To Those Of You Conservatives Who Plan On Sitting Out This Election

Vanity | September 26, 2012 | Diamond6

[Yosemitest]

It's being reconsidered ..... BUT

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped out.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, ... well at least he's not as bad as McCain was.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!#148; the federal government, and so forth.

[SgtHooper]

That’d be ok if you were 13 back then, but if not, WTH is the matter with you?

[albionin]

I was one of those people who planned to sit out the election. Then I came to my senses.

[delapaz]

“Troll!” Says the user created in 2009 to the user account created in 1997.

LOL.

[taxcontrol]

Well I think that you have YOUR priorities out of whack because of party loyalty. This country will NEVER head in the right direction as long as the GOP continues to put socialists as the leaders of the party.

Our socialist, their socialist ... it doesn’t matter WHO’s socialist ... it is all socialism. And as long as the GOP voters continue to come out and support the GOP socialist, then THEY are the ones who are responsible for the downfall of this nation. The only way to change the GOP away from their socialist tenancies is to NOT SUPPORT SOCIALIST candidates. I WILL NOT vote for a socialist, period.

If you want to change my mind about Romney ... all you have to do is convince me that he is NOT a socialist.

[INVAR]

You continue to demonstrate how shallow liberty and principles are to you people who demand everyone bow and vote for the Ruling Class Socialist Statist on the GOP ticket.

You’d sell your own soul out of fear, and then go and demand everyone else surrender theirs also.

You’re barking up the wrong tree trying to intimidate me with such crap pal.

But considering the vitriol and delusional hatred directed at those who say they are voting Conservative or in alignment with their religious principles - shows how little respect for you people actually have for liberty and faith.

No wonder you are so in the tank for a Socialist Statist, and - not much different than the guy you supposedly want to replace with your own king.

[GlockThe Vote]

Most of these crack pots and clincal psychotics long for a Priest in Chief or some type of Pastor figure like Huckster.

They are not fooling anyone.

[delapaz]

If we are crackpots you don’t need us.

Good luck with your election. You may even “win”.

[INVAR]

Most of these crack pots and clincal psychotics long for a Priest in Chief or some type of Pastor figure like Huckster.

Right. We BITTER CLINGERS.

Amazing that even the insults and derision coming from you people is the same thing we get from Obama's drone s and the MarxoFascist Democrats. Very enlightening.

Just come out and admit it - if we stand on our principles and refuse to submit to whatever demands secular society or political party hacks like you demand - we're all nut jobs that want to impose a tyrannical theocracy - right??

[taxcontrol]

Between my wife and I, we make over 6 figures but under the $250,000 “rich” marker established by Obama ... and we are struggling with costs of 3 kids (2 in high school), a terminally ill father-in-law, supporting a mother-in-law and still paying for the debts of a business that failed a few years ago. I don’t have any savings or retirement to speak of.

However, I don’t let someone else determine my income. In fact, I am looking at taking a global position with a computer firm that will likely have me making more money REGARDLESS of who is in office. I do have a plan, and though we are sacrificing now, in three years I will be mostly debt free only having a first mortgage payment to make.

The point is, I refuse to be a victim. Either of a criminal or of society or of the economy. I look forward and see where things are and where they are headed and both plan and act accordingly. There are far too many people who want to blame their parents, their teachers, their boss, their jobs, the economy and the president for their current state of affairs. I refuse to be one of those people

[Boogieman]

“You purists will be the death of American capitalism.”

And you assumers will make ***** out of yourselves. I’m never said I was a purist sitting out this election, you just assumed that.

[INVAR]

I would just ask that you reconsider.

You may ask.

And I appreciate that you asked.

Perhaps if others here would have followed your example - perhaps at one time we might have reconsidered.

But the insults, derision, bullying, name calling, intimidation and threats from the rabid Romney supporters have negated that possibility.

They have reinforced the understanding that there is not much difference between the rabid cabal for Obama or the cabal for Romney - both hold those of principle and faith with contempt.

Romney and the Ruling Class demonstrated their contempt for Conservatives on Tuesday at the RNC. I'm not going to reward such contempt or betray my faith and principles by casting a vote for their standard bearer.

[Tanniker Smith]

To any conservative who doesn't want to vote because Romney isn't conservative enough:

Do you live in a solid blue or solid red state? Fine, relax, go have a beer with my blessing. (No, it's not on me.)

Are you in anything that could be remotely considered a swing state? Get off your ass, and get out and pull the lever or the next four years are all on YOU.

[Boogieman]

“But after 4 more years of the Obamination, no restoration would even be possible.”

Well, if the restoration is impossible via the ballot box now, then it will be impossible 4 years from now, whether we elect Romney or Obama. So, that isn’t a good argument, if the proposition that we’re past the point of no return is actually correct. I’m not saying it is, but if it were, then your argument doesn’t make any sense really.

[exhaustedmomma]

You and others like you have no genuine concern or accountability for our country at all.

What a presumptious and stupid summation. Memembers of my family have served in the military since the founding of this nation; including current service. I am married to a vet; I am the daugther of a vet; mother-in-law & aunt of active duty service members. The lot of you can kiss-my-toe; along with the RNC & DNC.

[BlatherNaut]

You and others like you will bear responsibility for the complete and irreversible downfall of our nation.

Along with the infamous Obama Phone Buffoon from Cleveland.

[MEGoody]

In fact, it could be counterproductive, since a pragmatically worse situation could lead to a quicker demise of the corrupted system, allowing a quicker restoration.

There is no guarantee there will be a "restoration" of the sort they are hoping for. And there is no guarantee they will still be around to witness the restoration, especially with Obama's death panels.

[Boogieman]

“If Obama is re-elected, they will be as culpable as the zombie mutants who pulled the lever for him.”

Yes, yes, we’ve heard this many times from folks like you who plan to blame any Romney loss on people other than Romney. We know that conservatives are vote-slaves to the GOP, and if we leave the GOP plantation and do not vote the way we are commanded to vote, then we will suffer the consequences! Please don’t whup us again massa!

[MEGoody]

No OBAMA! No ROMNEY!

If you think that's actually an option in this election year, you are most definitely fooling yourself.

Do-over in 2016.

Assuming there's something left to "do over".

[delapaz]

No there is no guarantee of a restoration, but there is a guarantee of a system collapse. The question is when.

Sooner is better.