Replies

As I sometimes point out, and the "non-Republican conservatives" don't like it, nevertheless it's fact: Clinton was NOT elected by stupid liberals, Clinton was elected by exactly the conservative wing, who "was going to show Bush I" their displeasure by voting for Ross Perot, instead of Bush, and they did. Well, they showed him all right, the net result was 8 years of Clinton, and I don't need to explain what that did to the country.

At the time, Perot came across as much more conservative than Bush I. Bush I had just spent an entire term caving into the Democrat's every demand, letting them set the agenda, letting them veto everything he tried to do without any fighting back, letting them get away with saying whatever they wanted without rebutting them, etc. Except for Gulf War I, he was a limp, pathetic rag, and a poor excuse for a non-Democrat.

In retrospect, the term "lesser of the evils" was a major understatement for that election. A dishrag, an evil, traitorous, lying, perjorous rapist dixie mafioso, or a delusional, paranoid egomaniac. Who knew? Hindsight is 20-20. At that time, the only clear characterization was that Bush I was a dishrag, and anything BUT a conservative.

Klintoon actually followed the conservative economic menu for the most part - despite the fact that he was also an evil, morally bankrupt sack of sh*t. Who knew he was going to be that bad, given the media/press coverage, if you didn't live in Arkansas? What's more, who knew that the American sheeple would be stupid enough to reelect him once they found out the truth? I see it all as an extremely painful but necessary lesson that wouldn't have been learned had a scumbag like Klintoon not corrupted the office for as long as he did. The pendulum has to swing whether we like it or not, or people get lazy and complacent. In the long run, the destructive reign of Klintigula may turn out to have been a major motivator behind the rise in strength of conservatism.

Most people, who aren't political naifs, or purer than thouers knew that Perot wasn't an alternative answer to Bush the elder and Bubba-bentone.

The simple, historically proven fact is, that third parties do NOTHING but hand an election over to the candidate, the person going fringe, most despises/fears. Politics is not now and never has been about only voting for a candidtae who is THE exemplar of one's ideal and positions. Those who rant & rave about this one and that not being whatever and just how more Conservative , or Liberal one is, doesn't mean that one shouldn't accept the possible ... instead of rejecting, out of hand, what one can get. Those people go through life NEVER being satified and never shall be.

The dog-in-the-manger/ cut of one's nose to spite one's face whingers here, refuse to see reality. They go from thread to thread claiming that they'll stay home or why everyone else should vote for some fringe candidate who, if elected, couldn't give them what they imagine he could. That's just delusional, on their collective part and they need to either wake up, or to forget utterly about politics; a subject they don't understand and never shall.

FO:"As I sometimes point out, and the "non-Republican conservatives" don't like it, nevertheless it's fact: Clinton was NOT elected by stupid liberals, Clinton was elected by exactly the conservative wing, who "was going to show Bush I" their displeasure by voting for Ross Perot, instead of Bush, and they did. Well, they showed him all right, the net result was 8 years of Clinton, and I don't need to explain what that did to the country.

MCH "At the time, Perot came across as much more conservative than Bush I. Who knew? "

----
FO:
Lots of us knew, anyone with any sense knew, and many of us were pleading on our knees with the "purist ideological conservatives" trying to explain that a vote for Ross Perot, instead of Bush, is a vote for Clinton. But unfortunately they didn't listen.

What is worse is that these "purist ideological conservatives" haven't learned a thing from all that, they still spend more time bashing Republicans, thereby helping our common enemy, the Democrats.

Don't take this personally, because it's not meant that way in the least, especially since I really don't know your posts, but doesn't it just make you wonder that at least some of the people here and elsewhere who bash Republicans because they are "oh, so pure conservatives" could be Democrat "agent provocateurs" trying the split up the conservatives/Republicans -- "divide and conquer", remember, and some others are true believers in the ultimate conservative ideals, but end up being "useful idiots" used by the Democrat "agents".

(Donning asbestos suit) But before you get out your torches and flame throwers, please read the above carefully and let me clarify in addition, I do believe that the vast majority of Republicans, libertarians, conservatives, etc. on the Free Republic are all true patriots, want what's best for the country, and so on, but step back and think of people's post you sometimes come across, if they don't fit my speculation as to who they are and what their motives are.

One additional thought, for people to ponder:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", "Politics makes strange bedfellows". What all this says is that to fight the Democrats, the greatest threat to our country, and conservatism, successfully, Republicans, libertarians, independents need to focus on our commonalities and common interests, and unite in the fight against Democrats.

Obviously that doesn't mean we can't have our own spirited discussions, but when the chips are down, as in voting, the only way to defeat the Democrats is to support the Republican party. Just as in a family, you have your familty squabbles, disagreements, fights, whatever, but when the chips are down "blood is thicker than water", as they say.