If You Can't Vote For The Nominated Candidate, Then Get Out!
By GordonTaylor Posted in 2008 — Comments (134) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As a party, we hold to ideals and principles that, over time, we [party members] have come to agree on. These ideals and principles are what we base decision making processes on when deciding to support a particular candidate.
All of us have a reason for supporting our favorite candidate, as that person usually aligns with how we feel about issues, how we individually interpret the party's ideals and principles and sometimes, because we just like the guy or gal running.
Along with those ideals and principles we have also have decided the best way to choose the candidate that should represent our party in the general election for the POTUS, primary elections followed by a national convention.
During that convention, which is attended by Representatives from every state and district, we make our choice official.
Having said all of that, as an individual you need to make a decision.
If you dislike the person chosen to run for President and can't vote for him/her then GET OUT OF THE PARTY, you only make it weaker with your indecision.
It doesn't matter if your are an occasional visitor or a Director of this website, if you can't vote for the party's chosen candidate, then just leave.
and it bears repeating. However, what I said holds true as well, if you can't vote for the choosen candidate, you make the party weaker.
is of no demonstrable value either positive of negative. Just like the space between atomic particles.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Both socially liberal conservatives and socially conservative liberal Republicans undermine party unity.
I keep hearing this stuff, which at this point in the primary process seems pretty ill-advised to be saying to people.
However, since it is what the party seems to want, when would you like me to stop making calls and donating funds? Should I quit now in case someone I don't support gets nominated?
It's this kind of attitude that is the reason that the GOP is the party of Arlen Specter more than it is the party of Rick Santorum.
I've been playing nice with the GOP for a very long time, despite seeing not only a lack of conservatism, but a lack of competence. If you think the GOP should pee in my cornflakes every time I question the party line, despite all I've done...well then...
I'm not talking about things during the primary, I am refuting the talk about not voting for this one or that one in the general election, because of some personal issue a voter has with that candidate.
All I'm sayin' is we should support whom ever the majority chooses, that's all.
What you meant and what it appeared you said were two different things. I keep seeing things similar to what you posted and it makes me mad. I don't know if I will vote for a hypothetical Rudy candidacy, I probably will.
What I know I won't do is call my friends, talk to my coworkers, man the phone banks, put up signs, etc. I wouldn't do those things because my heart wouldn't be in it. I can't see myself convincing a coworker to vote for Rudy because, well, the Democrat is that much worse.
I challenge you to find someone here that has spent more time on phone banks for Republican candidates. I have stood by this party through a great deal, but there comes a point where one has to ask if it is worth it.
If the question is whether we get socialism in 5 years or 10, I start to wonder if it really matters.
All of that is wasted typing though I suppose. I don't stop fighting, it's not in my blood. I do think that either Rudy or Huckabee would mean defeat next year, precisely because too many people WILL stop fighting. And if Rudy or Huckabee does win the presidency it seems that it would be a somewhat hollow victory.
I typed all that to say sorry for jumping to conclusions and getting crabby with you. Heh.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
"All I'm sayin' is that we should support whom ever the majority chooses, that's all."
Fair enough. And I'm in total agreement with you here.
If and when a candidate that I find unacceptable earns a *majority* in the Republican primary, then I shall indeed change my voter ID. But 20-35% hardly makes a majority. I refuse to allow my party to be manipulated by a minority, and if that means choosing not to vote for that minority's choice, so be it.
People seem to forget that it's Giuliani (and Huckabee) that seem to be the ones desiring a change in the Republican party. The Republican party is made up of three groups: Economic Conservatives, Defense Conservatives, and Social Conservatives. Any candidate that doesn't represent all three parts should go. And I'll agree, any voter than doesn't agree with all three parts should probably not participate in the primary. This includes socially liberal FiCons though, not just fiscally liberal SoCons
I think it's completely justified to say that if less than 50% of the party vote for someone who takes away 1/3 of the Republican platform, real Republicans have the right to refuse to vote for him.
The Politics of Desertion
New York City Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani set off one of the more spectacular political bombshells of this election season by publicly endorsing one of the biggest Democratic pols targeted by the G.O.P.: New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Giuliani, who was blasted by party leaders for his insubordination, may have gambled his political career on the endorsement. He said his decision to pass over Republican challenger George Pataki came after asking himself, "Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for ((the city's)) interests?" Pataki is closely allied with Giuliani's Republican foe, New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato.
Thanks for posting this bit of history. I find it interesting that I should leave the party because I am disinclined to vote for an elected Republican who endorsed a Democratic candidate over his own party's nominee.
This is going to be my response to this nonsense argument from now on.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
the part about how he couldn't endorse Pataki because Pataki was a "far-right winger."
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
As I read his diary, Taylor is saying that, once the primaries are over, the GOP should unite behind whomever the majority chooses as the nominee, and work to elect that person.
The alternative is President Hillary Clinton. And all the Clintonistas that go along with her.
May we wage a spirited, no-punches-pulled primary fight. But, once that's done, Republicans should recognize that their best chance to get their goals---as many as possible---actually accomplished, is to elect the GOP nominee as President.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Read it again.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
There are an awful lot of people, including this diarist (and, apparently, you) who think that if, in any given election, you refuse to support the Republican who clears the primaries no matter what, then you should get the hell out of the Republican party.
I just think the guy they're defending (Rudy) should lead by example and be the first one out the door. Then the vast multitude who won't vote for him wouldn't have this dilemma.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
The only thing the story proves is that Giuliani supporters have no standing to insist on a standard of party loyalty that their own preferred candidate cannot meet. If this were a meaningful standard of behavior, then Giuliani would not be eligible for the Republican nomination in the first place. The endorsement has no significance otherwise; it didn't even prevent New Yorkers from shunning the benevolent wisdom of Mario Cuomo and inviting Pataki's extreme right-wing reign of terror upon themselves. :)
I'm more than happy to concede that Giuliani did some great things as mayor. Whether this means he should be president is another matter.
(Or, as I see while previewing that this matter has already been addressed, what Leon said.)
D'amato was dishonest. So maybe his judgement was not so bad after all. Besides, he has moved more to the right in the last decade. Does Fred and Mitt get credit for moving right but somehow Rudy does not?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
In any case, once you admit that backing a D is alright over an R, even a left-wing Democrat in New York, then the whole argument falls apart.
If Giuliani can be a RiNO and run for the nomination, than I can be a RiNO and just be a voter!
that on most issues Clinton was a more conservative president than George W Bush. Politics are funny that way. I am not really carrying Rudy's water. I just have been put off by some of the arguments against him. Same for Romney, I think he is a bit of a light weight, but he did a pretty good job in a very liberal state.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
neither were better than tax cutter, terrorist killer and originalist judge appointer Bush.
pre-Newt
renegged on promised middle class tas cut
raised taxes
Motor-Voter that lets illegals drive and vote
Somolia
WTC
Breyer
Ginsburg
during Newt
still took years to get tax cuts
two vetoes before welfare reform
missiles to China
no response to 98 bombings
nafta good
PC run amok nanny statism
gridlock was a pretty good president
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I only brought up the Cuomo endorsement to rebut the specific argument of the original post. I didn't mean to imply that it should be held against him today. I think that, in itself, it's a pretty inconsequential matter.
Wait. Wait. Wait.
No. You can't make a good argument that "Clinton was a more conservative president than George W. Bush."
Clinton gave us the largest tax increase in American history while Bush gave us one tax cut after another.
Clinton decimated the American military will cut after cut. Bush has incresed military spending.
Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. Bush appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Let's not let our rhetoric get too far out in front of us, okay?
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
I think "get out" is too strong.
There's room in the party for people who can't support Giuliani or Huckabee for a principled reason if they are generally aligned with the party's platform. We don't need to be telling people to leave if our goal is to win and advance an agenda. There will be important down ballot races that I hope these folks will still turnout for and vote Republican.
I REALLY hope that if Giuliani gets the nomination the "I cannot vote for Rudy" diaries die a quick death around here. When we have settled on the nominee, it's time for this place to be less about fighting and more about helping Republicans win.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
I can understand asking people to leave a webforum who come in and soil the carpet and make a nuisance. Asking people to leave a political party over concerns about the POTUS nominee seems a little too strong. Ask yourself if you think that it ever happened where 100% of a political party supported the nominee. It is something to work toward, and certainly some years have produced more unanimity than others. I just don't think 100% has ever occurred.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
local candidates will beg to disagree with you.
Thankfully, the state of MO doesn't require me to be a register as a member of a party to participate in the primary. So I am not beholden to any party or individual. My vote is my own. If I think a candidate is bad for the country, I won't vote for them...GOP or not. That is "my decision."
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
But I still think there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils. Because it's absolutely true that declining to vote or voting 3rd party is actually as good as a vote for the greater of two evils (if, in fact, you see a difference between the two candidates with an actual chance to win).
It's en vogue to complain about the "lesser of two evils" philosophy on political forums these days. But I've never figured out why.
Those people who are waiting for that perfect candidate to come along....that candidate who agrees with them on everything, who has acted in office in every circumstance precisely as you'd have them act, etc. etc...they'll be waiting forever.
All candidates are imperfect. Some less perfect than others, of course. But I can't remember a time when I didn't have to hold my nose at least a little to cast a vote.
But I'm typically motivated a lot more by what I know I don't want than by what I do want. I long ago realized, because I'm somewhat out of the mainstream of GOP ideological orthodoxy, that I'll never get that candidate I most want up there.
So I have to evaluate the two possibilities and vote for the one that least offends....because, to not do that is to give aid to the one who most offends.
Attaching names here: any conservatve who doesn't vote (or votes 3rd party) because they can't stomach the thought of voting for Rudy Giuliani -- even if that basically aids Hillary Clinton -- is acting foolishly.
... the lesser of two evils is not an option. From a theological standpoint (not a practical standpoint, mind you) it is a valid position to not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, even if that candidate is not as bad as the other.
I believe I am as guilty for allowing 20 abortions as 20 million with a vote. I won't take part in either. By not voting I avoid forwarding the pro-abortion agenda and signal my party that the party's (alleged) pro-life beliefs are not to be trampled for a temporary victory.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
That's a real stretch IMHO. God doesn't like lying either. We couldn't vote for any candidate then.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Stretch indeed.
Every election is a "choice between the lesser evils".
Thank a veteran you have elections.
Then go vote for the Republican in those elections to help preserve our future right to elections.
I'm a veteran. You're most welcome.
And there is "lesser of two evils" (fiscal policy for example) and pure "evil" (mass infanticide).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
more evil than just mass infanticide.
The dems will not defend the born either.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
But you have to at least understand that your professed action here would probably only serve to sustain the mass infanticide -- when we actually have an opportunity to begin bringing it to a halt, or at least significantly lessening it.
I don't mind you acting in such a way. It's your vote, your conscience, and your duty to God. So you need to act in whatever way best suits those commitments.
But you should at least do so knowing that, in practical terms, you're helping to prevent the overturn of Roe -- so long as we can accept the premise (which I don't think is hard to do) that Giuliani's nominees would almost certainly be more apt to overturn that decision than Hillary's nominees would be.
Hoosier, I'm saying that you should be thinking more pragmatically. It's not hard to understand where you're coming from. To you it's simple: you cannot, will not, cast a vote for somebody who professes to be pro-choice, pro-Roe, etc.
But I'm suggesting to you that, perhaps, you should cast your vote in the way that does either the greatest benefit or the least harm to your agenda -- however you choose to look at it.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument here that it's a Hillary v. Rudy matchup next November. That may not come to pass, but it's obviously the impetus behind this discussion.
You must, must, must understand that if you decide to either vote 3rd party or stay home (or even vote for HRC, which I'm guessing you wouldn't do), what you're doing is actually doing the greater harm to your agenda (ie, making abortion illegal). You've still been able to hold on to your principles in doing so. But to what end? To help make it so we can replace John Paul Stevens with somebody just like him?
Because that's ultimately what this is all about: the Supreme Court. That's where the president impacts abortion policy. And I just don't think there's any question at all that Giuliani's judicial nominees would be preferable to Hillary Clinton's -- on abortion or any number of other issues important to conservatives.
I'm guessing that this is why Pat Robertson made the Giuliani endorsement. It startled a lot of people, I'm sure. But it didn't me. Because it makes sense. He's probably going to be getting the nomination and he's also probably the best shot the Republicans have at maintaining the White House.
I can understand that you might see this as a Faustian bargain. And, to some extent, it is. But it's one that is calculated and purposeful.
The bottom line is very simple. If Giuliani gets the GOP nomination, then we're going to have a choice of either him or Hillary as president. At that point, I think the wise way to decide your vote (or non-vote, as the case may be) would be to assess which decision either most benefits the pro-life agenda or least harms it.
If you do that, instead of looking at it in such a simple fashion of "pro-choice vs. pro-choice", the choice really should be obvious.
It is for me. And I'm every bit as pro-life as you are, I imagine.
It's a lot more than just a "temporary victory." Presidents make lifetime judicial appointments. And the next president will have at least 2, and perhaps 3, appointments to make to the high court.
There is way, WAY too much at stake here to say "I'm going to teach the GOP a lesson."
You'd teach them a lesson, alright. And, in the process, kill a golden opportunity to finally get Roe overturned. So, in the end, reality would end up teaching you a lesson.
I conceed that my view isn't the pragmatic one. You talk about agendas and about calculated moves to get what I want. You talk about "punishing the GOP".
None of that matters to me. To me this is purely a spiritual issue. I won't vote pro-choice. It's like not telling a small lie for a greater good. I don't pretend to be "practical". My deeply held belief is that I can't vote for a pro-abortion candidate because I am accountable to my Maker. I respect that others disagree, but I'm not asking them to leave the party either.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
that will make lots of decisions, none of which will force anyone to have an abortion. And while Rudy is for state laws allowing abortion, he says he will not expand federal laws to do so. We are hiring a man to a FEDERAL job. Moreover, he is infinitely more likely to choose a judge that would overturn Roe, which is a pro-life result.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
But I do think that you're being true to your principals only by stubbornly allowing them to suffer a setback -- and not a minor one, at that.
I'd rather see the issue advanced or, at least, not set back another 25 years.
I think the bottom line question here is: what would do the most to save those 1.3 million unborn children killed each year in America. And, ironically, I think the answer to that question is: voting for a pro-choice candidate in this election.
I honestly think that we have a golden opportunity to get a court that would overturn Roe in place in the next administration.
So, again ironically, I think one could make the argument that you'd actually have more blood on your hands by not voting for Giuliani than by voting for him.
matter of theology.
Let me ask you this fellow pro-lifer, and I am serious. If we believe that abortion is as bad or worse than slavery, why don't we go to war over it?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
All of my actions are accountable to my Maker, even (especially) voting for a president. I believe it is sinful to vote for a candidate that believes infanticide is a "choice". I respect those who disagree.
As to fighting a war over it, that was done in the revolutionary war when we fought for a republic where a non-federalist Roe and a non-republic Roe would not have seen the light of day, and the right to "life", liberty and the pursuit of happiness were paramount.
I've fought for the constitution as I am a proud vet. And our constitution is pretty clear on abortion. It is a matter for the states to decide, not to be imposed on us by justices who rely on emanations of penumbras.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
What candidates believe but can't or won't impose
vs what they can and would do.
I'm done. I love you brother. And I never said anyone that disagrees with me should leave the party. I said that as an America I have a job to do: self govern under the Constitution in a fallen world in which God appoints nations till Jesus returns. In a nation where the citizens govern, then it is my duty under God, to govern. If I were to not participate in choosing the best applicant for the top job, I would say that I had quit in my position as a self governor.
I agree with you on the war question.
In Christ
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
So since I am a strong pro-choice Republican, are you suggesting that I defect to the Democratic Party (you know, because I love being taxed so much) to protect the "right to abortion" by voting for HRC? For one, I completely respect people who disagree with abortion based on their religious upbringing, but I will always believe it should be legal......and RARE!! I absolutely abhor the fact that many make this issue such a strong plank in the GOP platform. Less government doesn't mean barring what is an incredibly difficult choice, and I am sad that has become the case.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Here in Texas you just register and don't claim a party. When it comes to primaries, you can choose the one of interest and vote in it. The only limitation is that you can only vote in that party's runoff. So it makes it fun at primary time - depending on how things look you can vote for your guy in your primary or vote against the one you dislike most in the other primary. I've done both in the past depending on the circumstances.
Why would enough people from either party like this and vote for it? Why would you want outsiders and enemies voting for who your party's candidate would be?
==== 13 ====
Because many (if not most) states have no party registration. You are either registered to vote or you are not. So, when you show up to vote in a primary, the government has no idea what your political views are. They just ask you which ballot you want.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
I think they're getting ready to dump it, but for many years Louisiana has had "jungle" primaries where they all run against each other and if no one has a majority then the top two go to a runoff regardless of party. That creates a real zoo, as candidates emerge in the hopes of drawing a few votes from candidate X to get candidate Y into the top two.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
the first time one party or the other organizes an effective crossover into your primary. That gave us a second term of Tony Knowles, Alaska's Bill Clinton Lite, and the "Open" primary went away. It has its own downside in that hardcore interest groups in the Party can give you a nonviable candidate, but I'll take the chance of that over the other party giving me the candidate they think they can beat.
In Vino Veritas
Maybe I missed it. Maybe my memory is just fuzzy. Could you please show me the diary entry in which you suggested that Lincoln Chafee leave the GOP when he wouldn't support the President in 2004? It seems to me that this kind of message is always directed at those of us on the right to accomodate the Chafees and Jeffords in our ranks. Oh, that's right.... Anyway, following the argument of Rudy supporters, its actually his people who won't support any other Republican, thus making him the most electable. So yeah, sure, if every other Republican primary voter in the country signs an agreement in blood to support the nominee, then fine, I'll go along with it. I'm pretty confident that those agreeing to such terms would nominate someone I could support. Until then, I'm staying put to fight off the other people who are much less reliable Republicans than I am and just want to use the GOP as a means of getting elected rather than enacting a conservative agenda.
Anyway, following the argument of Rudy supporters, its actually his people who won't support any other Republican, thus making him the most electable.
I guess I have just missed seeing his supporters saying this...please provide me with some specific links.
Rudy supporters claim that he is the most electable because he can appeal to the middle. For many independents, we are told, he is the only Republican they would consider. That's why the Rudy camp makes the assertion that he would put states like Connecticut and New Jersey in play. His supporters don't argue that he would win the election by energizing the base. They say Clinton will do that, and that the base will come home simply because he's not her. If the very people that they are arguing Rudy would appeal to would support the other Republican candidates, then the electability argument - the primary argument used to support his primary candidacy - falls apart.
A while back Thomas had a diary about Game Theory and how it applies to the candidate-selection process. One thing we know from game theory is that once any player adopts the "do it my way or I take my marbles and go home" strategy, all the other players must immediately follow suit or lose. No one wants to fold in the face of what might be a bluff, so before long each player is insisting that if he doesn't get his way, he will turn the game board upside down and go home.
Once all the players so insist, there is no longer any advantage in doing it.
At this point one of the players may try to re-establish an advantage by stating, "No, you guys don't get it. I'm serious. I really will turn the board upside-down and wreck the whole game. I know you're all bluffing. But I'm not." Needless to say, no one at this point is ready to concede they are bluffing. So they all insist that they really, really will take their marbles and go home if they don't get their way.
What this tells us is that this particular stratagem is useless. It cannot confer advantage during the game because everyone will adopt it. What's worse, even those who made the threat as a bluff for purely tactical reasons may feel the need to turn the board upside-down and scatter the pieces if they lose, lest the other players mark them as one who bluffs and not honor their threats in future games.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
It's true that this strategy creates a tense standoff (as clearly witnessed in several diaries here) but what it also does is offer the oppurtunity to find a different answer that appeals to all - whether bluffing or not. As long as we assume that Rudy backers are not Rudy-only, Thompson backers are not Thompson-only, Huckabee backers are not Huckabee-only, Paul backers are not sane etc. then a smart negotiator who cares about the party's future should step in and find the candidate that is acceptable to the factions threatening to bolt.
I would never disrespect anyone for standing behind their choices with principled conviction, so I don't mean to offend those who feel so serious here, but ever since I saw the "Simpsons" Halloween episode in 1996, whenever third parties are brought up, I'm reminded of the alien candidates rebutting the third-party voter with "go ahead, throw your vote away!"
..."My Party, Love it or Leave It!" diaries.
I have no control over whatever wingnut chooses to register as a Republican. And if that wingnut successfully woos a majority of the Party
That being said, I could vote for any of the current slate of Republican candidates, with the exception of TDSWSNBN. He is temperamentally unsuited for the job and would be a disastrous President. All the other R candidates range from 50 to 80 on the Vladimirian 100 point scale. FWIW, Hillary's a 5, and Obama, Edwards and TDSWSNBN are all 3 or less.
Maybe TDSWSNBN's chances are so remote as to not be worth registering this parliamentary point of order.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I agree with you but evidently those people who won't plug their nose and vote the Rep candidate with whom they may not agree must not see the alternative being that grim.
If you can't plug your nose and vote the R then it means that you don't think the Dems are that bad.
If your momma only cooked steak or chicken and you didn't particularly like either and wanted seafood What do you do? Don't eat to protest? Eat imaginary seafood?
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
I agree with Neil on 99% of his values.
Should we tell he (and others who won't vote for Rudy) to "get out" because they don't like one candidate out of the hundred and hundreds of Republicans running?
That's just silly (and short sighted).
I'm a so-con, a Fred supporter, and will gladly vote for Guiliani over Hillary.
Personally, I'd love to have Neil Stevens and others like him in the party for the next forty years. Do I hope I can convince him to vote for Guiliani (or that others like Ted Olsen can convince him)? Sure I do.
But just because we have a disagreement over ONE CANDIDATE for ONE OFFICE doesn't mean we should toss all of our friends overboard.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
...is that we have participants running at pretty much every level. I would really, really like a chance to regain Congress, or at least one House. Do we really need to tell people who won't vote (R) at the top not to bother voting (R) all the rest of the way down?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
and that was the point behind my comment. Just because I might choose to leave the POTUS hole un-punched doesn't mean I won't vote GOP for Senate, House, Gov, Mayor, etc.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
You want a pro-choice party? My three years at RedState and some 25 years of paid and volunteer service to the GOP mean nothing anymore?
You and your kind are what this party has become. It's all about beating the democrats, even if we have to give up our values to do it. I prefer to be a conservative. I prefer to protect the unborn, along with fighting for national security and sound economic principles.
You want me out? Fine. Enjoy your political party (and now apparently your site) with your new pro-abortion friends (the Rudys, the Spectors, the Chafees, and the Snowes). And don't whine to me in a few years when the anti-American military set overtakes a portion of the party for a temporary party victory, or when some socialists gets the nomination so that we can win office in another election.
You may be a republican, but you sure aren't pro-life or very conservative. Funny thing is, Rudy will destroy this party even more if he wins. You be a part of it if you want to. I can find better things to do with my time than waste it on a party that has no room for me or others that believe abortion is murder on a grand scale.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I think the point is fight like heck to change the party in the primary process, then unite and back the party's candidate in the general.
In football there are battles for starting positions all week, perhaps some fights, but on Sunday everyone battles to win against the real opponent. If your favorite player didn't get the starting lineup do you then sit out or root for the other team?
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
1. The boldface in the story is pretty clear. It says get out.
2. The sentiment is widespread. It's not just this diarist. It's the recommenders and other diarists who have echoed this opinion for the last several weeks.
3. The game anology is nice. But if my team takes the field, whips of their Broncos uniforms and replaces them with Raider's uniforms, they are no longer my team.
4. I suppose I should stay and fight for my party, but the writing is on the wall. A clear majority of republicans are polling for Rudy, and the pro-life arm of the party is being abandoned. Authors like the one for this diary would almost certainly stay home (as I would) if the party was polling heavy for an anti-military or socialist republican. But "life" seems to be expendable this year. And after all I've done for the party (including holding my nose and voting) I'm tired.
Rudy (to me) is like giving the party over to Chaffee, or Specter, or Snowe. I just can't do it.
I come to RS to shoot the breeze with other conservatives, and sometimes for a good slugfest. But when the message turns to "get out", and that sentiment gets reflected strongly (high on the recommend chart for example), then I get the hint.
For too many years I've watched my party decline. While we've fought the good fight on the GWOT and taxes and judges, we've also been a disapointment. I've watched my president give us two excellent SCOTUS judges, then fail to make many appointments for lower benches. I've watched our team lower taxes, but spend like there was no tomorow. I remember the old days when the dem congress was immersed in the house post office scandal and abscam. Then we got a string of GOP members who felt they were above the law too.
But I've stuck through it, fighting for a better day by working for my party where I live and staying in touch with others who share a better vision for our party and country.
Now my party wants a nominee with this record:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VlZTJmNmQzMzI5YTAwZWQ1ZTY4MzdhYjc...
It's a slap in the face, but I can still support my party downticket. I can also try to weather the storm and come out swinging for the next nominee (whom I would hope is pro-life). But now the heat gets turned up. Not only am I (and many of us) told to shut up and vote for a candidate that we can't possibly support, but to get out too. That gets a story promoted here at RS, and that's tough to swallow. I get the hint.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
So you are saying you don't mind a Dem admin and they are closer to your ideals than Reps? That is what your actions are saying.
On a ballot there is no high road. It's a simple X in the box.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
I won't vote for a pro-choice candidate period.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Right, but a non vote always helps the worse of the two candidates get elected.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
While I think you should vote for Guiliani in general or whoever the GOP nominee is, but I very much would like you in the party, even if you don't :-)
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
That's quite a rant. Would you care to tell us which of the above notes you were responding to?
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
...and by implication, anyone that would recommend it.
Never the less, I owe an apology for the use of the word "idiot". It was used in the heat of the moment, and I regret it.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Just to make it clear what happens the next time you write something that you similarly "regret."
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'll add you to the list of people that consider themselves more republican than the rest of us. I said I regreted the word, but if you feel kicking the pro-life wing out of the party is what you want to recommend then have at it.
I'd expect more from you. For what its worth, the author of this vile diary would have Leon leave the party too. If you share that sentiment (and your recommend clearly shows that you do), then your petty "snaking finger" means zero to me. Folks like Leon (and Neil) have done more for this site and this party than those who feel they have the gaul to waggle their fingers and proclaim who is a member and who should get out.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
...if that's what it takes to keep you FROM DIRECTLY INSULTING OTHER READERS HERE.
Grok?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
First off, the story I refered to insulted a lot of people here first Moe. Good people like Leon, who has stated he can't vote for Rudy. People like you chose to endorse that hate and insult a good chunk of people at RS. Fine.
I replied with an insult of my own, but I regreted it immediatly and apologized.
You continue to use a combative tone (as did the author of the story you endorsed) with your talk of Satan incarnate and your bold faced typing. That's your perogative.
I left the anger off some time ago, and you're still holding to it. One of us is apologetic, one of us is calling for people to leave the party. That's a shame Moe, and I think if you reconsidered your position as I did you would see that this diary is nothing but an invitation for otherwise decent conservatives to bash each other. You can continue the bashing if you want, but given your history I believe you will do the right thing and accept my apology and move on.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I note the apology for the use of the word "idiot" and suspect everyone might want to back away from their keyboards now.
I apologize again for the word and for the subsequent exchange. The whole thing got me pretty angry, and my choice of words and tone reflected badly on me and my position. I hope everyone who was offended by my remarks accepts my mea culpa. I was clearly wrong.
I will take a few days off from the site to cool off per your wisdom. Given the tone and message of the "get out" diary though, I think I may have to take an indefinite vacation. Some of us clearly aren't welcome in the party anymore.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
While I do not agree with you all of the time, I do respect your arguments, and the clarity you have in promoting them. I and others here at RS have posted on this diary that we think it is a little too strong and strident. I hope that you will continue to vote for Republicans who are running for jobs that matter even more often than POTUS in protecting the unborn child. I recommended gamecock's diary because he did not say anything in it about think like he does or leave the party. He only asked for people to consider a business model approach toward the elections. I understand your response, and while it is a different one than mine, I think gamecock's diary did not make you quite as upset as this one did.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
So you were addressing the author of the story. That would be Gordon Taylor.
I asked who you were responding to because you appeared to be talking to (well, yelling at) a pro-choice Rudy fan from Rhode Island. I could not tell from Mr. Taylor's diary how you knew that about him. Figuring I'd missed something, I went back through his old diaries to see if I could figure out how you had determined he supports Rudy. I couldn't. At least, not from a cursory examination going back a few months.
Fortunately I then noticed that in Note #2, Mr. Taylor is flying the Fred flag. At that point I decided that you couldn't be talking to him, since he was obviously a Fred supporter. Fred supporters are not known for being pro-choice, and they are by definition not Rudybots. Hence my confusion.
Now let's talk about your confusion, and the increasing confusion I see from entirely too many people around here, a confusion which is leading to extreme ugliness and an unknown, but surely increasing, amount of pent-up anger amongst the participants here.
The first part is the increasingly belligerent tone taken by those who demand that everyone else respect their preferences or they shall up-end the game and scatter the pieces. Such statements are what I presume led Mr. Taylor to pen this diary. While I think that might have been ill-advised, I understand how he might have become angered enough to do so. No one likes being threatened in an environment where one was expecting civility. It is also a regrettable fact that to those who do not share the sentiment, the behavior is indistinguishable from that of a two-year-old who is not getting his way. Patience might well be the first reaction, but the second will be anger, especially when the belligerent turns out not to actually be two years old.
The second part of the confusion has to do with the notion that if one finds these 'I'll take my marbles and go home' threats offensive, one must then, by definition, be pro-choice, a Rudybot, and a fan of Lincoln Chafee.
Notice two things about the present instance. The "you Rudy people" comments were directed against a person who is in fact a Fred supporter. This annoys the Fred supporter, since he is unlikely to be a pro-choice fan of Lincoln Chafee. It also annoys all the people who are tired of — and angered by — the 'marble' threats, since they aren't Rudy fans either but just saw how they would be treated if they were to pipe up the way Mr. Taylor just did. And finally there are the actual Rudy fans, who are being taught that the way to proceed in this debate is to loudly threaten anyone who disagrees with them. In fact every candidate's supporters are learning that.
I do not wish the above paragraph to be construed as a comment about the particular instance of "you Rudy people" found here. This is happening all over RedState, from numerous participants, and it is quite angry-making. The vitriol being directed against people who haven't even expressed a preference for a candidate is uncalled for; it will greatly harm things if it continues.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I've read a lot of talk about how some social conservatives will vote 3rd party or sit out the election if the "wrong" Republican is nominated; and it's crystal clear to me that most of these individuals are trying to "scare" other Republicans into voting their way, or they'll threaten to split up the party. If anything, these type of threats have pushed me into Rudy's camp more than anything.
At the end of the day, if Giuliani gets the nomination (and it looks like he will) 99.9% of individuals with any conservative inclinations whatsoever will pull the lever for him over Hillary Clinton once they see the campaign between those two go into full swing.
I don't doubt there will be a few holdouts, but it will probably the same amount of people who write in "he whose name shall not be spoken" on their ballot. The amount of independents and moderates Giuliani would bring on board would greatly overcome these few protest votes.
I see every election as the lesser of two evils, I don't hold politicians in very high regard. I've never voted for a candidate that lined up with 100% of my ideology, and I don't expect to. I just try to find the major candidate that comes closest, and pull the lever.
I'm not threatening anyone. You and the rest of my friends here can vote for whoever you believe is best for the job. I think many of us are simply voicing an opinion, not issuing a threat. One's vote is a personal statement on who they believe deserves to be [insert office here], not a statement of featly to a party. We're simply stating that we won't vote for a pro-choice candidate. Period. No threats, no intimidation, no nothing. Statement of fact.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
When people like Dobson issue threats that they're going to run a 3rd party candidate if Giuliani (or Thompson) is the nominee, that's clearly a ploy to scare people into voting against Giuliani.
Dobson's hoping Republicans will be scared that the party will split if Giuliani is the nominee, and they will vote for a "safer" candidate. It's a sort of doublespeak, "Don't split up the party", when they're the ones threatening to split up the party.
That's fine if Dobson wants to play that game, no one said politics wasn't hardball, and he's entitled to pretend he's a powerbroker in Republican politics.
In the end, however, Dobson, and those threatening to form a 3rd party are going to look like an impotent fools if they don't actually run a legitimate 3rd party candidate, and there's no mass exodus of the Republican Party if Giuliani is the nominee.
How welcoming is President Giuliani going to be to figures like Dobson after these shennaningans? Social conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot.
I am staunchly pro life, and do not support Giuliani in the primary, but I would have no problem voting for Giuliani over Hillary. Politicians are not supposed to be perfect. They never are. But not voting would help usher in a Hillary administration, in which young liberal justices would assure that any pro-life efforts in the supreme court came up empty. This is why we cannot afford not to vote for the Republican.
Because supporting the nominee of a political party is far more important than staying true to one's core principles.
All that matters is winning, right?
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
for the party that will do the most to advance policy more acceptable to your core beliefs accomplish anything??
Winning in politics is incremental. You are either moving forward or back. A vote for anyone but the GOP candidate is a step back.
Anyone other than GOP = 2 steps back
GOP = 1 step back
There is a reason the base has not been happy with the GOP, but I believe that many in the GOP have learned a bit. It all depends on whether the party will keep backing Specter and Chafee types, or turn to Pence, Shadegg and Kyl types.
We'll see, but I am optimistic.
I agree. I'll vote for whomever is nominated, except Ron Paul.
If Ron Paul is nominated, I'll leave the party, period. I'd probably vote for the Democrat, as much as it would hurt, but I'd rather see our military and defense policies merely mangled (Hillary) then completely and totally evicerated (Paul) in the name of some false notion of originalism.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
...then one should be forthright and abide by the general rules of the "party". That would mean supporting the individual the "party" chooses as their representative in whatever political contest, following the accepted procedures for doing such.
I actually have no umbrage with that position, that is why I am regestered as what is called 'Un-affiliated". As has been stated here by some, the political party system has become more akin to a sports competition than a selection process for the leadership position of the single most powerful nation in the world presently. Winning is the ultimate asperation, regardless of how many basic principles and social positions get sacrificed along the way.
I oft react to that position as I did when raising my daughter. "Don't touch that hot stove or it will burn you!" was the adminition. Nonetheless, curiosity or sheer rebellion caused her to learn the hard way, the wisdom behind my admonition. I think many Americans are at a similar point. It seems there is a majority who chooses, for whatever reason, to not listen to the wisdom of those who have already been "down that road", and are willing to experiment/challenge the wisdom. I voted to give the Republican Party control of the Congress and the Whitehouse, only to see that party morph into something I did not even recognize and still be rode roughshod over by the minority party, hence my departure.
My faith based values, and my 45 years of participation of my civic responsibility have fairly shaped my views and socio/political character. If a candidate does not reflect my core values, then that individual will not get the privelage of my vote. I may end up having an even worse individual elected, but I will still retain the integrity of my individual core principles which I place far, far above any superfluious "Party" identity.
Currently, after researching as much public information as is available, I feel comfortable with Fred Thompson. Should something about him come to light that is in direct conflict with the image and record he has established to this point, I will bail on him also. I vote the individual, not the party.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide my view on all this.
"then one should be forthright and abide by the general rules of the "party". That would mean supporting the individual the "party" chooses as their representative in whatever political contest, following the accepted procedures for doing such."
Where in the Republican party rules does it say that? People split tickets in elections all the time - especially at the local level.
If political parties had only members who agreed to always vote for that party they would be very small.
Perot 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm down.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
We've come along way with medicine.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
I understand people having deeply held beliefs, but people act like when they cast their ballot in the voting booth it's some of sacred communion with God.
It's a vote for a politician to have a temporary position in office, it's not that big a deal. You figure out the one you would rather see be elected, you vote, and you move on. It's usually a pretty easy decision for me to make, and it's in no way a complete endorsement of everything that bureacrat stands for. I don't wrap everything I am as a human being: my religion, my philosophy, my values into that ballot.
I here people saying they can't vote for so and so because of their religious convictions, and I really think that's taking your ballot way too seriously.
I'm not a theologian, but I don't think God is going to be upset with people's decision on which politicians they voted for.
That ballot is what separates us from Cuba. If it's not important to you, fine. It's pretty DARN important when you don't get to pick.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
I'm not talking about the RIGHT to vote, I'm talking about the people's decision within the ballot.
People act like the politician has to be elegible for sainthood in order to earn their vote.
BTW, I think a rational person would understand that no sane individual would come to poltical site to advocate against democracy.
"It's a vote for a politician to have a temporary position in office, it's not that big a deal."
Seems it's a very "big deal" on RedState and other politically flavored sites. I think that is to be expected and why I visit and read as much as I can here and other places. I have not dropped out, only stand in a different socio/political position than some.
"I'm not a theologian, but I don't think God is going to be upset with people's decision on which politicians they voted for."
Nor would He be upset if one chooses to vote "none of the above".
You can do with that ballot whatever you want, but my point is, not voting at all because a candidate doesn't square up 100% of your principles is foolish in my opinion. Your vote is yours and yours alone, but at the end of the day, unless I write my name in for every position on the ballot, I'm making a compromise, and that's fine. I'll take something rather than nothing.
Every candidate running is flawed in many ways, but you have to take what your given and make the best of it. George W. Bush had many flaws, but if I had to make the same decision between him and Kerry or Al Gore, I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
It's kind of like saying I'm not marrying any woman unless she looks like a supermodel. If that's your criteria, you'd better get used to being alone.
You're going to end up being disappointed if that's how you look at every decision in life, but it's yours to make.
I really could care less who you decide to vote for, but that doesn't mean people can't challenge the philosophy a lot of people have around here of, "If I don't get my candidate, I'm leaving the Republican Party."
I have no doubt you will withhold your vote for Giuliani if he gets the nomination, and that's fine with me. Just don't expect many Republicans to follow your lead.
Go to
and you'll find all kinds of posts where people are saying they'll sit out the election or leave the Republican party if a pro-choice candidate is the Republican nominee.
Are you honestly tring to argue that there are no individuals on this site that carry that sentiment?
You yourself have said your only a RINO, and will leave if the Republican Party strays from your high standards.
So you're just making it up. I can't think of anyone who said he was leaving the party if his guy doesn't get nominated.
I can only think of one person who's even talked about leaving the party, and that's haystack, but he left last year.
Your Blog Entry
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/neil_stevens/2007/nov/06/i_am_a_rino
Your quote:
"should I just quit the party, giving up on counterweighting the liberals at all, or is my occasional defection worth it?"
Apology accepted.
The fact that you dare to come here, and willfully distort my own words to me in order to make your stupid political point, is disgraceful.
How DARE you? How dare you take what I said and make it completely the opposite? It was others who were telling ME I should leave the party, and I was posing the question, asking if the view of that group (led ably by Robert Hahn and Moe Lane) was the majority.
How dare you quote that, and take that out of that context. You should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting me that way.
Neil, You call me a liar, and say I made up the fact that there were individual posters on RedState that have indicated they were going to leave the party if their "demands" weren't met.
I didn't think this was a fact anyone would quibble with with, but you did. This entire thread is discussing this particular sentiment, so it's obviously occuring.
I then do a 5 second search, and quote a blog that YOU wrote where you're asking people to talk you out of leaving the Republican Party.
I gave a link to the entire article, and then gave a specific quote from that article.
I think that's a pretty fair rebuttal.
NOT VOTING FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE ONE TIME IS NOT THE SAME AS LEAVING THE PARTY. For crying out loud the party runs candidates from the local level to the national, and to not vote for one candidate one time does not amount to abandoning the party.
GIVE ME A BREAK AND QUIT MISREPRESENTING MY OWN WORDS. I KNOW WHAT I SAID.
We seem to have a problem here.
We noticed for a while that every once in a while bryansmith would take offense at comments directed at Jacob Coulter's way and vice versa. Then we noticed that they'd regularly participate in the same threads and comment interactions playing off each other and taking the same positions.
Then we noticed that both shared the same IP address in Arizona given out by Cox Communications, which rotates IP addresses at intervals of every other day.
So then we noticed, for example tonight, that both Jacob Coulter and bryansmith were using IP address 70.190.186.101 within exactly one minute of each other -- impossible according to the way Cox Communications rotates its IP addresses, unless, of course bryansmith and Jacob Coulter are on the same computer, which tends to indicate they are the same person.
And this presents a problem because user Jacob Coulter has been a regular, good user here for just about two years with bryansmith showing up just about 7 weeks ago -- from an IP address also used by Jacob Coulter that day.
So, considering we have a rule around here frowning mightily on sock puppets, I'm going to assume there is a legitimate explanation and suggest that bryansmith might want to rejoin the personality of his alter ego, or get his own IP address if he is, in fact, a distinct and unique human being.
As some of the other contributors have pointed out, recently we've also seen Kevin Fitzgerald battle alongside Jacob Coulter from the same IP address within a minute or two of each other.
This magnifies the problem.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
We're going to need a very, very convincing explanation for why, in this thread, Kevin Fitzgerald appears out of nowhere to take umbrage at something directed at Jacob Coulter, from the same IP address.
A *very* convincing explanation.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Fractional votes for multiple personalities ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Is it really even something to argue about?
That there aren't members of this Redstate that openly discuss leaving the Republican Party if the Presidential nominee is pro-choice. I thought that was common knowledge, and it's the subject of this thread.
Neil, you have repeatedly indicated in discussions that you may support a 3rd party if the Republican nominee isn't sufficiently conservative.
And then you challenge that no one on this website harbors those views, when you yourself are one of those individuals?
I don't think you have a leg to stand on her.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Both of you. Now hear this:
Not
Voting
For
A
Candidate
Does
Not
Equal
Leaving
The
Party
Got it?
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
I guess you could say cheating on your wife doesn't mean you're leaving your marriage.
I don't know who here is going to permanately leave the Republican party and never return, if that's what your definition means, but I consider sitting out the election, or supporting a 3rd party instead of the Republican party a form of "leaving it."
You're not exactly "sticking" with the Republican Party when you give your support instead to a 3rd party, or are "boycotting" the election.
Pat Buchanan "left" the Republican Party to run on an independent ticket against Bush in 2000, and then turned around and endorsed Bush in 2004. Did he leave the Republican Party? I think the answer is yes, but he later came back.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about what "leaving" the Party means.
am I "leaving the party?" How about state rep? Governor? Senate? House? Is there something special about POTUS that means I'm "leaving the party?"
I guess I left the party in 1998 when I voted for Glen Poshard for Governor of Illinois over George Ryan. Too bad for Illinois that Poshard didn't get elected - IL might actually have a GOP governor now, but instead we (they) have a decimated party now. Only the buffoonery of Rod "Blow Dry" Blagojevich might allow a Republican back in.
But you go right ahead and dream up your own bizarre definitions. Your logic is stunning.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
Why are you so upset with this discussion? With the huge type, you're giving the impression you're uncontrollably angry at the discussion, and it comes off as being rude.
It's a reasonable discussion that if Republicans talk about forming or supporting a 3rd party, they are in a way, "leaving" it.
Granted, I don't think you've left the Republican Party if you on occasion don't vote Republican, but you can also make the case that's not exactly being a "loyal" Republican.
I also think abandoning the Republican nominee for President is a bigger deal than say voting against some local dog-catcher type position.
It's like when Lincoln Chafee said he wasn't going to vote for the Republican nominee, George W. Bush in 2004. I felt that was a form of him "leaving the party" but you can disagree. After the election, he officially changed his party affiliation, but in my eyes he had already left the Republican Party.
No one is entitled to your vote, and it sounds like your just as likely to vote for a fringe 3rd party as you are a Republican, but whether a person is a Republican or not I suppose is in the eye of the beholder.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
has an actual definition, related to changing one's official party affiliation. You don't get to redefine it for the convenience of your argument.
I'm baffled that anyone thinks that such misrepresentations are going to encourage people to be loyal. But perhaps you agree with the original post.
I have not dropped out of the political arena. And I did not leave the party due to any individual poilitician. It was a collective of issues and that is my point with the selection of a candidate for president in '08. I probably would not turn away from someone who, in the majority,reflects those basics that are important to "traditionalists", the question I guess is how many core values we have to compromise before we simply say no to that candidate. And surely some of those core values are non-negotiable for many.
The Republicans that make up the party base still reflect my values more than any other constituency out there. Unfortunately, the base is having difficulty getting the attention of it's elected representatives to return to the party's core values. We'll see how those currently striving for party leadership listen to thier constituents. As an example, I think John McCain has finally agreed that his position on illegal immigration was out of step with those he represents and has modified his position. Let's hope he is not simply pandering as so many do.
Let me get this straight. About 30% of the R party is behind a candidate who arguably believes in and supports less than half of the party's platform. Those who are not willing to vote for that candidate should leave the party?
How about the guy who is not a true representative leave instead and quit screwing up our good party.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
But I swear I keep hearing in my head
"We Are Republican of Borg, you will be assimilated."
I'm not going to expect anyone to agree with me 100%, and if someone says that they refuse to support my candidate, then that's their right. I may not like it, but to think they should leave and quit the party? That's some serious small tent right there. pushing people out who don't agree long enough and the Republican party will fit into a phone booth.
Maybe it's time for everyone to step back and stop the self-destructive orgy of absolutism that's convulsing the party. A good way to do that is to stop treating everything as pure black and white. Like it or not, there's quite a few shades of gray. If you want it all black or all white, you're going to lose a lot of gray, and an all black or all white isn't popular enough to get elected, no matter how much the echo chamber has told you otherwise.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
There is no duty of loyalty to stand with pro-Roe Republicans because the favor is not reciprocated. Pro-Roe Republicans favor a decision that is manifestly false, and disenfranchises social conservatives. No matter how many elections, legislative battles we might win, the courts just step in and make the decision, based not on law, but their will.
Pro-Roe REpublicans want to be treated as equals in the party. Nope--not until you start treating pro-life Republicans as equal citizens in our country.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I will support him if he's the nominee, in part because he has made serious steps away from supporting Roe.
But I do not feel any duty to support him or any nominee who has not made clear his commitment to my equality as a citizen.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I asked this very question in my "I'm a RiNO" diary, but I'm not going to disarm unilaterally and leave the party to the Arlen Specters and Christine Whitmans.