Redstate

I agree with you there and it's the main reason I don't think he will even hit 2% nationally. But he could grab some fiscal conservatives who are unhappy with the direction of the GOP. Also staunch social conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for McCain.

I think some of these swing states will be real close, potentially coming within a point or two. If Barr grabs 2% in a particular state, that could turn the election on its head.

His supporters were in full attack mode at our County Convention. They took control of some of our States Republican Senatorial Districts County Conventions and these "Delegates" are going on to our State Convention in June.

I am an Elected Delegate to our State Convention and I can assure you, they are working hard and loud to get Paul's agenda included in the Party Platform, which we were able to keep out at the county level. There are Paul Supporters going to State from my county because they took over several precincts and elected only Paul supporters as delegates to State. This happened all over the State and we are still not sure how many will be at the State Convention but if they have same percentage as at the County level, it will be a long State Convention.

When doing so doesn't indirectly place you at increased physical risk? I'd personally love to spank the GOP a little myself, and I'm a quote-unquote moderate squish; unfortunately, the alternative is to let the Democrats run things, and I'd rather not do that while my wife's working in a primary blast zone.

And the GOP knows that, dammit.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Your analogy is quaint, but we're talking reality now. McCain ain't the optimal candidate, but he's what we have, and he's orders of magnitude better than the alternative. A vote for Barr or any other candidate is a vote for The Obamessiah.

Now if you're comfy with a radical lurch to the left in the USA (as opposed to perhaps a tiny little bump), then feel free to not vote for McCain. Just remember - the Dems are likely to have close to a bulletproof majority in Congress, and T.O. will be able to push through any radical socialist policy that he wants. And he will.

Once McCain is in office, feel free to blast away. This ain't the time.

If McCain is what the RNC puts up, am I under an obligation to vote for him? His past includes gun control bills (support of bans on 'cheap guns' and types of ammunition), not to mention his lax stances on immigration control and amnesty.

Is he 'better' than Obama? Of course. But is Obama the scale by which we judge Republicans?

It is not MY fault if McCain does not win because conservatives are driven away by the RNC's leftward movement. Only the RNC is at fault. They pander to moderates and ignore conservatives. Why is anyone BUT the rnc at fault for the consequences of its actions?

THAT is reality.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Reality is:
1) The Democrats are going to nominate the most hard left candidate that I can remember. This guy is even worse than Carter, who at least had some semblance of moral decency.
2) The GOP is nominating John McCain, who is not the perfect conservative but displays some conservative characteristics. Has he "maverick'd" the GOP? Yeah. Is he a liberal? No, not by any measure.
3) The Hopeless Libertarian Party is nominating Barr. He doesn't have a bloody prayer of winning anything. But he poses a significant problem by siphoning off the whiny baby protest vote and potentially damaging any prospect we have of keeping The Obamessiah from turning the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America. The whiny baby protest vote, while small, could be just enough to sway the voting.

Now if you prefer a socialist future for the USA, go ahead and whine vote for Obama or Barr. If you'd like someone who probably represents 80% or more of traditional GOP/conservative values, and you have the chutzpah to work to influence how President McCain governs, then vote for the Republican candidate. One thing I will guarantee you - you will NEVER, EVER find a perfect candidate. NEVER.

THAT is reality.

This same speech (with a handful of word substitutions, of course) is being given to Libertarians who are upset that the nominee is someone as statist as Bob Barr.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If very little else, Libertarians always were intellectually consistent. How do party regulars suddenly embrace Bob Barr, who has flip-flopped beyond recognition to get that party's nomination? Will Libertarians bolt to the Republican Party to cast protest votes over their, as you put it, statist nominee?

It's a crazy year for all three parties.

The party regulars don't embrace Barr any more than the Republican regulars have embraced McCain.

For every "Look, be pragmatic, this is good for us!" voice, there's a voice that says "THE GUY IS A LIBERTARIAN IN NAME ONLY!!!"

And the pragmatists (such as they are) are calling the purists silly idealists and the purists are pointing out that Libertarianism *MEANS* something and back and forth and back and forth.

Now that I think about it... Wayne Allyn Root was the attempt to square the circle, actually.

WAR ("Finally! A WAR you can support!") is the quintessential Republican who wants to smoke pot who doesn't mind if his decorator has a civil union in the basement of the Unitarian Church.

And Root will pretty much be set to run for President in 2012.

But what I think will happen is that, for the first time since 1980, the Libertarians will get more than 1% of the national vote. And the Libertarian Party will stop its evolution toward being the Cosmopolitan Libertarian Party it was inching towards and will start going for the Ron Paul kinda paleocon voter and will probably make overtures to the Constitution Party kinda people.

More's the pity.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Interesting response, in all seriousness. Thanks.

5. He governed like a center-right Republican when he had the chance, not at all like a Libertarian Party member.

4. He only joined when his Republican career was on the rocks.

3. He's never worn a tin foil hat, drank colloidal silver, or used a Liberty Dollar to buy the latest Ron Paul Survival Report.

2. After his speeches, his face isn't flecked with spittle from screaming about the AIPAC-bought Neocons conspiring to turn Washington away from the principles of the founders.

1. He said nope to dope, and ugh to drugs.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If I recall, he even opposed medical marijuana and at one point suggested crack dealers be executed. Now, I need to Google those points but the fact my pathetic memory thinks them to be true is sufficient.

He's a Paleocon in my estimation.

I don't like him for reasons similar to reasons I don't like the policies of Ron Paul.

While Libertarians and Paleocons may look similar from a distance, they really only share a huge distaste for a large centralized government.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Will the loss of party regulars be offset by disaffected Republicans? Again, interesting dynamics at work here.

And the Libertarian Leadership will see bigger turnout and dream about being kingmakers.

And the Cosmopolitarian portion of the base of the party will be told "hey, you have to make compromises if you want to make these things work."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

1) The Democrats are going to nominate the most hard left candidate that I can remember. This guy is even worse than Carter, who at least had some semblance of moral decency.

Yup. Not sure what that has to do with me as a conservative, but the Democrats are diving directly into socialism. Which is, of course, why comparisons of McCain to Obama are false comparisons. If you wanted to determine who is a conservative, you need to compare McCain to people who are not socialists.

2) The GOP is nominating John McCain, who is not the perfect conservative but displays some conservative characteristics. Has he "maverick'd" the GOP? Yeah. Is he a liberal? No, not by any measure.

He's soft on amnesty, doesn't want to secure the borders, proposes a socialized medicine program for kids, supported gun control and opposed the Tax Cuts by President Bush (which he now claims to support). He is Lieberman. Do you consider Liberman to be a conservative voice? I sure don't.

While his WORDS have become more conserative, his actions have not. Who is it that McCain has become cranky at? NC GOP, for discussing Obama and Wright. If he was a Democrat being cranky at the DNC, they wouldn't call him a "Maverick" they'd call him a "Backstabbing Traitor" (As they did to Zell Miller)

You still have not given a REAL reason to vote for McCain as a Conservative. "Anybody But" reasons only lead to horrible "Anybody" candidates. Tell me why I should believe that McCain as president would ACTUALLY show a spine to Democrats in Congress given that, as a current Senator, he does not.

3) The Hopeless Libertarian Party is nominating Barr. He doesn't have a bloody prayer of winning anything. But he poses a significant problem by siphoning off the whiny baby protest vote and potentially damaging any prospect we have of keeping The Obamessiah from turning the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America. The whiny baby protest vote, while small, could be just enough to sway the voting.

I don't much care about Barr. I'm not a Libertarian. As with discussing Obama and the DNC, I don't see what this has to do with McCain being a liberal Republican nominee for a leftwards moving RNC. I also don't see what this has to do with why a Conservative ought to be obligated to vote Republican, or why Conservatives ought to 'get the blame' if Republicans don't win in 08.

(Oh yes, they are already itching to blame the 'Religious Right' and the "Evangelical Conservatives" . . . There is a growing movement to cut out the conservative christians for the sake of winning wishy-washy people who would vote republican except that they refuse to be associated with Christianity... under the guise of being a 'big tent' party.)

An old line: You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything...

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

You don't get it, do you? Do you want Obama to be the bloody president or not? I could care less about ideology at this point. It is absolutely, positively meaningless as to whether McCain is a conservative or not. You don't seem to get that. Either McCain or Obama will be elected. Period. There is not going to be a magical conservative hero come swooping in and win as a 3rd or 4th or 5th party candidate. A whiny baby vote will not accomplish a thing.

You want Obama? Go ahead and lie on the floor and throw a fit. You want to avoid a Marxist takeover? Vote for the one person who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against him...and that would be McCain, no matter how much you or anyone else likes it. There is no Conservative Party. There is the Republican Party, and it's not always 100% conservative. That's unfortunate, but that's reality (which you don't seem to have a grasp of)

No, you are not obligated to vote for McCain. But if you have two neurons to rub together, you'll figure out that the alternative is far, far worse.

My finger's on the button. Don't make me push it.

You don't get it, do you? Do you want Obama to be the bloody president or not?

Broken Record. That, really, is the only argument. "If you don't support McCain... You're.... You're.... you're just supporting Obama/Clinton/Etc"

That's not an argument, that's 'fearmongering'... It ends constructive thought and is only a few steps above calling someone racist because they oppose illegal immigration.

I could care less about ideology at this point. It is absolutely, positively meaningless as to whether McCain is a conservative or not.

Evidently not, to you. But for some of us, having the country slide to the left is a bad thing... Whether it be fast OR slow.

Either McCain or Obama will be elected. Period. There is not going to be a magical conservative hero come swooping in and win as a 3rd or 4th or 5th party candidate. A whiny baby vote will not accomplish a thing.

And if it is Obama, because McCain and the RNC have driven Conservatives away, it is the fault of the RNC. Yet, you will see everyone BUT the RNC blamed... it is starting already with your calls that if I don't vote for McCain, I'm effectively voting for Obama.

You want Obama? Go ahead and lie on the floor and throw a fit. You want to avoid a Marxist takeover? Vote for the one person who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against him...and that would be McCain, no matter how much you or anyone else likes it.

More fearmongering and bullyish insults. This is how the RNC gets conservative votes. "you vote for McCain or... Or... I'll kick your [censored]!"

Also shows no ACTUAL reason to vote for McCain. What if it were just Hillary and Obama? would you be demanding I vote for Hillary because she is 'more conservative' than Obama? Do you see how silly it is?

There is no Conservative Party.

There we agree. There are many 'third party' groups that may be conservative, but there is no Conservative Party, as it used to be the RNC. You've nailed that one. Do you see, now, why conservatives are upset?

That's unfortunate, but that's reality (which you don't seem to have a grasp of)

Ahh, insults, the sign of a real winner of an argument.

My finger's on the button. Don't make me push it.

What button might that be? If you are referring to deletion or banning, would you really ban me for disagreeing with you?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Click...

Unfortunately I don't have a Clueless Button, or I would have pressed it instead.

Have fun in the USSA.

Yup... That put me in my place, alright.

For a moment, I thought it might be something constructive.

But no. Just another random insult.

Insults are like typing in all caps. Doesn't help your 'argument'.... and just makes you look silly.

I still note that you haven't given ANY reason as to why a conservative should support a liberal republican in a left-moving RNC.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

believe me when I say it is the only reason for this conservative....the war in Iraq...4000K soldiers have died to bring something like a democracy to Iraq and to pull out precipitously would cause a genocide along the lines of Vietnam...if for no other reason than to ensure that our brave men and women did not die for folly. I believe we have seen the movie of what Democrats do when given the reigns of power over our military.

This is not a scare tactic by the way because I agree that people using that type of argument are devoid of rational debate....McCain has been steadfast on this war and has not shifted with the political winds other than to go against President bush and push the surge...he will be the best Commander in Chief...even if he will not be the best President for conservatives.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

That, really, is the only issue that saves McCain, in my book.

Though I do not believe that Hillary would pull the troops out (The Clintons are not opposed to war, they're just opposed to unpopular war. With a news media dropping the bad stories and covering the good things we do, she could quickly have a popular war on her hands.), I do agree that of the top three, McCain is the only one who, at least, SAYS that he would fight the war with interest.

Though, that was a common thread amongst all of the Republican Hopefulls (except Ron Paul, of course), McCain is who the Republicans are putting up.

I have an advantage in that I live in Oklahoma. While we keep putting up Democrats for too many State positions, we put up GREAT conservatives to federal office. I have no doubt that McCain will win Oklahoma easily. That puts me in a position to vote for someone else without any real threat of Oklahoma turning Blue. (Though, if I were to do so, it would be followed by a letter to the RNC to tell them what I did and why I did it, and what the RNC can do if it wants this vote back.)

Unfortunately, I've found McCain to be lacking in so many issues that while I know he would be fighting the war well, I'd be losing freedoms left and right.... freedoms that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect would be whisked away by a Democrat Congress.

It will be a tough road ahead for any conservative and this hysterical rant "If You Don't Vote For McCain, You're Voting For Obama/Clinton!" does as much damage, in my mind, as the RNCs move to the left.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

immigration bill is the proof that when we come together we can beat this government by and for the politicians every time....but you have to work with the two party system and we conservatives can take back this party and I for one intend to do so!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

As I asked Neil, how do you suggest we do that?

The RNC doesn't seem to be listening, but still demands our vote.

What is your suggestion?

---------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

working locally in your neck of the woods and constantly and consistantly CALLING and FAXING your elected representatives...if we had the millions staying on their representatives like we did during the amnesty debacle they would change...believe it...they were stunned into submission by the blowback of that bill but unfortunately people do not stay fired up...GET FIRED UP...we can and we must change them back to what they said they were when they were elected.

I also suggest money to conservative causes to allow your voice to be heard...you may not have a lot of money but your time is equally as valuable to this cause...if you are that determined...these are the things that work.

I personally love the Heritage Foundation but I have others as well...pick your poison...don't just sit on a blog get active.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55967

Just two days after President Bush slammed critics of his immigration policy, the Republican National Committee has reportedly fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, as donors are said to be furious over the president's stance to give legal status to millions of illegal aliens.

closed down a phone bank operation when the phone bank employees were passing along comments about how disgruntled the voters were and how they weren't going to support the RNC as it dipped to the left (Regarding immigration in this article)

I support conservatives an am blessed to live in Oklahoma where my federal congressmen are good people.

There's even a call for people to run for office as many state positions are up for grabs, but I'm not sure.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

something akin to optimism...seriously nothing will ever get accomplished with negativity...they may have fired 65 phone bank personnel but they did not silence millions of Americans and they can't fire us but we can fire them...buck up buddy...it's always darkest before the dawn :-) This to shall come to pass...it felt just like this during the 70's...you know everything that's new is old...same thing..we shall overcome!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

And I have thought about public office, but I have a feeling I'd quickly become disliked. I don't kiss up to others. I don't say things like "I respectfully disagree with my good frend, Representative [liberal]."

In Oklahoma, there are alot of seats that are going unopposed, I heard this morning.... I don't know if any that I qualify for are, maybe I'll check tonight. I think there's a 200 dollar filing fee for state positions.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

donate to your run...I don't think you will find a better place than Redstate to post that information as well because there are conservatives looking to help get grassroots candidates elected.

I knew you would buck up and whoa that is a huge change in attitude :-) ROCK ON!

It is not about being liked it is about your commitment to your ideals...in the grassroots sector we don't like to go along to get along...you must stand for something or you will fall for anything...I do believe you said that earlier!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

We're to dumb to get it...we're to busy clinging to God and our Guns to be able to ascend to the intellectual heights that you have achieved!

We should get a clue, and stop whining and rub our two neurons together and car whether McCain or Obama wins or not...the fact that it doesn't seem to matter to us couldn't be that we care about more than winning! It couldn't possibly be that we could put Principle above Party. We're just a bunch of ignorant backwoods hicks more interested in whing than moving the country forward!

In case you haven't figured out I'm being sarcastic...I am!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Of what value is winning by party if we lose by policy?

Of what value is getting an R in office if they act like a D?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Good questions and at some point Negative returns must be considered.

In other words...at what point does putting a liberal R in office not ony become a net zero for the Party and Conservatism and when does it become a net negative?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I'm young. 28.

I don't have the experience of age on my side.

But I do have one thing:

I don't care what LETTER is after someone's name, as I've met some VERY liberal Republicans.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Then vote for the best candidate. For any conservative, that's John McCain.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Given what I say in a lower comment (85? 86?) how do you figure that he is the best choice for a conservative?

Just to be sure you find the right comment (my reply to your accusation that I'm a liar), I'll quote it:

Amnesty:
-More help for legal immigrants when immigrating & once here. (Jul 1998)
-1988: Honored by La Raza for opposing official English. (Jan 2004)
-Deport 2 million illegal immigrants who committed crimes. (Jan 2008) (Uh, ALL illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime: Illegal entry into the united states. That is a crime last time I checked)
-I've never supported amnesty. (Jan 2006) (OOps: FactCheck: Yes, he has used the word "amnesty" in the past. (Jan 2008) )
-Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

Gun Control:
-Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
-Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

Tax Cuts:
-Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000)
-Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them. (Apr 2007)
-Opposed Bush tax cuts, but must extend them now. (May 2007)
-Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes. (Oct 2007) (Nope, sorry, that's not fair)
-FactCheck: Against Bush tax cuts in 2003; for them in 2006. (Jan 2008)

Healthcare:
-Expand health insurance to 11 million uninsured children. (Dec 1999)

(now, of course, he's verbally come out against his own stances, but his ACTIONS trump his words as he is a politician)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Also, how much liberty does a guy blown up by a suicide bomber have?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Saying someone is 'good' because he's not a democrat is, again, a false comparison.

Obama... I'd MUCH rather have Obama than Hitler, so let's support Obama. And if you don't support Obama, you're just supporting Hitler. And are YOU a hitler supporter? HMMMM?

Do you see, now, how silly that comparison is? You want to talk about McCain and conservativism, compare him to Duncan Hunter.

As for the suicide bomber....

How many suicide bombers would be successful if the populace was armed as per the 2nd Amendment?

You hear "ALLU ACKBAR!" and see someone with wires in his jacket, running towards you, of what value is having an R in office who believes in 'some form' of Gun Control?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Dude. bs is right, and he said none of those things you put in his mouth.

The calculus is pretty simple here. Your available choices to pick for President of the United States this year are McCain and Obama. You know me well, and you know my thoughts about Johnny Mac.

But those are the choices - BAD, and A WHOLE LOT WORSE THAN BAD. If you jump on the Barr train, you are choosing A WHOLE LOT WORSE THAN BAD.

As many have proposed, including Neil, -- we lost in the primaries, and the best we can do right now is the best we can do, and THAT's McCain. It's not even a debate, alright?

Meanwhile, we are not done. For 6 months, we get to sharpen our knives, clean and couble-clean our weapons, in preparation for a McCain presidency that will need our influence. And also, start now on your local political scene, if you are not already. AS Neil Stevens proposes, we bring conservatism back starting with the grassroots. For now we have lost the national party, and we won't get it back voting for Barr. We get it back by taking it back at the local, county and state level.

So quit aiming your guns inward, alright?

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

So then you would agree that a conservative has an obligation to vote Republican, no matter how far to the left the RNC slides?

At what point do you say "No, here is the line. Here and no further." ?

Of what value is a Republican in the White House (during a time with a Democrat Congress) who has abandoned most of the conservative ideals that (I hope) you profess to believe in?

When do you say "They no longer represent me." ?

We applauded (or at least, I did) Zell Miller when he said that the Democrats no longer represented him. The same goes to Norm Coleman. Are we so one-sided that we'll applaud democrats who leave the democrat party for becoming too liberal, but demonize conservatives who suggest that of the RNC?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm not calling anyone names. I'm not a whiner baby and neither is anyone else at RS...I just don't like the Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya tone bs is using and his arrogance at insisting that anyone that disagrees with him is dumb!

If you read my other posts you'd see I'm not advocating for Barr in any way. I've commented that he adds an interesting dynamic into the race because many of my less informed conservative friends remember him favorably from the Impeachment and other issues during the Clinton years. I've said his candidacy should make the Republican Party and the McCain Campaign sit up and take note because continuing to antagonize the base carries a danger of pushing votes to the Libertarians.

We've got a lot in Common EPU and I'm not quibbling with you...you make good points...but I'm not going to take crap when it's dished on my plate, especially when I'm called stupid for not agreeing with someone!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I haven't been following the whole thread so I don't know all the stuff going on here. But this discussion is getting heated, and the people involved are not really on opposite sides of this - and that's problematic.

Look, you got some good stuff going on inside your head, but right now you are in danger of getting a reputation for the over-the-top stuff. It's not helpful in the long game to fight every battle down to the last man.

If I may suggest, sometimes save your ammo, when it gets like this and you've been dissed, trampled on, misrepresented, what have you. When you are right and they won't budge, it's no longer helpful to stay in it. Just say "hey, I think you're full of crap, I'm done here" and disengage.

You probably have noticed the marathon (still ongoing I think) thing between Harold Vaughn and birdmojo on the California Supreme case on gay "marriage". This could go on into the next year, and they are far, far past convincing each other of anything. Right now I'm not on speaking terms with one of the Contributors, and frankly that's a result of neither of us being willing to walk away when both of us should have been a little smarter than that.

So, dude, I'm asking, just lay out of this one. You made your points, I tend to agree up to a point, and some others don't agree. I like you alot, and you got alot to offer, but like I said you are in danger of getting marginalized if you keep sniffing the ozone. Which I admit, smells pretty good.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

If I were a wild eyed McCainiac I would have said the same thing. I don't like the attitude coming from bs that anyone that doesn't agree with him is automatically stupid. Not only is it disparaging to the one he says it to, it makes him look foolish!

Calling people stupid is a hot button for me, especially when it comes to family calling each other stupid over a tactic and not an overall goal.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I don't think much of getting called an idiot, or dumb, or gullible, all that too. Trust me, I get it, my particular hot button continues to be when people applying the word 'conservative' to people who are not entitled to the name, and yes, it gets me worked up pretty good.

But please consider what I was suggesting before. Take parting shot. Disengage. Protect cred.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

of missing the point about the reality of the situation. We are not playing games or doing an academic study about politics now. This is about the welfare of the country. There is no way, NO WAY that having Obama in office for any period of time is good for anyone, conservatives included. Take Neil's advice about the proper tactic to move the party in the direction you desire.

you can say that without putting yourself on a pedestal and talking down to the serfs bs...that's the point...you made a good post above that I replied too that went a lot further to making your point than you did in 7 or 8 posts where you were calling names!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

then why is your only solution "Vote for McCain because he's better than Obama!"

That doesn't move us to the right, it continues to enable the RNC's leftward movement. I don't want Obama to be President, I don't want Hillary to be President. I want a CONSERVATIVE to be president. And, REALLY.... McCain is not that. To make him look like a really strong conservative you have to compare him to Hillary or Obama, a socialist and marxist.... Mondale looks conservative compared to those two, should we vote or Mondale?

I'm not OBLIGATED to vote for McCain, none of us are, despite the rants by the RNC and people such as yourself that we somehow have a duty to vote for a party that has left us in the dust. Your arrogant attitude is what conservatives such as myself keep having to face.

My duty is to God and Country, not to an RNC that only cares about pandering to moderates.

If they keep moving left and lose the conservative vote, you'll be here in November pointing fingers at conservatives, willfully ignoring the actions of the RNC, won't you?

At what point do you hold the RNC responsible or its actions?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

But for right now I'll apologize to you and ace and whoever else took exception to my other post. That wasn't cool. Sorry...I hope you'll forgive me. It's not the first time I've said something like that and regretted it, and it probably won't be the last.

Back to the debate later...it's something I've come to feel quite strongly about, and it showed in my hot-headedness.

I've come to feel quite strongly about, and it showed in my hot-headedness.

Don't worry about it....happens to the best of us.....and I'll call you on it the next time if you promise to do so with me!

:>)

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Who's whining? I see my party being taken over by squishes...pushing a candidate who has done nothing but antagonize his base not only throughout his time in office, but since he won the nomination in February. I see a bunch of Squishes stomping and screaming and throwing temper tantrums because we won't abandon our principles to vote for a candidate who holds us all in contempt...

I'm on the fence leaning toward McCain but I can sit this election out depending on how I'm treated and the names I'm called! My

comments up to this point have been made to serve as a wake up call to the party leadership to the danger posed by a Barr Libertarian candidacy. I doubt I could vote for him because I stay informed and I will educate myself before I'd consider voting for him, but there are millions of Conservatives that remember him during the Gingrich years and have good memories of him. Most of them won't take the time to educate themselves and will be turned off and pushed away by the current tactics as employed my McCain and his campaign. They can be pushed to vote for Barr far easier than I can...and many of them I know are already predisposed to do so!

So keep on with your tantrums and keep calling Conservatives names...that'll go along way to convincing them that a Barr vote is a bad idea!(sarc)

Who's whining?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

That is EXACTLY the behavior I've been seeing from those who want to trounce people who don't lockstep behind McCain.

McCain is what the Republican Party says is the ideal Republican, as they are running him for President.

If he is the picture of a Republican in 2008... what am I?
(Obviously a whiney right wing radical hating gun nut.)

I don't know that I'd vote for Barr. I don't know that I wouldn't.

I don't know that I'd vote for McCain. I don't know that I wouldn't.

However, people telling me how idiotic I am to not like McCain... and other such bullying of conservatives by the moderates and the RNC.... that sure doesn't help swing me into his corner.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I think you may have turned this whole behavior thing on its head. I don't see people hitting you across the head with a 2x4 nearly as much as McCain supporters appear to be getting hit.

Just a question. Who is the perfect person for President that should have won the nomination?

Regardless of your answer, that person comes up short in my book because of x, y and z. They showed no conservative values because they voted for x, y and z which is all about big government, loss of individual freedom, appointing a moderate to the court, etc.

So, now, who is the perfect person for McCain to pick for VP?

Regardless of your answer, that person comes up short in my book because they voted for x, y and z, came from the wrong part of the country, or have not been vetted.

From what I've seen of the folks around here, it certainly appears that any candidate for VP he chooses will be ripped up for whatever vote they cast in whatever year (hopefully he'll choose someone who voted for the farm bill so not a lot of research will have to be done). And people who are ripping him up will continue to do so for the TERRIBLE VP choice.

And this is in spite of Adam C's blogs on McCain which show that in many ways he is more conservative in many areas than Nixon, Ford, Bush, Bush Sr (and certainly Clinton). Oh...and didn't Reagan sign the original amnesty bill.

There are three things that come to my mind - earmarks, conservative judges, and the war. He matches most up to my want for some fiscal discipline...so I'm good with him. Again, my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.

An additional interesting thing strikes me as I've watched...everything also appears to be about motives so that when Johnny Mac does do something right...he must be kowtowing to the lib crowd or the MSM.

Erik

www.dinorossi.com

Again, I'm not arguing against McCain or for Barr...I'm trying to make a cautionary point, (My rant at bs's name calling aside). My whole point is that the calculation that McCain can count on Conservative support while playing to Moderates just became more problematic than it already was because many conservatives wouldn't have a problem voting for Barr. I've also pointed out that I've got lifelong Conservative Republican friends who have told me they are ready to make the jump based on McCain's last couple of speeches, namely his Cap & Trade speech and his 2013 speech where he advocated for a national health care system, Federal nutrition programs and other nanny state policies he spoke about.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Stop trying to use reason or logic with aceintx, it doesn't understand such concepts.

Join The Revolution!
BigGator5.net

When have you ever tried to use logic and reason with me Gator?

I'm sure you did at some point along the way...but I just don't remember!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Moreover,being conservative on judges, the war, and earmarks is NOT 80% of the conservative agenda. The importance of cutting earmarks is more symbolic than anything else, as entitlement programs cost far more than earmarks. Focusing on earmarks is like living in a sewer while trying the clean your clothes. The overarching issue is the sewer, not the clothes.

McCain is a maverick, and we can be "mavericks" in our support of McCain. Besides, McCain wants a certain amount of heat from the right, but it reinforces his appeal to democrats.

Not sure I agree that McCain is more conservative than GHWB or GWB. Cap & Trade to fight GW does sound a lot like Nixon though, a person who brought us the EPA and price controls in his efforts to reach across the isle.

I will vote for McCain without hesitation. But don't paint McCain as someone he isn't.

He is a maverick. He will engender certain "maverick-ness" in his support.

Just because some people argue that McCain is so great doesn't make it so.

Stick with "he's a lot better than the other guy" and leave it at that.

Hmmm? Got a better alternative?

You can vote for your Aunt Nellie for all I care. The point is that there are two practical choices - McCain and the Obamination. Any other choice is counterproductive. Might you deliver a "message" if McCain loses? Maybe. But are you willing to pay the price of a lurch to the socialist left for the sake of "a message?" How much damage are you willing to incur for your idealistic foray?

The primaries were the time to exert ideological influence. The general election is the real deal. The candidates have been chosen. Mine lost (Fred), and apparently so did yours. Such is life. Frankly, I don't think the US citizenry is enamored with conservative candidates - their votes certainly didn't indicate it. If you (the proverbial "you") think things can be changed, then fine, change them - by the actions others have suggested here, AFTER the general election is finished. As has been documented in many places, quite a bit of influence has been exerted with the current POTUS on items such as immigration, SCOTUS nominees, etc. It can be done.

This is the time for pragmatics and realism, not idealism. My comments are a wake-up call for those who think they're going to "make a point". The "point" being made by conservative idealists may cost us 2-3 seats on the Supreme Court and provide us with socialized healthcare and a broken society. It ain't fear-mongering - it's realism.

And, a side note: I am as hard-right conservative as they come. I am about as extreme to the ends of the 3 legs of the stool as it gets, especially when it comes to the social issues leg. But I am also a pragmatist who understands the ramifications of a leftist in the White House and the fact that I don't always get my way. I was once of the opinion that a withheld vote would be a good thing, if Giuliani was nominated. However, a) he wasn't, so I was spared that decision, b) I read a number of Adam C's posts that did a good job of supporting McCain's candidacy, even tho' he was never even my #3 choice, and c) I decided that almost anyone was better than Obama in the White House - heck, I'd take Bill Clinton hands-down over Obama.

The number one objective for any conservative and/or Republican in the next six months needs to be to defeat Obama. This is not a political science class exercise - this is deadly serious. The long-term welfare of this country is in the balance. I am convinced that even 4 years of Obama would be national suicide.

bs...I can swallow this...I agree with you on much of it...I just don't like the tone you were using earlier...I agree with you on many of these points and it's what keeps me leaning towards McCain when I am so tempted to send a message...let me suggest that you're not helping McCain or your cause by implying or outright calling those you disagree with stupid. Had you posted this above, we could have avoided the nastiness that ensued.

Now, my question is this...can you see the point that I am making that Barr creates a potential for trouble where McCain is concerns if he takes Conservatives for granted and panders too much to Moderates and if not...where am I wrong?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

There is Nothing saying I Must vote for the GOP Presidential Candidate, just because I am a Conservative. As many have said here before, I am an American First, a Conservative Second and a Republican third.

I keep being told by McCainiacs that if I do not vote for McCain (rather than Writing A Name in November-as I plan to do today), I and I alone will be to blame for McCains loss. Totally Insanely WRONG!

The blame will lie at the feet of those GOP's/Independ's who put McCain on the top of the GOP ticket, Not me. I did not put him there, others did.

Just as the talking heads of the Dems are already putting the blame on Hillary if Obama does not win, the GOP talking heads are already hunting for who to blame if McCain fails to win.

We know where the blame lies and it is NOT with those who did NOT pick the candidates at the top. Most of us have brains to know if a candidate is strong and when/where they are weak. If you chose to ignore those facts, Do Not Blame Us, we told you so!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

What is 'NT' ? I've seen it in a few places.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Basically, it tells everybody who keeps up on the site using "Recent Comments" that the entirety of the post is contained in the subject line.

If you know the posters at all (and there will be personalities that you will associate with the names eventually... for example, I'm the Libertarian Nutball) you'll be able to guess whose post the Subject-Only post is in response to.

Eventually.

But, to answer your question, it means "no text".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Are you sure you want to endorse the product of the Libertarian National Convention as viable?

Hint: you're supporting the candidate of freaks who scream about Neocon conspiracies.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

supporting any party that isn't the Republican Party will be supporting the candidate of freaks who scream about Neocon conspiracies.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I looked HARD in 2004 for a candidate other than President Bush to support, but they were all freaks!

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If I decide to vote for Barr which is a possibility although I am leaning towards Chuck Baldwin in the Constitution Party, it won't be because I give a damn about what kinds of freaks are in their Party. It is obvious they are going to lose so why would I care?

It will be a pure protest vote which will be counted as a voter who bothered to show up but didn't find either of the mainstream candidates acceptable and expressed a preference for a more conservative candidate.

Being from Wyoming, I have the luxury of already knowing the outcome of who is going to win my State's 3 electoral college votes. In the extremely unlikely scenario where my vote caused McCain to lose here, then I am 99.9% certain that he will have lost in a landslide elsewhere in the country. This knowledge leaves me free to vote my conscious and my conscious does not guide me towards McCain. If I lived in a state where the outcome was less certain, then I might feel compelled to vote for McCain and then buy a new pair of shoes.

A few years ago I made a prediction on another blog.

I still hold to it:

The DNC will move to the left until it is wholly martinalized.

The RNC, wanting power more than principle, will gobble up those liberal voters, moving to the left, dropping conservatives.

The conservatives will be scattered among MANY 'Third Party' groups, leading the new liberal RNC in charge for a few elections.

The conservatives will finally combine a plethora of the 'third party' groups together into a new conservative party and will work to take back congress and the administration.

This is the life cycle of a political party.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Interesting observation/prediction. I suppose that if Barr starts gathering some serious attention and votes come November then you might be onto something.

You'll be counted as someone who voted for the freak party candidate, unless Wyoming has a "hippy protest, ignore me" box on its ballot, too.

Your vote will go down as an endorsement of that candidate and his party. Have fun endorsing the party squishy on child enslavement and pornography.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

At least I won't be endorsing the idiot who believes in shamnesty and man made global warming.

I've heard some of you folks have fainting spells after you shout SHAMNESTY, because you get so out of breath.

Here, let me help you lie down.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Ask Adam, he and I argue as much as ever.

But as I pointed out to you over on TMR, all this leaving the Republican party stuff is ill-advised if you actually want to achieve any thing, as Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan did.

All this hostility, all this negativity, all this awful bitterness was absent from what those men did and how they acted, even as the party was FAR to the left of any of our guys now.

Yes, think about it: McCain is who he is, but he's far to the right, and much friendlier to conservatives, than Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and GHW Bush.

Now is the time to suck up our primary loss and move on.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

game as it is to late this election cycle but I will be hell on wheels in the next four years...but your hostility and negativity is not winning over converts...I am a SUCK IT UP kinda chick but even I know you kill em with kindness....come on let people vent...when you take away a conservatives ability to vent they blow and who does that benefit?...eventually we all believe in America and we will do what is right with what we have.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

We did let people vent, we stood back and watched as people let it all out. We were repaid with ugly diaries trashing the party, insulting McCain supporters in particular in graphic terms, and paying no heed to the site's posting rules and intent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Not supporting Neil...I said he's more viable or some such. I meant to convey that he's more viable than the moonbats they normally put forward in the Libertarian Party...

I've also got a problem with him based on his work with the ACLU.

Additionally, I said I agree with him more than McCain and I qualified that by saying the Bob Barr of the Clinton era. I don't know where he stands now and would need to know more before I worked for or considered voting for him.

If I wasn't clear on the above I hope that clears it up.

What I did say that could be taken as support, though I didn't mean it as such, is that McCain and the party needs to sit up and take note because Conservatives have another place to go and I also said many of my conservative friends, (lifelong Republicans all), have already said they wouldn't vote for McCain and many more said they'd vote for Barr before McCain!

It's a warning...if McCain and the squishes in control now agitate the base in a negative way with Barr in the mix it could get ugly!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Figures. I tossed Hillary a $5 spot for her OH win to see her bleed BHO in PA and IN.

As elRushbo indicated today, should the DEMs pick up an 8-12 seat advantage in the Senate and a 50+ seat lead in the House, it will not matter if McCain is president. He'll be over-ridden ad nauseum.

No wonder McCain's visionary (gag!) "2013 speech" had him addressing "parliment" once a month. It's where they ALL are taking us.

Even if there was not enough of a majority.... McCain would gladly 'reach across the aisle' for far too much under the guise of getting 'war funding' which the Dems will not give anyway.

But boy would McCain get praise for it. "Reaching across the aisle as President Reagan would have, President McCain signed into law the Gun Control Act of 2009. President McCain said that he did not favor this new law, which would render illegal handguns and assault rifles, but said that he agreed to sign this as a show of good will in exchange for war funding. In other new, Speaker of the House Pelosi said today that under no circumstances would Congress continue to fund this illegal war for oil."

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

But the opponents of the Republican party have always just lied and lied and lied. You're just following that tradition set by the Marxist left.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

Eventually there will be a reckoning and I wonder if the accusations of critics being akin to Islamists or Marxists would be tallied as something that helped or something that hurt...

Then again, the democrats are exceeding my wildest expectations for shooting themselves in the foot and maybe the reckoning can be kicked down the road a ways to 2012.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I know, I know, all of you people like to think yourselves superior to the sheeple when you talk about your withered state and the Libertarian utopia, but all your buddies are doing is getting in the way when you yell about how the Republican party is going astray and, instead of helping, they're going off and joining the People's Front of Judea.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You *DO* understand that I have lefty friends who scream about how I'm "really" voting for McCain (and thus another 4 years of Bushlite), right?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Thus helping prove how worthless your "protest" vote really is. It carries no message, has no meaning, and is a waste of your precious right.

If you want ot make a difference, you have to work within a national coalition. That's the only way it works.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

What do you offer as a suggestion for moving the RNC back to the Right?

Enabling their leftward slide has not been working too well.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm following the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan model of changing the Republican party to be more of what the country needs it to be.

That's the only model that's proven to work. "The country's most successful third party," on the other hand, hasn't achieved anything in Washington since its founding. Likewise the sad joke that is Ron Paul's record in that city.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

But, how exactly do you do it?

What you suggest is like saying "I think we ought to just get rid of cancer."

Great, but how do you realistically do that?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I urge you to read about the last 50 years of American conservatism.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I look at the last 50 years of American Conservativism and see 40+ years of Democrat controlled Congress and a Moderate President W. Bush, a President George HW Bush who raised taxes and lost his reelection bid (which was blamed on Perot, not on a RNC moving to the left), Bob Dole.....

The only exception would be President Reagan.

So, where do you find a successful plan in what we've done for the last 50 years? It seems to me that America has taken a LEAP to the left in the last 50 years.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Read more. Start with some Buckley and Kirk.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Even on that level....

I still see the population, as a whole, shifting to the left over the past 50 years.

the 60's? DEFINATELY a leap to the left.

the 80's might have seen a move to the right, but definately not taking new ground....

the 90's? 8 years of Clinton.... We did take back the Congress, but we didn't really DO anything with it.... only to lose it in 06.

Yes, there were some notable good conservatives... there always are.

However, as a whole, society, both in official politics and in daily life, has moved to the left.

Let me put it this way:
People let their votes be determined by Oprah.

That is not a Right-sliding society.

I have hope that we can move society back to Conservative ideals of Independence and Responsibility... but the first thing we have to be willing to do is take the RNC to the woodshed until they start pushing more conservative folks.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Voting for the Libertoids is proven not to work though. They've never, ever achieved anything of note.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

you assume that I'm a Libertarian.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I don't consider it worthless at all.

I do what I can to change policy by getting ideas that I feel are important out there. Maybe, eventually, there will be a candidate who says "If I adopt better ideas than the ones that are out there, I will win elections."

I keep hoping that, eventually, the Public will notice that the politicians keep overdelivering on their end of the "give me money and power in exchange for me telling you how to live your life" bargain and might actually want to have someone up there who says "Government is not the solution to your problems."

At which point I will probably start voting for "real" candidates again.

In the mean time, I will use my vote to communicate that there are people out there who care deeply enough about the process to show up but are severely dissatisfied with the current state of affairs.

And I'll use my voice to put ideas out there.

And, yeah, it's probably doomed to failure. I'm okay with that, though.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

People's Front of Judea.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

What am I lying about?

You keep confusing me with a Libertarian. I am not a Libertarian. I do believe that some things ARE under the realm of government control beyond military. (and most libertarians I meet are all gung-ho for legalizing drugs. I tend not to be.)

I just think that too many are showing McCain as a 'good conservative choice' when he REALLY is not.

To be clear, this is also the same critique I had of Rudy for President as well.

Even Huckabee had an issue with his history in standing up to Democrats when the chips were down.

I liked Duncan Hunter with Fred Thompson as a VP. That didn't happen for various reasons ranging from lack of money support to no free press for Hunter. That's fine. That's politics.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Amnesty:
-More help for legal immigrants when immigrating & once here. (Jul 1998)
-1988: Honored by La Raza for opposing official English. (Jan 2004)
-Deport 2 million illegal immigrants who committed crimes. (Jan 2008) (Uh, ALL illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime: Illegal entry into the united states. That is a crime last time I checked)
-I've never supported amnesty. (Jan 2006) (OOps: FactCheck: Yes, he has used the word "amnesty" in the past. (Jan 2008) )
-Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

Gun Control:
-Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
-Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

Tax Cuts:
-Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000)
-Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them. (Apr 2007)
-Opposed Bush tax cuts, but must extend them now. (May 2007)
-Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes. (Oct 2007) (Nope, sorry, that's not fair)
-FactCheck: Against Bush tax cuts in 2003; for them in 2006. (Jan 2008)

Healthcare:
-Expand health insurance to 11 million uninsured children. (Dec 1999)

(now, of course, he's verbally come out against his own stances, but his ACTIONS trump his words as he is a politician)

Tell me where I am lying?

(Above notes are per this website:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm )
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's easy when you just make it up as you go. But the opponents of the Republican party have always just lied and lied and lied. You're just following that tradition set by the Marxist left.

one could argue its an extrapolation based on experience

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

To pander to him. You nailed it.

Or not.

The fact is, he has some degree of name-value, notably in the south, which is derived from his Clinton-era service in the House. Those who remember him for that probably know exactly squat about his ACLU hijinks, his 180 on marijuana, his backpedal on DoMA, etc.

Perhaps Moe is right, that he'll pull nowhere near Perot '92 numbers, but the guy WILL be gunning for conservative votes because he knows he can dupe people into giving them -- as evidenced by some of the replies in here. It isn't prudent to completely ignore his presence in the race.

I don't support him, wouldn't vote for him except under extreme circumstances but the Party ignores his appeal as a protest vote by conservatives at it's peril.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”