After the primaries of '08, I pretty much came to have contempt for folks who relied on this tired old whininig self-pitying phrase to describe people who out of principle withheld their votes from liberals.
People who take the tone of a schoolmarm talking down to children give me a pain. Here's the deal, CajCon: What you choose to perceive as a "temper tantrum" or "trying to teach the GOP a lesson" or "taking your marbles and going home" is in reality an attempt of some of us to use the ONLY REAL TOOL WE HAVE -- each our individual vote -- to CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE GOP. As long as Republicans vote for statists and liberals, statists and liberals will stay the course to disaster.
To you, it's a "temper tantrum." To me, it's the dirty, courageous, desperate work of people who understand that hard decisions have to me made in order to change course -- that RISKS have to be taken. There is zero risk in voting for a statist liberal Republican -- statist liberalism wins and the GOP betrays that many more millions of Americans begging for a party that stands for LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
There is big risk in rejecting a liberal statist Republican even if it means the liberal statist Democrat wins -- but the pay-off if we WIN is profoundly for the good; the punishment if we lose has considerable silver lining, though people are in such an emotional panic that they refuse to see it. Four more years of Obama -- that is presuming Obama is the Dem nominee, which I think there's a good chance he won't be -- won't mean the end of America. It WILL mean a much more conservative Congress. It will mean a nation of people angrier than ever at a liberal media and vote fraud, and more clamoring for a GOP that actually stands for limited government because when it doesn't, it loses. Liberals have to cheat to win because if they didn't, they'd lose; liberals have to cheat to win becasue the majority of Americans reject liberalism.
Seems to me a lot of folks are in a panic, and panic makes people do stupid things.
In your panic, you want folks like wkwe to vote for a liberal statist, and you are too frightened and rabbit-headed to perceive that if the White House is occupied by a statist Republican for the next for to eight years, the Democrat that follows will make Obama look like nothing. Remember how we thought NO ONE could possibly be worse than Hillary? Well, if YOUR kind of flawed panic-stricken rationale for voting for statist liberals who are registered Republicans prevails, the result will be a progression where the next Dem is worse than Obama.
Be cool, think straight. Resist the temptation to accuse others who are thoughtfully considering risks, of engaging in "temper tantrums," because it only makes you look bad.
You can do what you want if your favorite doesn’t win, but don’t you dare complain when we end up with 4 more years of 0bama hell.
My primary concern is to first oust the Marxist in Chief, win the Senate and keep the House. People are going to have to get out and vote in order to do that. Sitting at home in a fit of foot stomping is shirking one of your civic duties.
Finny, well stated! If the Republican party wants my support, they can support my candidate. Why is it I’m supposed to bend to their wishes? While Perry and others may be good for the GOP, Sarah Palin would be good for the country.
Cajun, I’m not throwing a temper tantrum. I’m drawing a line in the sand. We’re playing hardball. The times call for it because Obama isn’t the problem, the entire DC establishment elite is the problem. If we only take out one without the other in the elections, nothing changes. The corruption will go on unabated.