Posted on 08/25/2007 5:45:03 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance
That’s one way of looking at it. But if you combine the votes of the two outright anti-slavery candidates (Lincoln and Bell) and assume Douglas was not going to support any new constitutional protections on slavery (which he said he wouldn’t), then actually the “anti-slave” vote was about 2/3s of the country, if not more.
I meant Vidkun Quisling. He is no less a traitor to Norway than someone like John McCain is to conservatives. Neville Chamberlain was merely spineless; Trent Lott is spineless. John McCain and his ilk — Lindsay Graham, Arlen Spector, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, and of course, Jim Jeffords — are much more than spineless. They are active Judases.
I’m not sure why you classify Bell as anti-slavery. He campaigned on a platform, if you can call it that, of continuing the compromises that had got the Union to where it was.
He opposed secession by his native TN, but accepted it when he couldn’t stop it, unlike Andrew Johnson, who fought on in exile.
The Crittenden Compromises were perhaps a good example of his political philosophy, and they were certainly not anti-slavery in any real sense.
I would rank Douglass as more anti-slavery than Bell.
Lincoln - 39.8%
Douglas - 29.5%
Breckinridge - 18.1%
Bell - 12.6%
Thus, if you class Bell as anti-slavery, which I don’t, the anti-slavery candidates totaled 81.9%.
More realistically classifying Bell as pro-slavery gives you 30.7% for slavery, and 69.3% against. Of course 1M+ black men were not allowed to vote.
If Rudy McRomney win the nomination I definitely will not be vote for the GOP for Presient in 2008. That is not ever going to change.
How so? George H.W. Bush lost the election for the Republicans. Or, did he just blow it off to win it for the Democrats?
Regardless, that is how I see Giuliani... A Trojan Horse on the issues for the Democrats to nullify the conservative activist core of the Republican party.
Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary will lose the election. I am perfectly fine with letting you lose it, because it is the issues that matter, not the fancy Madison Avenue designer labels.
If Giuliani really wanted to take Mrs. Clinton off the table, he would have done something when she sought reelection to the Senate the second time around.
He didn't. He campaigned in lots of other places for other candidates who all lost. (He even endorsed flaming leftist Mario Cuomo previously over Republican George Pataki in a New York gubernatorial race.)
That is not someone I want leading the GOP if I am to remain in the party. It is a track record of failure.
“Amnesty was defeated. Point scored.”
Yet the illegals are still pouring across our borders by the thousands. Bush as well as Giuliani are open border politicians. We are almost past the crossroads of the illegal immigration problem. You won’t have to worry about who you elect.
Americans have built this country up to be the greatest nation on earth. Americans strive to get ahead by providing the best for their families, good neighborhoods, schools, less crime, better health care. However, our politicians are allowing all of the ills of this imported poverty to wreak havoc on the very things we strive for.
I will not vote for a candidate unless they promote for building a 2,000 mile fence, deporting illegals, fining employers who hire illegals, and remove the social programs that are given to illegals.
THE ONLY WAY THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS GOING TO GET RESOLVED IS TO VOTE THESE POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE. READ THE CONSTITUTION PARTY’S PLATFORM.
Bush has been a major disappointment. He claims to be doing the work of the people. It surely is not his core conservative base. Illegal immigration, big government expansion, an ill advised war have been total disasters.
Indeed. So I would ask you, why do you refuse to do that duty?
Why do you remain stubbornly blind, voting for a party that neither represents you, nor what you profess to believe in? Isn't that, in fact, more the emotional knee-jerk liberal-like reaction you had just accused me of? "Vote for the party, no matter what"- Isn't that a trait of Democrats?
It certainly isn't a function of conservative reason to vote for candidates that are not just nominally conservative on an issue or two, but are the antithesis of conservatism on almost every issue. Yet you would have me vote for them? It is you who is being unreasonable. You tempt me, not in the least.
The Republican party gets my vote most of the time for the simple fact that they are as utterly repellant as Dems.
Yet.
D) Blacks are to the Democrat Party
Without a friggin’ doubt.
Bush, Dole, or Bush? Is your "I won't vote for xxx" a new phenomenon?
I am asking as a honest question, I am wondering if you would be a "new" lost GOP voter if Rudy is the nominee, or were you lost to the GOP years ago?
I am a Republican, don’t intend on leaving, but won’t vote for Giuliani... I’ll write in “Bullwinkle” first...
And no, I have always voted Republican, given money and actually worked as a party activist in many elections at the local, state and federal levels. I even publicly predicted George W. Bush would be the next president on a large regional radio station during an afternoon drive time when he was campaigning for governor of Texas (I supported his candidacy for president back then).
I am voting on the issues, not on a cult of personality. The fancy Madison Avenue designer labels don’t mean a thing anymore, epecially if you are talking about moving the party to the left. No thanks.
Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is absurd...
The rule of law is practically gone.
It is not just illegal immigration, it is an invasion...
These morons want me to vote for someone who will take guns away?
Guns were not invented to use on animals.
I never suggested a belief in a perfect conservative candidate. I only want a candidate who could be considered to be conservative. As I had said earlier, I will vote for any candidate who stands for traditional conservatism and has a record that backs him up. RudyMcRomney is not conservative.
Believing that there is no substantive difference between Hillary and Rudy or Mitt is irrational.
I said nothing of the kind to you- Since we're on the subject, Which of the three stands upon traditional planks of the Republican platform, and how many of those planks do they stand upon? Lets leave the WOT out of it, as none of the above are qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Not choosing the lesser of two evils by sitting out an election and whining is irrational and irresponsible.
I will not be staying home- But I already know that I will not vote for RudyMcRomney. They do not deserve the vote. I will vote for someone, however.
I vote for the Republican because the alternative is unthinkable. In the final analysis, I place my nation's welfare above my own narrow philosophical preferences [...]
LOL! "narrow philosophical preferences"... Is that what we are calling principles now? How absurd! How does voting for liberal RINOS aid in our nations welfare? I would think it quite the reverse.
One only has to look back into our nation's history to observe [...]
That argument is untenable- While I agree to a point, you are assuming their Republican counterparts would have been better. That is not valid, and cannot be proven.
the one who will vote for a Republican candidate that meets a few but not all of his standards
RudyMcRomney do not qualify as meeting "a few but not all". Again, judging by their records, which traditional conservative principles can you honestly be confident that they would uphold?
Having agreed with you (to a point), I merely suggest that we can't assume it is so- As an example: Bush's second term looks *nothing* like his first. To predict an alternative history is a useless and unprovable endeavor.
Perhaps you could provide an answer to the questions I posed in the previous post rather than ranting without substance.
You are, to be blunt, clueless.
Yeah, right. Whatever.
"Leave out the WOT as none of the above is qualified to be Commander in Chief."According to what standard? Yours?
"iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli vendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium fasces legiones omnio, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat panem et circenses.With a Democrat House and Senate and with Hillary, Barrack, or John in the White House, we may never get the chance to once more "meddle." With implementation of the "fairness doctrine," they can effectively squelch all public opposition and alternative media. With more and more middle class welfare, they can buy the votes they need to continue their domination. They did it once before and held on to the House for forty uninterrupted years. What makes you so sure they can't or won't do it again? History says the odds are against you.
(Long ago, the people cast off their concerns, when we stopped selling our votes. The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things bread and circuses.)"
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.