Free Republic

Your take on this is the correct one...and one of the few correct “takes” in this thread.

Dave Seanor was NOT fired because he was some Conservative, who was fired being racially insensitive. The fact is that this guy is a HUGE Liberal and extremely hung up on diversity.

He was fired because the Golf industry had put this alleged controversy behind it as soon as Tiger Woods made his intelligent comments that he had no problem with what Kelly Tilghman said on Golf Channel about the “lynching.”

This Seanor guy was angry that Woods dismissed the issue and he was trying to re-ignite the “debate” with his provocative magazine cover. Seanor and some of his writers have been making politically correct comments for years in Golfweek. Always talking about diversity and race and blah, blah, blah.

This Left Wing scumbag Seanor got exactly what he deserved, even if it was for the wrong reason.

If you truly support Ron Paul, I’m not sure whether to be afraid of you...or feel sorry for you...

I guess the answer is a little bit of both...

Did you ever see “The Jacket”? It was shockingly good. One of the few really decent movies made in the last 4-5 years.

No, you were right to downgrade Romney...I agree with you. But some people are saying to have him rated too high. I was trying to explain the inherent difficulty in rating a guy like him. Clearly Duncan Hunter is the ideal choice, but I think it has been painfully clear for months that we are firmly in “hold our nose” territory in 2008.

Your rankings are very helpful to people who are willing to take the reasonable approach which suggests that ALL of the Republican candidates, except perhaps Ron “headed for a rubber room” Paul, are preferable to ANY of the Democratic candidates.

It’s a good thing you are not supporting Rudy, or you might get chastised by a moderator for bad language. But as part of the “circular firing squad crew” you won’t catch any grief.

This is extremely well done. Congrats!

The abuse you are taking for Romney being so high is a bit unfair. Scoring Romney is difficult because he comes across as so darn insincere and he doesn’t SEEM like a Conservative because he parses his positions like a Liberal.

Personally, I think you did a great service for the Posters of the Free Republic with this “rating system” of the candidates.

Look, I agree with you that people are not using their heads about this...

My point was not that you are wrong, because I have been making the same argument as you since before the 2006 Election when all of this nonsense started.

My point is that no matter what you or I say...or if GOD himself came down and backed our argument...there is no way that MANY of these people are going to vote for Rudy, McCain, etc...

They CANNOT be convinced. They have sold themselves on the idea that there’s no difference between a guy like Rudy or McCain and the Leftist Democrats. As you have pointed out, to anyone actually using their brain, this is a ludicrous argument. But I’m telling you not to waste your breath on most of the people here...I have tried and it is truly hopeless...

Doughty,

I think you make some good points overall, but I think you over-stating it by saying that the people were are voting for today would have been Democrats in the 1960’s or 70’s. I do not think George Bush would have ever qualified as a Democrat, nor John McCain. Guys like Rudy and Romney might have, but only to the extent that they were trying to remain electorally viable in the Northeast. Rudy is often ripped on here as a Leftist, but people ignore his consistent stand on Law & Order issues where he was always well to the right. And his economic stands were always right/center. Romney was right/center too, like his Father who I’m sure you remember, but he moved Left when he tried to win in Massachusetts.

This is Politics...people tailor their message to the Electorate...

And for me, even if I agree with you on many of your points (and I do!) the problem is that it ignores the most critical issue of our time...National Security. For me, this issue ALWAYS trumped all other issues, but in the post 9/11 World, it is even more important than ever. So I’ll compromise a little on Social/Economic issues in order to prevent a catastrophic Democratic Presidency in the arena of Foreign Policy. Think about how long we’ve been paying the price for the Foreign Policy blunders of our last 3 Democratic President??? Between LBJ, Clinton and that monumental vermin Carter, we have been “running against the wind” all over the globe in terms of National Security.

And even though you are right that people like Rudy, Romney and McCain represent a significant compromise on a number of issues, it is grossly unfair to lump them in the same category as the Leftist Democrats.

And as for the Supreme Court issue, it is much, much more critical than you stated. The next President will likely appoint 3 or even 4 justices...

1. John Paul Stevens (Liberal)—is nearing 90 and will retire or die soon.

2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Liberal)—is about 75 and NOT in good health.

3. Anthony Kennedy (Moderate to Conservative)—is nearing 75 and has hinted at retirement.

4. Stephen Breyer (Liberal)—is in is early 70’s and has discussed retirement.

5. Antonin Scalia (Conservative)—is in his early 70’s.

You are correct, but your logical message will fall on mostly deaf ears on this site...

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the research you did on this. You were right that there was a TON of media talk about Reagan’s lost opportunity because of SDI, but the Republicans were pretty solidly behind him for most of the time. There was some very limited talk among moderate Republicans, but the VAST majority of the criticism came from Democrats and the really Conservative Republicans.

It’s easy for a person’s recollection to become faulty over time, especially when the media is constantly pounding on right wingers all the time, as well as employing the “divide and conquer” tactics they have used in recent years.

Unfortunately, so many of us on the Right have fallen victim to the Media’s “divide and conquer” tactics, and that has been VERY evident on this site the past few years.

But thanks for your constructive attitude in this thread, and I apologize if I was too adamant in my first statement.

And while you’re doing research, please name the 20 Republican Senators who joined Jesse Helms in condemning Reagan’s deal with the Soviets...it includes (from memory)Helms, Dan Quayle, Malcolm Wallop, James McClure and perhaps even Bob Dole if I remember correctly.

Helms eventually relented when Reagan gave him detailed information of the “trust but verify” part of the agreement.

Here’s some of the research for you...

1st Contra Aid Vote BEFORE the 1986 Elections...

2 Republican Defectors in the Senate
11 Republican Defectors in the House

2nd Contra Aid vote in 1987 AFTER the poor showing in the 1986 Election

8 Republican Defectors in the Senate
12 Republican Defectors in the House

Not exactly a stampede of RINOs...

With all due respect man, you are using selective memories here.

Yes, there was opposition to Reagan’s Reykjavik summit. Much of it was from the Left and Democrats who thought Reagan was a warmonger. BUT...the truth is that his toughest opposition at that point came from HARDCORE CONSERVATIVES who thought he was being too soft on the Soviets. Go research this. Reagan was criticized by as many as 20 Right Wing (NOT RINOs) Senators, including Jesse Helms, the absolute darling of the hardcore right.

You talk about “know it all Liberal Republicans” who opposed Reagan on Reykjavik...like who??? What Liberal Republicans were there in that time frame who specifically ripped Reagan and repudiated the deal with the Soviets? I was on Capitol Hill in the late 1980’s and I can tell you that 90% of the criticism of Reykjavik came from the Democrats and the other 10% came from THE RIGHT WING, not so-called RINOs.

It wasn’t the Republican Leadership (as you call it) that thought of Reagan as a Loose Cannon, it was Bureaucrats at the State Department, and in the CIA, and other entrenched government interests like that. Sure, there was some grumbling from a few RINOs that he was too harsh early in his term, but that was from people trying to win re-election in weak districts...and they had pretty much shut their mouths after the second term began.

Believe me, there was a lot of criticism of Reagan, but it mostly came from the media and Democrats...and there was WAYYYYY more criticism of Reykjavik from the Right Wing than so-called RINOs.

And you bring up Nicaragua...the Republicans DID side with Reagan on that issue. Other than Arlen Specter and Dan Evans, what Republican Senators voted against Contra Aid??? The Contra Aid situation fell apart after Republicans got crushed in the 1986 off-year election and lost several Senate seats. Only THEN did that situation truly fall apart.

If you want to make that point that in 1976, the Republican establishment opposed Reagan then I agree with you, but that was NOT the case in the 1980’s. It is major revisionist history to suggest that there was anything more than token resistance from the so-called RINOs...hell, Reagan even had Democrats on board for some of his stuff...

You said this about the Republican Party Leadership and their relationship with Ronald Reagan,

“did everything they could to keep him from being elected, and proceded to slander him constantly during his eight year term, then proceded to undermine everything he accomplished as soon as he was out of office?”

While this statement was somewhat true in 1976 and in the very, very early stages of 1980, you are WAY off base for what takes place from August of 1980 and forward.

I don’t have time to dissect this right now and demonstrate how wrong your post is, but I’ll be back later tonight to do so when I have time.

Your approach is 100% logical. I wish everyone used their brain that way...

I certainly hope you are right, but the 2006 Election has me convinced otherwise. The “we would better off long term by losing” nonsense was ALL OVER this site back then, and it turned out to be prophetic. I really think most of these people are planning on staying home if McCain or Rudy is the nominee. I also think there a lot of people in the Evangelical community who are done with the Republican Party unless we nominate one of their own.

It’s a BAD time to be reasonable my friend...

So people who think you should vote for the lesser of two evils (ie... a RINO over Dem) are now “DU plants”???

Some of you guys are really losing it here...

Hawk or Moderate???

The answer is Leftist Christian Populist

The second coming of William Jennings Bryan

Save your breath man. I’ve been trying for months to convince these guys who claim they won’t vote if the Republicans nominate a “RINO”

There is no talking to this crew...they have slipped over the edge and no longer dwell in the “reality motel”

Yeah that makes a lot of sense, Animals NEVER eat people...