Free Republic

I don’t think the writer wanted to be accused of jumping to a conclusion.

I don’t really care who the Maine nitwits vote for but when this Rino supports cap and trade and government controling my health care that offends me greatly.

That's interesting. I do really care who Maine voters vote for, but I don't get a vote in their state.

Maine can elect whoever they want but the national party can and should get the R removed from behind her name.

So who would you want as Republican dictator?

If a conservative party member wanted to challenge Snowe (for example) in a primary, the RNC would automatically throw their weight behind the incumbent RINO. Evidence of this is abundant in the NY-23 race.

NY23 did not have a primary, so I don't know what kind of evidence you are talking about there. The liberal was hand selected by a few liberal party boses. If there had been a primary, she would not have been selected, and a better candidate could have run against the Democrat as a Republican.

But now you are upset that a party boss isn't throwing his weight around. It's not a very consistent argument, and for that reason alone it's not a conservative argument.

I don't want the Republican bosses telling me who I have to vote for in Texas, and I don't think I can demand that they tell Maine who they can vote for.

You know as well as I do that the Northeast is more liberal than the rest of the country. Anyone nominated in a primary there is going to have a leftward tilt. However I do know something that you ignore. It's better to have Republican in the Senate that sometimes votes with the party, than a Democrat who never votes with us.

That's not to say we should be satisfied with Snowe. We should oppose her when she's wrong just as we should anyone. And we should do what ever we can to move Maine and other states like that to the right. But if we try to impose our view on them by fiat, as you desire, we only push them further to the left.

The RNC, for one.

So the RNC should should disregard the will of the local voters and tell them who they can vote for? As a conservative that offends me.

Steele is right. I don’t like Snowe’s views most of the time, but she has been elected multiple times by the Republicans in hir state. Who’s to say they can’t do that?

Race issues will never end unless everyone is allowed to discuss them. While you allow Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to be the only people who can discuss race then racism will not end in America.

You do not know who or what I would allow, but I could say that you are the one pressing a politically correct view (at least from your point of view), and seeking to silence me for point out what is very clearly the truth.

The fact that Steele supports some kind of affirmative action has no bearing on the racist insult that was leveled at him. Affirmative action is neither a good thing or a bad thing; it depends one what one is affirmative about. I know of no one who is opposed to affirmative steps to make hiring fair for everyone, but that is a far cry from saying that someone should get a job just because he is a certain race, and if I know Steele as I think I do, that would be his view.

But that is not what the writer, or you have been talking about. You are saying that a black man couldn't be (or at least it is unlikely) qualified to hold the position that Steele now holds unless he got it unfairly. That is plainly a racist view. You seemed to be at one time ashamed of that fact, so you defend yourself against it, but you dare to support the view nevertheless. You are right to feel at least the degree of shame that you have exposed, but that ought to make you take a second look and correct your view.

Those who are sensitive to racism wouldn't need to ask that question. Certainly others know what insult I was referring to whether or not they agreed with the charge.

Actually I already answer the question you gave more directly, so if you are still in the dark, you can search the posts.

Only 3% of 'African-Americans' vote republican, and 'African-Americans' make up only 17% of the population. It is mathematically possible that he was selected based strictly on his qualifications, but the odds that he was the most qualified candidate not factoring in race are astronomical.

You seem to be saying that it is not likely that Steele could be qualified for his job since he's black. How is that not racist? As far as I am concerned, you have only substantiated my concerns. I happen to believe that loyal Republicans are able to look at a man's qualifications without regard to the color of his skin. Until recently I thought only Democrats thought otherwise.

Where are you finding racism in the article? Calling Steele Incompetent, RINO, or dumba$$, is definately not racist.

You are right about that. If I were to call you those names, that would not make me a racist either, but I'll refrain from that anyway. However claiming that Steele was an "affirmative action" pick implies that he got his job just because of his race rather than his competence. That's a racist insult, and is contrary to the facts.

I am sick of racists masquerading themselves as conservatives, and I won't hold back from applying that tag when it fits.

If the writer gets his way, Obama will win again in 2012. I can’t abide with the racist insults hurled at Steele, and conservatives should be careful before embrasing the kind of divisive politics this writer calls for.

I support Hoffman, and wish that all good Republicans had from the start, but I will not kill the party because I got my feelings hurt.

I did not infer anything, I quoted you.

Out of context. Your post did not mention Charlie Crist; it only refered to him with one of you stupid names that you give to those you hate. As far as I knew (and though) "Charlie Loafers" was your pet name for any Republican that was as nutty as you.

Your comment struck me as a dream that some day with enough effort you might be able to remake the Republican party into the Populist party you desire. It fits with your pie in the sky ideals, and my comment was with regard to that; not Crist.

This was your reply to my statement that we have a good chance of knocking out your RINO Charlie Loafers...

If that was your inference from what I wrote, you need to go back and study basic English.

So...

How you draw such infantile conclusions is beyond my ability to understand.

In other words...

You're pretty think, so I will spell it out so that even you can catch my drift. If I had to guess which between you and the worst Democrat is worse for American, I would be hard pressed to make a choice.

And I doubt that I'm the only true conservative that thinks that.

You are free to lecture me on the lesser of two evils, but it doesn't fly with me. With lots of hard work, we now have a chance to beat the Republican establishment darling RINO, Charlie Loafers in Florida too.

You have to love pie in the sky idealists even if they are absolutely unbelievable. Pissant, when will you learn that you are the CINO? You're a populist, not a conservative. And never the twain shall meet.

So if he was strictly a Conservative Party member instead of both a conservative and a former republican, you’d be pushing scozzafava down our throats?

I don't believe in ramming anything down anyone's throat, so I don't know what you are talking about by that. But I think this is a pretty special case. I can't tell the difference between Scozzafava from what I know of her, and Obama. She is pretty leftist even for most Democrats.

It seems to me that Hoffman is running as a Republican, and he has two Democrats that he is running against. That ought to work to his favor, because it splits the Democrats/liberals, and offers a real Republican choice in the election. (I don't really care what platform he runs on.)

What I disagree with you about is that you would rather have an anti-American in the Whitehouse than a weak Republican. That's just dumb, and that kind of thinking is holding the Republicans back from making real progress in America.

I understand that about 40% of voters identify themselves as conservative, while only 20% claim to be liberal. It ought to be simple for conservatives to win most elections, but that doesn't happen. Why? The only reason I know of is that some "conservatives" are too stubborn to realize that it is better to have someone in office you agree with 50% of the time than to have someone you agree with none of the time.

You are a joke Pissant. You claim to want to help Republicans, but in your heart of hearts you think that the name "Republican" serves as a rebuke. You need to get your story straight. As a proud Republican I tell you, we can do without your kind of "help."

Hoffman IS a republican, he is only running under the conservative.

And that is why he has a chance of winning this. If he was an anti-Republican like Pissant, he wouldn't have a chance to win at all. And that is why I support his effort to beat out the Democrat that's running as a Republican.

So what you mean then is that you saved us from Rinos like McCain by giving us Obama? Good job Pissant. I see your point now. The only way America can be great it so completely run it into the ground.

Yes, I am a Republican and proud of it. Have been since Reagan’s day. One of him is worth a hundred of your brand of conservativism that will only destroy us. True Republican principles are conservative. If I don’t belong here because of that, I can be expelled, but until then, I think I have as much right here as you seem to think you do.

You obviously did not read my post. I do not agree with Newt. He left me a long time ago. But neither do I agree with idiots whether they call themselves conservative or not.

Who do you mean? You are Gingrich?

Normally I think it is a mistake to divide the party, so I agree in principle with what Gingrich has said. A majority of conservatives make a minority when it splits down the middle. Folks like Pissant gave us Obama last year.

I disagree with Gingrich in this case, because it actually looks like Hoffman has a little better chance to win than the “Republican.” It’s hard to fathom why Gingrich favors her, except that he seems lately willing to bend over backwards to appear “reasonable” to liberals today.

I’m not sure what’s unusual about this. There were manditory vacines I had to have before starting school in Texas back in 1958. Was that a bad thing?

The states and local governements are supposed to have more authority to mandate things like this than the federal government. If the people don’t want this, vote for someone else next election, or move to a different district that doesn’t require it, or as you say, they can even take their kids out of school.

But its hard for me to see this as that big of a deal since it’s a local thing, rather than a federal thing.