Posted on 10/29/2014 9:22:12 PM PDT by Mariner
In a Tuesday email to supporters entitled, "Carl DeMaio Wants You to Vote For Him, But He Totally Disrespects Your Vote," the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has followed through on a promise to "actively oppose" the candidate the GOP establishment has branded a "New Generation Republican." The email endorses voting for the incumbent Democrat, Scott Peters, even though he is "wrong on the issues."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They should vote for neither.
This is exactly why any election should include none of the above, and why any candidate must receive 50%+ any fraction in order to be declared the victor. A two way runoff wouldn’t itself necessarily gain 50%+
I would have voted none of the above in the last presidential election and been glad to have different choices. Then I would have voted none above one more time until I had a real choice.
In the interim, the old president loses his job on the required date in Jan (Jan 20?), and the speaker of the house is interim president until a new candidate wins.
Mike Lee and McDaniel are supporting Maness. I don’t know why he won’t drop out other than spite.
Maness probably figures that, if Cassidy wins big in the runoff, Maness will be forgiven for unintentionally (but negligently) running interference for Landrieu in the jungle primary, and he can run for the Senate again in 2016 if Vitter wins the governorship next year. (Why he thinks that it’s a good idea to make his first foray into politics a U.S. Senate run, instead of running for the state legislature or maybe the U.S. House, I have no idea, but unfortunately many supporters of self-announted “TEA Party leaders” seem to prefer candidates with no record on which to stand.)
Oh, and if he drops out he can’t use campaign money to travel across the state and run ads propping up his name ID (among other legal uses for federal campaign funds).
A gay Republican may/will vote the way you don’t approve on gay issues, but the Democrat will too. It’s all the other votes that will make the difference.
Think about it!
Lose some of your biases.
Exactly. I do not understand why so many, here on FR/hardest of the right of all places, think a country run by liberal republicans is still America at all.
We of all people pride ourselves on patriotism. So what could possibly be patriotic about voting in ways that guarantee shifting further and further from original intent and the Constitution with each passing election?
We are never going to ‘save’ what has already been lost. The mindset has to shift to ‘regain’ what has been lost and you DO NOT do that by continuing down the path to increasing destruction.
My point is that we have an ostensibly conservative PAC advocating folks vote for the Progressive Democrat and Obama supporter.
That's a FAR PIECE from just not voting for a pile of crap. That's advocating a vote for a different, and potentially more dangerous pile of crap.
I don't get it.
I don't think there's a way somebody could cause me to get it.
OK, I’ll give it a shot:
What a lot of this comes down to is that there are those that believe (and believe that the facts show) that the GOP will continue to adopt liberalism ‘no matter what’. That thy have shown without hesitation that their base does not matter and their agenda trumps every concern the base has with their direction. They believe that because the GOP will not alter its course, they must be removed. At this time, a significant portion of the base still backs the GOP and will indeed vote for them in a mistaken ‘bitter clinging’ to the Reagan past.
And until those people come around to seeing the world for what it is, instead of what they wish it were, the GOP will have to be taken out in the general...as the primaries keep electing RINOs and the liberalism grows with each such primary victory.
The ‘we’ll get’em next time!” idea has been repeated for 30 years. We live the result. It failed horribly and created the country we now live in. If we take the hit, we can start over. Until we remove the problem, it simply continues to grow and adapt new excuses for why you must abandon your Constitution, your principles and come to their new American way of thinking.
Now whether one agrees or disagrees, the fact remains that a liberalization of the GOP is almost complete. And one has to choose between stopping them or supporting them in the general. Stop means removing them from power. Support means a continued slide into an open Uniparty. Because ultimately, this is a very binary issue.
Indeed, they should focusing on the MANY races with pro-family Republicans running against scum, instead of endorsing a filthy piece of rat garbage like Peters. It’s moronic.
So when both options suck, write in a third.
Find your local Tea Party folks and see who they recommend.
We are not entirely without recourse in these situations.
I’m no fan of Sicko DeMaio, but he’d be far better than the RAT Peters on economic issues. And given that the district isn’t exactly a hotbed of conservatism (Romney was held to 45.7% in the CD), it would be very risky to reelect Peters in the faint hopes that in 2016 (a presidential year) we’d be able to get a conservative Republican to finish in the top two in the jungle primary and then beat Peters one-on-one on Election Day. So if I lived in that district I’d hold my nose and vote for DeMaio, but I wouldn’t send him a dime (let him fundraise from his Log Cabin pals).
Absolutely. And people have forgotten that this is EXACTLY how the founders designed the system to work. Not this lesser evil crap the liberals push.
Yeah.
Unlike with Tisei, who seems to be worse than Connie Morella, I don’t think it’s debatable as to whether DeMaio losing would be for the best, just cause he’s homosexual. I backed the conservative that ran who didn’t have a chance but some people were for the heterosexual RINO with identical issue positions to DeMaio, that was dumb, that fellow was less electable than DeMaio, not being a popular councilman.
Sexual harassment claims against DeMaio.
Reminds of what happened to allegedly closeted Il State. Treasurer Rutherford, who could have been the gubernatorial nominee. As I recall be was practically accused of attempted rape of an ugly bald guy who happened to be a democrat activist.
What is the end result of the votes of 180 million sinners? Not good.
We have to kill the traitors in our own ranks, no matter the cost, before we can ever hope to defeat the guys on the other side of the hill.
THAT makes sense. And THAT's what should happen to McConnell.
And several others.
If we can't get 'em in the primary, take them out in the general. Either way these folks must be eliminated FIRST.
I agree with that philosophy, it just took me a while.
That’s why every time liberal voters will vote Democrat over Democrat-Lite.
Republicans gain nothing by being more liberal, they only lose their base, without gaining anything else.
I have to ask, is their any difference between the candidates? Seems there is none. Both sound deeply disturbed.
I’m of the mindset that before we just cast our vote for anyone, we coordinate with every local and state level Tea Party group we can to find out who they recommend.
Start making the system work FOR us, instead of against.
This is a perfect situation for it. Just doing the lesser of two freaks things has got to stop.
D progresive versus R progressive is NOT a choice for us.
But a write-in candidate IS a choice. Futile? Maybe now it is....But not so much when an organized, coordinated effort starts working with a purpose towards replacing these bums.
Alinsky THEM for once.
Oh that’s terrific.
The two conservatives split the conservative vote thus denying each of their supporters a real option in November.
I’m really starting (despite my strong belief if federalism and state’s rights) that any election for a federal office, whether U.S Representative, U.S. Senate, or POTUS, we need uniform voting standards for how elections are conducted.
Since the U.S. Senator from Colorado votes on issues that affect me in Texas, I think it only fair to make sure the election there is fair and only eligible voters vote, and only one time each.
I think the Texas model is a pretty good one.
We have early voting for two weeks, not one or two months.
And absentee ballots are for limited circumstances by request.
Plus of course voter ID is required.
It’s of course highly unlikely the GOP would ever attempt such measures at the federal level.
he won the freakin primary, dude
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.