Posted on 11/25/2007 5:29:03 PM PST by cradle of freedom
I would like to know if you are going to vote in the November 2008 election even if your candidate does not win. Will you stay home if you don't like the Republican candidate?
Another thing that I have often wondered about is whether people actually stay home when they are disheartened. News commentators often say that some voters may have decided to stay home because they were not happy with the candidates. I think that is a mistake because even if you do not like the person at the top of the ticket you should at least vote for the other candidates. Have you every actually stayed home and not gone to the polls at all because you were not happy with a candidate?
No, but voting against Hillary does. It means you've ever so slightly slowed the country's headlong slide to hell in a handbasket.
I am!
(Not that any of us might have to vote for Rudy, but that some are learning that Perot-ing the nation is plain stupid.)
To the people who want to stay home, we have to rise above our emotions. If we are emotional, we are not thinking and the opposition will play us as they wish. Get mad, yes, but get over it and start creating a strategy.
How about if you respond with specifics to 429 first,,,then I will be happy to respond.
LOL! ROTFLMAO! stockstrader is on a roll!
BUMP!
None of us will stay home, we will vote. And now there will be four votes cast from this household due to 2 young conservatives growing up.
Well, they've been wielding the "fear Hillary" club from the beginning, trying to herd folks into the slaughter pen.
Kinda like during the California recall. Not a single vote cast yet, and a perfectly acceptable experienced conservative on the ballot, but oh my, that scary Bustamante fellow sure was a nice boogey-man to scare people into voting for that renowned "conservative," Arnold Schwarzeneggar, wasn't he?
Why vote for anyone other than the MOST conservative candidate?
A vote for Rudy or Mitt is not much different than voting for a democrat....I just can’t understand how you guys turn a blind eye to that fact.
Well said!
Sleep better by helping elect the Rat Party power and some Rat as Commander in Chief?
I don’t think so.
BALONEY! It is the Republicans at fault, not the media, not the Democrats. If the GOP would require candidates to adhere to the traditional party lines, and support those who do, there would be no problem here today.
And you are correct. There are plenty of reasons to vote against Giuliani...as there are reasons to vote against Romney, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Hunter, etc. Not a single one of the lot is the second coming of Reagan.
Having said that, if you’re going to campaign and vote against ANY of them, now is the time to do it. But, assuming Giuliani ends up being the nominee, and we know whoever is the nominee, he will be running against Hillary...tell me which side of that choice you’re less willing to live with...then for God’s sake, vote for the opposing candidate in November of 2008. Two things are certain, though:
- Voting third party accomplishes NOTHING. I take that back, it ensures that those you strongly oppose DO get elected, because you’re diluting the vote that can defeat them.
- Not voting accomplishes NOTHING. In fact, it accomplishes less than nothing, because you’re denying a candidate you might have something in common with, a chance to work for that 1% of issues on which you agree. More importantly, it tells those brave men of 1776 that their efforts during the Revolutionary War were for nothing.
Again I say, I don’t care who you vote for in the primaries, I have yet to decide which one I will vote for in February...but once the Conventions are over, we must unite to defeat the Hildebeast, because I have no doubt that she will make Jimmuh Carter and her husband look like a conservative in comparison. The country cannot afford that, and expect to survive.
Well, there’s more to get.
dmw if going to vote for someone whom he agrees with on abortion and gun control, but thereby *help elect* someone with whom he agrees on those issues even less-—not to mention also thereby help the entire Party of Death take over our government.
And forget about capitalism-—such people don’t give a damn about our troops, either. How could they, since they profess not a smidgen of hesitation in failing to do all they can do (and all they can do is vote AGAINST the Rats) to keep the Hate the Military Party out of the Commander in Chief’s office?
I will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who he is. (Well, okay, I won’t vote for Ron Paul! But he’s a self-proclaimed Libertarian anyway, so I have no idea why he is running as a GOP candidate in the first place.)
I figure that:
a) The GOP nominee will be better than the Dem nominee, no matter what, and
b) If you don’t bother to vote, you don’t get to complain afterward!
Yes.
Rudy v. Hillary is six of one, half a dozen of the other. If he’s the nominee, I’ll write in or go third party. Even if Hillary wins, she can’t possibly damage the country as much as Rudy would - if conservatives give him their votes as the “lesser of two evils”, evil is all we will ever get again. His election would destroy conservatism in America.
How do you figure “at least we’ll have a Republican party willing to stand for conservative principles”?
Easy. The CONSERVATIVE IDENTITY of the Pary will NOT have been destroyed if we nominate a conservative.
What historical evidence, especially of the recent sort, do you have that political parties are influenced by the “take my marbles and go home” contingent?
Excuse me??? Isn't Rudy pandering to the conservative wing,,,with his phoney efforts to go to NASCAR, muddle his positions on abortion, amnesty and gay rights (which btw are pretty darn transparent pathetic).
What evidence do you have that your staying home and watching a Rat get elected will result in a “staunch conservative Party that can filibuster anything Hillary plans”?
Because no poll,,,,NOT ONE,,,shows the Democrats with a majority enough for cloture on a Republican filibuster on anything that Hillary proposes.
Now your turn...and also respond to my comment about 'liberals like Rudy' BLURRINIG THE DISTINCTION between conservatism and liberalism.
“To claim that Giuliani and Hillary are “one and the same” is ridiculous on its face.”
So if you “care to read” as I have “cared to look”, you will see their policy’s and platforms are just about the same.
So not Paul and McCain against Hillary?
If your answer is no, than you are supporting Hillary as you are accusing those who do not support Rudy. What a joke. Can’t be hypocritical and have it both ways.
Of course. No way am I going to sit on my behind and let “her Royal Thighness” into the WH. It would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Absolutely.
Yep. Back in ‘86 in California the single-issue pro-life voters stayed home rather than vote for Ed Zchau, so we got Nuclear-Freeznik Alan Cranston instead. Thanks a lot.
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.