1 posted on
06/03/2011 9:46:44 AM PDT by
Hawk720
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: Hawk720
I agree! They need to vote for Palin and be done with the RINOS.
27 posted on
06/03/2011 10:02:45 AM PDT by
carjic
(I've always been taught to respect my elders.... but it's getting harder to find any!)
To: Hawk720
I presume he’s pushing Romney?
Romney’s (lack of) social credentials are a small part of the problem...you have Romneycare as another big issue...he’s not that conservative fiscally OR socially.
28 posted on
06/03/2011 10:03:20 AM PDT by
RockinRight
(Herman Cain stopped for gas in South Carolina and inadvertently won a Primary debate.)
To: Hawk720
I’m surprised Barbour is stupid enough to take the bait and join in this “purity” debate. Its a lose-lose debate because he isn’t persuading anyone to change and its just more grist for the MSM propaganda mill to show how radical those nasty Christian conservatives are.
As other posters point out, the issue isn’t voting against every single candidate because they aren’t pure. If that were the case, Reagan wouldn’t have gotten elected. Its finding the best combination. One issue voters are rare. The problem is that conservatives have been burned so many times.
As an example, I can’t stress enough what a huge disappointment Lyndon Baines Bush was on economic issues. He did real damage to the conservative coalition with his big spending, amnesty and entitlement expansion, even if he was right on social issues and forgeign policy / war. Yet when people pointed that out, they were attacked (many times here) for being disloyal to Bush.
30 posted on
06/03/2011 10:03:20 AM PDT by
Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
To: Hawk720
“Winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing,and the main thing is getting me re-elected.”
32 posted on
06/03/2011 10:03:43 AM PDT by
WOBBLY BOB
( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
To: Hawk720
Since Palin emerged in 2008, we continue to learn just how well structured towards liberalism, that the GOP has been all of our lives.
33 posted on
06/03/2011 10:04:06 AM PDT by
ansel12
( JIM DEMINT "I believe [Palins] done more for the Republican Party than anyone since Ronald Reagan")
To: Hawk720
Remember purity in politics, purity is the enemy of victory Well, I definitely want to win so I'll be voting for the most corrupt candidate on the ticket. Gosh, this was so simple, why didn't I think of it.
36 posted on
06/03/2011 10:08:04 AM PDT by
Navy Patriot
(Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
To: Hawk720
Yeah Haley ,BTW What is your Immigration Stance??
38 posted on
06/03/2011 10:08:24 AM PDT by
Cheetahcat
( November 4 2008 ,A date which will live in Infamy.)
To: Hawk720
Your right Haley ,the only purity allowed is Left wingers, marxists and communists.
Can’t fly the Flag,mention God,offend Homos,illegal aliens,tax cheats,government union workers.
The only people that have to shut up and take it are the TAX PAYERS and GOD fearing AMERICANS!
Thanks Haley winning elections with your abvice has sure paid off
To: Hawk720
I am as conservative as anyone here, but Haley is correct.
To: Hawk720
“Purity” is a code word used by party elitists to describe conservative ideology, which they greatly fear. They are afraid it is going to destroy the party. That glorious party which has enabled them to be elites in the first place, and for that reason is more important than any ideology.
Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He was one of those darn purists that just didn’t understand that you have to go along to get along.
41 posted on
06/03/2011 10:08:42 AM PDT by
Rocky
(REPEAL IT!)
To: Hawk720
You have to set the bar at some level.
43 posted on
06/03/2011 10:09:28 AM PDT by
DManA
To: Hawk720
Why are the Social and economic conservatives always expected to compromise and accept someone who is either a social conservative or someone who is an economic conservative?
Why don't the people who are only economic conservatives compromise and support someone who is both an economic and social conservative?
Why don't the people who are only social conservatives compromise and support someone who is both a social and economic conservative?
To: Hawk720
I am through swallowing hard, holding my nose and voting.
46 posted on
06/03/2011 10:10:56 AM PDT by
DManA
To: Hawk720
Barbour’s stock value keeps going down when he says stupid stuff like this.
48 posted on
06/03/2011 10:13:21 AM PDT by
OB1kNOb
(Paradox: To dumb down the citizenry so they won't think for themselves, the government educates them)
To: Hawk720
Mistuh Barbour suh, we don’t demand purity but certainly hope for cleaner hands than yours that grabbed huge gobs of greenbacks lobbying for wetbacks. And then announcing “I’m a lobbyist and proud of it”.
And the there’s that little matter of the partnership with DNC chair Terry McAuliffe in the super expensive Capitol Hill restaurant “The Caucus Room” where lobbists and pols can wheel and deal.
FUHB
49 posted on
06/03/2011 10:13:39 AM PDT by
Covenantor
("Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern." Chesterton)
To: Hawk720
Move over rover. Its time for the Tea Party to take over.
50 posted on
06/03/2011 10:14:32 AM PDT by
screaminsunshine
(Socialism...Easier said than done.)
To: Hawk720
We should not accept the premise. It is a false choice to say that our only option is either a pure conservative who cannot win or a rino will not govern as a conservative.
There is another sort of candidate, one who articulates a vision of growth and limited government which is not a novel idea on my part but one which was tried and proved true by Ronald Reagan.
![](http://schetula.de/schule/ltg_informatik_forum/files/nathan_bedford_forrest.jpg)
51 posted on
06/03/2011 10:17:23 AM PDT by
nathanbedford
("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
To: Hawk720
Conservatives have been accused of being ‘single’ issue voters. Then after the liberals Foleyized US in summer/fall of 2006 and the liberals retook the House, the word ‘purity’ became code word for ‘amnesty’ open borders crowd. ‘You know’ those high minded moderates that saw a ‘foreigner’ that did their nails, hair, or cut their lawn, or cleaned their toilets, or changed their babies diapers.... welll anybody who opposed legalizing the illegal invasion were labeled purists.
So the next time a politician of moderate go along to get along uses any form of the word purity find out explicitly what they are referencing... chances are it will wind back through their gated communities to amnesty for their cheap labors.
To: Hawk720
“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Thanks for making our job so easy Haley.
54 posted on
06/03/2011 10:19:08 AM PDT by
sillsfan
(Reagan and Sarah are right- WE win, they lose!)
To: Hawk720
Here we go with the purity lecture from yet another establishment Republican again, the same type of disingenuous argument parroted even here on FR from time to time by the usual suspects trying to get conservatives to swallow whatever Rino swill is being pushed down our throats at the time.
I know of no conservatives who expect to find the perfect candidate, but I am damn tired of being told I should support someone just because they have an "R" by their name. Are we not even allowed to have litmus tests anymore without being derided as purists by a bunch of fakers who would sell their country out for a chance at power?
What I want to know is if there are any principles which these establishment stooges wouldn't compromise? Gun control, amnesty for illegal invaders, right to life, etc.?
55 posted on
06/03/2011 10:19:08 AM PDT by
DangerZone
(Close the primaries or say hello to Republican nominee for president Mitt Romney)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson