For all Freepers who plan to stay home on election day to teach the GOP a lesson

Yahoo News ^ | Jan 9 2008 | Me

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it.

No problem, this has been an interesting conversation. :)

I agree, and thank you for your participation.

One thing, though, I want to make clear. When you said "The problem with that logic, is that it didn't hold true after Carter."

From my point of view, it did hold true after Carter.

I believe my comment here was meant to relate that folks swarmed to Reagan after Carter.  It was not to imply Reagan left the party.

Reagan stayed in the party, and he was nominated.

Yes he did stay in the party, but I don't believe he went out of his way to back Ford.  Ford had run a vicious campaign against Reagan calling him unfit to hold the office of the presidency.  In effect Ford destroyed the ability for Reagan to campaign for him.  And I believe that cost him.

What if Reagan had bolted? President Howard Baker or John Anderson? No way that would've happened. Who was running against Reagan for the 1980 nod? Certainly not ANY conservative who had the cajones he had!

Howard Baker, John Anderson and a guy named George Bush were running.  Bush was favored up front, but by the time Reagan had explained that he had paid for that microphone, it was over.  Reagan somehow connected to the public that day, and that support only grew until the election.  I believe the media learned a lesson back then.  And since that time they have manipulated the reporting of the leading candidates to foster support for their fair haired boy.  Even in the 1980 election, the media idd everything it could to destroy Reagan's popularity.  The party leadership did so as well.

I say this, because it's become quite evident that the party had a vision of where it wanted to go.  Reagan was essentially an outsider, even if popular with the public.  He hadn't signed on to the globalist plans like Bush had.  I have personally believed that Reagan set back globalism by about fifteen years.

I know passions run deep about keeping the party conservative. I share them, too. I just hope we don't become so fractious that we begin to resemble the Democrats of the 1980s: all pissed at each other because no one is "perfect".

I believe that is an admirable goal, but if it's at the cost of letting the McGovern wing of the republican party control the party's direction, I revolt at the thought.  And what is taking place today, if not that very thing.

The old democrat party didn't buy into the swill that McGovern shoved down it's throat.  None the less, that's been the party's direction ever since.  And I don't want to reinforce the same thing taking place in our party, and low and behold that's exactly what is taking place.  The conservative leanings of the republican party has been hijacked.  Conservatism might just as well be a dirty four letter word as far as the leadership is concerned.  At least that's how I see it.

None of the candidates is perfect. Even our Hero #40 gave us amnesty for illegals, Sandra Day O'Worthless and Anthony "Swing Vote" Kennedy. I don't say it to denigrate him, I only say it as a reminder that we're all flawed.

I agree that we are.  And I believe that Reagan is forgiven much.  He was a multi-faceted guy who did some wonderful things and some not so wonderful things.  I still give him absolute credit for bankrupting the U.S.S.R. by building a massive military force, then putting the icing on the cake by setting up a 'space defense initiative' obsticle to Soviet Domination that the Soviets knew they could never overcome financially.

That isn't all.  By the time Reagan had left office, something like ten to fifteen socialist/communist states had fallen.  He freed up tens of miilions of people just during his term in office.  And shortly after that term, hundreds of millions of humans followed suit.  The iron curtain fell and the rest is history.

Reagan didn't have one victory, with a bunch of liberal stuff to counterbalance it.  He had a number of major victories, and had some liberal stuff in there to tarnish it to a certain degree.

Reagan didn't focus on one theater and let the others drift.  He was working on many fronts.  I don't see the same thing today.  I see one conserted effort in one area, and alot of other stuff overlooked.

The Democrats hated what Clinton did in signing welfare reform (after a long fight) and they especially hated his support of NAFTA. But they also knew he was their champion and voted for him overwhelmingly.

Okay, good example.  What were your thoughts on that?  Did you admire the democrats for being loyal to party?  I wondered how people could sell out the nation for political purposes.  I told myself that I could never follow suit and do the same thing.  While it is somewhat of a stretch to compare this to the Clinton fiasco, down deep it is the same.  If our nation is drifting left under republican terms in the White House, we're eventually going to get to Marxist nervana, no matter what.  Do we put the brakes on that or not?  Ah yes...

Anyway, this has been a good conversation. Take it easy, and let's hope the more conservative candidate wins this November. :)

I agree.  And I appreciate your willingness to discuss this without taking it personal.  Take care.

RD

D1

[PeteB570]

I wish somebody would take down the names of all the people here who say they are going to sit out the election if their guy dose not win the primary.

Make a big ‘ol ping list of “sat on hands” and every time the democrat president does something stupid - ping the list and say “Thank You.”

[what's up]

Tell me, are you sure our team is much better?

Absolutely 100% positive.

[Aglooka]

“they stick their noses up in the air and cancel the fricken border fence program, or pass another trade policy parceling off our sovereignty.”

You are not alone in your frustration.

In addition the whole “War on Terror” seems like a facade. We give out visas left and right, the borders are wide open and illegal immigration is encouraged and rewarded. Yet we’re supposed to be serious about defending the US? We’re safer because we can’t take chap stick on an airplane?

This way of securing and running the USA is what bothers me the most. If Washington DC genuinely cared about what is best for the US, then after 9-11 they would have done something about legal and illegal immigration. It just boggles the mind.

[dforest]

Have you forgotten that this is an independent CONSERVATIVE site? The homepage does not mention Republicans.

Why don’t you RINOs go away? You have totally destroyed your own party.

And it is YOUR fault.

Pass the popcorn conservatives.

[PeteB570]

So saying I make my fight in the primary makes me a RINO.

What a loon you are.

[nicmarlo]

Why don’t you RINOs go away? You have totally destroyed your own party. And it is YOUR fault. Pass the popcorn conservatives.

Here ya go......it's on the house. : )

[epow]

Unfortuantley, we have alot of “all or nothing” types around here.

Some of us aren't all or nothing. I would settle for 60-70% of what I want if that's the best I can get, but not for 15-25% which is what I'm being offered by the RINOs who seem most likely to be nominated.

As I see it Thompson barely makes it up to that 60%-70% level, and only Hunter goes most of the way to 100%. But it is becoming increasingly clear that Thompson isn't going to make the cut, and Hunter has never had a ghost of a chance with the current GOP bunch. When you consider that the highest ranking Republican candidates in polls this year are the most liberal and the lowest ranking are the most conservative, it tells you something about the pitiful state of affairs in the Republican party today.

I'm now wondering if the time could be right for a conservative 3rd party that would have influence far beyond it's numerical strength in how Congress acts by holding the balance of power between the two larger parties. That couldn't be much worse than what we have now, and it could be much better IMHO if the conservative party's leadership were savvy politicians and played their cards right.

[Califreak]

This is the first time I’ve really tried to do my homework.

Luckily, I haven’t been a voter very long. At least when I was asleep for the first 3 decades, I didn’t vote!

I don’t want to vote without a reason, or vote for whoever they tell me to-they being polls and media.

I believe this election will be the most critical in US history.

[processing please hold]

From some comments on this site lately I'm processing please hold. For conservatives to openly say they will vote for mcpain, they ain't no conservative I've ever seen.

I love popcorn, thanks. It appears we are being over run on FR.

[nicmarlo]

It appears we are being over run on FR.

And to think, not that long ago, 92% of those polled in FR said they'd never vote for McRino.....my my my.

Do you believe John McCain, the man who is personally leading the charge to shut down free speech on the Internet, should ever be considered as a presidential candidate?

No 91.7% 4,523

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=143;results=2

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.

I understand why you say so. I also recognize the fact that in time our team will get us to where the democrats would get us a lot sooner.

Neither is a win in my world.

[processing please hold]

I believe this election will be the most critical in US history.

I agree. For me and mine it is Hunter. His ideologies and beliefs mirror ours. We will vote for no other.

Choose your candidate wisely is all I can say.

[DoughtyOne]

It certainly does boggle the mind.

It angers me as well. We’re being hoodwinked by our own team, and I’m tired of being jobbed by people who couldn’t care less about the average U.S. Citizen and their family.

In this matter, that is just indisputable.

[nicmarlo]

The Real McCain

McCain: "Clean Government" More Important Than 1st Amendment [video]

Transcribed:

McCain: "He also mentioned about my abridgment of First Amendment Rights, i.e., talking about Campaign Finance Reform. My response to that criticism is I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts and I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption and obviously from what we’ve been seeing lately we didn’t complete the job. But...I would rather have a clean government than one whose quote First Amendment Rights are being respected that has become corrupt....if I had my choice I would rather have a clean government......[chuckle]"

Bill of Rights * Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[AuntB]

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people...of the characters and conduct of their rulers." —John Adams

[processing please hold]

Their principles can be negotiated away I guess. It is just unbelievable.

[Califreak]

It’s Hunter for me & mine also.

My kids love him and my eleven year old is as furious as I am about the conservative blackout.

[processing please hold]

Thanks for 'The Real McCain' link. Bookmarked.

Maybe some FReepers need a refresher course on just who mcpain really is. They need to read your link before they start shoving him down our throats.

[nicmarlo]

From Eagle Forum, July 2006:

Guest Workers Aren't Cheap; They're Expensive

We are indebted to the Heritage Foundation for its stunning report proving that the Kennedy-McCain bill passed by the Senate is a stealth open borders bill that will import 66 million people into our country permanently and put them on the path to citizenship.

In the words of the author of the Heritage report, Robert Rector, this is "the most monumental bill ever considered" and its mindboggling costs would be the largest-ever expansion of taxpayer-paid social benefits. American citizens will be forced to pay staggering entitlement costs.