yes, we were told the same thing in '06, yet here we are again. Alignment with your ... kind... is of little value, as it will not advance Conservatism at all; in fact, it has served to do it immeasurable damage. It is the compromise of the so called "compassionate conservatives" which has lead us here. It is neither compassionate, nor is it Conservative. You may keep it.
If the Republicans lose (which I think they will), once again the fault will be laid at the Conservatives' door, even though this whole election, up until just before Saddleback, when the RNC and the McCain't campaign finally understood they were going to lose, was one big Giuliani Gambit.
The RNC (and the RINOs) got what they wanted, a campaign up the middle- the Conservatives no longer necessary, because the votes are in the center anyway... So now, when Conservatives (I mean the REAL ones) aren't showing up, it is somehow going to be our fault once again. You made your bed. Now go lie in it.
I am no longer interested in the GOP, finding it to be hopelessly compromised, and unworthy of it's charge. It will be my endeavor to lend my support to a new party, a new House of Reagan, one fit to bear his name.
As to the so called "majority of Conservatives", I do not believe you speak for them. I am plugged into the deep grassroots in Pro-Life and SOCON causes, and I have good friends in libertarian and FICON grassroots circles. Everywhere there is deep discontent with the GOP/RNC, and abandonment, and honest talk of abandonment. The very core of two pillars of Conservatism are looking elsewhere, believe me.
So what you are left with is the WARCONS, who are certainly devoted, as they figure into the plans of the Globalists. But they are nothing w/o their rank and file, and that rank and file will be more loyal to their country than to their cause, if their oath means anything (which it does).
The fracture is deep and nearly complete. You will not keep the SOCONS or the FICONS; try to keep the WARCONS if you can- I think they will turn to follow Reagan, yes I do.
“And libertarians effect political outcomes all the time. Have you heard of Ross Perot? How about Ron Paul?”
Ross Perot was no Libertarian, he was a populist. His IT and financial empire was built on stealing what he had been paid to develop for others, going into business using what he stole, making political friends to obtain exclusive government contracts for data processing using his ill-gotten software.
His followers were predominately NOT libertarians either.
As for Ron Pual’ he’s a nice guy, but not a force.
“Yes, we were told the same thing in ‘06, yet here we are again.”
Yes we know. The biggest shift in the ‘06 election was that so many of you stayed home. And for that, you want our thanks, for the result?!?!?! And for that, you gained what?!?!?
“It is the compromise of the so called “compassionate conservatives” which has lead us here. It is neither compassionate, nor is it Conservative. You may keep it.”
Sorry, it’s not mine and never was.
But that did not cause me to let Kerry win in 2004.
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.