Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the “conservative” useful idiots have brought us: Week one.
January 8, 2007 | self

Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-366 last
To: Dane
It was millions of swing voters who went Dem because of Iraq and corruption that put nancy in power. But you knew that.
351 posted on 01/09/2007 2:02:47 PM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
"Forget Giuliani. Let's hope you "Conservatives" don't have us confronting the choice of voting for Mullah Omar or getting a beheading in the next election."

Now I understand how the 'soccermoms' put Clinton in office for eight years. As Ben Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither."

352 posted on 01/09/2007 2:05:12 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
If you have any numbers to prove that conservatives stayed home in significant numbers please post them or retract your statements. Swing voters voted Dem over Iraq and corruption. They cost us the election. Not the 2 or 3 conservatives that didnt vote.
353 posted on 01/09/2007 2:05:59 PM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
"Ah, because (hypothetically) he won the primary? (He won't have my primary vote)"

The liberal Julie-annie won't get my vote under any circumstance.

354 posted on 01/09/2007 2:08:57 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Let's see. The GOP loses an election and many people say it's because part of that party's base stayed home in protest of that party's failure to lead or follow-through on some major issues of concern.

In response to this, a self-appointed cadre of "a few" so-called Republicans berates the base for not showing up and "letting" the Democrats win.

To you lurkers out there--does this make any sense to you? If a party fails and loses an election, you don't berate the people who didn't come out and vote for you. You try to fix what's wrong and patch up your differences with the segment of your voter base that's disaffected.

Some within the GOP have decided that what's wrong with the party is that it spends too much time working on issues that matter to the people who put them in power in the first place. If that sounds counter-intuitive, it is.

The GOP leadership is the reason we're called "The Stupid Party."

The GOP can either get conservative, or get wiped out.
355 posted on 01/09/2007 2:19:16 PM PST by Antoninus ( Rudy McRomney as the GOP nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media loves them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
LOL! Uhhhhhh....no.....it is so-called "conservatives" who voted 3rd party that put Clinton in office. And you don't have ANY liberty if your country is controlled by Islamofascists.
356 posted on 01/09/2007 3:27:08 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

"No you don't get it. He makes a demand for "Reagan conservatives" in the very same breath as he is blasting Republicans for the deficit spending and immigration."

And why not??

Reagan would be signing vetoes on spending bills, instead of simply letting excess spending add to the deficit (as GWB and high-spending RINOs are doing). You must be making the erroneous assumption that Reagan approved of the deficits during his term, when in fact he did everything he could to avoid them, on the spending side, while trying not to weaken defense spending or make tax increases. He could have approved bigger tax increases, which he knew would do nothing to halt the spending of the Dims and he rightly saw them (tax increases) as bad on principal to begin with. He knew that every dime he gave back on defense the Dims would just add to entitlements, doing nothing for "deficits", while he also knew his campaign to weaken the Soviets demanded a defense buildup. It was not that he wanted bigger deficits, he did not want to give the Dims more of our money to play with on entitlements, by raising taxes to accomodate them.

Reagan would not be approving the Senate amnesty and non-reform give-aways in their immigration bill. He would find it excessively over "compassionate" to people who came here illegally, while economically, socially and politically excessively taxing to all current citizens, legal residents and current legal immigrants. The "amnesty" would now include 12-20 million as opposed to the 2.5 million in his day, and the new immigration levels in the bill open an immigration floodgate for a 33% increase in the U.S. population in twenty years, by immigration alone. Reagan would also be recognizing the enforcement failures, both currently and in the Senate's proposals, as his intentions for stronger enforcement were part of his demand on a compromise over the amnesty.

Hannity is criticizing spendthrift Republicans, just as Reagan tried to hold back the spending of the Dimorats. Hannity wants any immigration "reform" to include demands and assurances that the type of enforcement that Reagan asked for was actually going to happen.

What Reagan tried to get and what Hannity is criticizing some Republicans for are not inconsistent.

The fact that Reagan did not get the lower deficits he wanted or the execution of tougher immigration enforcement that he thought he obtained the law for does not displace the fact that he wanted them.


357 posted on 01/09/2007 3:59:18 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
It was the Republicans who lost it. They (we) strayed too far into Dumocrat territory. Only time will tell if they (we) actually learned anything. I tend to doubt it.

Absolutely correct. I voted, but to tell the truth, Bush sat on his ass for the last year not bothering to make the conservative pitch or defend himself against the ceaseless attacks against him and the GOP - and considering that he has the bully pulpit and the Dems offered nothing, this last election was a situation that should have been but another rout same as the last election.

358 posted on 01/09/2007 4:22:42 PM PST by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
"Uhhhhhh....no.....it is so-called "conservatives" who voted 3rd party that put Clinton in office. And you don't have ANY liberty if your country is controlled by Islamofascists."

I'm way more concerned about ILLEGAL immigration than some Muslim boogeyman. The Islamofascists aren't crossing our border at the rate of millions per year or packing twenty people in the house across the street. Of course Jorge Bush doesn't have to live next door to El Salvadorans blasting Salsa music from their Toyotas at all hours of the night.

359 posted on 01/09/2007 5:15:29 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

OH OK --- Islamofascists are "boogeymen". Thanks for clearing that up!


360 posted on 01/09/2007 7:44:39 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Lol...just a patsy.


361 posted on 01/09/2007 8:47:21 PM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

bump


362 posted on 01/09/2007 8:48:51 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Based on the level of snarkiness in your answer, I will assume that you didn't vote Republican

Nope. Straight Republican ticket (holding nose) as always.

and that you're just beginning to figure out how badly you have screwed up.

My RINO senator -- Warner (whom I voted for *again* in '02) -- is reportedly one of the ten RINO senators preparing to stand with the Dems in opposition to President Bush's new Iraq policy. So, yes, I may have indeed screwed up.

But, as the argument goes, if someone is going to subvert our national security, then better he be a RINO than a Democrat....

That said, if you want the border secured, go ask Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to do so.

Who's being snarky now?

363 posted on 01/10/2007 7:49:33 PM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: paltz

I understand that that may be the case in ohio,pa va etc. Here in georgia it will be some time before running as anything but conservative will bear fruit.


364 posted on 01/10/2007 8:22:22 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
This would have been semi-interesting on November 8th, but on January 8th it's just...
365 posted on 01/10/2007 8:50:48 PM PST by Captainpaintball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
Name the last President to hold Congress his final two years. Bush did better than most. You have NO argument.

I'm not sure what argument you are referring to - I am certainly no Bush-basher. I was arguing with those who felt the 2006 election would teach the GOP a lesson. If you want to argue that point - I'd be happy to argue with you about it.

366 posted on 01/11/2007 1:18:31 PM PST by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-366 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson