Posted on 03/31/2008 9:52:42 AM PDT by Norman Bates
Either this was a spectacularly clumsy (not to mention staggeringly ineffectual) attempt at moving the goalposts, or else you're simply twelve. I'm going to extend you the (possibly unwarranted) courtesy of assuming the former -- unless/until further evidence is provided demonstrating otherwise -- and point out, with gentle patience, that the actual, stated request was for the linking to (or cutting-and-pasting of) any FReeper stating, baldly, their insistence upon "ideological purity." Period, end of sentence, full stop.
Doubtless it's devilishly annoying for you, our steadfast refusal to accept the [*kaff*kaff*] "fact" that Team Juan's tireless phalanx of shills, apologists and intellectually harelipped online cheerleaders in general can, in fact, flawlessly read minds from afar. Such rash impertinence on our parts, however, is something you're either going to have to collectively acclimatize yourselves to, or else simply continue sulking about it, while everyone else around you points and giggles.
A great many principled, conservative FReepers has decided, upon due and deliberate consideration, that Vicente Fox's willing and eager love slave is unworthy of their support; their cash donations; their ballots; or any and all thereof. I have no reason not to take any of them at their respective words... nor do you, really, other than plain, unvarnished @sshattery. Accurately pick next week's Powerball numbers, and I'll readily cede your monstrous telepathic prowess. Otherwise: I can readily avail myself of something just as valuable and worthwhile as your unsalted opinion, simply by giving my dog a high colonic.
"Believe" that.
*snort*.
>>Jon Kyl voted the right way 99.99%<<
I’m willing to give Kyl the benefit of the doubt.
However, using %s here is misleading. Some issues should carry more weight than others. Benedict Arnold was an outstanding soldier and patriot before he changed sides.
I believe that last year’s amnesty bill would have led to the loss of everything we believe in, after 10-30 new Dem (or worse) voters. Total leftist control of all 3 branches for decades, if not forever. So I disagree that amnesty is a “single issue.” And in McCain’s case, it looks to me like he does not want to keep his “secure the borders first” promise in any meaningful way, although he will grudgingly go through the motions.
I hope McCain proves me wrong about that.
>>There are plenty of loudmouth holier-than-thou purists on FR who call anyone who fails to agree them 100% of the time a treasonous RINO.<<
And just about every time anyone criticizes McCain here, there are plenty of McCain trolls who post like 5th graders, calling them “immature,” “whiners,” “DU,” “ideological purists,” etc.
Word. ;)
Of course they were. It was the first year for South Carolina but the others have been open for a long time, including New Hampshire and Michigan.
Apparently you did not bother to read my entire original post, or you would have realized that I did indeed that there are plenty of McCain bashers who refuse to support him for a great mulititude of reasons, and after due and deliberate consideration. I also stated there are McCain bashers who refuse to support him because he voted against one piece of legislation who happened to be their little pet issue, and they could care less about researching any further into the matter, or even if the bill in question turned out to be not that bad in hindsight. Facts and logic are of little use to them.
Both species of McCain bashers exist on FR.
Your use of flowery language doesn't impress me, as you've proven you don't ever debate the point of the original post but rather make assumptions based on how you perceive who disagree with you.
Until you do so, it's pointless to play your little game, as I had a similar loudmouth freeper who said "dared" me to find any post from a freeper who stated George Allen was a shoe-in for re-election and they were more focused on getting him elected President. He even said he would "pay $50 to anyone who can do so" When I found over half a dozen posts stating those exact sentiments, this freeper's responce was to cover his ears and run off to another thread. Ever since that time I don't respond to anyone's "challenge" unless they indicate a willingness to consider opinions other than their own. Your posts clearly indicate you will not accept any posts about "idealogical purity", even if those exact words are used, unless it matches your own delusional thesis that everyone who dares disagree with you is a McCain lover.
You also assume I am a McCain supporter, when in fact I've made no guarantee of supporting him in the general election and am awaiting to see what kind of running mate he selects.
Yet another failed attempt at mind-reading. Evidently, I was entirely too charitable initially working from the baseline assumption that you were simply attempting to move the goalposts; you're simply the online equivalent of a kindergartener skipping clubfootedly about the yard with a bath towel tied around his neck, making believe he's some sort of spandexed superhero. My bad, there.
Your use of flowery language doesn't impress me
Nor should it, on those specious grounds, as my language is in no imaginable way, shape or form "flowery," save (possibly) to the spectacularly under-read. Beyond that, of course, deponent sayeth not.
you don't ever debate the point of the original post but rather make assumptions based on how you perceive who disagree with you.
Third failed attempt -- really, there are tired, kerchief-wearing carnival palmists and grifters better at this sort of thing than you are -- and: you're out.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnext, anyone...?
Hypothetically speaking, lets assume there is FreeperX who is as you describe. Can you please tell me what FreeperX's single "little pet issue" might have been that "turned out to be not that bad in hindsight"?
IMO, your characterization is marginalizing the real disagreements that most people have with McCain.
I would agree with on that point. For example, this forum was choke-full of people back in 1999 up-in-arms over the Clinton aquittal by the U.S. Senate. Would that issue carry more weight than say, a wrong vote on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Yes. It was a very powerful issue dealing with the principles of our commander-in-chief and virtually every Senator or Congressman who voted to save Clinton's butt was a proven RINO. Although it was a good indicator of a person's principles, it was not the end all, be all. As Fred Thompson voted to acquit Clinton and he was later hailed as the second coming of Reagan on FR. However, I continued to weight the impeachment vote as a important judge of characther. So while I wouldn't charactherize Fred as an evil RINO, I do think his vote showed him to be much more a status-quo Washingtonite than his supporters portrayed him as, regardless of his "conservative record" on other 90% of the issues.
Now as to the amnesty bill... here's the problem: there were just as many bad amnesty proposals in the past and freepers seem to have amnesia about them. I would argue that the 2006 amnesty bill that the Senate voted on was even worse (Senator Byrd killed it), but a bunch of Senators who supported it were hailed as "true conservatives" at the time. Bush supported amnesty in 2004 and many freepers loyally backed him for re-election. And ironically, many of the Senators who were tarred as "tratiors" for supporting this amnesty bill had clearly voiced support for amnesty earlier on and the "conservative base" here seemed to be asleep at the wheel. For instance, Senator John Sununu, in this 2002 Senate race, boldly said during a primary debate that we should consider the "path to citizenship" proposed by the White House because "the President supports it". Utterly unacceptable. It was in 2002, and it was in 2007. The fact freepers didn't decide this was THE most important issue on the planet and seemed to be asleep at the wheel until 2007 is not my problem. By singling out people for voting on the 2007 amnesty when you allowed them to vote for other, even worse amnesites in the past, makes one an idealogical purist who wants to lynch a person over a single bill. I can honesty say that I OPPOSED Mel Martinez and John Sununu for election before this bill ever came up, because I weigh "illegal immigration" as a whole and not on someone's vote on a single bill.
>> So I disagree that amnesty is a “single issue.” And in McCain’s case, it looks to me like he does not want to keep his “secure the borders first” promise in any meaningful way, although he will grudgingly go through the motions. I hope McCain proves me wrong about that. <<
I would argue that before the phone lines melted down in Washington, McCain would have happily signed the bill as POTUS, but after seeing the backlash against it, he probably won't do it (or he'll find a way to sneak it into an unrelated "good" bill that everyone loves. He will avoid signing a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill as-is, simply because he realizes it would have the effect of Ford's Nixon-pardon and make him a one-term President. I would argue the same on Mike Huckabee, because he was also villified relentlessly in the grassroots. I hink Fred Thompson would have gotten away with signing the same bill, because either his supporters here are asleep at the switch or refuse to accept Fred was McCain-lite on alot of issues and would find a spin it on FR had Fred enacted an amnesty bill, as they did when Fred voted in favor of the "treasonous" McCain-Feingold.
>> And just about every time anyone criticizes McCain here, there are plenty of McCain trolls who post like 5th graders, calling them “immature,” “whiners,” “DU,” “ideological purists,” etc. <<
I've been on FR almost a decade and McCain is about as popular here as moldy spam that's been left out for 3 days. Most of the people here who are willing to back McCain will simply do so because he's not as bad as Hillary or Obama. There might be a small group of McCain worshippers here who try to spin everything he does and paint him in the best light (Norman Bates is proof of that), but they are but a tiny minority on FR and always have been. At least freepers are consistant in their hatred of McCain, unlike Mike Huckabee who was hailed on this forum for years as a conservative's conservative, until he got in the way of Fred Thompson's path to the nomination and suddenly had freepers turn on him and try to rewrite history to make him out to be an eeeeeeeevil Jimmy Carter type "socialist" If you want to see a group of spindoctors who populated this forum and screamed their heads off with phrase like “immature,” “whiners,” “DU,” “ideological purists,” if anyone dared critize any aspect of their hero's "record" in office, look no further than the Fredheads. I think you can find any GOP candidate who ran President and had a fantatical group of worshippers and you can find any GOP candidate who ran President and had a fantatical group of single-issue attack dogs out to lynch him over a single bill. Even Duncan Hunter had some single-issue haters going after him on this board. But as it stands in raw numbers, it's pretty clear McCain beat even the far-more liberal Giuliani in the number of haters here. Granted, alot of this is McCain's own fault for being such an obnoxious backstabbing media whore, but if you look at who's sided with the Dems on major legislation over the years, I would argue Giulaini is worse -- he just managed to come across better in public.
Now, I can clearly see you are no McCain supporter but you responded to the actual content of my post with a reasonable, thought-out argument. I certainly wouldn't paint as an irriational "automatically hate everything McCain does" basher. KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle, on the other hand...
Whine, whine, whine.
*Yawn* Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
is THAT his foreign policy speech?
Nope. Below is his foreign policy speech from last week (3/26):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1991947/posts
Remarks By John McCain To The Los Angeles World Affairs Council (Today’s foreign policy speech)
One prime example I always see is how many freepers seem to foam at the mouth every time they bring up the "Gang of 14" compromise on judges and they say everyone who supported it must be tarred and feathered and driven out of office on a rail. Now, I was pretty angry too at the time the compromise was enacted (it calls for no Dem filibusters unless there are "extraordinary y circumstances" with the nomination, but to the Democrats, anyone with a "R" next to his name is "extremist" and a "extraordinary case outside the mainstream")
But in hindsight, now that two years or so have passed, our side got some pretty good things accomplished from that deal. A few excellent judges were confirmed outright after months of Dem obstruction, like Janice Rogers Brown (former California SC justice), and the Dem opposition to Alito and Roberts wasn't organized and went nowhere. And now that the Dems have a Senate majority and the possibility that Obama could be elected President, if the GOP went thur with the "nuclear option", the Dems would have been able to use it to have free reign to appoint thousands of wack job communists in every office in government with the GOP minority being powerless to stop them.
So while I still disagree with that "compromise", our side really didn't suffer that much because of it and all the judges nominated since then have fared pretty well.
IMO, there are far worse "single issues" where so-and-so "true conservative" has sold out and it caused far more damage -- but he got a free pass on this forum.
The prime example I use here on this forum is when Senator Daschle's replacement in South Dakota, John Thune, announced he was going to use John Bolton as a human shield and oppose his nomination until he got pork for SD. Now, this was a time when Thune was constantly under fire from the Dems and he needed help the most from his "base". Thune was all for Bolton until the federal government threatened to cut funding from his precious widdle airforce base in SD. The fact Bush had to bride Thune to get him back on board forced him to recess appoint Bolton and that severely weakened his standing at the UN. Later, another "Republican" Senator (Chafee) bolted on Bolton, thus forcing Bolton to resign. And today we continue to let the UN corruption rum rampant because no one is there to call them to task.
So you tell which is worse, "RINO traitor" Mike DeWine agreeing to a judicial compromise that got us some damn good judges for our nation, or "true conservative" John Thune putting a knife in Bolton's back so his state gets an airforce base?
BTW, Thune is often hailed on FR as a great conservative prospect for Vice President.
Yawn back at ya. I could take a McCain voter who believes he has no choice. McCain cheerleaders I can't understand, at least if they make any claim to being conservative.
Thanks.
You probably read more posts than I do, but I don’t remember EVER seeing someone wanting to remove someone from office solely on the Gang-of-14 debacle. In most cases, the gang had a number of marks against them—perhaps, that was just the final straw? Based on FR polls, it appears there are about 3,000 active freepers here. What percent of those posters would you say took this position? Pretty small would be my guess—which just makes it all the more insulting when people try to use those rare anomalies to paint all the others as “purists” to prop up their candidates.
Let’s take a look at the gang(R):
• John McCain, Arizona
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• John Warner, Virginia
• Olympia Snowe, Maine
• Susan Collins, Maine
• Mike DeWine, Ohio (lost re-election in 2006)
• Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island (lost re-election in 2006)
I can think of plenty of reasons to look for better candidates than those listed above. What makes you think people opposed them on this “single” issue? You mentioned DeWine, specifically, in your prior post. Wasn’t he opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and drilling in ANWR and a proponent of gun control and minimum wage hikes? Perhaps people had good reason for opposing him, other than the gang-of-14.
As to Thune, I’ve seen a handful of people show support for him, but in no way a large number of freepers. Personally, I’ve never trusted the guy after looking at his donor list when he first got elected. He had lots of the wrong kind of supporters (California “new majority” types.)
On the contrary, if you look at the threads here posted about Lindsey Graham, you'll find he was beloved on this forum and hailed a great conservative leader for his leadership during the Clinton impeachment. There was no reason of him being a "maverick RINO" PRIOR to the Gang of 14. It was THIS specific piece of legislation that caused freepers to call his removal from office and ever since then, they've been going over his record with a fine tooth comb to "prove" what a RINO he is. "Gang of 14" was t They were overjoyed when he voted with McCain on the amnesty bill because they had unsucessfully tried for monthes after Gang of 14 to "prove" Graham was a McCain clone, only to see Graham vote AGAINST McCain on key conservative issues -- McCain opposed drilling ANWR, Graham favored it. McCain opposed tax cuts, Graham favored them. McCain opposed the federal marriage amendment, Graham backed it, etc.
As it is, Graham has a 91% lifetime conservative rating, which is pretty darn conservative for a 'RINO traitor". Clearly he was wrong for getting aboard McCain's bandwagon on amnesty, but that no more makes him a RINO than Tom McClintock is a RINO for kissing Arnie's butt in 2006. We're definitely talking about freepers going on a fishing expidition here because they're mad about a single bill.
>> Based on FR polls, it appears there are about 3,000 active freepers here. What percent of those posters would you say took this position? <<
Based on the number of freepers who posted on the Gang of 14 threads? I'd say about 60-70% called for his head on a platter at the time, based on that single piece of legislation. Now as to what percentage of freepers actually posted on those threads, maybe 20% of this forum, but certainly many others who didn't post on those threads expressed the same lynch mob sentiments. Again, this was BEFORE the amnesty thing and otherwise they had NO complaints about his record. Rather than admit that Gang of 14 turned out to be not too bad, they've been on a quest ever since then to loudly post every single instance where Graham is "wrong" to prove he's a RINO. I could just as easily "prove" Ronald Reagan is a RINO if I cherry picked his record and loudly attacked the 10% of the times he was wrong as being representative of his career.
>> Let’s take a look at the gang(R):
• John McCain, Arizona
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• John Warner, Virginia
• Olympia Snowe, Maine
• Susan Collins, Maine
• Mike DeWine, Ohio (lost re-election in 2006)
• Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island (lost re-election in 2006) << <
Yes, most of those are RINOs. All the more reason why the three in the gang who I would argue are not RINOs (McCain, Graham, and DeWine) get tarred by freepers as RINOs even though they agree with conservatives on all major issues besides a tiny handful of positions where they took the wrong side. Let's take a look at the (R) Senators who acquitted Slick Willie of perjury (when anyone with half a brain knows Clinton lied under oath):
Chafee, Rhode Island
Susan Collins, Maine
Slade Gorton, Washington
Jim Jeffords, Vermont
Richard Shelby, Alabama
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Ted Stevens, Alaska
Fred Thompson, Tennessee
John Warner, Virginia
Now, most of the people on that list are indeed RINOs. But just because Fred Thompson, Richard Shelby, and Slade Gordon were on the wrong side of a major issue, it doesn't make them RINOs, except to the single issue purists. Now I could just as easily do a characther assisination of Fred Thompson as they did to Lindsey Graham, by cherry picking every time Fred was "wrong" since the Gang of 14 vote to "prove" what an awful RINO he was. After all, didn't Fred support McCain-Feingold? Didn't he vote for free trade with Red China? Didn't he vote to lift higher fines on illegal aliens? Didn't he oppose the federal marriage amendment? Didn't he say the human life amendment was a bad idea?
It would be easy to tar someone as a RINO because you're mad at them over one vote, but to call Fred a "RINO" in the mold of Arnold or Rudy is wrong. There are people on that list who have a lifetime voting record like Arnold or Rudy (Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords being prime examples), but to call someone who agrees with you 90% of the time a RINO because you're angry about that piece of legislation is wrong.
>> What makes you think people opposed them on this “single” issue? You mentioned DeWine, specifically, in your prior post. Wasn’t he opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and drilling in ANWR and a proponent of gun control and minimum wage hikes? Perhaps people had good reason for opposing him, other than the gang-of-14. <<
Because, if you revisit the threads about DeWine, they didn't attack him for anything related to guns, minimum wage, etc., etc., they mentioned the "gang of 14" thing over and over again as if that little judicial compromise was the most important issue on the planet. Which would seem to imply to me they decided to remove him from office based on THAT vote alone, rather than conclude he was unacceptable after he voted for a bunch of other stuff first. Compare that to an Arnold thread where his backers endlessly accuse anti-Arnold people of being pro-life purists, but you see dozens of issues that Arnie gets attacked for.
As for DeWine's voting record, he was 100% pro-life and actually was co-sponcered the federal marriage amendment. He opposed the state marriage amendment because he actually thought it was too liberal for his tastes and imposed undue government powers to restriction traditional heterosexual marriage. He likewise had a conservative voting record of at least 80% Again, if people were upset about his other votes, they would have posted a thread about it. Clearly the most important issue for them was DeWine denying the Senate the nuclear option. My former Senator also had impeccible pro-life and pro-family credentials, and a 90% conservative voting record, but he simularly ALSO had a weak record on guns, opposed ANWR drilling, supported the minimum wage, and supported McCain-Feingold. Why wasn't there a "throw treasous Senator Fitzgerald out of office" thread vanities like there were with Graham and DeWine? Oh yeah, Fitzgerald wasn't part of the Gang of 14. Hmmm.
>> As to Thune, I’ve seen a handful of people show support for him, but in no way a large number of freepers. Personally, I’ve never trusted the guy after looking at his donor list when he first got elected. He had lots of the wrong kind of supporters (California “new majority” types) <<
I can't say I've seen a huge outpouring of love for him on FR either, but whenever his name is posted on FR as "potential running mates" for McCain, he gets nice praise about what a handsome, likeable, conservative Senator he is and would make a fine Vice President. No one ever seems to call him to task for lynching Bolton, which is my opinion is far worse than the Gang of 14 thing they've been screaming about incessantly for two years.
Well... to put it bluntly, so what? What are they going to do about it?... I will NOT let them run the "BS-Express" unimpeded... Someone has to stand up to the "Establishment's money" who decided to back this weasel. there is not one inch of his a** who does not belong to an interest group.
Bottomline, let's mix it up... I'll do it my way with my Pics and you do it your way... And people will decide.
>>He will avoid signing a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill as-is, simply because he realizes it would have the effect of Ford’s Nixon-pardon and make him a one-term President.<<
Are you sure he cares? Last year he was left for dead, but somehow he crawled out of the grave and is now on top. That kind of good fortune is unlikely to make him cautious.
>>Now, I can clearly see you are no McCain supporter but you responded to the actual content of my post with a reasonable, thought-out argument. I certainly wouldn’t paint as an irriational “automatically hate everything McCain does” basher.<<
Thanks, and I appreciate your not being a “McCain troll.”
>>KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle, on the other hand...<<
I have been on Kent’s side in a few discussions. I think the problem is that some on both sides sometimes assume that anyone who criticizes or defends McCain is 100% for or against. I find McCain infuriating on some vital issues, but I have defended him on a few issues. I may be foolish, but I am waiting to see if McCain will show us before November that he will keep his CPAC “secure the border first” promise.
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.