[Forward the Light Brigade]

I have made a Vow, I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live! I do not care who they run—I will not vote for a person with a “D” behind their name. Take the pledge Now!

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Folks....if you are an American citizen/voter of any political stripe, and you cast your vote for any Democrat that is running for election this year....you are casting your vote for Barack Hussein Obama and the destruction of the great American Republic!!!! Dennis Prager is right on the money!!!

Vote against any and all Dmocrat party candidates....and politically destroy the entire Democrat Party!!! That is what is needed at this very critical juncture, of American history, November 4, 2014!!! Obama...IMHO...is an totall enemy of the state (USA) and, so is the entire Democrat Party!!! Get out and vote , come election day and make POTUS Obama an instant “Lame Duck” POTUS!!! Do it!!!

[who knows what evil?]

Support the spread of ebola and enterovirus...vote Democrat.

[RginTN]

Romney ignored the Conservative base that’s why he lost.
He tried to capture the mushes and the mushes voted for Obama.

[Jacquerie]

The Framers did their best to ensure the president would not be a party leader first, and only secondarily a president.

What Obama does has nothing to do with incompetence as conservative authors have written these past six years.

From his actions, Obama is the leader of a party whose goals are to destroy these United States. In the long run, the loss of a chamber in congress now and then is irrelevant. The Left dominates the courts and is sole proprietor of the administrative state.

Our government better resembles that of 17th century England than America 1789. The president has assumed prerogative powers to make/unmake law, while the courts and media reflexively do his evil work.

Article V.

[nathanbedford]

In the old days when I heard a low information voter self righteously confide that he or she never votes for the party but "I always vote for the man," I used to reply, "but the primary season is over."

Today, that retort no longer applies because the primary season as a time to segregate good candidates from bad candidates on the Republican side of the ledger has failed us. It has failed us because of the intervention of the establishment Republicans.

Too often today it matters not whether a Republican or a Democrat is sent to Washington because the outcome will be the same. In August I posted this reply:

When it comes to the GOP I am freshly out of loyalty. I look at the field of United States senators who claim affiliation with the Republican Party from safe seats and I ask, what have you done for the conservative cause lately?

What has Lindsey Graham done from his safe seat in South Carolina? He has been more than a nuisance, more than an obstruction, he has been an active agent against conservative principles.

What has Mitch McConnell done? He has colluded with Karl Rove to siphon off donor monies into campaigns to defeat conservative Republican challengers who bear the label "Tea Party," even applauding the treachery in Mississippi.

What has Lamar Alexander done from his relatively safe seat in Tennessee? He's been on the wrong side of every issue including amnesty.

What have of the placeholders done, Mike Enzi, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn and the others? What have they done to advance conservatism? Too hard a question? What have they done to impede Obamas tyranny? Still too hard?

Do you really believe that these guys will repeal Obamacare? Do you really believe that these guys will fail to endorse amnesty? Oh they might give you a head fake but if their votes are needed they will betray us. Some like Alexander and Graham at least are upfront about it. The rest are skulking around the cloak room ready to do the bidding of K St. or of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

I don't give a damn about conservative credentials if they are not worth anything. To be worth something conservatives from safe seats must do something. Yes, I judge senators from safe seats more harshly than those for marginal seats. No apologies.

Let's put the fear of God in some of these placeholders and turncoats to "encourage" the others.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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

. . . not understanding that Barak Obama was O.J. Simpson without the athletic talent.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

That seems to be what is happening in Kentucky’s Senate race, where the Democrat is afraid to admit the obvious fact that she voted for Obama. But then, Kentucky is a coal state, and Obama despises coal miners.

[ballplayer]

Romney could not run against the left because he championed the left’s biggest rape of our healthcare system in history,that made millions of Republicans to stay home.
When we get a Republican who has guts and will.run as a real American we might have a chance,as for myself I think it is over,there are very few Real Americans left,the younger generation thinks Columbus discovered America in the 1960s.
GOOD LUCK

[glorgau]

This column is more of an example of why Romney is a loser than an indictment of the Democratic Party. He went to a gunfight carrying a pocket knife.

[DH]

WoW! What a brilliant analysis! Vote for the party...not the individual.

After some reflection I tend to think you have a point there. After all, even in the animal gangs in Ferguson, Mo. there are maybe one or two “good people.”

Now, I feel better about these mobs and think we should support them for the betterment of civil rights.

What a fool I was...thinking I should vote for an honest candidate and overlook the “organized gang” he belonged to.

Thanks, my life has been changed. /sarc

[Dr. Sivana]

And so the Establishment calls our bluff again, and nothing ever improves.

Roberts at least votes conservative, but Cochran’s people (I don’t even know if Cochran himself is really aware of much) made it clear that our votes are neither welcome nor wanted. The Cochran way will be used against future Tea Party candidates if we vote for him as if he were Jesse Helms.

[Alberta's Child]

Prager lost me when he included Joe Lieberman in this article.

When Lieberman was named as Gore's running mate in 2000 he threw all of his principles out the window and signed on to the full radical leftist agenda of the Democrat Party.

It's also worth noting that the Democrats hardly chased Lieberman out of the party. Yeah, they voted him out of office in a primary. But he won the seat anyway as an "independent," and went right back to vote with the Democrats on every substantive issue anyway.

[tacticalogic]

From George Washington's Farewell Address

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[BobL]

Totally true. But today the only faithful party-line voters are Blacks and FDR/JFK Democrats. And if Blacks don’t show up to vote, the Dems cast a proxy vote for them (providing Voter ID is not in force). The Dems are trying to get Hispanics fully on board, but they keep fighting it by learning English, and the Dems may have to settle for a lighter majority than they hoped (maybe 65% instead of 90%, huge difference when the votes are counted).

Conservative Republicans for the most part, will sit out an election and let the Dem win, if they don’t like the candidate. Conservatives do have their shot in the Primaries, but they usually don’t pay enough attention, so you end up with McCain/Romney. But once in a while they do put in the required effort, and thus Eric Cantor is now condemned to K Street.

We can win with OUR CANDIDATES, for a short time longer (until Amnesty makes the country single-party), but we have to also try.

[ex91B10]

Didn't Daniel Patrick Moynihan say "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts."?

He was an articulate, thoughtful individual. The modern democrat should follow his advice.

[antidisestablishment]

I generally like Prager, but this article could have just as easily been written about the GOP. It’s very simple: no one should ever vote for any Democrat, but you must be very cautious with all Republicans these days.

If they aren’t conservative, they are worse than Democrats and will stab the country in the back every time. For every “conservative” vote (which are 99.99% worthless “protest” measures), there were 1,000 votes where RINOs carried the leftists’ water and passed legislation that has harmed the country.

Everyone points to Obamacare as a the great Republican stand. I’ll believe they were serious when the House votes to defund all of it.

Crickets....

Voting for a RINO is worse than voting for a Democrat. Vote only for conservatives, and tell Rove and his party apparatchiks to go to hell.

[Little Ray]

Yeah. And votes for Boehner, Cochrane, Christie, Snowe, and the like are ALSO votes for clones of Obama.
It would be nice if we actually had two parties.

[Paradox]

I havent voted for a Democrat since... well its been like 25 years I believe, back when I was an id... I mean liberal.

Today, I will to what I can to keep Democrats out of power, and YES, that means I will vote for a "RINO" if the vote is going to be close.

[rrrod]

There is no such thing as a good Democrat...