Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VOTING FOR MY CONVICTIONS, or For The Lesser Of Two EVILS
Several articles from Rush Limbaugh, Enter Stage Right, and Fox News ^ | April 27, 2008 | Me, and several others

Posted on 04/27/2008 1:40:15 AM PDT by Yosemitest



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; barr; barrluvsaclu; hillary; mccain; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-164 next last
To: Ditter

As I outlined in my post #31, it’s a lot more complex than that. I was madder than hell at these folks, too, 15 years ago, but time has given me a lot more perspective on the subject. GHW Bush put himself in a position to lose in ‘92. He squandered all his capital, of which he wouldn’t have had he stuck to Conservative principles. Problem was, GHW Bush never was a committed Conservative. He was just along for the ride with Reagan. I’d rather Reagan had run with Paul Laxalt of Nevada. Laxalt would’ve been an excellent President and would’ve continued to build on the Reagan legacy.


81 posted on 04/27/2008 6:11:14 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

You couldn’t have voted for Paul in ‘92 unless you wrote in his name. Andre Marrou was the Libertarian candidate that year. Paul wasn’t on the general election ballot.


82 posted on 04/27/2008 6:14:42 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
You're wrong on all accounts about Reagan, it was the Democrat Congress that took over in 1986 that enacted every law you blame Reagan for.

But then, ... you liberals never could face the truth about your mistakes.

83 posted on 04/27/2008 7:08:17 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Save your snobbery, you sound like an Obama supporter.... hmmmm.
I love how you put your replies in bold.
Like all liberals, you value your own words a bit too highly.
Your cover is blown.


84 posted on 04/27/2008 7:13:45 PM PDT by counterpunch (John McCain for President - Because we need VICTORY in Iraq, not RETREAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

You confuse snobbery for intelligence and grasp of history.

I reply in bold to distinguish my comments, if I’m quoting someone else, so that they don’t run together, it has no other meaning (which you’ll no doubt be disappointed to hear). If I’m not quoting, it will be standard fonts (as you’ll note in my replies in this thread alone, if you took the time to pay attention and halted your mindless shilling and rewriting/reworking of history).

I also suggest you stop drawing conclusions. This quote most assuredly applies to you: “Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” Well, at least you’re right about Obama, but if only you could get up to speed on everything else. I guess it doesn’t bother your conscience being a sycophant for a man who doesn’t give a damn about Conservatism (or the GOP for that matter). Are you on his payroll ? That at least would explain your schtick.


85 posted on 04/27/2008 7:33:20 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Oops, I’m tired. I did vote for Andre Marrou. I was getting 88 and 92 mixed up. Bottom line, I didn’t vote for Perot. Bottom line 2, Perot didn’t make any difference in the election result. President Bush stabbed his base in the gut with his policies. He lost because he chose unwisely Grasshopper.


86 posted on 04/27/2008 8:33:21 PM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (I'm just a typical bitter, white, heteronormative space worm clinging to guns and God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

I don’t absolve Perot of his part in ‘92. It was clear the bulk of his support came from disgruntled Republicans (all you have to do is compare the 1988 and ‘92 election figures to see that. Clintoon essentially held Dukakis’s support for his minority victory). Even in ‘96, had Perot directed his supporters to vote for Dole, Dole would’ve narrowly beaten Clinton (it would’ve swung my state, for example, which Gore’s having lost in 2000 cost him the entire election — Tennessee). Make no mistake, Perot did intend to sabotage Bush and was quite happy to see him go down. But as was said, Bush placed himself in a position to lose (and he didn’t have Lee Atwater, either. Atwater would’ve had a field day with Clinton).


87 posted on 04/27/2008 8:47:13 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
You're wrong on all accounts about Reagan, it was the Democrat Congress that took over in 1986 that enacted every law you blame Reagan for."

So you are unaware that California Governor Ronald Reagan SIGNED into law the No Fault Divorce laws of Califronia that swept the nation?

88 posted on 04/27/2008 9:42:59 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Is the purpose of the 2nd amendment to brag at gun shows and chat rooms?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Please make no mistake, I think that Reagan was a great President.

Perfect?

Hell no! Not buy a very long shot.

But you,vote your conscience guys, would reject Christ because of what he said on the cross.


89 posted on 04/27/2008 9:47:29 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Is the purpose of the 2nd amendment to brag at gun shows and chat rooms?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
And who passed the No Fault Divorce Law of California, before it got to Reagan's desk?

Damn those pesky little facts. Besides, No fault divorce only applies, if you don't contest it. SO if you want fault, then pay your lawyer and get fault.

90 posted on 04/27/2008 10:38:35 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

And who passed the No Fault Divorce Law of California, before it got to Reagan’s desk?

Democrats.

As Gov he had the legal and Republican moral authority to reject it.

Again, setting the stage for his later policies of larger Fed and illegal immigration, he ran with the Dems and took their lead.

He was a huge RINO by today’s standards.


91 posted on 04/27/2008 11:13:01 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Is the purpose of the 2nd amendment to brag at gun shows and chat rooms?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I'd like your thoughts on this insight to Barr's thinking, even if it's old and requires a good memory to go back to November 6, 2006 and earlier.



Barr knows how to plan, but he needs help from real leaders like Newt, Rush, and many others that quit government out of disgust.
92 posted on 04/27/2008 11:29:57 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

On the article alone, Barr is largely correct (the only problem is more in the last paragraph — but the Dems have accomplished very little, and have NOT moved in a “moderate” course in the least, though Pelosi has managed to hold off the impeachment hardliners). The more shocking development is that the GOP has continued its bizarre behavior of not caring that they lost the majority and taking the steps necessary to close the gap and exploit the massive unpopularity of this Congress. Instead, we’re all but assured (even with a McCain victory) of losing at least 3 and as many as 8 Senate seats and anywhere from breaking even in the House to 2-3 dozen losses. Contrast that with 1996 when the Congressional Dems were mad as hell and wanted their majority back, and did indeed win back some seats. The desire just isn’t there. Add in McCain to the mix, and we could conceivably decline to 1/3rd of the membership in Congress within the next 4 years.

I sincerly believe McCain is going to be a terrible President (save perhaps for some aspects of foreign policy — but I could easily see him signing off on an executive order legalizing every criminal invader in this country if at all possible. He does that, and this party will consume itself, pay for McCain’s crime at the ballot box, and the Dems will become his biggest fans, and will gain enormously).


93 posted on 04/27/2008 11:53:16 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Thanks.
I too, believe that McCain will be the worst Republican In Name Only President ever. But I believe he's get more democrat votes than republican votes.

I know a lot, a large amount of both old and young democrats that can't stand the far left under Hillary or Obama. You should hear some of the talk in the barber shops and at the local diner.

They think that McCain is great, a war hero, and they have no clue how liberal McCain is, when it comes to illegal immigrants, liberal judges, homosexuals, and kissing up to the likes of Kennedy, and Shumer, and all the other sycophants.

94 posted on 04/28/2008 12:32:54 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one

OMFG! I knew there was something wrong with Mcloon.

He’s a Fracking CYLON!


95 posted on 04/28/2008 12:35:11 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg ("Shut the hell up, New York Times, you sanctimonious whining jerks!" - Craig Ferguson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

If you don’t like my peaceful music, get your own cab. Outta my peaceful cab!


96 posted on 04/28/2008 12:45:14 AM PDT by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

Six can beat me bloody if she wants.


97 posted on 04/28/2008 12:46:34 AM PDT by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Rastus

You can have Six.

I want the Sharon model. Eight has always been my lucky number...


98 posted on 04/28/2008 12:49:24 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg ("Shut the hell up, New York Times, you sanctimonious whining jerks!" - Craig Ferguson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

You can have whatever’s left of Cally. :P


99 posted on 04/28/2008 12:55:48 AM PDT by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

There’s one thing I’ll say for McCain. I’m not sure even he believed he’d get the nomination this year (ostensibly it appeared his best shot was in 2000), but he merely turned out to be in the right place at the right time. I was a Fred supporter, the only acceptable first-tier candidate in the race.

I vigorously worked hard to enlighten folks to bring down Huckster and *omney, both horrific abominations with proven track records of NON-Conservative and one-man party destroyers (take a look how many Republicans were left after these charlatans were done), and I was proud to sink them both. But when Fred got out, there was no one in the primary left I could support in good conscience.

Why the very worst, bottom-of-the-barrel RINOs were the leading candidates for the Presidential nomination absolutely defied the imagination. We had 3 great Governors (Sanford in SC, Barbour in MS, even Don Carcieri in RI — not well known but an unapologetic Conservative) and yet none of them chose to run.

The only, and most remote chance of McCain getting my vote will be if he chooses one of those 3 aforementioned Governors. If he chooses one of those abominations from the primary (excluding Fred, whom I believe won’t accept the nod, but probably will retire in my state to run for Governor in 2010) or a subpar RINO (such as Pawlenty), he will not get my vote under any circumstances.

Fact is, if I lived in Arizona, I’d vote rodent just to get McCain the hell out of that Senate seat (if we couldn’t dump him in the primary). I surely wouldn’t have voted for him after 1986. Aside from President, I have no reason to vote in November, I’m through supporting the RINO boob Senator Lamar! Alexander. The Dems are giving him a pass this year as it is (ain’t that a surprise). My House district has been rodent for 134 years with no chance of electing a Republican, ditto my legislative districts (a civil rights state Senate seat, Republicans need not run, and the state House, gerrymandered Dem). So if I don’t vote for McCain, I’ll just go do something more productive in November and go clean my toilets on Election Day. Enough is enough.


100 posted on 04/28/2008 1:00:34 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson