Good rant pickrell... but the stupid a$$es who stayed home on Tuesday most likely never bothered to vote in their state primaries.
Too true. The problem is, as I read and weigh the opinions posted here, that I am still hearing a losing theme.
The idea seems to be, even after we got smacked by accepting it, once again, that we cannot nominate anyone who isn't already popular.
And how do we determine who is popular?
Why... the Mainstream media tells us, of course, that's how.
In the next two years we need to kick this habit- this acquiescence to the "authority" and control of our politics by the New York Times.
We say we need to nominate a true conservative. But then we immediately surrender, and meekly accept that we aren't "allowed" to sift through all of our politicos, and realize just which one consistently votes conservatively.
Take Obama. The Left decided to elevate him, and puts him in a position to address the Democratic party. The media then gushes as to how his was the greatest speech since the Gettysburg Address. It was just that easy to dictate that he is now to be popular, according to Sulzberger and his media acolytes.
What We Need To Do... is to throw off all of those constraints that say the only free choice we can make as conservatives is to accept exactly what the New York Times bloody well tells us to accept.
Don't accept that we can't nominate a true conservative like Senator Sessions.
If we evaluate him and decide that there is a better, stronger conservative candidate, that's one thing. And such may be the case.
But let's list what strengths and weaknesses he has from his record, (which is difficult to hide from), and contrast them to the strengths and weaknesses of several other possibles, and their records.
Demonstrate to us that he isn't the best choice, and we'll accept that. (With supporting proof, of course.)
But please don't tell me that we aren't "allowed" to nominate and then build up a real conservative. We have two years to do our homework. The Obama coronation took them no more than an afternoon's machinations.
Here in Ohio, in the primaries, it was gravely explained that we couldn't nominate a stauncher conservative to replace Mike DeWine, because... "Only DeWine can win easily..." And two-thirds of Ohio Republicans accepted that. Now the same sages will offer us the same wisdom, over the next two years, in regards to 2008.
How many times do we need to get our heads beaten into the concrete before we decide what kind of a candidate we want...
...and who we will let prohibit him, on the basis that he isn't loved as much as McCain by Helen Thomas?
What... will it take? How many more losses can we afford? How much more damage do we subject the country to... before we say that:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to sever our ties to a political system which rigs the game against us before we even start..."