Yeah, we'll show THEM!!!!
By skymuse Posted in 2006 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (129) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Some conservatives are falling prey to the media machine that is gleefully predicting the blue wave overtaking Congress in three weeks. In monitoring conservative websites and talk radio, I have heard and read a disconcerting number of responses that advocate sitting out this election in order to "teach the Republicans a lesson" and that being back in the wilderness for awhile will help galvanize "real" conservatives to nominate and elect better candidates.
Sure.
Read on . . .
Do a quick memory check of 1992. Conservatives were understandably dismayed by many facets of Poppy Bush' administration. The good feelings from the Gulf War had faded, the president had backtracked on the now-infamous "Read My Lips" pledge and raised taxes; the 1991 recession was falling on his shoulders; he was responsible for appointing David Souter to the Supreme Court (and also Clarence Thomas, I might add); most of all the elder Bush seemed very disengaged from the lives of everyday citizens-- in addition to an apparent disinterest in domestic affairs, a series of well-publicized gaffes such as the fascination the President showed for an infrared scanner at a grocery store combined to paint a picture of an elitist who had already had his high points and was wilting before our very eyes. He even had his own quirks of vocabulary and speaking style as famously portrayed by comedian Dana Carvey. "Not gonna do it" and "Thousand points of light" trigger specific images and memories.
The result was a disheartened conservative base. There just was not a lot of excitement or passion to put the guy back on the throne again; in fact, *HE* didn't even really seem to care whether he won or not. Many conservatives decided to sit out the election either from boredom or disgust with a man who was Ronaldus Magnus' second-in-command and heir apparent. When the prince turned out to be a RINO who was unable or unwilling to fight the Democratic-held Congress to any degree of effectiveness, the base decided to teach him and all the other spineless Republicans a lesson.
The election season running up to November 1992 saw the entrance of a little-known governor from Arkansas who had learned that hiding his liberalism was the path to national power, and Bill Clinton showed a very warm and human candidate as opposed to the blueblood elitist in charge at the time.
That season also saw the entrance of Ross Perot, who captured the third-party rebellious fever that was not being satisfied in the hearts and minds of many conservatives. His over-the-top act was the conservative version of Howard Dean, and he was able to garner enthusiasm and votes from conservatives and libertarians. Or course, he never had a chance, but neither he nor his devout followers ever really saw that. Secondarily they did not take into account that the votes Ross would get might well have gone to George H. W. Bush, or if they did then it was a decidedly punitive action and they "would show him". In the end this candidacy did not truly have an impact -- Perot's votes were largely protest votes split evenly between Bush and Clinton, and even if Bush had taken all of Perot's votes it still would have left him short in the Electoral College. The most important aspect of Perot in the race was the media attention on his novelty campaign. This column does not suggest that Perot cost Bush the presidency.
That election saw Clinton eke out a victory with 43% of the popular vote but a commanding 370 electoral votes compared to Bush' 168. It was hardly a mandate, but it was a national decision. The people no longer wanted the elder Bush to be their president; they weren't sure they wanted Clinton but they knew they wanted Bush gone.
The conservatives felt betrayed in 1992 and voted with their feet; that is, they largely stayed home on election day and a few misguided rebels cast their lot with Perot. Many conservatives commented that it was time to teach the Republicans how to be conservative again, and that a little time out of power would do them some good. They *DESERVED* to lose.
But did the rest of us deserve to lose? With the Clinton presidency we were treated to decisions such as the appointments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court, along with many hundreds of liberal activist judges at all levels of state and circuit courts. We were perilously close to having 11% of our economy nationalized into the HillaryCare healthcare scheme. We watched as the fiasco at Waco unfolded directly due to incompetence at the upper levels of the Justice department. We saw the first bombing of the World Trade Center and various other terrorist attacks on US interests and assets around the world for the next 8 years. We got tax increases and increased regulation of business and environmental interests. We stood idly by while Iraq armed itself, and then we actively helped North Korea develop rudimentary nuclear techniques. We gave China the ability to accurately shoot a ballistic missile. We got a First Lady who is now a New York senator and probable presidential candidate who is cut straight out of the Marxist/Leninist mold. We got a depleted and dispirited military that was forced to be a social experimental lab vis a vis gays and women.
Does anyone have any belief that Poppy Bush would have sat idly by when the WTC was bombed the first time? Or the embassy bombings in Kenya, or Black Hawk Down? How about the Cole? Of course, he would not have been president after 1996 due to term limits but it is reasonable that a conservative could have won that election. Many of the terror elements may not have happened if a president Bush the Elder goes on the attack after WTC I.
The Republicans didn't do much better 1996. Sad-sack Bob Dole was the sacrificial lamb since it was "his turn" and "he had earned" the opportunity. The conservatives were down and despite retaking the House in 1994, simply didn't buy into the larger ideal and put up an effective challenge to Clinton's re-election campaign. Perot ran again but it was even more pathetic than the first time. Clinton steamrolled them both and got four more years to do his best to enforce a Socialist/humanist take on the American landscape.
By 2000 the Dems made their own mistake in giving Gore his shot, and Bush the Younger was just conservative enough (and Gore scarily liberal enough) to energize conservatives again.
But in 1992 conservatives set out to teach a lesson and to show the Republicans in Washington that we didn't have to vote for them. They lost, and we lost even more. That folly was compounded in 1996, and we paid a grievous price on 9/11/2001.
I understand that conservatives are loathe to "reward" a RINO or misbehaving Republican with re-election. But this is not a ballgame -- by withholding votes from Republicans and costing them seats and possibly control of a chamber, we are effectively giving the other side homefield advantage for the entire next season.
There are plenty of issues that have not been properly addressed according to conservatives -- border control and immigration, permanent tax cuts, SocSec reform, the passing of McCain-Feingold, wishy-washy foreign policy, and many other issues. The situation is decidedly non-ideal.
Some would decide that our current leadership does not deserve any more time at the trough and are planning to stay home on election day or vote 3rd party.
If that happens, we *ALL* lose, not just the Republicans. No lessons will be learned, and we will be in for years of something much worse than NON-IDEAL. It will be catastrophic, and we will all wish that we could simply get back to non-ideal. There are times when it *IS* enough to vote for Republicans simply because they are not Democrats, and we are living in one at this moment.
The theme of many of my posts makes a return here: the time for ideals has passed along with the primaries. At this point the only rational option is to go out to your polling place November 7 and pull the lever for the candidate (for national office) with the "R" by his or her name. Even if that person is a raging RINO, that candidate is still FAR more in line with conservative beliefs than anyone with a "D" by their name, and they do count towards numerical control of their chamber. They also determine the makeup of the committees and chairs, and their party will determine the voting schedule. At this point the focus is on concentration of party power. The Republicans MUST hold both chambers of Congress. To withhold a vote at this point or to protest-vote is to be the same person who gave us the Clinton presidency in 1992.
Who exactly is showing whom? And what are they showing them?
Thanks for the kind words, Mark I.
Good mention of the 1976 election -- another one where people voted for Carter simply because he wasn't "Nixonized" like Ford, and Ford definitely turned off conservatives so they didn't bother turning out -- thanks for the reminder!
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Last night for the first 3 quarters of the football game da Bears were behind. The quarterback for da Bears was not leading his team and scoring touchdowns. When the game ended da Bears won because they do not give up. The GOP needs to be like da Bears and know that if they do not give up, and they do go to the polls and vote for Rs for Congress they win. End of Story.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Every liberal friend I have is scared to death. Much like the Cardinals.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
...that they are all drunk on the wine of irrational exuberance and suffering from a bad case of counting-your-chickens pox.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
The fact that they were playing the Cardinals didn't hurt either.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The conservatives felt betrayed in 1992 and voted with their feet; that is, they largely stayed home on election day and a few misguided rebels cast their lot with Perot.
If the exit polls can be believed, the conservatives stuck with the party. It was the liberal and libertarian members who jumped ship to Perot and even Clinton.
I was just stupid enough to think that Perot would be more conservative than Bush had been up to that time.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Why was Bush under such pressure to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with someone similarly wishy-washy when Whizzer White, pre Rehnquist the Court's most conservative member, was replaced with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably its most liberal justice at present?
because it it not for nothing that we are often called the stupid party. I would like a dollar for every time I have seen Republicans out maneuvered and outclassed on tactics by the Democrats, simply because they have no scruples.
Let us hope we never make such a stupid mistake again. When we get another Dem as president we need to fight TO THE DEATH! against all such Ginsburg type appointments, and remember to play hardball all the time.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
anyone's image. Removing Ronald Reagan from the party, which is what they seek to do, is no way to win elections and implement conservative policy. The left appreciates the tools.
Good post.
Good. Now I got to do it.
Great piece. Needs to be posted on every conservative site.
The very idea that our representatives will snap to attention if we punish them by staying home is too smart by half. Do people really believe this? Or have they decided that we've lost already, and that we'll somehow save face by waking up on November 8th saying "Yeah, we meant to do that!"
If we're dissatisfied with the Republicans on the ballot, we should have cleaned things up during the primary. We want guys like Toomey, not royal pains like Specter. Yet in that case we made a strategic calculation (encouraged by the White House...ahem) and chose Specter. Is this part of the problem?
The primaries have passed us by, and it's time to close ranks. If we keep the House, we can then worry about making things better. The Harriet Miers debacle proved that they'll listen if we holler loudly enough. But if we lose, the focus will be on getting it back at all costs and guys like Specter and Shayes will start looking pretty good. I don't want to be in that position.
Vote GOP. Just do it. The primary is the place to make things better. The general election, to quote Magic Johnson, is "winning time."
Whenever you do have a good, viable conservative running in a primary against a Rino, the administration and the party leadership always support the incumbent.
Do you believe that nothing need change? Or maybe some shake up is in order?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Remember Bob Smith (R-NH)?
He was the incumbent in 2002.
When John Sununu challenged him, the White House made absolutely no move to help Smith, and in fact, several sitting Senators endorsed Sununu in the primary.
Specter was obviously seen as a safer bet than Smith.
The problem I see (as a fellow conservative) is that conservatives think they can run a conservative in any state or district and win the general election.
We have to be a bit more strategic than that.
While I fault the NRSC for spending money on Chaffee's seat, I equally fault Laffey for making it necessary.
In the end, it won't matter since Chaffee will lose and Laffey would have lost.
When I say strategic, I mean, if it's a state (SENATE) or district (HOUSE) that is virtually assurred of going with the Republican, then by all means let's go for a conservative in the primary (e.g. versus Graham in SC next time around).
But if a conservative has no chance to win a particular election then I'm more than happy to have a moderate there (i.e. the Maine sisters, Chaffee).
I would add this thought.
As you suggest, throwing people into the wilderness only increases their chances of being lost...it doesn't ensure that they improve their chances of finding their way.
Your diary suggests the patently obvious to anyone who truly believes that conservatism needs to be furthered in the body politic; our majority status needs to be maintained while we re-educate those that represent us in what it means to be conservative, and how a conservative needs to act when they hold the najority status of the electorate.
Well done! If you weren't already front paged, I'd recommend as much...oh well, I can still hit the "recommend" button...
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
What lesson is there to teach the GOP in leaving the Senate so that it can't confirm another conservative Sup Court justice? Disastrous mistakes like Souter and O'Connor last for decades, and for all of his faults, at least President Bush does care about this issue --- Harriet Miers aside. But anyway, we lost the chance to right the Court with Reagan and Bush the Elder, but here we stand on the verge of another opportunity. If we lose this one, we may not get another.
And what lesson is there in handing the House to Nancy Pelosi, and watching her pass the awful Senate amnesty bill? Once signed into law (and this is one of those faults of the President I alluded to above), it would be almost impossible to undo even if the GOP reclaimed the House. Demographics are not on the GOP's side -- and the Senate immigration bill would exacerbate the problem -- so the time is now to institutionalize as much of the conservative movmement as possible, and that requires victory now.
It isn't so much about teaching lessons. Its about motivating your butt on a workday to get up early and fight the lines and get over to the polling place and all that for What? a bunch of candidates who not only don't thrill you but some of them you would like to slap their face.
Yeah, I'm going to do it. Mostly just for the supreme court, but like I said before, you will not be able to use that horse again for motivation. Things have got to change in the party. We need some way of enforcing some discipline.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Well, for ANYONE concerned about the combination of judicial supremancy and leftist judicial activism -- be they social conservatives or those who more generally just prefer a Court that behaves as it was meant to -- the Sup Court horse should be plenty enough motivation to get out and vote for the embattled GOP seats in the Senate.
Social conservative in particular have no excuse to not vote. None whatsoever. Since we as a society have meekly bowed down to judicial supremacy, there is but one way to fight it, and that is the confirmation of good judges. With continuing efforts to challenge Roe, and with marriage inevitably reaching the High Imperial Court sometime in the next few years, the outcomes may very well depend on the next vacancy.
Also, many of the "sit this one out" movement, now including Malkin officially and Ingraham (for her comments when Hurricane Foley struck) is that they will be the first to cry about the war on terror being cut, yet their childishness is what brought it about.
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
Dafydd ab Hugh has an interesting piece on "Can ALL the polls be wrong." He's responding to a piece on PowerLine raising the question.
In case you are looking for a little boost :-)
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
inside the Beltway that want to seem smart or can't buck the conventional wisdom. I was shocked to see even Cal Thomas succumb today to ape the bullsh*t that it might good if we lose. I don't provide links to negativity right now, which I am sure you can understand (but its at townhall.com), but what really amazes me is that Cal has been an out front Bible believing Christian (and still is, and for that I love the man) in DC for decades, and for him to fall into this inevitable loser mode due to MSM polls????
I am confident we will win. And, despite what will be written after we win, it will not be because we "came back" due to all this. That will be the new version of the chattering as narrative to explain events. The libs usually do it to make sure liberalism never loses. The Conservative DC chatterers will use it to make themselves seem important and their work seem more important that it is.
Even my latest
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/oct/17/msm_apes_old_southern...
as if I...
God help us with pride...
The voters will decide the election as they always were going to do and always have and will.
I don't want to say that our, including us bro, press and opinion makes don't do and haven't done important educational work (see Reagan himself on the stump and on radio from 1976-1980 esp), but this blame the GOP congress and bush first surrender by the DC conservative talking heads except for RUSH!! (but he's in Florida, the EIB Southern Command!) has just really disappointed me.
But I know that actual Americans will not disappoint. Pelosi will remain the enigma to the USA that she is today. She will be harder to find till Election day that UBL's corpse.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I have always had great confidence in the great American unwashed electorate. We occasionally screw up but not very often and rarely when the chips are down.
"God has a special providence for fools, drunks and the United States of America".
Bismark
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Be happy. We aren't going to lose. Don't fall prey to the media. The effort is out there to make us feel defeated, but we aren't. Do you honestly think the responsible people of the country are going to let the most irresponible people of this country get ahold of the reigns? I don't. If anything we are going to pick up seats in the House and Senate regardless of what the polls and the libs say. They can act like its "Oh no!" time, but that doesn't make it so. We are going to give the Dems an actuall reason to do some serious self examination and reflecting this time. A storm is coming, and it is our storm.
Long live the Fighter!
Losing a house or even both will cause more moderate candidates to win their primaries. A lot of analysts say McCain could more easily get the Pres. nod if we lose a house or both.
McCain has zero chance of ever being the Republican nominee.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
He seems like realistically the only one with a chance! "If your young and a republican, ya got no heart. If your old and a Democrat ya got no money." Mark Twain
McCain doesn't have the temperment for a campaign, let alone to serve as POTUS. Aside from the fact that the base won't support him, he'll implode in the primaries.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
His own people wont trust him and his opposers wont respect him
"If your young and a republican, ya got no heart. If your old and a Democrat ya got no money." Mark Twain
My only question, did we deserve it?
Unike some, I hold my political leaders responsible for their actions. To me its not a home team I defend at all cost. I ask myself what I want, and what our country needs from it's leaders - and I have no intention of voting for anyone who hasn't delievered it.
Anything less is being an easily maniupulated lap dog - and I aint no lap dog.
We got Foley first, now we got Larry Craig from Idaho about to get outed as gay, with other implications soon to follow. And we have Kolbe from AZ, and McHenry from NC is about to be outed - and Ken Melman, fer chrise sake.
I'm tying hard not to get into hate speech, but what the frick? If we were serious about family values how do we look the other way while this next nightmare unfolds over the next 3 weeks?
This kind of gay baiting would be on the edge anyway, but some moby who always has to dishonestly say "we" instead of "you" automatically earns a bullseye.
OT, the subject came from a Russian Gorbachev-era joke as recounted by Richard Perle that came to mind:
A Moscow resident heard a rumor that steak was available at the grocery store and immediately went there to get in line. The people in line were enthusiastically talking about how great glasnost was. "We could never get steak before Gorbachev's reforms!"
An hour later he finally gets to the counter and asks for a pound of steak. The butcher tells him they ran out of steak hours ago. He asks for some pork chops instead. "Sorry, we're out." He asks for a few other meats, always the same answer.
"Is there anything you're not out of??" he asks, and the butcher points to some molding sausage. Enraged the customer starts ranting "This glasnost is a total lie! Gorbachev is a fraud! Nothing has changed!" as he storms out of the store.
Outside he's stopped by a plain clothes KGB officer. "Comrade, these are difficult times, and your rhetoric is not constructive. You say nothing has changed, but I ask you, before Gorbachev wouldn't I have taken you off to be shot or sent to a labor camp for that kind of outburst? Things have indeed changed, and Gorbachev is not Stalin. I'm just going to take down your name for my report and send you home."
Back at home his wife asks him if he got the steak. When told no, she asks if he got anything else that was good. "No, the miserbable grocery was out of everything!"
"Oh, I thought Gorbachev was improving things," his wife says, "but they're still out of everything. It looks like nothing has changed."
"No, it has changed," the husband replies. "It's even worse. Now the idiots are even out of bullets!"
It seems some Republicans have joined with the Democrats in their inability to see past that fact.
The stakes are too high to sacrifice our national legislature for the failures, real and perceived, of Bush. This is a nation under attack. A Democratic Congress will not prosecute that struggle agains Islamism or fund it. In the final analysis, that trumps any need to punish the president or the party. Those who have torn the Republican Party asunder can be purged one at a time with each primary season. I strongly recommend that response because many have done horrible things to the Republic and to the party but nothing so bad that the country should be put at an even greater risk. A vote for almost any Democrat, let alone sitting out an election, increases the danger.
Your blog needs to be posted anywhere and everywhere people read and think about politics, Skymuse, because it forcefully speaks the truth and makes the case better than I or most others ever will. Thank you.
I thought the non-partisan Intelligence Estimate stated our war with Iraq has aided the terrorist cause? This is what I struggle with. I can forgive the president for engaging us in a war that was, in the end, optional, and that didn't directly address the terrorist threat. But I can't forgive him if he won't commit the resources to win it. Its like we're walking the same political tight-rope that lost Viet Nam for us. If we're going to fight a war, then lets make darn sure we give our troops what they need to win it - and our troops need more troops. We can take control of territory, but we can't hold it. Its time to buck up and face the facts.
If everyone who actually wanted to be tough on terrorism stood up and said, lets win this thing we would shock our enemies - and our political opponents. When we don't, our support of the war on terror rings hollow.
And now we got the whole gay thing to struggle against - and its going to hurt. It will unfold over the next 3 weeks in wave after wave. It will be withering. So instead of fighting a war to protect ourselves and democracy, we get to quibble about sexual orientation. We need to get our priorities strait (no pun intended).
anything after the first NYT "expose"? Their "revelation" was designed to do exactly what you have fallen for.
As to troop numbers I suggest that you put in a call to General Abizaid or General Casey, the combatant commander. I'm sure he eagerly awaits your input on troop numbers and deployment.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I have no problems with it, since I've been saying before the war began that in all likelihood terrorism would increase in the short term, but this was the only way to kill it in the long term. I supported it then, and support it now. I think however, that the increase has been much less than I would have expected. as we're killing 'em about as fast or faster than they can make 'em. what's really increasing terrorism is the media and the left here and abroad attacking and lying about the war.
I also (like President Bush) did not support the war soley or even primarily based on WMDs, and do not find the fact that we haven't found them (yet) to undermine the case for the course we have set. So the lefty butmonkeys don't work on me.
Here is a link to the NIE conclusions. It does not say that the war in Iraq has aided the terrorist cause.
The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
I can't believe we pay people to state the obvious like this, but for whatever its worth, thats what it says.
...because you don't have anything original to say, so they ignore your unilluminating diaries over on DKos?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I've read enough to know there will be a number of "outings" of gay republicans over the next couple of weeks. That hurts us, and if it drives away "values" voters, it could cost us the senaate, as well as the house. There is no point ignoring this reality.
As for the needed troop numbers - the Generals are under the thumb of the civilian leadership - and the message has been clear to stay on point. The fact that we are loosing in Iraq should be evidence enough that we have to change strategy. Of course we will do so, when its less politically damaging to do so, like after the elections. So more will die while politicians try to save their butts.
Its war - I don't care much about politicians butts right now.
this is a two-way street any you very well may have (in fact, in one case I know you do) have closeted Democrats in Senate and House races in states and districts that aren't all that open-minded on the subject. Remember who opened the door when someone from this side pulls the trigger.
Now, someone get a mop and bucket, please.
Is a feeble attempt to convince evangelicals to sit out. Bill Moyers all but admitted with his recent PBS dreck that he is trying to split the evangelicals and get a majority of them to sit out.
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
Have you read the leaked reports from the Baker Commission?
You can trot out the company line all day and all night, but facts on the ground are proving you wrong every day. If Baker was here explaining his perspective you'd attack him too?
George Bush isn't god, boys. He, and his handlers, are wrong for the Country, and wrong for the Republican party. We were fine when we were all about tax cuts, small government, fiscal responsibility. What are we about now?
Intolerance of alternative views within our party? Let me tell you something - with the approval ratings we now have, and the beating we're about to take at the polls, maybe we ought to welcome a wee bit of self examination, cause it aint gonna get no better without it.
I didn't like Baker in his previous incarnations in government and I still don't. George Bush apparently likes and respects him but that doesn't mean I have to.
As to his report, que sera sera. If Bush decides to adopt any portion of it then he will have made his decision and we will have to live with it.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I just recall his foolish comment about not caring for Jews because they don't vote Republican. What a retard.
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
But your attitude is just what I'm arguing against. Its not about your teaam vs the other team. Its about our country, people dying, people being liberated. Its about the direction our world takes. Think about it.
Is that it is more evidence then I need for the fact that we have lost Iraq. Baker has been brought in to redefine our whole approach to this war. And it appears he will be working at odds with Mr Rumsfeld and President Bush.
I'm sorry your apparently not keeping up with events as they unfold. Time is short, we need to do something dramatic to save this election cycle. Try to keep up.
I'm suggesting we actually critically examine what ever it is that has gotten us into this mess and stop being mindless cheerleaders. People like Rush don't serve our needs, we have to realize that. No amount of blind criticism of gays helps us when we have a whole slew of gay hypocrits in Washington spouting off about "family values". No amount of "cut and run" rhetoric helps us when we don't have any better strategy other than "stay the course" - its a battle of simplistic rhetoric.
The Baker Commission is going to suggest a drastically different direction - an alternative to "stay the course". The dems will grab this and run with it to their advantage. We shouldn't have let ourselves get backed into this corner.
We have handed the dems a weapon when we get on our high horse over culture war issues that we can't uphold. Either purge our party of gays or stop harping on this stupid issue. Everyone in DC knew about the gays about to be outed in the party.
For whatever reason Baker has been brought in to lead his commission and make recommendations. The president appears to be happy with this and he's the boss. I've already told you that I did not then and do not now care for Baker.
I deeply regret that you think I am not keeping up to your satisfaction ; well that's not really true, actually I don't really give a fig what you think. However, if you are going to critique the plans and actions of the Republican party, or even the participants at RedState, ad hominem attacks on my lack of ability to "keep up" are not really the way to go about it --- but to each his own.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the rest of your epistle. Doesn't sound like you are really interested in helping Republicans retain the House and Senate. You sound a lot more like you will be pleased to be in the "I told you so" chorus on Wednesday.
I don't see that you and I have much more to discuss.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
It is my understanding that the commisssion is not set up by the government but by an organization like the Institute for World Peace.
I would suggest that using the term Commission in its title is so people will think it is set up by the government.
Certainly, the media is not telling anyone any different.
DAVOD
The problem with so-called bi-partisan groups such as this is that they hide the real allegances of the participants. I would suggest that Baker is an Arabist. He is also a Realist. As an Arabist and a Realist his views on Iraq would be the opposite of the Administration's.
So the balance implicit in Baker being a Republican is not balance at all.
Aren't you glad that you've helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
Better Mobys, please.
Blam. (Or whatever sound a harpoon makes)
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Don't be afraid to argue your points spanishirish. Bannishing everyone you disagree with will leave you what? More of the same? Thats not what I would call a plan for any sort of victory.
And again, Moby, when your boys start to be outed from people on this side, don't forget who started this sordid business.
Expounding on Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation backfired on Edwards & Kerry. Maybe Kerry would be President if he and Edwards had shown better manners. Outing some gay Republicans won't help the Democrats, and Republicans trying the same tactics against gay Democrats will just get the Democrats sympathy votes.
Forget about "retaliation", there's no need and it's counterproductive. Just laugh at the Democrats for being stupid enough to think their outing antics are going to help them win elections.
I think the Craig idiocy will set off a chain reaction of this rubbish, and the only thing we will find humorous will be their utter hypocrisy as they close ranks around their Gerry Studds du juor.
Republicans terminate the career of a Republican congressman who had sex (or even lesser misconduct) with minors of whatever gender e.g. Crane, Foley. A Democratic congressman who had sex with a minor continues to be reelected by the voters in a Democratic district, e.g. Studds.
There are liberals and moderates here who argue against the prevailing opinions on this site, and will be around for a long time. The ones who get banished are the idiots who copy/paste Democratic talking points and think that prefacing them with a "We republicans have to recognize..." will fool anybody.
You've totally missed my point.
I don't give a hoot about gays being outed. The point I'm trying to make is that we can't be hypocrits. Video of one of our guys waxing poetic about family values followed by a perp walk for sending sexually explicit IMs crumbles our message.
Again, don't be afraid to actually argue a point. Our party needs it.
I won't repeat myself again spanishirish. I couldn't care less if people are gay. I care if they are hypocrits and if they hurt our cause. Don't you really see the point here? The whole Dem party could be gay - if they still get elected who cares? We are hurting the whole Rep party by not getting the gays out of it. We either have to get the gays out or drop the gay bashing rhetoric. We can't look like hypocrits who play politics over "family values"
Please think about this before you respond.
There is a big d*mn difference between "gay bashing" and talking about "family values." I believe in the "family values" we keep talking about and I abhor "gay bashing."
--30--
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Can you point me to some examples of this "gay bashing rhethoric" which you think "we" engage in? I'm sure that you and your buddies at DU imagine that Republicans all do nothing but sit around bashing gays all day, but thats far from the truth.
against a closeted family values Democrat, you obviously will agree it needed to be done due to the hypocrisy. You've made your point. Now think how wise it was.
This is over the top-
We either have to get the gays out or drop the gay bashing rhetoric. ~bigboybrown
Sometimes it is morbidly entertaining to suffer such fools- but this guy is just plain disturbing.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
What is your problem???
We are losing the libertarian vote in this country PRECISELY because of knuckleheads like you.
Look, the GOP coalition is NOT BIG ENOUGH!!! We are facing rejection at the polls in 3 weeks, cause our Tent is not wide enough. If anything, the opposite is true. We have not reached out to Gays, Lesbians, and other Alternative Lifestyles folks NEARLY ENOUGH!!!
The Libertarian Party people ALREADY THINK WE REPUBLICANS ARE A BUNCH OF FASCIST RACIST HOMOPHOBIC SCUM. You need to visit some of their sites and blogs. They're downright mad at the GOP right now for passing the idiotic internet gambling ban. And the Dems are courting them.
Do you want to lose the Libertarian vote this year?
Think carefully about that. That means Talent goes down in MO. (Libertarian is polling 4% there.) That means Burns definitely goes down in Montana (Libt. polling 4% there.) That means we lose the Governor's race in Oregon (Libertarian polling 3% there). Even in rock solid Georgia the Libertarian is polling 8%!!!
You are not helping our efforts to win over the Libertarian vote with idiotic statements like "Let's kick the Gays out of the GOP."
My God man,just go away!!
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
We need to be consistant. I don't want to gay bash - I don't care what people do in their own homes. I care what people do when they are representing our people. Clinton is the perfect example. He isn't gay and he got away with his perversion. He wouldn't have if he would have run on family values - he would have gone down with a thud. We need to do one or the other, but not both.
Are you saying that in your opinion a party which believes in family values must not allow any homosexuals to be in it? You seem to be.
If so, explain yourself.
Thats what we need to answer as a party. How can we be a party of family values if we allow gays to be in the party? And, especially, if we don't deal with them harshly when they are known predators?
When we are inconsistant we hurt ourselves. I don't give two hoots about gays either way, they don't bother me. But if we want to be consistant and not hypocrits we need to decide what we want to do with known gays in our party. I am personally leaning towards getting them out.
How can we be a party of family values if we allow gays to be in the party?
Well, for one thing, it's difficult to stop them, since this is still a free country. For another, family values does not mean "no gays allowed", even though you and your DU buddies may think otherwise.
And, especially, if we don't deal with them harshly when they are known predators?
If we ever have a case where we fail to deal harshly with a known predator, get back to me. But so far we have never had any predators within the party. I realise that the line at DU is that Foley is a pedophile predator, but the facts don't bear that out.
As mobys go, you are not very good.
What would you suggest we do then?
We're looking at losing the house, may lose the Senate, and we'll have to endure 3 weeks of embarrassment between now and the election. We're losing a war that the President responds to by saying we must stay the course - the losing course?
I'm arguing we need to examine what we're doing. Is that so anti-Republican?
Why can't we talk about the realities instead of attacking each other?
As soon as anyone does anything other than drink the koolaid s/he gets attacked. Under these approval ratings, whats the good that comes from that? Should we really stifle discussion when we obviously need to re-work some things?
I don't see you talking about any realities. All you are doing so far is repeating lefty talking points.
The only thing that can cause us to lose the war is a Democratic victory next month.
You'll have to flesh that out a bit Jon. It appears we're losing the war right now.
I don't think "cutting and ruuning" is a winning strategy, but clearly neither is "staying the course" The Baker Commission will provide alternative that either party can grab. We need to be pro-active and carve these alternatives out for ourselves.
Read the leaks - they suggestions are up for grabs. This is a PR thing. We need to think on our feet and stop blindly backing a losing policy.
It appears we're losing the war right now.
It does not appear that way to me, or to the people who wrote the NIE.
How do we answer that question - are we losing the war? Are we gaining control of security forces? Are we crippling the enemy? Are we losing fewer and are fewer being injured? Are fewer innocents dying? Is the politicaal situation becoming more stable?
All the trend lines are one direction Jon.
Are we crippling the enemy?
Depending on which enemy you are referring to, yes.
Are we losing fewer and are fewer being injured? Are fewer innocents dying?
How ignorant of war does a person have to be to think that fewer deaths means we're winning and more deaths means we're losing?
Is the politicaal situation becoming more stable?
The political situation seems quite stable, for now. If your friend Baker has his way and divides Iraq up into pieces and gives them to Syria and Iran, then we'll an upstable situation for a while, followed by an even more unpleasent stability.
I heard a general say last weekend on the radio that while once our casualties were from roadside bombs, more now are from direct attacks by increasingly well armed, well organized and emboldened insurgents. That doesn't sound like we're crippling anybody. He also said to look at wounded as well as killed - trend lines again. We've been in theater for years, and we're losing more this month then last. Not what we call winning.
As for your next point Jon, in war, losing more means your losing - thats just a fact.
The political situation is very unstable. Rumors have it that the Bush Administration is very unhappy with present leadership and is contemplating its removal. We are (possibley) on the verge of negotiating with the insurgents, and maybe even Iran and Syria. That, my friend, is not stable.
Thats rather pathetic. Usually the good trolls at least have some links to make their claims seem credible.
Rumors have it ..
We are (possibley) on the verge of negotiating with the insurgents, and maybe even Iran and Syria.
Goodness, stop before you scare youself to death.
in war, losing more means your losing
Of course it does. That's why when US fatalities shot up in late summer of 1944, FDR sued for peace.
Please, give me more of your strategic and historical insights.
The polling results in the US are a direct result of the MSM reporting. They will be the death of us.
Is that so anti-Republican? Why can't we talk about the realities instead of attacking each other?
Faulty premise. Isn't it convenient that there's such a perfect correlation between the standard Democratic talking points and your supposed "realities".
If you really believe those "realities", you should be hoping the Democrats win. Nevermind, you already are.
I'm noticing that people here can't actually respond to the issues, but attack the messenger instead. Thats too bad, and doesn't bode well for our party.
can't you ever respond to the issues? People here keep attempting to engage you on the issues, and you keep twisting and dodging. It does not bode well for your party.
One South Park made fun of programs that gratuitously use profanity for its own sake, trying to appear edgy. In that show, every time a character said sh*t, there was a ding and the on-screen counter advanced. It would be amusing to see a counter advancing every time this moby says "we" and "our" party.
Liberals who don't hide who they are do post here, and others reply to their arguments. But some moby's are too obviously a joke to be engaged seriously.
...attacking the messenger.
Read through my posts. Respond intelligently if you care you. If not - good night.
My beef isn't against Bush. He had the right instincts from the get-go as far as Islam and the Mideast are concerned--I have always been a supporter of the Iraq effort, and it is more crucial than ever that we stick it out.
My beef is with the Republicans in Congress. They have spent money so recklessly that they have shortchanged the war effort. Ever since 2003, they've done nothing worthwhile. They have tarnished the party and tarnished the office. They (esp. the House) do not deserve to return to power. They have been hiking spending from 1998 onwards, and every single election cycle, they come back to the base and say that "if we just have about 5 more guys in the House and 2 more guys in the Senate, all your dreams will come true." Well, it's been a long eight years, and they have been the worst spenders in living history. When you count the BS "homeland security" spending which has been a total porkfest, they are even worse than LBJ. The leadership always blames the Main Street Caucus or the Senate Republican liberals, and then turns around and defends them to the absolute hilt when said liberals (Specter, Chafee) get a legitimate primary challenge.
And as far as SCOTUS (to me the only rationale for leaving the GOP with the one half of Congress they still have a chance at holding) is concerned, does anyone remember Harriet Miers? Does anyone remember how the White House defended that tired, liberal-in-conservative-drag bumblef**k for two months, and relented only after all the grassroots had deserted the White House AND the Senate GOP couldn't varnish her atrocious performances at the murder boards? Remember Fred Barnes' Weekly Standard column at the beginning of that controversy that said that "GOP grassroots voters still show overwhelming support for Bush," they just don't care, it's just a few pissed off elites? Don't you realize how totally betrayed we have been?
Actually, I should know better than to ask questions like that.
Excuse me for having a signature. Here, I'll delete it for you. Just to give you one less excuse to run away from unpleasant facts.
are great ones for your "facts.
The facts are that Bush, whom you approve of, is responsible for the LBJ type programs which you are slamming the House for.
The facts are that between the House, Senate, and WH, the House is the most conservative chamber.
Shouldn't be be playing Tradesports? Or are you here to try to help your bets against the GOP to come true?
Don't you realize how totally betrayed we have been?
You are under the impression that there exists some "we" which has been betrayed by the evil "they".
The Republican base has been able to get the party to do the right thing when it wants to, as with Miers and (hopefully) immigration. If the base has not forced the party to slash government it may indicate that the base is not as concerned with this issue as you are.
Just a thought.
In some ways your right - as with immigration - but note this battle is not won, not by a long shot. And who do we have to battle? Its Bush. He is just flat wrong on this issue. And he (as was Clinton and many others) has been willing to let this issue go unaddressed as long as it was politically advantagous to do so. So the base is calling him out, good for them.
But on these other issues the base is failing us. Gay marriage, stem cell research... these things just hurt us. I think we can keep the base and moderate a little. A lot of "values voters" always had a sneeking suspicion they were getting manipulated and now we've given them the proof.
Thats the problem with high-horses.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
"The base has been able to get the party to do the right thing when it wants to"
Read that statement again.
We don't have time to watch the Republican Party like hawks. The base elite (Powerline, Federalist Society, some of Redstate as I recall) completely revolted over Miers, because SCOTUS is our Number One Issue. We yanked the GOP's chain hard enough, and they *finally* came around when they realized that they would be annihilated in the midterms if they didn't do what they promised. But we can't revolt all the time because we have better things to do, like earn money for ourselves (not to mention tax dollars). So when the GOP's malfeasance is not TOTALLY clear-cut, as it was on Miers, the base can't get it together to throw down the gauntlet to the Party.
So when the Republicans raise spending by 9 percent in one year, but then argue that they have cut the deficit to 2.0 percent of GDP b/c tax revenues are 15% higher this year...the information isn't clear-cut enough for us to know that our fellow Republicans will revolt over it. So the base takes it on the chin. Again. Never mind that tax revenues go way up and down with the business cycle, but government spending only goes up at a slower rate; so when this business cycle goes down (which it will, soon, even tho. the tax cuts did help it), those two figures (deficits and gov't spending as %/GDP) are going to become butt naked and butt ugly. But too many base Republicans either can't search that information out, or are government clients themselves, who are now invested in higher government spending.
Even with all that, I'm still voting GOP in my state. Akin is the kind of conservative I like. Talent, although Kit Bond's porkbarrel parochial Republicanism has tarnished him, will return to his roots after this year, assuming he returns to office. But DeWine? Burns? CHAFEE? Are you f'ing serious?!
Toomey. Laffey. Walberg. Garrett. Bryant. Angle. Which side were you on? Who did their damndest to frustrate you?
Suckers.
Randy Graf anyone?
Every time the grassroots representative threatens to triumph over the Establishment's anointed heir, the establishment denies support to the conservative. Do you think the RNC was kidding when it said it would withdraw its support if Laffey beat Chafee? They obviously weren't kidding with Graf. They were more willing to spread $1.2 million of conservatives' hard-earned, entrusted dollars to BS Chafee through the primary (and obviously anger enough Republicans to cripple his chances in the general), than they were willing to allow the primary voters to express their will. How do you think returning them in their most trying times is going to get them to change their habits--at all?
A previous poster referred to 1992 as a blunder. Do you think 1994 would have happened if Bush I had been returned to office? Do you think we would have gotten welfare reform, not to mention a 12-year majority with him?
Ask yourself--would Bush I have tracked down bin Laden? Do you honestly think so? Because, while he might have been a smidgen more assertive than Clinton, I really don't think he would have. Ronaldus I Magnus let Hezbollah rape us in 83, after all.
...then don't complain about what they do or don't do when you aren't watching. You get the Party you deserve.
____________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I listen to ALOT of talk radio. Noone is saying they are going to sit out this election. My God! Its the Washington Beltway types that are spouting this drivel.
I hope it snows and rains on election day. LOL! Dems never make it to the polls in Michigan if the weather is not nice. Even if its just COLD they stay home.
I think we lose 6 seats..that's it. One in Colorado, One in Indiana, One in New York, One in Texas, Two in Ohio.
There are always people who show up in the final weeks before an election posting pleas to "not sit this one out!" They never have any idea whether any significant percentage of their base has any thought of sitting it out or not. A related phenomenon in 2004 were countless pointless exhortations to not vote for third party candidates. (If the Dems had invested half the effort in turning out the vote for Kerry that they invested in trying to dissuade Almost Nobody from voting for Ralph Nader, Kerry probably would have won.)
The best I can figure is that they are party wannabes who are trying to impress someone with their noble effort at increasing turnout; perhaps also they don't want to exert the effort to do anything that's really effective at increasing turnout, like canvassing or phonebanking, and thus resort to these pointless exhortations. Alternatively, maybe they see themselves as self-appointed saviors of the moronic masses, or maybe they are just cursed with chronic paranoia.
Whatever...not to be bothered with.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
...trying to dissuade themselves. To be fair, Nader* was saying the things that they were thinking; and as for Sen. Kerry... well. Kerry had to run as if he was five points ahead, which hobbled him better than a chain to a cinderblock would've.
It was almost sad, watching the Democrats grimly hypnotize themselves into believing that Kerry was what they wanted all along.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Except that it wasn't, was it? I can't even remember who the Green candidate was that year. Then again, neither did anybody else.
People often project their own demons onto others.
The Green Party candidate was Cobb, I believe.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Get off your FANNIES and DO SOMETHING!
And if they win this one, they will make sure it is very very hard for non-democrats to win again. They are ruled by their fear and anger over having lost Congress over 12 years the WH over the last 8. They will take a lesson from their pals Chavez and castro and make sure the voters do not make that mistake again. They will make it easier and easier for dems to stuff ballot boxes, the ultimate step being permitting illegals to vote. democrats in every state have rejected with anger all attempts at secure voting reform. They know that if they can't cheat they cannot win. They attack minority candidates in the most transparently racist terms, knowing that if they cannot keep 'their' property voting their way, they are doomed.
This election, with its October surprises of at once pretending Foley means something about Republican leadership, the phony religious book, and the suppression of the actual scandal of Harry Reid, tells me that the democrats know what is at stake. They are enjoying greatly our self inflicted wounds based on our excercise of integrity.
When Verger got caught stealing documents, we let that go quietly so as not to embarass him. Bad move. Hastert, in the name of bupartisan, went to back over Jefferson. Stupid. Bush43 treated clinton with respect. Naive.
We allowed the dems and Al Qaeda to speak the same way about this war and our troops and our President without calling them out completely. Shame.On.Us.
This eceonmy is cooking along better than the 1990's. The deficit, in time of war, is shrinking incredibly fast. Employment, with very good jobs, is the highest ever. The stockmarket is the strongest it has ever been and is stillunder valued.
We have been protected against attacks on non-military targets under this President and his party better than clinton ever dreamed of.
I know who I am voting for, and I know why.
I am darned tired of hearing about why we should lose to losers like the dems.
Simple, the Libertarian vote has largely abandoned us. Look at the poll numbers. Libertarian Party percentages are higher now than ever before in their 35 year history. They're going to elect a bunch of folks this year too. Also, Independents like Zeese in Maryland and Kinky in Texas, who lean libertarian, are taking away GOP votes.
Simple math folks. Stop shuttting your eyes to the truth. Stop pretending that libertarian-minded voters don't exist.
Pew Research found that fully 9% of the American electorate could be described as "libertarian" mostly male 30 and 40s something, divorced once or twice, doesn't like hassles from government.
We spend all this time, effort and money trying to reach Black voters, Hispanic voters, Women voters. What about the libertarian voters???!!!
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
After the 2004 election cycle, I was surprised at how many Democrats said they voted for one or more Libertarian candidates for the first time in the life. I did too.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
What poll numbers? And how do we know these libertarians voted Republican in the first place?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Most of the Democrats who told me they voted for a Libertarian for the first time in their life in 2004 were females over the age of 45.
Most had a son in his late teens or early 20s and they weren't interested in hearing word one about how maybe they needed to sacrifice them to keep us safe from terrorism or bring democracy to the Iraqis. Most of them had, or were about to have, one or more kids in college and had concluded that neither party has been the party of fiscal responsibility for a long time now.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
And if they win this one, they will make sure it is very very hard for non-democrats to win again. They are ruled by their fear and anger over having lost Congress over 12 years the WH over the last 8. They will take a lesson from their pals Chavez and castro and make sure the voters do not make that mistake again. They will make it easier and easier for dems to stuff ballot boxes, the ultimate step being permitting illegals to vote.
They have the same mentality as those who outlawed "anti-Soviet propaganda."
The House Republicans passed HR 4484 (photo ID) a month ago. Remains to be seen if the Senate will follow through. If the Dems do take over either house in November, and the Senate Republicans drop the ball on this, that will speak volumes about many things, IMO.
I support HR 4484 and hope the Senate will pass it before the end of the year. But I've been very puzzled as to why Republicans are so worried about illegals voting. All the illegals I know are Hispanic, Catholic, pro-life, socially conservative, and most likely to vote Republican.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
"But I've been very puzzled as to why Republicans are so worried about illegals voting"
Which part of ILLEGAL are you having a hard time understanding? Perhaps someone here can help you.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I don't think anyone who is qualified to vote should be allowed to vote. But I'm not sitting around wailing or wringing my hands over it. Many Republicans come across as though they think it's some kind of plot against them, even though this is a group that would be likely to vote Republican. I understand the alarm over other forms of voting fraud, but not this one.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
is that a percentage of voter fraud, probably a significant percentage, can be dealt with by some modest ID requirement and the Democrats are always against it. They ahve no problem with requiring ID for buying beer and checks and restrictions, if not outright bans, on guns but ask for a voter to show some ID? Fugedaboutit, major Constitutional infringement, Jim Crow, poll tax, disenfranchising minorities, blah blah blah.
If voting is the sacred privilege that Democrats are always yammering about, and that everyone entitled to vote must be allowed to vote, and every vote must be counted, then one would think that integrity of the vote would be important; but one would simply be wrong. Voter fraud is endemic in the Democratic Party and nothing must be done to interfere with that sacred principle.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
The point was that allowing "illegals" (not illegal voting) would be the ultimate step in ensuring that Republicans can't win.
[And apparently that point was made by hunter, not spanishirish; sorry for the mix-up.]
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
...that if Republicans were so concerned about voter fraud, there would have been a huge hooplah here on RedState when HR 4484 was passed, but as far as I can tell, there was nary a ripple.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
illegal or legal that this will affect. It is all the dead Democrats showing up with tintype ID photos that will give them away.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
As I posted above, I can certain understand the concern over deceased voters rising from the dead and other kinds of voting fraud, but that's clearly not what spanishirish was referring to as the "ultimate step" in "making sure" that Republicans cannot win again. That's why I'm so puzzled; if anything, illegals voting offset some those zombie votes and make it easier for Republicans to win.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
All other arguments become academic at that point.
I don't care if we have to replace Every Signle Republican/Conservative in the House with a RINO. We Can NOT lose the war.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Some very dumb Republicans/conservatives pose the question "how bad could they hurt us to have liberals in control?"
Well, we are still dealing with the Iranian problem that James Earl Carter left us with- and that was 27 years ago!!
You want to lose the war?- don't vote GOP.
You want higher taxes?- don't vote GOP.
You want Pelosi to be the one dealing with Korea and Iran?
United States Air Force
Cross Into the Blue
Excellent!! A standing ovation for you, skymuse. This is like a Knute Rockne pre-game pep-talk! I'm ready to run through walls for the GOP after reading this. Truly an outstanding piece!
By the way, I had this diary running through my head all day and you beat me to it. Shame on you.
Conservatives need to LEARN a lesson from history instead of teaching one. I would add the presdiential election of 1976 as another from which conservatives should take a lesson. Reagan was defeated in the primaries and worked for Ford. Ford almost pulled it out at the end, but we were left with 4 years of sweaters, gas-lines, misery indices, and 444 days of hostages in Iran. Those were tough lessons. I am sad to see that so many have not learned the lessons of the past and instead are preparing to repeat their mistakes.
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman