God Save Us from the Loud ‘I’m Staying Home This Year’ Conservatives

National Review-Campaign Spot ^ | 9-30-2014 | Jim Geraghty

[smoothsailing]

NATIONAL REVIEW

SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 12:34 PM

God Save Us from the Loud 'I'm Staying Home This Year' Conservatives

By Jim Geraghty

A few thoughts from the middle of the day . . .

God save us from self-professed "conservatives" who will announce they'll stay home on Election Day as a demonstration of their power.

Because as we all know, you become more influential in politics and government and public life by staying home and doing less.

....

Does the "I'm staying home" crowd apply this to everything in life? "I don't like the way the company is run, so I'm not going to work."

"Honey, I'm just not happy with your performance as a spouse, so I'm going to be less active in the marriage until you improve."

"Kids, I'm disappointed with your performance in school. Until you improve, I'm ignoring you."

The thing is, I wonder how often the "I'm staying home this year" crowd voted before. In fact, I wonder if they ever vote.

I don't understand the "I've never been more fearful for the future of this country, but I'm not willing to do anything about it" mentality.

Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door, folks.

...

[BlackElk]

Every Republican voter needs to reject the Wall Street pigs running the national GOP and now meddling state by state in primaries 1,000 ill gotten dollars one vote. Reject them in primaries. Reject them in elections until the piggies are no more. They are embarrassed by pro-lifers, by gun folks, by pro-marriage of the normal variety folks, by veterans, by those who favor tough foreign policy (even if it disrupts the Greedicans' corporate profits). The United States is NOT an upper class snobocracy and never will be. You want our votes? Earn them. A nominee not being a Demonrat is NOT enough when the public policies of the GOP-E and the Demonrats are sooooo similar.

Increasingly, elections are meaningless when BOTH parties slavishly serve the same elites for $$$$. At the rate things are going, our politicians of both parties should dissolve the people and elect a new people.

[ansel12]

No matter the timing, the left of the GOP just cannot call off their war against conservatives.

[BlackElk]

freedumb2003:

You are welcome! Nominate Romney or any trash like him again and you will get the same result less about 5% of Romney's 2012 vote. We will be more stubborn than you will be. Count on it!

[jsanders2001]

> ...and accept the fact that sometimes we have to vote the keep the worse of two evils from getting elected.
Duly noted that you’re A-OK with voting for evil.

Hey if I’m going to have to render under Ceasar what’s Caesar’ I want to make sure that It’s the better version of the two...either way you’re going to be under the rule of one or the other. At least you get a choice to vote so I consider it my duty. It’s not voting for evil.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Here is MY proof, liar: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/romney-vows"

Anybody who trusts or believes Willard's promises or "vows" is a fool.

[freedumb2003]

>>You are welcome! Nominate Romney or any trash like him again and you will get the same result less about 5% of Romney’s 2012 vote.<<

I didn’t vote for Romney nor McCain in the primaries.

But when the primaries are over, we have what we have.

Thanks again for obozo and I know who to come and thank when hitlery wins. Can I just send the bill for the 20% increase in my healthcare to you?

Purity fools.

[OneWingedShark]

I see you're ignoring the given scenario, let me reiterate it for you:
Imagine, if you will, that each candidate has a counter that is associated with them and that a vote for one increments that counter; given that model, how does voting for candidate C, over B, equate to an increase in the votes for A?

Note that there is nothing therein about staying home and, in fact, deals with someone casting a vote.

[freedumb2003]

Your link goes nowhere like your feeble attempts at arguments, liar and obozo support.

[freedumb2003]

I answered this — your math is flawed.

[OneWingedShark]

And may I propose a another quote:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
— Edmund Burke

Hm, interesting.
I see you equate my vote (an action) with doing nothing (that is, inaction); is this because my action wasn't what you personally think my action should be?
Please explain how my action is equivalent to inaction.

[BlackElk]

Thad Cockroach is one BIG reason. Remember MISSISSIPPI!

The renomination of an absolute POS like LAMAR!!! Alexander is another.

Ed Gillespie running a comatose campaign against Senator Warner is another.

Lindsay Graham is another although one should show up to vote for Tim Scott.

The Republican National Committee having become a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Crony Socialism is another.

The application of oceans of $$$$ by the GOP-E to nominate every possible spineless sleazebag possible, every enemy of Western Civilization possible as Senate candidates this go 'round is another.

More available on request.

[freedumb2003]

>>I see you equate my vote (an action) with doing nothing (that is, inaction); is this because my action wasn’t what you personally think my action should be?
Please explain how my action is equivalent to inaction.<<

Your vote was one of the following:

1) a vote for Romney/McCain
2) a vote for a 3rd party (which is the same as 3)
3) a vote for obozo
4) No vote (which is the same as 3)

If I misunderstood your vote then I stand corrected. If if was 2 or 4 then it was a vote for obozo and the same as doing nothing which supports my quote. I assume 3) is not in our universe of possibilities.

[Norm Lenhart]

Try this..

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to vote for it because it has an “R” attached instead of a “D”.

Norm Lenhart

Now if you wanna make the argument that the promotion of a gay/abortion/crony/hirer of illegals is ‘good’ for America just because it came with an R, you do that sport. We need a good laugh today.

[INVAR]

You implied you did not vote or voted for someone other that Romney — this is a vote for bozo.

Only to a big-government Statist with no comprehension of what liberty actually is, would such imbecility be vomited and presented as logic.

Your 'admonishment' is laughably absurd and stupid. But it does not surprise given your shilling for the Ruling Class Oligarchy.

[OneWingedShark]

>>But understand this: Anti-voting is not going to get ANY Repug elected. We have to have a reason to vote FOR someone - or they won’t win.
>
> That happens in the primaries. Once we get to the GE we can only vote for the most conservative candidate even if the most conservative candidate isn’t very conservative.
>
> Not voting is the same as voting for the opposition (see my arithmetic notations upthread).

Except that you group voting third party in with not voting; so, in essence you are saying that a vote does not count unless it agrees with your desires.
How is that any different than the philosophy of the Statists, you know, the ones who 'deem' things to pass?

[Norm Lenhart]

“2) a vote for a 3rd party (which is the same as 3)
3) a vote for obozo”

Might wanna take a remedial civics course. Clearly you are unaware of how elections actually work.

[jjsheridan5]

Thanks again for obozo and I know who to come and thank when hitlery wins. Can I just send the bill for the 20% increase in my healthcare to you?

Purity fools.

Actually, it is people like you who are responsible not just for Obama, but also for the fact that he and his ilk govern unchecked. It is people like you who supported the people who destroyed the Republican party, who neutered its ability to act as an effective opposition, and who have ensured that the very types of people who could effectively oppose Obama (and Reid, and Pelosi), have no opportunity to ever rise to a position of power within the party.

Save your contempt for the next time you pass a mirror. If you haven't learned this by now, you probably never will. You, and the National Review types, will blame the wrong people. They will think that they continue to lose because the voters are stupid. When in fact, it is because the consultants they listen to are wrong, and have been consistently wrong for a very long time. And in pushing for the lesser of two evils, they are ensuring that the Republican party continues to hemorrhage support, and loses its ability to compete on a national level.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I didn’t link anything. I was quoting YOUR post and the part of the link that read Willard “VOWS.” You are aware that Willard like, lies, don’t you ? Says anything to get elected ? Stuff like that ? That you’d believe he’d “vow to repeal” something for which he himself was responsible for inspiring is the height of naïveté. That you also believe a choice between a Communist and a Socialist ringer was legitimate doubles down on true cognitive dissonance.

[ExpatGator]

I never stay home on election day. However, I will not ever again vote for a candidate who does not share a majority of my beliefs as proven by their record. Not. Ever. Again.

[marron]

They will tell you that a vote for third party is a vote for the Dems.

What it really is, though, is a vote the Repubs could have had and drove away.

In choosing their next candidate the Repubs need to factor in just how many potential votes they can afford to alienate by running a guy the rank and file cannot abide.