Posted on 02/23/2014 11:43:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Kind of a false dichotomy here. It's really an "it depends" sort of situation.
On the whole, we want the most conservative candidate who can get elected in a particular area. That means sometimes accepting a RINO from a place like Maine or Massachusetts because that's honestly the best we can do there at this time, and numbers do matter.
On the flip side, there's no reason to put up with RINOs from places that are more conservative by nature, such as, picking two states at random, Arizona and South Carolina. It would be absolutely criminal in a place as conservative as Wyoming or Utah.
RE: On the whole, we want the most conservative candidate who can get elected in a particular area. That means sometimes accepting a RINO from a place like Maine or Massachusetts because that’s honestly the best we can do there at this time, and numbers do matter.
__________________________________
What if after trying our darn best to support the most conservative candidate, and the end result was a Mitt Romney...
I think that’s the issue this article is trying to address.
Should the conservative sit home or vote for the lesser of the two evils?
Many FReepers seem to think that there is not a whit of difference between Romney and Obama. I disagree and held my nose and voted for Romney in 2012.
Unfortunately, there were enough conservative purists who sat home. The end result is what we have today.
IMO you are signaling the spineless SOBs that they can betray you any chance you get because you are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. IOW, yours is the pre-emptive surrender because you aren’t even willing to consider ‘not voting’ for a spineless RINO. Just that same old tired line ‘the Democrats will win......’
I am trying to signal the difference between General George Washington and General George Custer.
Washington was willing to “lose” New York City and “lose” Philadelphia as the “price” of gaining time to turn his raw volunteers into an army strong enough to defeat the British in battle.
In the end, Washington’s training, preparation and PATIENCE paid off. America won.
In a vivid contrast, Custer was so convinced of his own “genius” and invincibility that he chose to divide his command in hostile territory before battle. Then, he paid the price of that foolishness: Custer’s Last Stand.
I think everyone knows that America needs a Conservative victory in 2014.
I just don’t see how helping Democrats attack Republicans now could produce such a victory.
Like the single ‘fence’ argument you pulled out as a takeaway from my overall argument of voting against RINOist (BTW,our RINOs tried that with the virtual fence thing and paid Boeing MILLIONS and MILLIONS to fail), your hand-picked arguments about former battles don’t really apply in the overall scheme of things.
There is one basic question here - and it’s pretty cut and dried. Are you willing to accept more backstabbing and betrayal from RINOs and fight hard to get rid of them or not? Leave the Democrats where they are - on the side of evil, for sure, and just concentrate on who calls themselves ‘conservative’ (at least during election time.) and who really is conservative.
Here, on this forum, signaling to the RINO establishment lurkers your bottom line - you’ll vote for them when push comes to shove is surrender of principle plain and simple.
You either ‘get’ that, or you don’t. In any case, I’m done wasting my time with you.
Maybe so, but I won't have compromised my soul and contributed to it.
We serve no king save Jesus Christ. I suppose it has something to do with what you compromise on. Name one of the Bill of Rights that is free from attack.
Purity. The RINO *Strategy* hasn’t worked out so well.
Worked out great for the half of Europe that we delivered to Russia as well, right?
You presume we would have lost if we had no allied with Russia, I doubt that you can prove we would have lost otherwise.
Amnesty is only one issue surely we can give a little on that one right?
To Steal A Phrase, if you don't vote against him you are voting for him.
Oh good that means Mitch will not vote to give Obama a blank check to spend as much as he wants, because 75% of the GOP are against it.
So pi$$ed that you vote the democrat in would be fine with me, besides it forces the scum to spend money they shouldn't have to spend.
Every time we give in and vote for the lesser of two evils, it just shores up the GOPe in their effort to lunge left.
And yet you play is so well, because electing RINOs is still a losing proposition.
If fraud was not involved in the last election, then one must consider that the electorate is now majority Communist minded. I prefer to think fraud was the winning factor, because the latter is not easily fixed, then again, apparently fraud is not fixable either, since no GOP has made it an issue.
Boehner and Mitch thank you.
The democrat, you know where they stand and the RINO is a slimy bastard that you don’t have any idea where he will be.
Who the hell is Willard?
So you don’t want to win the Senate? Well then just hang out on FR and complain how bad the Republicans are....it’s a plan I guess.
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.