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

Yahoo News ^ | Jan 9 2008 | Me

[Justice]

ENJOY

[DoughtyOne]

I beleive your disagreement is justified.  With regard to Reykjavik, I have found no eveidence that republicans were upset that Reagon "Blew the chance of a lifetime".  In fact, it seems to have been as you stated, that the republican leadership was leary of what Reagan may have given away there.

My recollection from the time seems to have been faulty.  I remember a lot of talk about a lost opportunity, that SDI was an idea that was more or less decades away and something not worth fighting over.  And although I did attribute most of that to the press and of course the left, I had though that some republican leaders had echoed that postion.  I have looked for any evidence of it.  I was unable to find any.  While some may have existed, I believe your point is valid and I appreciate the correction.

As for support for the Contras, and in El Salvador for the government, I still do not believe that republicans were solidly behind Reagan, even if their voting did come down on the right side.  Toward 1987 you could naturally expect some softening up of support, with the result of the 86 elections and Reagan's term winding down.

Reagan took a lot of heat on his efforts in Central America.  I don't remember a lot of republicans on Capital Hill voicing support for them.  I do remember some doing so, but in order to combat public opinion it takes broad vocal support and I don't think Reagan received that from Capital Hill.

You relate that 8 Senators had left the reservation in 1987.  While I wouldn't term that a stampede, it's a little difficult to pass any legislation when you're already in the minority and eight Senators take a walk on your agenda.

Thanks for your comments.

This is what I found when looking around.  It's not very much, but some may find it worth mentioning.

This is the description of his own aides' opinion at the summit.
The crunch came at the Reykjavik summit meeting in October of 1986, where, against the advice of his aides, Reagan refused to barter away S.D.I. in return for further arms cuts.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200407/ai_n9449973

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. addresses the criticism of Reagan regarding his Reykjavik moment

The rejection by Ronald Reagan of Gorbachev's offer to ban all nuclear weapons if only the Gipper would give up on his Strategic Defense Initiative not only defined Mr. Reagan's presidency. Despite the Bronx cheers Mr. Reagan got from critics at home and abroad for having missed the opportunity Reykjavik presented for "peace in our time," even Soviet leaders subsequently acknowledged that his determination to stay the course on missile defense helped catalyze the unraveling of the Evil Empire.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25224

[DoughtyOne]

That is what has taken place. I think the problem now is that we have finally come to the realization that the marxist agenda is still being implemented even though ‘our guy’ is in the White House. I can’t speak for others, but I’m not willing to let that happen any longer.

If liberal policies are the best, then hell, lets just let the left have it’s way and be done with it. Our politicians seem to agree.

If they aren’t, then lets put someone in who will roll back some of the travesty that has taken place.

I’m not voting for incrementalism any longer.

[molitor]

I am supporting Thompson for president but the thought of Hillary in the White House scares me very much. Whoever the GOP nominee is, I will support just to keep her out of the White House. Also, I shudder to think about Bubba being first lady.

[A CA Guy]

Big lack of smarts on your part.

#1 The Democrats would be three times worse.
#2 Any Republican will do better on national security, taxation, not creating complete socialized medicine, no cut and run, better for business, the economy and JUDGES.

We are for sure going to replace TWO justices in the next 4 years. Both are liberal and you want a Republican there to appoint them over who you get for the next thirty years from Democrats.

I see a ton of vapidity in allowing Democrats in office when you know their stated goals are socialized medicine, liberal justices that will practice social engineering, growing unions, government employment, taxes for all and they want to be weak on national defense.

You need to through your pride and stubbornness aside and to just look at what is at stake this time.

BAD TIME TO LET DEMOCRATS HAVE POWER epow.
Then you’d be the first one on FR to come back and cry about Justices appointed by Hillary that are for legalizing euthanasia. You’ll get justices from Hillary that would outlaw a fence at our border and we have to then wait 20 years for enough libs to die on the court again to swing it back.

WAKE UP epow, you are missing the whole gravity of the issue and what your lack of vote for a R will cost you this time around.

You could I guess consider getting a tattoo saying I LOVE HILLARY and be done with it.
You are really screwing up here.
Too much on the line to allow Democrats any power.

[A CA Guy]

Won’t work. I am sitting this one out if nothing changes. Besides, its only two votes. Me and my husband. OOPs, my parents too. Thats only four.

No big deal.

Your reminding me of something from the movie Forrest Gump,
Stupid is as stupid does.

Hillary is going to appoint gay marriage, pro abortion, anti border fence, social engineering Justices that will tilt the court the other way for thirty years.

Then there is the war, taxation, the economy and so forth.

Obviously none of this matters to you if you are smitten with all that happening.

I don't know you, you may be a big Democrat for DU posting here, I don't know, but I've never heard of thinking conservatives who sit out or cause Democrats to get power at such a crucial time as this moment in history.

[MarkDel]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the research you did on this. You were right that there was a TON of media talk about Reagan’s lost opportunity because of SDI, but the Republicans were pretty solidly behind him for most of the time. There was some very limited talk among moderate Republicans, but the VAST majority of the criticism came from Democrats and the really Conservative Republicans.

It’s easy for a person’s recollection to become faulty over time, especially when the media is constantly pounding on right wingers all the time, as well as employing the “divide and conquer” tactics they have used in recent years.

Unfortunately, so many of us on the Right have fallen victim to the Media’s “divide and conquer” tactics, and that has been VERY evident on this site the past few years.

But thanks for your constructive attitude in this thread, and I apologize if I was too adamant in my first statement.

[MarkDel]

You are correct, but your logical message will fall on mostly deaf ears on this site...

[DoughtyOne]

First, thanks for your response in 566 Mark.

I noted that you two were decrying the reality that some folks are very fed up with our nation moving continually left, and that they are determined to stop supporting the cadidacy of anyone who professes an intent to advance leftist ideals.  While I understand where both of you are coming from, I am at a loss to understand what you offer as a solution.  In effect you offer us the status down hill quo.  That's no offer.  That's a surrender.

George Bush signed a bill to provide medication to seniors.  It's another 'great society' program ala Lyndon Johnson.  It will be with us for decades.  It won't go away.  And over time, there are going to be other 'great leftist plans' that our side is going to implement if we let them.  This was just one example of liberalism/socialism being introduced by folks we put in office.

Now there is talk by several candidates of offering up our own healthcare plan.  Yet, if one of these dunces wins the nomination, you folks want us to vote for them.  Why?

I share your concern with the Supreme Court appointments.  I shared that concern while seven of the current nine judges were appointed by people I voted for.  Where did that get us?  It got us to the place where we still can't count on them for decent rulings from the bench.  If two justices do get replaced in the next term which ones will it be?  I believe at least one of them will be a leftist judge.  At the worst, we will still have appointed six of nine judges under the worst case scenario by the end of the next term.

The alternative is to vote in someone who will advance the leftist's cause more often than not, will continue to parcel off our sovereignty, will allow our borders to be over run, and will more than likely (if the past is any indication) appoint a judge who won't side with us on many issues anyway.  Anotherwords, we'll give away the farm for an appointment that is extremely iffy even under the best of terms.

Some of those appointments look rather decent before the judges were appointed.  Then look what happened.

Is it worth it to give in on the liberal agenda, considering that we may or may not get what we want in a judge?  I don't think so.  Are you going to tell me I should vote for Rudy so I can get the best judge possible?

Right now we're being asked to vote for people who in the 1960s would have been registered as democrats and we would have been diametrically opposed to what they stood for.  Now we're being asking to bite the bullet and vote for them.  And in another ten to twenty years we'll be asked to vote for folks who have adopted the democrat's 1970 ideals.

Enough is enough.  If those who run under the republican flag today would register as democrats, that party would be somewhat positively effected.  Ours would be immeasurably improved, as serious conservatives could finally win the nomination and get the chance to frame their ideals against those of the leftists.  As it is, we simply loft a lefist lite, to argue with a full blown leftist.

Again, I appreciate your concerns.  And if you want to cast me as a divide and conquer victim that's okay.  I live in California and if you think you know the half off divide and conquer, have I got news for you.

[CharacterCounts]

I am not a Republican. I am a conservative.

Hence, I will not for a liberal no matter his party affiliation.

[nicmarlo]

Right now we're being asked to vote for people who in the 1960s would have been registered as democrats and we would have been diametrically opposed to what they stood for. Now we're being asking to bite the bullet and vote for them. And in another ten to twenty years we'll be asked to vote for folks who have adopted the democrat's 1970 ideals.

Enough is enough. If those who run under the republican flag today would register as democrats, that party would be somewhat positively effected. Ours would be immeasurably improved, as serious conservatives could finally win the nomination and get the chance to frame their ideals against those of the leftists. As it is, we simply loft a lefist lite, to argue with a full blown leftist.

Taking cyanide, in whatever manner it has been wrapped, at whatever dosages it is measured, is still poison and will kill you. The RINO's are what is killing America, as well as those who continue spouting the RINO mantra: "the lesser of two evils."

This country moves ever left, thanks to the RINO's and those who support and vote for them.

[MarkDel]

Doughty,

I think you make some good points overall, but I think you over-stating it by saying that the people were are voting for today would have been Democrats in the 1960’s or 70’s. I do not think George Bush would have ever qualified as a Democrat, nor John McCain. Guys like Rudy and Romney might have, but only to the extent that they were trying to remain electorally viable in the Northeast. Rudy is often ripped on here as a Leftist, but people ignore his consistent stand on Law & Order issues where he was always well to the right. And his economic stands were always right/center. Romney was right/center too, like his Father who I’m sure you remember, but he moved Left when he tried to win in Massachusetts.

This is Politics...people tailor their message to the Electorate...

And for me, even if I agree with you on many of your points (and I do!) the problem is that it ignores the most critical issue of our time...National Security. For me, this issue ALWAYS trumped all other issues, but in the post 9/11 World, it is even more important than ever. So I’ll compromise a little on Social/Economic issues in order to prevent a catastrophic Democratic Presidency in the arena of Foreign Policy. Think about how long we’ve been paying the price for the Foreign Policy blunders of our last 3 Democratic President??? Between LBJ, Clinton and that monumental vermin Carter, we have been “running against the wind” all over the globe in terms of National Security.

And even though you are right that people like Rudy, Romney and McCain represent a significant compromise on a number of issues, it is grossly unfair to lump them in the same category as the Leftist Democrats.

And as for the Supreme Court issue, it is much, much more critical than you stated. The next President will likely appoint 3 or even 4 justices...

1. John Paul Stevens (Liberal)—is nearing 90 and will retire or die soon.

2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Liberal)—is about 75 and NOT in good health.

3. Anthony Kennedy (Moderate to Conservative)—is nearing 75 and has hinted at retirement.

4. Stephen Breyer (Liberal)—is in is early 70’s and has discussed retirement.

5. Antonin Scalia (Conservative)—is in his early 70’s.

[processing please hold]

Spot on!

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, let's take a look at Bush.  He involved us in a war on the other end of Asia. (with just cause) He introduced another "great society" program.  Unlike the democrat from the sixties I'm comparing him to, he actually listened to his generals, didn't try to macro manage the war from the oval office.  Still, I'd say these are interesting similarities.  Niether Johnson or Kennedy were what I could call anti-military.  Do you really see Kennedy as much more left than Bush?  I'll grant the philandering wasn't exactly a page torn from the right side of the book.

I'm not going to compare Bush to the nuts from the 70s, because once McGovern touched the democrat party it was never quite the same IMO.  And Hillary is an excellent example.

As for the court appointments, I still don't see us gaining much if Giuliani is involved.  For that matter, I simply cannot trust Romney.  McCain, heaven help us.

What I see is one continual excuse after another why we can't allow the democrats to rule from the left, and each and every one defends ruling from the left on the right.

What is your plan to turn this around?  If we must remain silent and vote in liberals all the time, what saves this nation?

I'm not trying to be personal here, but for arguement's sake, this is what I reference when I state that the republican party has become a wing of the democrat party.  The democrats (read that socialists) can't lose no matter who wins.  And so goes the nation...

[dforest]

Go away. I belong here more than you. I don’t make myself into a sleazy ho by voting for liberals out of fear.

If you want to vote for them, be my guest. Your insults do not faze me.

I only vote for an acceptable candidate. If the GOP can no longer provide one, they no longer will get my vote.

[upsdriver]

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

So what is this? A little blackmail to keep us in line? Sorry, it ain’t gonna work. I plan to check the box next to Duncan Hunter’s name on the ballot. In the event of his name not being there, I will write it in. If the GOP wants to get my vote now or in the future, they better get their heads out of their @$$ and get back on the RIGHT TRACK. If you all(the GOP) don’t want Hillary for president or Ginsburg for Chief Justice, quit jacking us around. I am sick and tired of being made to feel like it’s my fault because you(again, the GOP) throw up crap and expect us to vote for them because “what else can we do?”

[A CA Guy]

After the way I have been treated by youse guys for being a conservative, best I can say is, “Get over it”, all my vote are belong to me.

You are not a real conservative right now, you may only think you are.

#1 None of the conservatives here are going to allow judges, taxation, socialized medicine, the war or much else to be handed to Democrats to handle because the Republican may not be Ronald Reagan.
#2 Democrats appointing replacements for the two upcoming liberal justices who will retire will haunt this nation for 30 years!
#3 You are being liberal and I can prove it. Instead of arguing the issues with any rationality at all, you instead make your main point of how you have been treated and that is all emotion, no brain cells required.

Conservatives (both women and men) don't whine here on FR about their treatment, they just suck it up and make an earnest intellectual case for their reasoning and conclusions. What I feel I've read from you is lots of conclusions without any common sense in the decision process.
OK, nobody likes baby killer politicians (or you could be a Democrat plant trying to dishearten some conservatives with your posts...which won't work), but no real conservative turns power over to Democrats. They are going to make abortions more plentiful and accessible like the air we breath. At least if it is a Republican that gets elected, the Republican will not be all that active in the life arena and all the Republicans have promised to elect strict constructionist judges.

Now, ALL conservatives on FR (non-libs) know this regarding all the Republican candidates and will vote who ever it is in over the Democrats because they will keep conservatives steps closer to their government goals.
Democrats will do social engineering, grow government employees by the boat load, cut the military, amnesty for illegals, grow welfare in exchange for growing their voter base and will tax the hell out of us in the name of the children.

If you are not a liberal posting on FR as a plant and really think you are some form of conservative, I would get over the emotion you are making judgments with and start taking action based on the facts and knowing what's at stake.

I agree with you in not liking a Rudy or in my case McCain or the Huckster (who is a religious liberal), but if one of those A-holes get in as the nominee over a Fred Thompson, then they will get my vote because a Rudy or McPain is far closer to the conservative cause than any Democrat candidate.
A third party vote will be a vote for the Democrat. A non-vote is a vote for the Democrat. A vote for the Democrat is also the same stupid thing.

With what you are posting, of course you are going to get concerned posting your way, you want to vote in a way that would elect the Democrat and we all had enough with that kind of STUPIDITY with so-called conservative ding dongs voting for Ross Perot (which gave us Clinton).

I don't know if you are a liberal plant or are just ruled by emotion and pride, but no Conservatives are going to vote in a way where they put the Democrat enemy in who will drastically put far MORE babies through the meat grinder. For the sake of your pride and ability to look at yourself in the mirror, that is NOT worth it.

Sorry girlfriend, NOT SEXY!

[dforest]

I didn’t read anything other than the last line.

You are a blithering fool. Now, go play with someone else kiddo.

I run my own railroad.

[A CA Guy]

Because on this thread, we have either liberal plants, liberal libertarians, cult level religious folks and just plain stupid people who don’t get it.

There is zero logic being used over liberal thinking, religiosity and pride.

You elect a Democrat and you get far more babies through abortion meat grinders.
You get a bunch of taxes in the name of the children.
You get far more of your freedoms snatched up by way of the law and the tax code.
You get liberal justices appointed who will do social engineering they can’t get the people to vote for.

Granted, some Republicans have gotten some liberal justices in themselves, but that was unintentional. They were either lied to in the interview or were so vague on the issue of abortion with the judge that they didn’t properly enough find out what they needed to when they thought they had.
But if there is a mistake on a judge by a Republican, at least they had to be tricked by the judge, the Republican didn’t make a GOAL of trying to elect liberals to the court.

[A CA Guy]

I noted that you two were decrying the reality that some folks are very fed up with our nation moving continually left, and that they are determined to stop supporting the candidacy of anyone who professes an intent to advance leftist ideals. While I understand where both of you are coming from, I am at a loss to understand what you offer as a solution. In effect you offer us the status down hill quo. That's no offer. That's a surrender.

Dear friend, we have had Independent Liberals and Democrats crossing over in our primaries making folks like McCain get wins in some states. That is why we have some nonconservatives getting offered up as our choice for Republican at times. The mostly liberal states allow this cross over stuff to purposely damage the eventual Republican nominee and until there is a day again where only registered Republicans will be allowed to vote in Republican primaries, that won't change.

I get your frustration, but that makes these times to be more active and alert as to not vote in ways that empower the Democrats.

You might be looking at some of the Republicans and saying "Oh my God, look at what we have here, not as conservative on all the issues as I like and near Democrat levels in some areas as well".
I AGREE it gets like that some times, we take steps back and forth from conservatism in all elections. The thing is, if we throw up our hands in main elections, instead of at most a small step towards non-conservatism, you get a Democrat jump off the cliff to total socialism and baby killing.

What we have to do to correct this DoughtyOne is to right now again put the Republican in for President and all the Republicans in over Democrats in our other races.
Look at it this way DoughtyOne, the elected Republicans will move the government far less left. Some will actually advance many areas way right.

Part two, we need to remove all the failing Republican incumbents running for Congress and the Senate in their primaries next time around and we have to back up and well finance their replacements with real conservatives. You blast enough incumbents out in primaries (making sure we don't give things to Democrats) and the remaining incumbents will start to get it before they themselves have to be removed.

So we have all the Republicans swearing to try and put in Strict Constructionist judges at a time when two liberal justices have to retire.
If you blow it and get Hillary in DoughtyOne in, then you are giving socialists the chance to load the court for decades of bad rulings. At least ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS have sworn while running that their judge choices will be far more Constitution leaning.

I know, I know, I can't stand not having a Fred kind of candidate in the lead right now. It isn't Republican voter's fault, it's the cross over votes in Republican primaries that has been allowed by LIBERAL courts to happen.

Politics is a process of steps forwards and backwards as we try and achieve a conservative goal for us. You really don't want to screw up judges the worst you can and throw us off the cliff to socialism as any message to Republicans. Republicans already know it, it is the cross over BS and some incumbents get scared and start to blend into the Washington culture. We have to remove in primaries the Senators and Congressman who have gone left when they are up for election.

Trust me on this DoughtyOne, it is far easier to come back for pricking your finger than cutting your own throat. That is why in tough times we vote for the less liberal candidate over the total lib socialist and don't throw the vote elsewhere. Every time we get frustrated and let things go an election, the Democrats get a football field move in their direction instead of maybe only a step.

Better we let a step go at most backwards instead of a block, so when we get the next conservative he can start from his 60 yard line towards the goal instead of his 10 yard line.
We get a conservative in and if they are forced to make up all the ground we lost for them getting a previous Democrat in, then they have less chance to advance our agenda upfield.

It's like a war, sometimes you retreat a bit to take a better position later and fight another day. If we give Democrats power, then we have to take it all back from the beach when we were already ten miles inland. I know it is frustrating, but you put in the most conservative electable candidate.

If even Lieberman was elected as the republican nominee, he'd get my vote over sitting out and Hillary because though both are disasters, at least Lieberman gets the war right! Lieberman puts us at our 20 yard line from the 60 which sucks, but Hillary might get us backwards for a touchdown.

It sucks my dear friend, but we have the responsibility to put in the least liberal choice between two choices as we have to (which is the Republican over the Democrat). Then we make changes against incumbents in primaries and vote happily for the electable conservatives as they come along (again they will be Republicans).

Again, the game is we make bad incumbent pay in their primaries by replacing them and we NEVER vote in ways which gets the most liberals in during the main elections (which would be Democrats). That is the whole patient strategy we must endure to succeed in the long run and it is exasperating.

Look at Radical Islam, they have strategies to conquer us all by overpopulating the world and they are willing to do this over hundreds of years. Slow, but could in the end work my friend.

Everything we want sometimes takes time, and though I hate using Islamic terrorists as examples, they are a good one.

Hope you get the reasoning behind why I say we don't sit out main elections or do things that gets Democrats elected. God Bless, I get the frustration BELIEVE ME I DO! LOL