Posted on 04/19/2009 8:16:05 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
NRSC Set To Back Specter This snippet from the Washington Post's overview of Arlen Specter's candidacy stuck out at me:
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has written a letter to fellow Republicans asking them to support Specter. "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania," Cornyn wrote. "I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Mr.Steele is indeed, a great disappointment. This article, with him supporting Specter, will give me reason to use the post paid RNC envelope I got recently. I will send my opinion to Mr.Steele on supporting one of the RINOs that passed Porkulus. The RNC is so hopelessly clueless. Haven’t they lost enough to get it? We don’t want Washington elite RINOs.
No difference between these and real Democrats!
I think the RNC should stay out of primary politics.
Is this the best the GOP can do?
I think all this proves we have to totally ignore an bypass the national RNC and support the conservatives in our localities, state and national elections ourselves.
Don’t give the national RNC any power. They’re part of the problem, they just don’t get it. They will not get it and if we give them money, they think that means we support what they are doing.
We cannot afford them effing up the next round of elections. If they are saying Specter is the way to go, I think that answers the question whether they will muck things up - yes, they will.
So support your guys locally, give directly to them. Get buddies to donate to local and state and federal candidates in your state. Bypass the RNC altogether. We are going to have to work against them to get conservatives in and take back the congress.
I think all this proves we have to totally ignore an bypass the national RNC and support the conservatives in our localities, state and national elections ourselves.
Don’t give the national RNC any power. They’re part of the problem, they just don’t get it. They will not get it and if we give them money, they think that means we support what they are doing.
We cannot afford them effing up the next round of elections. If they are saying Specter is the way to go, I think that answers the question whether they will muck things up - yes, they will.
So support your guys locally, give directly to them. Get buddies to donate to local and state and federal candidates in your state. Bypass the RNC altogether. We are going to have to work against them to get conservatives in and take back the congress.
If Spector receives the backing of the RNC, I’m out of there and will opt for forming a new party. There is some sh*t I will not eat.
My tag line is making more and more sense.
The Republican Party is dead.
D.E.A.D.
It has been hijacked by a thunderous herd of RINO’s or democratic plants.
I am a CONSERVATIVE, not a republican. I vote for new party.
“Heck, if I am going to get Statist socialism; may as well drink it pure. The GOP is dead to me.”
Seems a common concern.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2219276/posts?page=110#110
Agreed. 70% of the RNC is RINO'd now at this point. Steele is just pimping for the ignorant elite 'GOP' in DC. Not gonna change for a while until Congress gets its whole sale 'change on'.
We can forget about conservatism within the federal goobermint as many non-appointed assistant / high level department heads, judges, etc., are libtards now with many more libtards now being handed the keys by the 0 administration.
“Why would Cornyn support Specter? If the people in the State of Texas knew about it they’d vote him out of office in a two second’s.”
Cornyn just lost my vote... Between Goodhair, the Cheerleader and the Specter-tater I guess I will save some gas the next few election days...
Alas, some of us have been saying that for a very, very long time... but the GOPBots just HAVE to retain those seats to save our Republic from the Marxist, Don't you get it you non-believers!.
Just don't look behind door number two, where the republicans have their own Socialist agenda cued up for the big win.
We need to completely clean house, anyone without a high percentage of verifiable Constitutional/Conservative votes or stands, must be booted... if not its the same 'ole game that I don't play anymore.
In our current state, while I will say we are vastly more technologically advanced, I would beg to differ about the better educated part. People are so much more ignorant despite the vast opportunites they have to become educated.
I do not believe most schools, much less “colleges” have been actually educating students for several decades, only indoctrinating them. Just try and have a conversation about politics, history, or anything besides “social populist ideals” with one. See what ya get. Google Howard Sterns man on the street interviews to see the average man on the street speak.
As to Rome not being a democracy, officially, I would agree, however, as soon as the “mob” realized they could vote themselves a raise through entitlements, the majority did so, and the period they were in before having a Ceasar, yet after they were controlled by the Senate via rule of law, is most comparable with a democracy. Since a democracy always leads to an oligarchy, the transition period can and should be considered democratic, or mob, rule. We are directly in that transition phase, IMHO.
Thanks for viewing!!
Of course you are correct but the DC class of the Republicans think they know best and yours/mine/others voices/opinions dont count.
There is a huge disconnect between real people and the DC class. The base isnt going along with the RINOS anymore.... Note to the RNC/GOP choice is either you figh back or take a hike and we can find another party/candidate
While I agree with you in principle, and I too, have a conservative rep (a first termer in congress) I want to say the following.
Our founding fathers never intended to have people be career politicians. The just assumed, and with the quality and heart of the men involved, rightly assumed, that people would take turns going up on the hill to serve. They would run for election once or twice, and then bow out to continue in the private sector, thereby doing their duty to their country and moving on, and another person would step up and do theirs.
While I appreciate a great conservative on the hill, the overwhelming clamor for people, (at least the many I have seen/heard at rallys and protests) are clamoring for term limits. Due to the fact that politics has become a “career” for many, even the best people can lose sight of why they are there, as their power and influence grows.
The founders did not have lobbyists throwing money hand over foot at them, they went up to make the best decisions for the country, not them. While I respect a great many men and women on the hill, I am quite sure if we had term limits, many new and fresh thinking, uninfluenced people would be willing to step forward and serve. Right now, it is virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent, it practically takes a revolt like the one we are seeing to do so. This is why I said what I said. I can tell a good one from a bad one, and it is the rare day that I have cast a vote for one who should not be there. This is not the case for the majority of the country, as evidenced by our current administration.
You are correct, there will be casualties. But not if we can get term limits. It will actually bring good solid conservative candidates out of the wood work because they KNOW the incumbent can, and will be out after a second or perhaps third term ( I believe at least 3 terms for congress, 2 for senators).
It truly is hard to know exactly what to do. I feel it is better for my country to have term limits to limit the damage done by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank, and on and on, however, I feel for the people who do have great representation in their district. That being said, you are the rare district, not the rule, and thusly, it is in the country’s best interest that we trust you to elect another great rep as you have proven you can do, while FORCING others to do the same through term limits. I do appreciate you presenting your views, they are well thought out and intellegent, and I only wish more people thought AND voted as you do! Thanks!
Further: Steele should be conversant at least with the concepts expounded daily on conservative talk radio, where the term is pronounced “state-ist” 100% of the time. His stumblingly and haltingly pronouncing it “stat-ist” was a dead giveaway that he had never heard the term. Ditto his pronouncing the author's name “Mark Leveeen.” It was just a dead giveaway that Steele is not in any way conversant with conservative thought in 2009.
Yes a large potted one.
Actually it was much better written from the standpoint of logic than the one to which I replied.
I have always been convinced that our founding fathers never intended that we would have professional politicians; that one would serve and then return to private life.
However, I have always thought that we should appreciate and support those who have been good public servants who have respected the Constitution.
I started out to use this reply to argue that term limits have not kept us from electing bad choices to the presidency. However, I ended up with the following conclusion.
Term limits will not prevent us from electing either incompetent or evil persons to office, but term limits will limit the amount of damage they can do and will give us an opportunity to replace them with better.
We have elected several very bad presidents over the years since the retirement and death of the founding fathers. Term limits restricted the amount of damages.
Thank God and our founding fathers that they were limited to two terms.
But somehow we have got way off the track and off so far that term limits will not alone get is back on track.
We will continue down the road to Marxism and will eventually become a Marxist government unless we can return the government to one that is strictly held to those privileges outlined in the Constitution.
How that can be accomplished, I have no idea. I doubt that 5% of the voting public has any idea what the Constitution really means.
Term limits were not instituted for presidents until after one served 4 terms, I believe. We saw the error there, and fixed it, and we must now do the same here.
I should have been more clear in my previous post, but hey, I knew what I was THINKING, LOL, I just forgot to share it properly with the class LOL.
Have a blessed day!
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.