Posted on 05/20/2006 1:16:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Conservatives, nationwide are getting angry about the loss of principle by GOP'ers in office. Big spending in Washington and Sacramento. The inability to control illegal aliens. Failure to protect jobs and the failure to stop the social agenda of liberals in our schools in finally causing conservatives to say NO to GOP incumbents, even if it means we could lose seats in a legislative body. The thought is simple, why protect a Republican running for office if their voting record will differ little from the Democrats.
In Utah, GOP Congressman Chris Cannon could not win his Parties endorsement for re-election--his opponent got more votes in Convention then he did.
In Nebraska, Congressman tom Osborne, and legend in the state, was defeated for the nomination for Governor due to his weak stand on illegal aliens.
In Heardon, Virginia, five incumbent city council members lost re-election due to their creation of a "Day Labor Center" for illegal aliens.
In the California 50th Congressional District Special Election, the Democrat is ahead of the Republican, since the Republican has been portrayed as more liberal than many Democrats--has even supported Democrats in the past.
But, Pennsylvania last Tuesday should have been the two by four to every GOP candidate and office holder in the nation.At least 14 incumbent GOP office holders, including the top two in the State Senate were defeated in a Republican primary, by Republicans. The good news is that if they had not been defeated, many GOP voters would have stayed home in November. This is a lesson for us in California, and the nation, GOP voters have had enough of Republicans acting like Democrats. Our candidates need to stand for GOP principles, then vote and govern that way once in office.
No longer will GOP voters settle for, "well at least they have a "R" after their name." There is a revolt going on in GOP ranks and it is moving across the nation.
Unfortunately Lind-see does not come up for consideration again until 2008.
However, I and other SC FReepers will be busting ass for whoever challenges Lind-see in the primary.
I know that Lind-see will be very proud to be called a one-term Senator.
However, his REAL disappointment will be having to give up his constant position as McCain's butt boy.
Looking at how someone votes when things aren't close won't tell you much about their conservative integrity. RINOs will usually vote with the party when their vote doesn't matter. The question is whether they will do so when it does.
Same here in Illinois
I will not support McCain in the primaries. No Way.
But, if he gets through (somehow) as the candidate of the GOP, his quasi-positive pro-life record might help him.
George Will points out that since McCain would appoint liberal judges who believe the first amendment is a nuisance, then they'll certainly be the type who find some "right to abortion" in that elastic Constitution.
Sadly, there is no republican alternative at this point with strong name recognition.
Exactly- which brings us back to the issue of voting for the lesser of two evils in the general election.
The primary of 2000 is really the beginning of this whole argument- and I did not support Bush in that election. After I had no choice, I did- but now with this border issue, many many people are having second thoughts about the usefulness of that strategy.
I'm still not decided.
It is exremely hard to replace a RINO with a conservative without first electing a liberal Democrat. If a liberal democrat is going to have to occupy a seat before anyone good can sit in it, that may as well happen now as later.
I like Cannon too
Don't get your hopes up too high. So are Blacks, but they still vote almost straight Democrat.
No problem at all.. I'm not a big fan of moderates or the
New Majority hence my shot at them in an olbique manner. sorry for the confusion..
Isakson at least tried to make a stand the first day of the battle in the DSeante, unlike a McCain who is actually driving this madness ahead with his StraightBS Express misadventure going thru the Senate now.
Here in California, we have a party that offers up sacrificial goats to the DiChiFis and Babs of the world and then actually supports more of the same by turning their backs on the conservative base which they seem to think is obliged to contenance and support candidates that are pro choice, pro gun control , proGLB
T and big spenders to boot, all to be seen as more inclusive and the best way to push a Big Tent approach and hope some folks won't mind being taken for granted at the voting booths.
No, it can't. The basic problem with your assessment is that this issue is only "politically potent" on one side of the aisle -- or, more accurately, on the "incumbent" side of the aisle.
One of the great advantages of being an opposition party is that you never have to come up with workable ideas yourself. You simply have to sit back and complain that the ruling party is doing something wrong, and "We'll just do it better" is seen as a perfectly legitimate point on issues where the opposition party has no intention of coming down on the other side of an issue (think back to Kerry's lame campaign points on the Iraq war as a perfect case in point).
This issue cannot realign the political landscape for one simple reason -- because both major parties are basically on the same side.
Unfortunately Lind-see does not come up for consideration again until 2008.
However, I and other SC FReepers will be busting ass for whoever challenges Lind-see in the primary.
I know that Lind-see will be very proud to be called a one-term Senator.
However, his REAL disappointment will be having to give up his constant position as McCain's butt boy.
I'm glad to hear that you guys are going to work against him. He's an arrogant POS, IMO. Considering he's in his first term, he's sure placed himself in the limelight. Unfortunately for him, he's angered too many people. His greatest punishment will be getting savagely beaten in the next election! You should send him a copy of this article and tell him that his time is coming. LOL Give him a couple of years to worry about it. :o)
The discussion of Specter has got absolutely nothing to do with "conservative integrity." It just comes down to votes. Those judiciary committee votes were all 10-8. Specter winning in PA over the DEM helped preserve the GOP majority, which is why they have two more members on the judiciary committee than the DEMs have. That's all there is to it. If the GOP loses the majority, it's 10 DEMs to 8 GOPers. No Roberts, No Alito, No Nothing. This isn't an integrity contest; It's politics.
Lincoln Chafee === ACU rating %12
Hillary Clinton === ACU rating %12
If you think you NEED Republicans like Chafee in the party, then you are part of the problem.
Jim, there are too many Republicans that are content with leaders like this, because POWER matters more than PRINCIPLES.
This is not a MSM manufactured fraction in the party. This is real. And it must be dealt with.
That's true only of the political officeholders, not of the grassroots. Hence, your argument loses its force.
Hopefully they will all be replaced with true Conservatives.
RINO's make the party more liberal and chase away conservative voters.
If you polled Americans today, you'd probably find that "politician" ranks way down with "lawyer" and "child molester" as the occupations that garner the least respect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.