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

To: ansel12
Evidently we are talking at cross purposes on at least two levels.

First, I have made it clear for my very first reply and for about four or five replies thereafter that my judgment was not based on Liz Cheney's conservative bona fidesin or whether she was more or less conservative than Enzi. You want me to apply a test which is a nice test, in ordinary times and in ordinary races an essential test. My point is different.

Second, I have no complaint against Mike Enzi as measured against the rest of the Republican herd in the Senate. My complaint is with the herd of whom Mike Enzi is one. It's time to cull the herd. If Enzi cannot perform up to the level required in these times, he is simply expendable.

What do the times call for? For someone to kick over the table and start over. We had our Republican majorities under Bush and the likes of Mike Enzi and the rest of them simply reduced the rate of acceleration towards calamity. That will not do. The country is hurtling toward disaster. If Liz Cheney were elected and did not throw bombs, fire her and get somebody who will! Enzi has proven he will not.

This is not a question of social conservatism-I don't give a damn who is corn-holing whom in the privacy of their own homes or who is marrying whom of the same sex. That battle has been lost. The Supreme Court has ruled on the right to sodomize your neighbor in private. Many states have agreed with the right to marry and in those which have not have granted gays contractual rights which amount to the equivalent. The fight is over. We are now about to lose the country. We are driving headlong for the cliff while fixated by the image of copulating gays in the rearview mirror.

Anyone who votes for Mike Enzi because he is opposed to homosexuality is rearranging the deck chairs on The Ship of Fools. The point is not whether I find homosexuality repugnant, I do, the point is now to try to save the country.

Senator Enzi is part of the problem because he is not part of the solution. What has he done from perhaps the safest seat in the country to save the country? Compare him to Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and you see the model for what we have to have. Mike Enzi is a placeholder, no worse and perhaps a lot better than the rest of them, but we simply cannot afford to waste his place.


63 posted on 01/05/2014 10:01:17 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford

I’m glad that we did not replace a republican with a farther left republican.

Your approach is wrong, moving left is not the path to victory, especially when it involves a woman who is capable of becoming a charismatic female leader for the anti-conservative forces.

The anti-Palin force in politics, selling liberalism.


70 posted on 01/05/2014 10:11:39 PM PST by ansel12 ( Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

>> Senator Enzi is part of the problem... Compare him to Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul

Exactly.


89 posted on 01/05/2014 10:39:50 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
Evidently we are talking at cross purposes on at least two levels.

First, I have made it clear for my very first reply and for about four or five replies thereafter that my judgment was not based on Liz Cheney's conservative bona fidesin or whether she was more or less conservative than Enzi. You want me to apply a test which is a nice test, in ordinary times and in ordinary races an essential test. My point is different.

Second, I have no complaint against Mike Enzi as measured against the rest of the Republican herd in the Senate. My complaint is with the herd of whom Mike Enzi is one. It's time to cull the herd. If Enzi cannot perform up to the level required in these times, he is simply expendable.

What do the times call for? For someone to kick over the table and start over. We had our Republican majorities under Bush and the likes of Mike Enzi and the rest of them simply reduced the rate of acceleration towards calamity. That will not do. The country is hurtling toward disaster. If Liz Cheney were elected and did not throw bombs, fire her and get somebody who will! Enzi has proven he will not.

This is not a question of social conservatism-I don't give a damn who is corn-holing whom in the privacy of their own homes or who is marrying whom of the same sex. That battle has been lost. The Supreme Court has ruled on the right to sodomize your neighbor in private. Many states have agreed with the right to marry and in those which have not have granted gays contractual rights which amount to the equivalent. The fight is over. We are now about to lose the country. We are driving headlong for the cliff while fixated by the image of copulating gays in the rearview mirror.

Anyone who votes for Mike Enzi because he is opposed to homosexuality is rearranging the deck chairs on The Ship of Fools. The point is not whether I find homosexuality repugnant, I do, the point is now to try to save the country.

Senator Enzi is part of the problem because he is not part of the solution. What has he done from perhaps the safest seat in the country to save the country? Compare him to Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and you see the model for what we have to have. Mike Enzi is a placeholder, no worse and perhaps a lot better than the rest of them, but we simply cannot afford to waste his place.


What a great post. Unfortunately, many seem to have difficulty understanding it, and that does not bode well.

The only thing that you have said in this thread that I would take issue with is that this has any impact, or predictive value, on the major primaries throughout the south. Wyoming was a little bit of an exception: a decent conservative, who fails to appreciate the gravity of the situation this country is in (and especially the role played by nominal allies in the Republican party), versus someone for whom there is legitimate doubt (not just about her positions, but also her motivations).

This primary just seemed like the "one" in "one of these is not like the others".
107 posted on 01/05/2014 11:40:29 PM PST by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

OK, I believe I’ve spelled this out for you before. I’ll spell it out for you again.

Such a person (a bomb-thrower, as you term them) will not get elected in Wyoming. It isn’t going to happen, thanks for playing. That’s not what people elect in politicians at a local, state or federal level around here. It just isn’t going to happen at any level.

If Lizzy had been positioning herself as a bomb-thrower, she would have lost. Sure, that stuff sells well on Hannity’s program to the audience of people who are as dim as Hannity, it might sell in Texas, but it doesn’t sell here in Wyoming. Ted Cruz probably couldn’t win an election here in Wyoming unless he’s running against a red-diaper baby from NYC.

This is the state that likes quiet competence, not braggarts and blowhards. Enzi has been serving at various levels of political office for a long time in the state, and has been mayor of Gillette, which means he knows the coal issues, knows the CEO’s of the huge mines out there in Campbell County on a first-name basis.

Lizzy running around Wyoming claiming she was “concerned” about Obama’s war on coal was amusing. This is a woman who has probably never seen the inside of a coal mine and had obviously been fed a number of position papers from some DC think-tank on the issue. That coal severance tax revenue is a Big Friggin’ Deal to this state, and people in the state aren’t about to put a rank amateur into the US Senate who knows only what some bunch of dim-bulb academics from a DC think tank have told her about Powder River Basin coal.

Lizzy’s mission was thus: Get elected to a safe GOP seat to secure another seat in the US Senate for the Israel lobby. That’s it. That’s what she loved to flap her soup-cooler about: Foreign policy. Wanna know what voters in Wyoming don’t give a ripe fig about any more? Foreign policy, especially in the Ivy League disaster zone popularly known as “The Middle East.”


113 posted on 01/06/2014 12:56:23 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

Always appreciate your posts. And usually agree with them. But if America is destined to regard the deviancy of homo-marriage as legally and morally the same equivalent as a husband-and-wife, I’d just as soon see the country lost. I’ll have zero interest in the preservation of the republic. Not hyperbole.


126 posted on 01/06/2014 4:30:26 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | 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