Is that the test for Wyoming?
Posted on 10/14/2014 2:21:31 AM PDT by servo1969
There is a noble-sounding attitude that many Americans hold regarding whom they vote for. "I vote for the candidate," they say.
It sure sounds good. Voting for the best candidate, rather than the party, sounds as American as apple pie. But as the Democratic Party has become a doctrinaire left-wing party, this sentiment is no longer noble. It is actually foolish and dangerous.
There was a time when there were terrific Democrats whom an independent and even a Republican could vote for. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was such an example. He was a liberal -- he believed in the good that he thought an expanding government could provide -- but he was a hawk on foreign policy. What did "hawk" mean? Hawks were politicians such as Lieberman who believed that both for America's sake and in order to reduce cruelty on earth, America must be the world's most militarily powerful country, and that it must be prepared to use this power, when feasible, against the world's worst cruelest tyrannies.
Lieberman wasn't the only such Democrat.
Another was the great U.S. senator from New York (served: 1977-2001), Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who coined the phrase that summarized the post-1960s steep decline in America's values: "Defining Deviancy Down," the title of an article he wrote in 1993 for the American Scholar (a conservative journal).
Another such Democrat was Henry "Scoop" Jackson who served as U.S. Senator from Washington state from 1953 to 1983. Jackson was one of the leading anti-Communist "hawks" in American politics.
But such Democratic politicians no longer exist. The left chased Lieberman and others out of the party.
Therefore, voting for just about any Democrat for the House or the Senate, and almost as consistently for governor, is a vote for leftism. It is a vote for clones of President Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, to mention just the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Obamacare provides an excellent example of why "voting for the candidate" is an act of self-delusion. Every vote for this medical and economic transformation of America came from Democrats in the House and Senate; and every Republican, even the most "moderate," voted against it. Regarding the most destructive legislation in modern American history, "the candidate" didn't mean a thing. Party meant everything.
This may be the primary reason Republicans do not do better in a country in which few of its citizens identify themselves as "left:" Republicans run against their opponents, rather than against the left and the Democratic Party. That's what Mitt Romney did. And that's why he lost an election he should have won. Romney never defined his presidential campaign as being opposed to the left or to the Democratic Party. It was solely against Barack Obama, a popular president at the time and the first black ever to serve as president, something that continued to mean a lot to many Americans who hoped that this fact would reduce black animosity toward white America.
Had Mitt Romney constantly repeated that he was not merely running against Barack Obama, the man, but against Barack Obama, the most left-wing president in American history, and continually explained what that meant, he might well have won. But he never made the election about ideology or party. Instead it was about individuals. He, Romney, was the best candidate because he could fix things -- as he did in his business career and with the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. So the election was not about how big government undermines the whole American experiment; how big government makes citizens small people; how the left sees America as just another country; how the teachers unions have helped ruin public education; how the left changed our universities from places of education to places of indoctrination; or how cruelty -- mass murder, torture, slavery, and totalitarianism -- would inevitably take over as America retreated from more and more places. Which brings us to the present elections. The most horrific movement since Nazism and communism, violent Islamism, has taken over much of Iraq solely because America retreated from that country. Millions of Americans understood, and many of us wrote and broadcast, that if America leaves Iraq, a country that was becoming increasingly stable and peaceful, it would be transformed into a bloodbath -- which is exactly what has happened.
Why doesn't every Republican candidate remind voters that the Democratic Party supported the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq -- and that this made the Islamic State possible? Either the left succeeds, or America succeeds. Tell that to your constituents, Republican candidates. And then tell them that the left's political party is the one your opponent is proud to represent.
I made that vow after voting for the peanut farmer, because we grew peanuts.
Rush Limbaugh was right when he said “If you have a “D” after your name you are the enemy”.
Is that the test for Wyoming?
Well, some are. We've seen numerous posts from "conservatives" on FR who openly announce they're going to vote for the likes of Alison Grimes, Travis Childers, Greg Orman, etc. Any "conservative" who wants a Obama yes-man in the Senate is not a conservative, period. It's especially damning if the GOP candidate is not even a RINO, just a low-key guy who doesn't scream "TEA PARTYYYYYYYYYY!!" loudly enough for them. Yeah, let's replace a 90% conservative with a 99% socialist. That will save this country. ::puke::
Well, you guys love screaming about the 10th amendment and repealing the 17th and state soverignity, etc., etc.
Did it ever occur to you that the REASON Mike Enzi steamrolled Liz Cheney's Senate is because HE fits the kind of Senator that Wyoming WANTS (a modest low-key steadfast reliable conservative who knows all the residents and issues there like the back of his hand), rather than the pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty, loudmouth beltway insider who is a "national celebrity"?
Maybe you ought to get out of your bubble and talk to some Wyoming freepers who resent some "Tea Party" group from California and radio show host from Pennsylvania telling them to elect some carpetbagger from Virginia.
So until the 17th amendment is repealed and the 10th amendment is enforced it matters little where a senator comes from, it matters how he behaves and votes. From a partisan point of view, however, it matters a great deal where a senator comes from because conservative states should produce conservative activists not placeholders.
The good voters of Wyoming might turn an election on grazing rights or water rights or what have you but the rest of the nation is losing its liberties, losing its Constitution and the nation as a whole is hurtling toward the brink. When it goes over it will take Wyoming with it. But, fear not, Mike Enzi stands at the breach on behalf of Wyoming.
I have made the same commitment, with a codicil appended to it; that is, there will occasionally be Republicans for whom I cannot vote. If that is the case, I will simply be an under vote for that office.
Hear, hear. And not only were Lieberman, Moynihan and Scoop Jackson socialist, they were pro-abortion as well.
May the politician-empowering 17th NEVER be repealed.
That is Dennis Prager’s view, and I agree with it — 100%, FWIW.
This same point of view is constantly reinforced these days, anytime I have a discussion with my dearest hubbie about politics, in the run-up to the 2014 Midterm elections, now just three weeks away.
What always gets my dearest hubbie most exercised is the idea that “The Other Side” — the “TOS” that for the past century at least has labored to undermine the U.S. Constitution — has gained ascendancy in the American self-concept and way of life. This tendency has been labeled as “Progressive.” And it is today fully integrated into the official Democrat Party.
Ergo, in my husand's view (and mine): Do not vote for any Democrat in the upcoming election. You cannot eradicate their pestilential influence on American public policy, of American well-being and security, short of retiring them from office as a class.
Hubbie — a man born in northern Maine with a family heritage that traces back to the Mayflower — has realized that what formerly were regarded as political “Liberals” have been totally swallowed up in the ravenous maw of Left Progressivism over the past decade or so.
So he insists: “You absolutely cannot vote the candidate, you have to vote against the entire party"; the object being to utterly destroy the opposing Party. That is, you have to call them out measure for measure; and you absolutely have to defeat them in the upcoming election.
And though he’s ‘preaching to the choir here,’ I’m so glad that he vents his frustration, disgust, and anger against a political party — the Democrat party — formerly distinguished as an honest Party concerned about the well-being of American citizens.
I daresay that, nowadays, with members of the Obama Administration, not a whole lot of sleep is being lost over the well-being of American citizens. That is to say, they really don’t care how the programs and policies promulgated by their top-down, elite intellectual “leaders,” the ”expert class,” impact the reality where actual American citizens actually live. Or even care about such effects.
Obama promised us a “transformative presidency” as far back as 2008. It appears he is on-track to achieving his purpose, his dream of fulfilling that promise, NOW. [If you were to ask me, this next Midterm election is the very test of the proposition, “it’s now or never,” a sort of last-chance proposition.]
But for Obama to get away with this, he needs accomplices. Case in point: Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. Reid barely squeaked by with reelection in the last electoral cycle (2012).
Harry Reid (D – Nevada) is a person born dirt-poor in Searchlight, Nevada. Somehow, he managed to rise from total, abject poverty to multi-millionaire status — all the while having no other source of income outside of public service. Go figure.
If this is not a convincing argument for the absolute urgency of the GOP taking back the Senate then you, dear reader, can tell me what it is, in your estimation.
Further consider Reid's reputation as a world-class wrestler. One gathers that, for such a person, “winning” is everything…. To me, as a citizen, such a person as Harry Reid must have a bad character, to survive and profit so long as he has, in the U.S. Senate, and particularly as its Leader..
Plus may I add that, IMHO, that although he conducts himself in his daily activities nominally, as a public servant, mainly he really conducts himself as if he were a Mafia thug???
To remove Reid from his office as Senate Leader (i.e., from the tremendous powers of that office), a whole bunch of Republican candidates will need to be elected to the Senate this year.
Between Obama and Reid, the transformational “new dawn” for America has been conceived and is being implemented, executed, as we speak.
If you’re going to vote for the particular candidate you favor in the next election, regardless of party affiliation, I think you may be making a big mistake that you may later regret.
In particular, I would warn against the voter appeals coming from “Independents” or “Libertarians.” All they can do is divide the Conservative vote and most likely give the election by default to the Left Progressives — who will not rest until the American people, starting with the American Middle Class, and the American Constitution on which they depend for the defense of their God-given liberties, have been expunged from this world.
The American people had a chance to stop Obama and his "transformative agenda" two years ago, and didn't do that. WHY???
And more to the point, will they repeat this fatal mistake again, this time out???
At least, this is what I worry about.
Harry Reid is the essential, chief enabler of the president's desire to "transform" the American way of life — by gutting the Constitution that Obama swore a Presidential Oath to uphold, defend and protect.
Obama is, of course, demonstrably, patently a liar in this regard. Yet he and Reid are together demonstrably colluding in a massive swindle of the American people, beneath the "radar screen."
What the president wants to do is to usurp Legislative Powers to aggrandize/increase his Executive Powers — a maneuver in total contempt of the Constitution, and a manifestly clear abrogation of his sworn Presidential Oath of Office. Which, in more "normal" times, would be widely considered as an impeachable offense....
Harry Reid says the United States is operating under the condition of a "do-nothing" Congress. At the same time, he's got something like 300+ bills from the (Republican} House piling up on his desk, on the most vital issues facing our nation. They do not move. He is the mover of same, but he does not act.
And then he had the chutzpah to say that the reason for the "do-nothing Congress" is Republican foot-dragging???
But Reid's "finding" here definitely fits into the president's scheme of arrogating to the Executive what are constitutionally Legislative powers.
In short, the president requires that the Constitution must die, in order that his transformational vision of American society can be effected.
I do not wish to live under any such "transformation," thank you very much. So I will be voting Republican on November 4th. Will close for now. Thanks to all.
Still pretending there is a difference between the R and D?
Often there is little difference and sometimes the R is even more leftist (see Cheater Charlie Baker Massataxes)
No quarter shall be given to any RAT.
And I likewise, betty.
Thanks for the BEEP!
Thank you so very much for your inspiring insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Political office is no longer a public service..
It has become a JOB even a Class..
To even want to do political office makes you suspect of a negative agenda..
There are a few decent ones in office (probably) but that is not for sure..
Not only has both parties degraded the people have degraded..
The givernment we have is exactly what “the people” want..
ELSE.............. they’d change it..
Obama the Clintoon’s, the Bushes, Carter, Truman, Roosevelt are indeed PUNISHMENT to the United States..
AND I’m not too sure about Reagan... he was an ex-democrat..
Ran a Union... it seems to have been too late in the game when Reagan took office..
Doom and Gloom?... maybe.. there is such a thing..
There are things worthy to be gloomy about while expecting doom.. i.e. be prepared.. scout oath..
Far be it from me to point out the bible portends such events..
The Arch-communists of the past promised events happening as we watch them unveil.. DAILY..
The bad guys degrade “the people” not a few silly laws..
The Constitution is just toilet paper to a _______ people..
There is almost no good reason ever to vote for Democrat.
Even in Mississippi — and I’m fairly certain that Thad Cochran committed vote fraud against McDaniels — it would be hard for me to actually pull the lever for the democrat. I would probably not vote that particular race or register a throw-away write-in than to actually give a vote to a democrat.
What they are doing with their Open Borders Open Disease plan is contributing to the destruction of America.
The reason given by Freepers is principle. That boils down to self esteem enhanced by what is in essence a vindictive act
The same reasoning applies to not voting
I don’t argue with those who cite principle. It is their life and their beliefs. If they wish to withhold their vote because of principles regarding abortion, guns, etc., then they have the right to do so. In many ways, they perform an important service....sort of the canary in the mine warning.
There is a level of self-esteem involved, but for most I’ve ever run into, it’s a matter of their religious faith. As the scriptures say, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” If they believe they’re doing wrong, then they MUST not do it.
I don’t really want to get into all the past campaigns in which republican candidates were a big FAIL, but my sense is that they need to do a better job strategizing. If Decision X alienates Y percentage of their own base, then the only way to make up the difference is with true independents or democrats or third party voters. They know their base will give them 100% of those votes. The calculations regarding independents, democrats, and 3rd partyites would show a much lower percentage if not zero.
The republican strategists have been poor mathematicians. Because of that, they have been awful strategists.
Well of course they do, dear brother in Christ. But it seems the fact remains they would be voting (or not voting, as the case may be) their principles, as if such could be totally abstracted from the given conditions of American society, thus somehow "ultimate" in their own right.
Let me try to explain. We live in evil times. The rule of law is disintegrating, evidently because there is no one in official Washington who does not hold the federal Constitution in contempt — certainly not the sitting President, who swore an Oath to uphold, protect, and defend it. Under the influence of celebrity/Pop/sports culture — and let us not forget that Beyoncé and JayZ and various sports figures have instant access to the White House, any time they request it, but not so much pests like Benjamin Netanyahu — the moral fibre of the nation is being relentlessly dissolved.
Though progressivism as a political force dates back a hundred years, to Teddy Roosevelt, and was mightily promoted by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, its chickens have finally come home to roost under the presidency of Barack Obama. He is a lawless man, who despises the Constitution and the historical American way of life. Rather, it is his object to "transform" all of that into a different system more to his liking.
His success has been staggering. It owes largely to the fact that no one in political office bothers to defend the Constitution. The most obnoxious example of this is the behavior of the U.S. Senate. Under Harry Reid's iron fist, the Democrat majority has become a rubber stamp for Obama's usurpation of law-making powers. The Constitution forbids this. And it envisions that the Senate would be jealous about preserving its own constitutionally-mandated institutional powers and privileges, and would fight the Executive tooth-and-nail to preserve them.
Clearly, this is not happening. Yet the more Harry Reid talks-up the "do-nothing Congress" as proof of the malfeasance of the GOP while truly critical issues are boiling away — such as immigration reform, infectious disease control, Islamofascist terrorism, the elevation of Iran to a nuclear power, Russian irredentism in Ukraine, political crisis in Hong Kong, Chinese military intimidation of our planes and ships in international waters, etc. — the more Reid is signaling that the president needs to "act alone."
By claiming the Congress is doing nothing about such things (while refusing to bring some 300+ House-passed bills addressing many of these issues to the Senate floor for a vote), Reid gives the president cover and carte blanche to step into the breach, and arrogate all necessary powers to execute his own policies WRT such matters.
Who will stop this executive usurpation of congressional authority if Congress will not do it?
Which is one reason we need to kick the Dem-bums out of the Senate, and elect a GOP senatorial majority in 2014. If we Christian conservatives aren't willing to do that, probably it won't get done.
I'm reminded of the last presidential election in which Obama faced off with Romney. I understand that Obama won this election by only 300,000 votes. Man, that was razor-thin — and I daresay may be accounted for, in part, by all the Christians who stayed home on election day, rather than vote for Romney.
Is the nation better off today, that these Christians stayed home, or squandered their vote on a hopeless/hapless candidate from a party that hardly anybody had ever heard of before?
Must close, so just will say: We had a chance to stop the outright assault on Christian America and everything it stands for, not to mention the undermining of our most cherished principles, institutions, economy, and way of life, in 2012 and failed to do so. This enabled a "new lease on life" for Obama, arguably the most corrupt president in the annals of American history.
He still needs to be stopped — before he takes executive action on a whole bunch of policy issues. Which is to say, actions which he does not want to refer to the judgment of the American people, through their elected representatives. In short, the man intends to be a dictator, not the leader of a free people.
Methinks we Americans have our last chance to maintain our existence as a free people under God in this next election. WRT voting for senators, I strongly urge my fellow Christian conservatives to stay away from Libertarian and Independent candidates, and vote Republican. That seems to be the only way to restore the Senate (and the Congress) to proper working order, and check the lust for tyrannical powers so clearly exhibited by our sitting president.
Me too. But if I wanted to transform the leadership and character of the U.S. Senate, I would still vote GOP; that is, for Cochran.
I don't need to indulge in a moralistic "hissy fit" while our country is in such dire danger. As God is my judge.
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.