Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Roughly two thirds of the voters simply vote straight party tickets because Grandpa did and so did Pop. Either party could run Freako the Clown and they would not notice the difference as long as some Media Party Paid Shill kept going on the air night after night saying Freako is the choice or we're all doomed. That is what's going on in national politics and it allows corrupt elected to remain in office for decades.
Each party is having their beloved hand me down political family dynasty to support or their Mr Popularity Charasmia and never mind they are incompetent schmucks it's the family name or the hero worship that counts or how popular someone was. It's all that and never mind the person was a gun grabbing anti-second gun maker suing tyrant. It's OK the other party does it too.
They give more thought to buying a new toaster than they do electing politicians. Many can not tell you who is running even in their own congressional district. But hey Team GOP or Team Dem better win though.
Also forgotten in this are the Moderate Center Disasters like Gerald R Ford, GHW Bush, Bob Dole Say's, and almot W himself lost in 2000 simply because he tried to be a centerist. Gore did it also and had Gore not been linked to Clintons Bush would never have been elected.
As for the part about DINO's and RINO's changing sides. Half true they do jump sides and in the case of the DEMs jumping on the Reagan and then 1994 GOP takeover they forget to check their liberalism at the door. It was the beliefs they were after. They wanted to be like the Jonses down at the club. The Conservatives got the party in and the RINO' LIBERALS then like they do every thing else including such groups as the NRA start destroying it from within by compromising to the other side on important key issues. When they jump sides nothing changes at all they simply bring the liberalism to the other party in effect become a majority controlling the two parties agenda. So no we do not need RINO's.
When you run a moderate Republican he is usually not that far apart on issues it means you do not get the DEM Conservative votes that helped put Reagan in office and later the 1995 GOP in power. It mean you have two parties not that far apart on most issues such as the nation has suffered from since 1996. It means then why not just appoint a KING and forget the RIGHT TO FORMING SELF OPINION and STANDARDS by which we should elect our representatives and POTUS.
Why don't we? Because that is not what this nation was formed on nor was it formed on the idea that two political Party Thinkalike Bullies could be allowed to run roughshod over We The People or we be limited to voting the lesser of Two Evils or else.
The ballot box is the only measure other than the ammo box by which we can for certain change the course of the nation. Voting for the choice of two persons of the same basic wrong policies is national suicide. No Thanks. Our founders and Framers of this nation wisely did not bind us to political parties but in the POTUD election the top 5, then top 3, then the POTUS and vice POTUS was chosen and the VP was not the POTUS yes man thus checks and balances. Many forget that because they can not think beyond their party not having 100% control for an election cycle. As a result the nation suffers.
I'll bet Bill Simon didn't know either.
And I have grave questions about the electability of the second rank candidates.
For the first time I can remember we don't have a solid conservative among the front-runners.
*yawn*
Like looking in a mirror for ya, huh.
Don't you think conservatives need to be more persuasive rather than just blaming?
I know! I cannot quit laughing at these people and their ridulous claims -- they will type in anything -- truth doesn't matter!
But it is YOU and your liberal idiot buddies who are trying to elect Prez Hitlary by putting forth a Republican nominee who is absolutely unacceptable to a large faction of conservatives.. Pick a better, less liberal extremist candidate and we'll talk.
FOTFLOL!
It's as if they type just to see their words on the screen.
I can't quit shaking my head at Giuliani's Girlz and their brainless swoons. They will support him no matter what he does or says. Conservatism be damned.
Very true and somehow it makes all the words true! More Fantasyland here then in Disney World recently!
B/S nasty afer troll boy.
You are your ilk have turned off GOOD FReepers --- FReepers who donate here. Let's see if y'all pony up what you've caused to be lost come the next FReepathon.
Ironic, these Rudy threads are like riding Space Mountain, as we all sing "It's A Small World". :)
"You are your ilk have turned off GOOD FReepers --- FReepers who donate here. Let's see if y'all pony up what you've caused to be lost come the next FReepathon."
What a lame attempt. That's pretty low.
Dear Jim Robinson,
I think that it's inaccurate to say that we social conservatives are unwilling to compromise. Over the years, we've compromised plenty.
Even on the issue of abortion, we've often compromised. For the good of the [pro-life] Republican Party, I've voted for folks here in Maryland who weren't pro-life. Folks who aren't completely conservative can be valuable in lower offices to help build coalitions and party strength. I understand pushing for the real conservative in the primaries, and voting for the much-less conservative in the general election.
As well, with regard to presidential candidates, most of us are willing to vote for candidates who are clearly flawed. An example was Sen. Allen.
Sen. Allen was in favor of abortion's legality in the first 8 weeks or so of pregnancy. However, he was also in favor of permitting states to come up with their own laws relating to abortion, ranging anywhere from total bans to abortion on demand.
That position, of course, required overturning Roe, which of course, would require appointing justices who could see that Roe's finding of a "right" to abortion in the Constitution was deeply flawed, and requires reversal.
I'd have voted for Sen. Allen for president, even though, as a pro-lifer, I found him far less than 100% in agreement with the pro-life perspective.
That's compromise - real compromise.
But the rudybots aren't asking us to compromise. Their asking us to capitulate. "Compromise" means being entirely defeated on the issues of life, traditional family, the Second Amendment, etc. Mr. Giuliani doesn't represent a partial victory for social conservatives, but rather a complete, utter defeat.
As well, the election of Mr. Giuliani to the presidency would be a more thoroughgoing defeat of conservatism, especially social conservatism, then the election of Mrs. Clinton, in that the Republican Party would be destroyed as a vehicle for future conservatism, especially social conservatism.
No, asking actual conservatives to vote for Mr. Giuliani isn't asking for compromise, it's asking us to commit political suicide.
But my how the rudybots, RINOs, and outright liberals whine when we refuse to drink the poison.
sitetest
Not low at all. It's the truth.
Well, I'm not but I do belong to the great majority of Americans in the middle and hawk left who also cherish this nation and its values.
The right lost the fight with Clinton over impeachment when they allowed themselves to shriek treason and boy did that ever piss off the 'independents'.
Not likely, given his apparent predilections.
Like I said earlier. Reality will set in April 1st.
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.