Skip to comments.What the “conservative” useful idiots have brought us: Week one.
Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37
The last election told us many things. One thing that stands out above all others is that the number of people who actually understand what is going on in our country today is frighteningly small.
A small group who get it
Just half of Americans are registered to vote, so right off, we know that half of America doesnt care what happens to itself or the rest of us. They live in a different world. You know who they are so it is not necessary to expand on this point.
Of those who are registered, on a good Election Day, sixty percent vote. That means that only thirty percent of Americans are heard, and even a large percentage of them are ill informed or willfully blinding themselves, even as they cast their ballots.
Of this thirty percent, about fifty percent vote Democrat and by doing so show us they do not understand that the Democrats are a party bent on surrendering our security to our terrorist enemies. To be sure not all who vote Democrat want this result, most of the others vote Democrat because they want socialism, gay marriage and dumbed down schools and/or open borders.
That leaves only fifteen percent, or about 1 in 7, of Americans who understand that we are the only hope our nation has.
This bares repeating: Only about 1 in 7 Americans seems to understand the true murderous intentions of our enemies and/or the destructive nature of socialism.
Nevertheless, in the last election, a certain percentage of Americas 1 in 7 voters, people who should know better, voted in a way that showed they were willing put their own demands for single issue purity over the safety of America. This is the reality of what these voters have brought about by their foolish demands that politicians suddenly toe their line totally or be thrown under a bus along with our nation.
The ill informed nitwits that vote Democrat in a knee jerk fashion, the socialists who, though born here, hate America they are what they are. They must be fought at the ballot box every two years. They are almost like evil little children who will be what they will be, but the, Im staying home because Im so much more conservative than you, so much smarter than you.. 1 in 7 voters must be held to a higher standard. These voters can not claim ignorance. They willfully handed the reigns of power and responsibility for Americas safety over to the Democrats. There were just enough of these willfully blind single issue purity voters to hand the Democrats 16 of their 36 victories; this figure being derived from the fact that for the want of just 63,000 more votes spread across these races, America would not now be in the danger she is in.
These people should have known better. They took their own narrow agendas with them on Election Day. They played make believe with Americas future and safety. The bought into the Democrat controlled medias lies that we cant win the war, the economy is tanking, and open borders would somehow be less threatening if only the Democrats controlled both Houses.
Now these 1 in 7 voters are trying to explain what they did by wringing their hands and complaining about not wanting to vote for the lesser of two evils. Apparently it does not occur to this group that the choices we have are really just the choices we have. They dont understand that failing to vote for the lesser of two evils guarantees that you will get the greater of two evils.
These people fancy themselves as so much smarter and so much more conservative than the rest of the 1 in 7. They are nothing more than conservative useful idiots.
They, and unfortunately us, now have to live with the disastrous consequences of their self delusions that they would somehow get from a Democrat Congress what they couldn't get from a Republican congress, but that would be the only difference. We will all now have to deal with Democrats who will be as disappointing on some issues, but terrifying on other issues, lots of other issues.
These are a series of headlines. This piece is not written to anyone who needs to have them explained. It is written to the conservative useful idiots among us who have joined the fools and socialists to teach someone a lesson. Heres the first weeks lessons.
January 1, 2007 to January 8, 2007:
"Dems Prepare Slew of Oversight Hearings"
"Democrats push for Alaska drilling ban"
"Pelosi, Reid Oppose Iraq Troop Surge (Letter Sent To Bush!)"
"New Muslim congressman avoids loyalty questions"
"Socialism on the move: Edwards pushes Universal Healthcare"
"SEARCH ON FOR TOUGH NEW WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL; expected avalanche of congressional committee investigations..."
"Pelosi's new image as Italian Catholic mom -- more than a 'San Francisco liberal'"
"'IMPEACH!' is message at Nancy Pelosi beach (San Fransicko Alert)"
"What Americans MUST Know About the Incoming Senate Intelligence Chairman"
"(Mother") Sheehan Right to Demand Democrats Act on Iraq (Susan Estrich Barf Alert!)"
"House rules change clears way for tax increases"
Did you miss this sentence in the article?
"There were just enough of these willfully blind single issue purity voters to hand the Democrats 16 of their 36 victories; this figure being derived from the fact that for the want of just 63,000 more votes spread across these races,.."
OTOH, as we all know here at FR, historically, the mid-term election of a President in his second term has been a big loser. Last year we had a perfect storm of
(1) A President who is argeably, the worst communicator of the television age,
(2) A populace, femenized for the last 30 years, is war weary
(3) A Republican controlled Congress which did little to earn the votes of Republicans. Other than they aren't democrats.
It isn't an "article." It's a vanity, written for the sole purpose of trashing conservatives.
Yes, because remember politics is a team sport. 'We' have to be in control instead of 'they'.
I vote for who will represent my views best at the federal level. As a limited government Classical Liberal who believes the federal government has overstepped its bounds time and again into the affairs of the separate and sovereign states I vote the way my conscience and not the ways others would have me to. I don't care about their party affiliation but base my vote on how they state they will represent my views in Congress. If that person fails to do so at the next election I don't vote for them.
Don't worry, I vote when the time is upon us. I rarely vote for Senatorial or Presidential elections (as that was not the original intent) but I do vote.
Please do your homework again. In the Northeast/Midwest in small rural towns where light manufacturing exists, is where the Dems made inroads by 5 percent or less. Big issue is the effects of free trade on these communities. Include the south in the mix. Unabashed free trade is costing the GOP blue collar conservatives and future elections.
However, I did vote for Jim Talent, and against Emmanuel Cleaver.
Fact is we have two parties in this country and you may lean toward libertarian more than conservative or more than liberal, but in this day and age you need to choose a side of the fence and support it, warts and all...
If you want to effect change beyond simply voting, you do grassroots work to persuade people and politicans to effect policy and philosophical change, not by wasting your vote on a third-party candidate.
I find these '100percenters' quite childish. They want to be held blameless by taking no chance they could be blamed for - gutless. They are gods to themselves, with standards so high nobody can meet them.
Politics in a 'democracy' or 'representative republic' is the last place on earth to expect purism.
That's right. Yesterday Steny Hoyer said the President told him he is pleased to be able to work with the democrats to pass his immigration reform (amnesty) that was being blocked by the GOP congress.
These people are going to find it was much better on the GOP side of the fence, we are in for a bumpy ride.
I neither stayed home nor voted D. In fact, I ran the GOTV effort for a major swing county in an important swing state. We got plastered here.
Your premise that it is conservatives who stayed home or voted D that changed this election is a fantasy. All our polling--and I saw the internal polls--showed that we had a big swing of unaffiliateds from R to D. That factor swamped everything else. All indications nationally are the same.
Liberal R's naturally argue that, if we lost the Unaffiliateds, the R's should become more liberal. Bad argument. We lose the Una's when we no longer stand for anything. Reagan put together the current coalition of economic conservatives and values voters (many of these are Una's and they are major swing voters) by standing for both smaller government and social values. Our R's in congress stood for neither in the past two years and stunk like democrats in corruption. The values voters swung.
The rumor that people lost because they were against illegal immigration was firmly defused last week here on FR. Some people still cling to the Rove-fueled story, but it's not true... we lost because conservatives and libertarians decided to throw a temper tantrum.
We cannot change the GOP at the general election, we have to change it at the primary level, the level most people don't even bother to get off their lazy rears and vote.
If you want to change the party, you don't leave the party, you work from within to repair what is broken.
If we don't it won't matter who is elected President next year... we'll never get more conservative judges on SCOTUS.
Conservatives lost because moderates and independents (primarily women and young voters) were alienated by the mess in Iraq and an ideologically rigid GOP leadership.
Item #3 on your list is probably the biggest of them all. In national politics, it is usually much easier for the opposition party to generate a high level of enthusiasm than for the ruling party. This is mainly because the opposition often does not have to be very specific about where it stands -- it just has to have enough targets from the ruling party (in the form of policy matters) to hold up as incorrect, destructive, and even downright absurd (witness the GOP campaign in 1993-94).
Well, I'm a woman and a conservative at that and I voted. I also support the war in Iraq.
Tell this guy why we lost George, come on tell him!
And I do find it utterly offensive whenever someone comes here on FreeRepublic, holds up a prospective candidate who is conservative on about 10%-20% of the issues, and suggests that anyone who doesn't support this candidate is a "100 percenter."
Suggest you read Jack Black's post 13 before posting again and then follow it up with my recent post on this thread. The problem with your mantra is that you haven't bothered to look at the actual returns from the election. I would respectfully suggest you do that before continuing on with this type of vanity.
You blame R's who voted D or stayed home with no basis in fact. In fact, if you look at the election results, this group played no, or almost no, role in the outcome because the group did not exist in significant numbers. It was Unaffiliateds who changed their vote.
From your posts, I suspect you are just an ill-informed moderate R ranting about a hypothetical group of conservatives who do not exist in significant numbers. But your attempt to incite warfare amongst the folks who almost ALL voted R only gives aid and comfort to the enemy. So go for it.
Are you talking about not voting Republican, or not securing the border?
It wasn't conservatives who renominated RINOs to run. That was the mainstream of the republican partyy establishment.
If conservative candidates had run they would have voted for them.
The republican party needs to clean itself out like 1994.
Then and only then will you see a workable majority.
I can see the immense budget bloat being part of the deal, but the rest certainly is not.
What was the point of posting that picture?
Yes, I agree that free trade doesn't help. But we got routed in the suburbs, and there are many districts we lost made up largely of manufacturing-based small towns: PA-4, PA-10, NY-20, NY-24, IN-9, IN-2, WI-8, MN-1.
Don't forget the spending issue & then from the emotional end The Bushes promoting Bubba as a newly found member of the family. Pictures of the "impeached one" & him did it for me.
The one thing that is certain is that conservs lack patience. The mess we are in now was not created overnight- ie: Clinton was not the disease- he was only a symptom. It has taken 50 years to come to this and it will NOT be undone overnight. Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is NOT what we do, it is the start to righting the wrong. To stay home, to vote demonRAT to "teach us a lesson", to "vote one's conscience (vote liberT) or, most of all, to sit at home on your a$$ during the primaries doesn't "teach" anyone anything. It enables the enemy and sets our course back.
Wake up. Or get used to Pelosi's ugly Botoxed face in YOUR face.
My GOODNESS, FRiend, have you been in a timewarp for the last 30 years? THe "old" or MAINSTREAM MEDIA (old or MSM) has been shilling for the socialists for the last 25-40 years AT LEAST!!
Souter never was never a "conservative", never an originalist (Scalia, Thomas) as have been all of Bush's SCOTUS appointments - Roberts and Alito (as we held him to it). One more and we'd have the 5/4 majority we need; which now will not happen - thanks to...............? Two more Alitos and even the Libertarians would be disappointed with how originalist the SCOTUS would be.
"Conservatives" were in control and gave us no immigration That circus is a strong possibility with both Democrats and Republicans. The "brave new world" you mention is being pushed by both Democrats and Republicans...in other words, there is no longer any difference between Republicans and Democrats.reform..."Comprehensive" reform is amnesty."
Conservatives in the House blocked the "comprehensive" amnesty reforms of the Senate; a Senate bill that most Republican Senators did not back, but two few to impede a RINO-Dim majority.
"We gave up any meaningful role in the Middle East when Republicans abandoned the mission in Afghanistan to launch a Blitzkrieg in Iraq...without enough troops to accomplish the mission."
We never abandoned the mission in Afghanistan, we never drew any resource from that mission for the mission in Iraq (read Tommy Franks book - he debunks that myth). The troops needed for the invasion (initial occupation and control) and mopping up Saddam were enough, both of those benchmarks were obtained. The implementation of, control operations of and transition from the Provisional Iragi authority (Bremmer) mispent US resources and failed to more-quickly approach (a)Iraq's elected government and (b)faster mounting and training of new Iraqi police and military units. Three successful Iraqi elections must now be matched by the will power of the Iraqi elected government, with our help; and, God willing, it will be.
"That circus is a strong possibility with both Democrats and Republicans. The "brave new world" you mention is being pushed by both Democrats and Republicans...in other words, there is no longer any difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Only because the RINOs within the GOP are emboldened by the Dim majority; were that not the case the GOP conservatives in the House and Senate would be able to hold the line against desserting Iraq.
It took Britain ten years to pacify the actual insurgency in Malaysia, and they did not have Malaysia's neighbors directly aiding that insurgency either; as Iran, Syria and Saudi-based elements are doing in Iraq.
All wars are one by one party - the party that remains committed to winning and committed to the investment needed to back that goal. Period.
Please read the following from "Flopping Aces" weblog and comment. Unless you're a newly minted Catholic pacifist (your profile indicates you may be one, but your church used to believe in just wars and actually coined the phrase) that wants to be overrun by the Islamic faith, please actually debate what the article says:
Deputy Assistant to the President Peter Wehner has penned a primer on the basics concerning radical Islam. Not only should you read it, you should forward it to every family member, friend, and colleague who doesn't get the nature of the enemy we face.
This is a welcome, though long overdue, effort on the information front in the war. Many more like it would be welcome. Wehner's conclusion:
It is the fate of the West, and in particular the United States, to have to deal with the combined threat of Shia and Sunni extremists. And for all the differences that exist between them -- and they are significant -- they share some common features.
Their brand of radicalism is theocratic, totalitarian, illiberal, expansionist, violent, and deeply anti-Semitic and anti-American. As President Bush has said, both Shia and Sunni militants want to impose their dark vision on the Middle East. And as we have seen with Shia-dominated Iran's support of the Sunni terrorist group Hamas, they can find common ground when they confront what they believe is a common enemy.
The war against global jihadism will be long, and we will experience success and setbacks along the way. The temptation of the West will be to grow impatient and, in the face of this long struggle, to grow weary. Some will demand a quick victory and, absent that, they will want to withdraw from the battle. But this is a war from which we cannot withdraw. As we saw on September 11th, there are no safe harbors in which to hide. Our enemies have declared war on us, and their hatreds cannot be sated. We will either defeat them, or they will come after us with the unsheathed sword.
All of us would prefer years of repose to years of conflict. But history will not allow it. And so it once again rests with this remarkable republic to do what we have done in the past: our duty.
I get it now. If you are conservative, you must vote centrist, or be labeled a conservative.
Yes, he made mistakes, but none fatal to our national security, in my opinion.
CFR turned out to be a pain, but then we might not have had the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. They put paid to any hope of Kerry getting elected.
We wanted legislation from him, but it was not going to be forthcoming from our elected dunces. He needed more support and he didn't get it from the right side of the aisle. He tried for social security reform and there she was, hitlery, standing and applauding that he didn't get reform.
He had no choice but to support Specter. He got some much needed votes from the bum before the election that he would never have had if the President supported Toomey. And you have to give Specter credit for getting the judges thru the committee.
We have to take the political situation for what it is......not what we want it to be.
Then don't waist your time voting. They are both controlled by the same elites who want the same results. This "Two-Party Cartel' has shut out any hope of a viable party getting traction. There is no push from conservatives to their ideals - only reacting to liberal crapola. All you need is to hear the pubbies in D.C. going along with bipartenship - ie liberalism. There is only one party but keep votng for these boobs & get these same results. As far a Kaliforneeaah the republicans sold themselves out with Ahrnold. They made the pubbie party absolutly irrevelant for a generation. The label of Arnie/Republican shows me to have nothing to do with that party. I'm sure others see this also.
From all that I read, the troops volunteer to go back, they understand their job, they feel they are accomplishing something good.
Re-enlistment among the troops who go to Iraq is extremely high.
Armchair generals have an agenda so I am suspicious of their pronouncements.
We had a president who meddled in the military operations in Viet Nam. Now we have a President who listens to his generals. If they were wrong, and they may have been, that will be corrected.
The actual war dead is about 2600 for the four years. Tragic but hardly what could have been. I'd say we've done darned well.
You can't get past the committees to bring in true conservatives. You must go to another party & this cartel has that option closed for all practical purposes.
In addition, all of the comments you -- and anyone else -- have made about the dangers of being "overrun by the Islamic faith" should be held up in the proper context to sum up the mess in Iraq perfectly. Allow me to cite a couple of direct quotes from a document that some people might recognize as the new Iraqi Constitution -- which was adopted in October 2005 and now stands as the law of the land as a result of our idiotic nation-building exercise.
Section I (Fundamental Principles)
Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation . . . No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Section II (Rights and Liberties)
Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.
The state guarantee to the individual and the family -- especially children and women -- social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing . . . The State guarantees the social and health security to Iraqis in cases of old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanage or unemployment, and shall work to protect them from ignorance, fear and poverty. The State shall provide them housing and special programs of care and rehabilitation. This will be organized by law.
. . .
So there you have it. If having the United States send several hundred thousand troops halfway around the world in 1990 to restore a royal family to one throne (Kuwait) and protect a second royal family on another one (Saudi Arabia) didn't make you cynical, then I would hope that having 3,000+ Americans lose their lives for the express purpose of establishing an Islamic state -- and a Marxist one at that -- in the Middle East would do the trick for you.
Every small bone given to conservatives was offset by bigger bones to the liberal opposition. Include the Dubai ports & Harriet Meirs & Bubba with papa Bush.
many heartfelt thanks for absolute truth of your post!! But should we call this sanctimonious nonvoting group of idiots 'conservative' or retain that noble label for voters only and call the nonvoters just useless and braindead !?!
Based on the level of snarkiness in your answer, I will assume that you didn't vote Republican, and that you're just beginning to figure out how badly you have screwed up.
That said, if you want the border secured, go ask Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to do so.
That's funny, I thought elections were expressly about getting our governance to be what we want it to be.
You aren't going to get any of the things you say you want with the dems in charge... and with their penchant for changing the rules, we'll be lucky if the GOP is ever in charge again.
Did you catch Souter and Scalia on C-Span Saturday? Very interesting debate. Those two are as far apart as the FR and the DU.