Posted on 11/02/2014 5:33:59 AM PST by Kaslin
Look, I’m not going to lie to you – your vote matters. But let’s be honest, there are Republicans on the ballot who aren’t very conservative. Most of them don’t agree with me on everything and surely don’t agree with you on everything. In fact, many of them are downright awful.
So if you find yourself in a state where the Senate race is close, and you don’t like some of the things the Republican candidate stands for – just stay home.
A message must be sent: We conservatives could not beat all the people we don’t like in the primary, so we’re not going to vote.
That’ll show the establishment. That’ll show the country. That’ll show the future.
So if you’re a conservative in Colorado, don’t vote for Cory Gardner. If you’re in Iowa, show that Joni Ernst what’s what! Live in North Carolina? Who does that Thom Tillis think he is, anyway? From Kentucky? Let Mitch McConnell know who’s boss! Georgia? David Perdue? I don’t think so. Kansas? Teach that Pat Roberts a lesson! Live in New Hampshire? Scott Brown – yuck, am I right?
Look, if conservatives don’t draw a line in 2014, when will it be drawn?
Just because tea party and conservative candidates couldn’t win a majority in primary challenges doesn’t mean they aren’t the majority. It was dirty tricks and the establishment that screwed you … everyone knows that. So show the establishment you won’t take not getting your way anymore.
Honestly, what’s the point of voting for a candidate who agrees with you a majority of the time? Don’t vote. Let someone who you agree with on nothing win, and then next time – in six years – that person comes up for reelection, maybe the Republican Party will come to its senses and let you get your way.
I mean, what would be better for the country – Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader? Obviously Harry Reid. Mitch McConnell is a squish on a few things, wouldn’t run blocker for President Obama and wouldn’t be a rubberstamp for any Supreme Court nominee, or any court, for that matter. Where’s the lesson for the establishment for that?
Sure, I know, the country will have a court system packed with activist judges, and the president will use his magic pen and phone to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and who knows what else, but principle will be maintained. That’s a moral victory, right? Those count for something in politics, right? They have to count for something…
Of course, they count for nothing. Yet that nothing is what many millions of Americans, including many of you (judging by comments on other columns in which I’ve dealt with this topic), are prepared to vote for by stubbornly refusing to vote for a candidate who isn’t “your candidate.”
Sorry, your candidate lost, and your remaining choice sucks. I get it, I’ve been there. But so what! Get over yourself. Everyone who voted in the primary and your choice lost. It happens. It’s part of life. So you’re just going to quit?
If you want to right the ship of state, how did you think that would work? Your one chosen candidate would somehow undo half a century of constitutional disregard in 20 minutes? Of course not. It’s all going to be incremental. Nothing this big turns on a dime. But before it can get any better it has to stop getting worse.
Harry Reid remaining majority leader in the Senate means things continue to get worse. Barack Obama packing the courts with like-minded judges means things will continue to get worse.
There will come a point of no return, where we will tip over that ledge from which there is no coming back. If you stay home, or you cast a “message” vote for some third party nothing-burger, that’s what you’re voting for. That’s what you’ll get, and that’s the country you’ll be leaving for your kids to inherit.
A vote for anyone other than the Republican, no matter who that Republican is, is a vote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
You want to purge the party? Do it from a position of strength. I’m all for a battle royale for the soul of the Republican Party, but not until AFTER the Democrats are vanquished.
Tuesday, go vote. Vote for the Republicans. Send a message that you are not a moody, unreliable person who will take your ball and go home if you don’t get your way, but that you accept your party’s primary decision. It’s a decision you don’t like. It’s a decision you’ll fight in the next primary if necessary. But for the good of the country, you’ll live in “now” and work for the future.
Anything else is a vote for progressives, and anyone who does that is no conservative.
No you don't, or you wouldn't practice this insanity.
Perhaps you should read my post history sometime.
I'd love to, but I have better things to do...like shovel snow.
Bye!
Right now you got neither. Get the party first, and then instill the principle...or do it at the same time.
That's what primaries are for.
LOL!
I'm voting strictly party this year Lobster...
We'll hold classes and create committees later on for all that principle and conservatism garbage...
Party 2016!
The best argument I've heard and, despite reservations which you know well, I agree.
NO!
You replace them.
YOU, don't create committees, the majority does.
The point must be reiterated once again, that our battle is not with democrats, but rather, with communists and their socialist ilk. Voting *FOR* liberalism in any way only strengthens liberalism, regardless of party... It does no good whatsoever to conflate GOP with Conservatism. In fact, it can be more damaging than any other thing.
We'll have two years to see if we can get 2016 right.
No Mittens! No Jeb! No Gov Krispy Creme!
But if we fail, I'll be voting for the GOP candidate anyway.
FALSE.
Incumbents win re-elections in overwhelming numbers.
TRUE.
It is far harder to dislodge an incumbent democrat compared to defeating a RINO in next primary.
The RINO, being by then an incumbent, see your second point.
A RINO can be persuaded to vote conservative at least on some issues. Democrats of today will vote liberal every time.
FALSE. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal.
No, Liberals 'must simply be removed from office as expeditiously as possible'.
It does no good at all to vote more of them in, and especially so among Republicans. How do you expect to return Conservatism to the Republicans by endorsing liberalism therein? How then is there opposition formed when BOTH parties support liberalism? Pyrrhic victory by definition.
It doesn't follow. Hence it still boils down to men of good character. Men of purpose and conscience, and reason. ALL else is a concession to the lesser of two evils, which always, always results in more evil.
So you don’t actually have the numbers you claimed “don’t lie”.
Ah, irony.
LOL at you, too.
As always, this depends on the specifics. If the lesser of evil is essentially a decent man, then you have a responsibility to support him against the greater evil.
If the lesser evil is in essential agreement with the greater evil, and simply wants to do the same things at a discount, then you aren't gaining anything by supporting him.
Not sure who u are or what your agenda is. Sure don’t seem to have a point of your own.
An 'essentially decent man' would inherently be a man of conscience and have his feet upon principle things. Good men can disagree, but that would be more a matter of degree rather than opposition. The principles necessarily remain. Ergo, the 'lesser good'. Evil is always evil.
“Are you a commie plant?”
I have to wonder the same thing about many of our GOP candidates.
Hey, Kozak, if your guy Romney had won and he was right now using the Republican administration and party banner to advance nationalized health care with on-demand abortion, the environmentalist, homosexual, and anti-2nd Amendment agendas --
-- would YOU be here being accountable for what you voted for?
HELL NO, you dupe and moron whose math skills are so piss-poor as to actually believe the unicorn math that a negative equals a positive. YIKES.
If the Republican administration you voted for was in power, you would be here whining that you didn't vote for that, you voted against the other guys! **waaaahhhhhhh!!!!***
Hey, Kozak and Kaslin and Rocklobster, cynwoody, and other dupes willing to vote FOR agents of an agenda they oppose, let's play toss the coin on this one. Heads I win, tails you lose.
You game?
I think it is because I can prove it.
Hey, Digress -- let's say Romney had won in 2012, and the Republican administration was right now setting up as iron-gripping a national health care "plan" (slavery to government) as ever Obama envisioned. After all, that is what you voted for "against" Obama.
So you are telling me that the resulting Obamacare wouldn't be the Republicans' fault?
You confuse intent with action when you vote.
You are playing flip the coin with the left setting the rules of heads they win, tails we lose.
WAKE THE HELL UP.
Hey Finny, Was I right or what? It has been a long time since this much utter idiocy was contained on one thread.
And the worst part is it’s like the 6th Sense kid. they don’t even know it. Hell, they are PROUD of it. Read the whole thing. It’s a classic.
Mime: Oh, bull. It’s sad that you can’t discern the differences.
It's even sadder that you, Mime, cannot recognize the profoundly fundamental similarities.
This is true. There are no perfect people, and for sure no perfect people in politics. Even good ones have blind spots, and find themselves squeezed by political considerations into taking positions that annoy us.
Thats normal, and par for the course. You can't escape that.
But the current GOP establishment is a different story. They want to abandon moral issues, and they want to seize control of the immigration issue, they think to their advantage, by amnesty of illegals while leaving the border open.
When you say the "lesser of evil is evil", that depends. We make "lesser of evil" calculations all day long. If the lesser-evil is essentially a good man, then support him against the greater evil. The problem comes when it isn't just the decent man with whom we agree 80%, its the guy who is going to implement the Left's agenda albeit at a discount.
There are a few basic issues I at least consider non-negotiables. Those are:
1. Sanctity of marriage
2. Sanctity of Life
3. Border security and protecting US citizenship
4. Repeal of Obamacare
5. Israel
For me these are bedrock issues. I don't know how to compromise on those issues. So, while I believe in "lesser of evil" calculations where the lesser evil is essentially decent, and in essential agreement on the big things, I am going to have a problem when they trot out an open-borders guy who is weak on the other moral issues.
I understand the need to unseat the Democrats and I understand that there are no perfect candidates and never will be this side of heaven. I understand the need to unite behind someone who will not trash the constitution. But the guy who won't secure the border already doesn't have much respect for the constitution. So if it seems I speak out of two sides of my mouth on these issues, its for a reason. I want to get the Dems out. I don't demand perfection from our side.
I will probably back whatever guy our side puts up, because our guy almost by definition has to be better than the awful guy their side puts up. But if GOP runs a guy who is weak or wrong on the bedrock issues, which it seems they are determined to do, or if they do to Ted Cruz what they usually do to conservative candidates, knifing them from behind, then this party will break whatever I decide to do.
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.