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

Skip to comments.

The third party temptation discredits its candidates (and their ideas) [MUST READ!]
Townhall.com ^ | October 31, 2007 | Michael Medved

Posted on 10/31/2007 1:23:31 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-144 last
To: free_life
Ron Paul is a wacko and dangerous but he will run for President under a third party ticket and do better than Perot. That is my prediction.

I agree. Rudy vs. Hillary vs. Ron Paul. That's the nightmare scenario in my book. No matter who wins, the country loses. In that case, I don't know who I'd vote for. But it definitely wouldn't be Hillary or Rudy, I can tell you that much...
101 posted on 11/01/2007 10:38:58 AM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans who support Rudy owe Bill Clinton an apology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins
so why the insistence in the "conservative" media that Giuliani is our man?

There are those who say there is no such thing as a "conservative media" and the fix is in for Hillary's Presidency. By pushing Giuliani as the nominee, the path is well-lighted for evangelical Christians to withhold their votes as Giuliani's many negatives are splashed in our faces for the next 12 months, all of which puts Hillary and her evil consort back in the White House.

Conveniently, those who fabricate history will pronounce that it was those stubborn, uncompromising Christians who lost the Presidency for their party, thereby further weakening whatever clout the religious right still has.

Falwell's gone. I haven't heard anything from Pat Robertson lately.

The question we need to be asking is why can't someone like Duncan Hunter pick up any traction? He's a perfectly reasonable candidate. Even Huckabee doesn't look so bad.

If the press says Giuliani is the front-runner enough times, people will believe it and vote accordingly. Sadly, we most often do what we're told.

And the bad guys know this.

102 posted on 11/01/2007 10:41:14 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
. . .hey, I don't care if you move to the left, I'll still support you".

Then we'll have two democrat parties, if we don't already.

103 posted on 11/01/2007 10:45:32 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: rosehips
I wouldn’t necessarily consider the Republican party the “stupid party”. However, I do know that if I had the choice of having a stupid mayor compared to an evil mayor, I’d choose the stupid mayor. Even a stupid person makes good decisions now and then, but an evil person has absolutely no redeeming qualities. :)

If Rudy is the nominee, then we officially have two 'Evil Parties' as far as I'm concerned, though it should be noted that evil parties can't exist without stupid party hacks to staff them.
104 posted on 11/01/2007 10:48:01 AM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans who support Rudy owe Bill Clinton an apology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

A third party challenge will only strengthen the ... influence of the RINO’s in the Republican party.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

Worth repeating...


105 posted on 11/01/2007 10:56:59 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Hillery will require triangulation

Just as Bill won w/ Perot as the third party


106 posted on 11/01/2007 11:02:01 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Whoever wins the other nomination will give you governance by moonbats.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

LOL... How so very sadly true. Embarrassed I even laughed.


107 posted on 11/01/2007 11:03:18 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rosehips

Very well stated position - that third party thoughts amount to abandoning our military.


108 posted on 11/01/2007 11:06:17 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Hillery will require triangulation

Just as Bill won w/ Perot as the third party


Hillary doesn't need a third party to split Republicans - the closeness of the 2000 and 2004 elections proves that the liberals have the numbers to win. Were it not for a few thousand Nader supporters in Florida, Gore would have won in 2000, and if the DNC had run somebody other than Lurch in 2004, they probably would have won then as well.

The fact is, George W Bush has won by very slim margins in 2000 and 2004 (a handful of electoral votes) where Republicans have triumphed in the past, and the GOP lost in 2006 - if this is not a warning sign to you and others that something is wrong with the path the GOP is taking, then I don't know what is.

There should be flashing lights and sirens going off in your head, with a voice saying "why can't Republicans repeat the successes in the '00s that they had in the '80s, why are they having such a hard time".

In 1980 and 1984, the Republican Party had an identity. That's why Reagan beat his opponents by over 400+ electoral votes. In 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and in 2007, the GOP does not have an identity other than "we're not Democrats" and guess what? Bush and Dole lost, and George W Bush won by a handful of electoral votes.

If you approve of the shift to the left the GOP has been undergoing since 1992 (although Gingrich and others did try and stall it in the '90s), good for you, I'm sure you are happy.

The rest of us refuse to vote for liberals, and if that means voting third party, then so be it. I have the same beliefs I had over thirty years ago when I first started voting that I do today. I don't compromise because voting for a liberal with an "R" next to their name is still voting for a liberal.
109 posted on 11/01/2007 11:42:36 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Right... Obviously, I hadn’t read the whole thread when I responded to you... Sorry. Your point about that 27% “higher than Rudy” is a good observation, too - though I think RealClearPolitics “average” is a bit higher than that... yep: Rudy=29% today. No matter the actual #’s, this situation is not good for Rudy. I really, really hope he does not win the GOP nomination - I don’t think for a second he is the only R able to beat Hitlery - but as you can easily surmise: I’ll be one of those pulling for him in the general if he does - and really trying to influence his judicial nominations and other policies when he wins it - ye ol’ “hold his feet to the fire”...

I hate being in this position...


110 posted on 11/01/2007 11:47:18 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I'm afraid that Medved is "in bed" with Rudy.

I used to like Medved, but now that I think about it, he's always seemed to be a bit light in the loafers. I had always tried to just attribute that to his nerdiness.

Larry Craig has given me a new perspective on some these "fellas."

111 posted on 11/01/2007 11:52:42 AM PDT by tear gas (Because of the 22nd Amendment, we are losing President. Bush. Can we afford to lose him now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Comes from the same bonehead thought processes.

It is curious that no one has challenged his historical analysis.

No competition makes for arrogance, which, in politics, is expressed by candidates in monopoly parties as just doing what they want knowing constituents have no choice.

At least Rudy has changed his tune regarding the appointment of originalist judges and the Second Amendment. Do I believe him? Not necessarily, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the unlikely event that he wins the nomination.

Should all the folks I have heard say they'll hold their nose and vote voted for a third party, that would clean up the arrogance fast.

Do you want another Clinton administration at this point in world affairs?

Win? Lose? The election of national leaders is not a football game. You can "feel good" that "my team won", until "my team" stays on the same repressive path.

If you think that there's no difference between the two major parties, then I'm at a loss for words. The RINOs are still a minority in the GOP.

And if you vote for one of those disguised liberals, because he can win, instead of voting for a true conservative when it looks like he can't, you betray your franchise.

I never bought that argument. He sang a liberal tune in order to have a chance given the uniqueness of NYC politics. Now, he's at least singing a conservative tune now. He's a politician. What else is new? I'd rather give a chance to Rudy to prove that he really changed, than throw away a vote that makes sure that the Stalinists win.

112 posted on 11/01/2007 11:58:52 AM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Is it just me, or does Medved come off as an elitist, know-it-all douche every time I read him?

I rarely read him. I came across this by chance. Maybe it is just you. Maybe not. But I couldn't argue against his historical analysis. That's the main reason I posted it.

113 posted on 11/01/2007 12:03:29 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
If you don't think she is using triangulation

You underestimate the woman


114 posted on 11/01/2007 12:18:13 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I'm not underestimating her at all - if she can unite the Democrats, she will win, regardless of whether or not Republicans are united. That's why I don't buy into the "if you don't vote Republican, you are electing her" crap, because the Democrats had 2000 and 2004 in their hands, were it not for Nader and Lurch.

The ironic thing is, Giuliani and a few of the other Republican candidates would really help unify the Democrats, which means she'd have it even easier.

Either way, if somebody like Giuliani is running for the GOP, I'll go third party. I'll be damned if I vote for a liberal.
115 posted on 11/01/2007 1:46:46 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Calvinist_Dark_Lord
If the press says Giuliani is the front-runner enough times, people will believe it and vote accordingly. Sadly, we most often do what we're told.

Some have deep insight into these manipulations of the mind.

116 posted on 11/01/2007 2:26:15 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Only a liberal votes for Giuliani. I'd rather have Hillary. She would be clumsy with her greed and arrogance. Giuliani would be more effective instituting the same kind of social destruction, and more would buy it because it came from a "republican". And make no mistake, he would put in the same policies she would.

You vote for Giuliani, you put your imprimatur on his actions in office and take responsibility for them.

Not me.

117 posted on 11/01/2007 2:37:05 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; af_vet_rr
You're obsessing too much about Rudy.

Dobson Offers Insight on 2008 Republican Hopefuls
Focus on Family Founder Snubs Thompson, Praises Gingrich

This also applies to other folks with Dobson implying the endorsement of a third party nominee. The point of my posting the story is that a third party vote is a wasted vote. Get rid of the RINOs in the primaries.

118 posted on 11/01/2007 2:54:06 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

Medved is missing the point COMPLETLY.

Lets be specific.

Giuliani IS the problem. If he wins the GOP nomination the race is over for the 25% of the people who will not vote for Giuliani under ANY cirucumstance. Giuliani is seen as a clone of Hillary.

These people view their vote as a personal statement to themselves. (see also you can’t lie to yourself because you always know the truth)

This is why the GOP primary IS the presidential race.

No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.


119 posted on 11/01/2007 3:01:02 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Giuliani comes with a virtual third party.

25-27% have stated they will not vote for the liberal clone of Hillary.

Giuliani IS Hillary.

thus,

No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.


120 posted on 11/01/2007 3:08:53 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The classic example of a third party displacing other parties is the Socialists in Europe. They pushed aside older liberal parties, as did the Christian Democrats in some countries.

Multiparty systems are more fluid, but the same thing happened with the Labour Parties in Britain and Australia. Of course what happened then was the electorate was greatly expanded, so the new working class voters made Labour or the Socialists one of the largest parties, displacing the Liberals in Britain and Conservatives in Australia.

What happened to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada is also relevant. In 1993 they went from being the governing party in Parliament to the fifth-largest party, from 151 seats to 2. Today's governing Conservative Party in Canada is actually the Reform party (which went from 1 seat to 52 in 1993), plus what was left of the Progressive Conservatives.

But parties in the US are more stable. All those primaries mean that the candidate who comes out has a good chance of winning and governing. It's different in Canada. If the USA gets as regionally divided as our Northern neighbor, though, big changes are possible.

121 posted on 11/01/2007 3:28:02 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Throwing around the word evil pretty freely aren't you. Do you even know what the word means? I doubt it.

Only God can name someone evil. Do you presume to speak for God?...Hmmm, interesting.
122 posted on 11/01/2007 4:10:34 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

I appreciate your comment more than you could ever know. Thank you.


123 posted on 11/01/2007 7:33:46 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I thought I made myself perfectly clear in my previous posts, but since you overlooked it please allow me to say again that I do NOT support Giuliani at this point in time. I would only vote for Giuliani if he ends up being the Republican candidate.


124 posted on 11/01/2007 7:41:39 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Dr. Eckleburg

If Fred McRomneyani is the nominee, we’ll get Hitlery.

Why settle for the copy who is in denial about being the copy, when the real thing is available?

i’m deeply troubled for the Republic.

Enough will go third party (me too) that Hitlery will win. At least i’ll be able to look in the mirror without shame, knowing that i voted for THE.BEST.CANDIDATE. without respect to party.


125 posted on 11/01/2007 8:08:42 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
CNN’s fatuous fraud Lou Dobbs

I really like Michael Medved (and I don't like Lou Dobbs), but the vitriol in this characterization is almost offensive. Why write like that Mr. Medved?

Also, and more importantly, I do believe the Republican party has abandon it's base, and hope for a viable third party representing conservatives.

126 posted on 11/01/2007 8:19:29 PM PDT by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
No minor party candidate has ever won the presidency or, for that matter, even come close.

Medved would make a stronger argument if he didn't start with a blatant falsehood.

127 posted on 11/01/2007 8:24:02 PM PDT by Sloth (Democrats and GOPers are to government what Jeffrey Dahmer and Michael Jackson are to babysitting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rosehips
I would only vote for Giuliani if he ends up being the Republican candidate.

In that case, you would reward and encourage the leftward drift of the party.

128 posted on 11/01/2007 8:30:19 PM PDT by Sloth (Democrats and GOPers are to government what Jeffrey Dahmer and Michael Jackson are to babysitting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
In that case, you would reward and encourage the leftward drift of the party.

Or in your case, I could vote third-party, or stay at home and not vote, and therefore encourage the leftward drift of the United States of America.

129 posted on 11/01/2007 8:33:35 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
Throwing around the word evil pretty freely aren't you. Do you even know what the word means? I doubt it.

Anyone who gets the support of NARAL qualifies as evil in my book. The GOP is actually considering nominating someone who is supported by NARAL. That about says it all.

Only God can name someone evil. Do you presume to speak for God?...Hmmm, interesting.

God also said, "By their fruits will you know them." The "fruit" of the pro-abortion position is nearly 50 million dead babies. You'd have to be spiritually dead not to recognize that as evil.

If the GOP nominates a pro-abortion candidate, they will have become evil.
130 posted on 11/01/2007 8:43:57 PM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans who support Rudy owe Bill Clinton an apology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: All

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS BEYOND CORRUPT, IT’S ALSO EVIL.
And what is this evil that triumphs when good men do nothing? What are we really talking about here and is it worth fighting for? Is it worth turning our heads and allowing evil to continue on while we do nothing? (and I count voting for a third party candidate when knowing that he has absolutely no chance of defeating the Democrat, and worse, actually planning and hoping to knock out the Republican candidate who otherwise might have defeated the Democrat, as doing nothing).

Corruption is accepting campaign cash from the Chinese in exchange for military hardware. Corruption is accepting campaign cash as bribes from Indonesian power brokers, from Buddhist Monks, from corrupt corporate moguls. Corruption is defined by the myriad criminal acts and practices of the Clintons and the Gores and their corrupt Democrat minions.

Corruption is the land grabs, the power grabs, the gun grabs, the bribery, the shady deals, the high crimes and treason. Corruption is the theft of campaign dollars through forced labor union deductions. Corruption is the systematic indoctrination of several generations of our youth with socialist dogma via government school systems. Corruption is the removal of God from public life and substituting in the evil homosexual/feminist agenda and the destruction of moral society. Corruption is lying to the public about global warming and the selling of the Kyoto treaty. Corruption is giving up our national sovereignty to the United Nations. Corruption is the abuses of office, obstruction of justice, lying, perjury and subornation of perjury.

The Democrat Party is thoroughly corrupt. There is no question about that, but it’s way beyond corrupt. It’s also evil.

Waco was evil. The killing of innocent men, women, children and babies is evil. Torturing them for weeks on end, gassing them, and then burning them alive is pure evil. This was perpetrated by a corrupt and evil Democrat Administration and covered-up by corrupt and evil Democrat Congressmen and Senators, many of whom you are saying should be allowed to remain in office even today.

And as bad as that is, it pales in comparison to the Democrat government sanctioned and funded wholesale slaughter of the most innocent life of all, the murder of innocent human life in the womb. This is evil. Pure evil. And this evilness is openly perpetrated by a thoroughly corrupt and evil Democrat Party. The same corrupt and evil Democrat Congress and Judiciary whom you are now saying deserve to remain in office.

IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?

I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.

Well, I hate big government. I believe the Founders intended for government to remain severely limited in power, size and scope. The limits have been removed by successive populist, progressive and liberal governments.

Government excesses need to be rolled back and the limits enforced and our Liberty restored. That is a fact and I doubt many FReepers would disagree.

I hate socialism in all it’s forms. I think the income tax is an unconstitutional slave tax and that it should be repealed and replaced with an excise tax as the founders intended. I think social security is also an unconstitutional slave tax and should be repealed and not replaced. The same can be said of medi-care or any socialized health care program. The founders never intended any of this.

I hate government involvement in education. The public school system has become nothing but an expensive socialist government indoctrination camp. We can go on and on with all of the things that are wrong with this government and need to be fixed or removed, mostly removed, and I know that both parties share in the blame for much of this.

However, I see the Democrat Party as the leading cause and the primary mover for socialism in America. Their goal is to expand government and socialism even further. They will not rest until we have a completely socialized health care system.

They’ll continue expanding their evil government funded abortion programs. Their taking of God and faith from every aspect of our public conscience and replacing it with homosexuality, feminism, and whatever other victimhood program they can institute.

Their goals are to systematically remove whatever defenses we may have left. They’ll take our guns. You can bet on that. They’ll take our right to campaign for the values we hold dear. They’ll take our right to speak out or to openly resist.

Their goals include removing any all remaining constitutional restraints that stand in there way and then completely surrendering the last hopes for freedom and national sovereignty.

When President Gore or President Hillary signs the next round of international treaties, they’ll be turning the keys for America over to the U.N. and other socialist world government organizations. These treaties are on equal footing with the Constitution. They become the supreme law of the land. That is the way they will finally destroy the final constitutional limits and destroy American freedom once and for all. A shot will never be fired, but we will lose it all.

And, yes, there are some Republicans who allow this to happen. Even some who join right in there. I’d love nothing more than to dump them with the evil Democrats, however, there is one giant obstacle. Political majority.

In this two party system, the party that holds the majority is the party that controls the agenda. They choose who will chair the committees and what legislation will be moved and what legislation will be killed. They control which nominees get voted on and which get shunted aside. They effectively control the judiciary. They ratify the treaties. A Democrat majority plus a handful of liberal Republicans and it’s all over.

Wall-to-wall liberal activist judiciary, nothing but expanding socialist government programs as far as the eye can see, and nothing but sovereignty and freedom robbing treaties on the horizon.

You can dump the moderates and liberal Republicans if you wish, but what are you going to replace them with? Democrats? Surely you do not believe that a Libertarian or other tiny conservative third party candidate will defeat a liberal in a liberal state or district?

You will give up the Republican and give the seat to the Democrat. That’s like a two for one free gimmee for the socialists. That will only make it that much harder to obtain a Republican majority.

I’ll keep the moderates and attempt to dump the democrat in any race, thereby maintaining or increasing the Republican majority. There is no other way to block the socialists. We must overcome their votes.

Support and vote for the most conservative candidate, hopefully a Republican, in the primaries. That’s where we can increase conservative influence and send the message. But vote for the Republican in the general election. That’s were we directly re-take or increase the majority and maintain the block on the socialist agenda, and, hopefully, someday soon that majority will be large enough and conservative enough to actually start rolling it back.


131 posted on 11/01/2007 8:47:50 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/754882/posts


132 posted on 11/01/2007 8:59:43 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

FYI


133 posted on 11/01/2007 9:20:30 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: rosehips
Or in your case, I could vote third-party, or stay at home and not vote, and therefore encourage the leftward drift of the United States of America.

A vote for a liberal is still a vote for a liberal, even if they have an "R" next to their name. I can sprinkle perfume on a cow pie and I'll still have a cow pie when I'm done.

As far as voting third party or not voting because of the GOP's leftward drift, I see it as tough love - if one of your children acted in an inappropriate manner, the last thing you do is give them a free pass or a bunch of money. All that does is spoil and encourage them to keep doing the same. Supporting the GOP's leftward drift by voting for Republicans no matter who they are amounts to the same thing - encouraging them to keep moving left.

I have no problem voting third party - I have done it in the past. As a matter of fact, I did it in the Texas Governor's election last year, and it's funny, all of my friends who voted Republican now regret their vote, after our "Republican" Governor returned to his Democrat roots from the '80s earlier this year. The fact that he didn't even get 40% of the statewide vote sent a fairly clear message to intelligent people in the state GOP organization. Unfortunately, they seem to be a minority - some in the state GOP seem to think we need to go even further left, adn our upcoming bond election supports that view.
134 posted on 11/01/2007 9:22:38 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"At least Rudy has changed his tune regarding the appointment of originalist judges and the Second Amendment. Do I believe him? Not necessarily, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the unlikely event that he wins the nomination."

I don't see myself as obsessing about Giuliani. I see myself as obsessing about those who would actually vote for him if he were the republican nominee.

135 posted on 11/01/2007 9:25:25 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: rosehips
I hate socialism in all it’s forms.

You made a well intentioned plea overall. You came back to socialism several times, and I just want to point out that you must be careful - Guiuliani and some of the other Republicans are simply socialist-lite. Yes, you make good points about keeping Democrats out of office, but if you give the socialists in the GOP a free-pass, in the end you still end up with socialism - it's just a form that will take slightly longer to come about. I'd rather lose an election or two and send a clear sign to the GOP not to abandon their base, than say "hey, it's okay if you run liberal Republicans".
136 posted on 11/01/2007 9:27:28 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

I did not make the “plea”. Please see the link I provided in post #132.


137 posted on 11/01/2007 9:35:40 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: rosehips

Thanks for the update.


138 posted on 11/01/2007 9:40:35 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Your welcome.


139 posted on 11/01/2007 9:43:59 PM PDT by rosehips (Don't abandon our troops! Vote Republican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: rosehips

Sorry, and I saw that now. I even posted in that thread, although it’s long dead. I find a lot of the comments in that thread even more relevant than 2002 - 2005. It’s always interesting to pull out these older threads and see how eerily right they turn out to be.


140 posted on 11/01/2007 10:09:21 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: rosehips; Dr. Eckleburg
I do not support Giuliani at this point in time

Because of the above, I did not see it as perfectly clear.

If you publicly state that you WILL eventually support Giuliani, then the media mind-manipulators have learned all that they need to know.

141 posted on 11/02/2007 4:19:22 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: rosehips
These zealots to whom you are making your appeal are not going to see reason. They are no different in that from the denizens who infect the forums at DU, dailyKos, and the Hufflepuff Post.

They use the same language, appeal to the same emotions rather than logic, and they are, above all, elitist in their Conservatism.

They simply "know" what the truth is and no amout of logic or reasoning will alter that unshakable arrogance.

They are the self-annointed, self-righteous Guardians of all things true and if you don't agree with them, you are liable to be branded "evil" just like Rudy.

Go and visit any of the afore mentioned Leftist extremist web sites and you will find the same vitriolic personal attacks that we are now seeing here.

Conservative used to mean that a person made his decisions based on clear reasoning, the kind of reasoning you have just laid out, but today's Guaardians of the Right are guilty of using the same gut emotions that Liberals are reknown for using. We are rapidly approaching a point when there is no discernable difference between a Left-wing extremist and a Right-wing extremist, in the manner in which they reach their decisions and make their arguments.

Oh, and the prevailing argument that they are going to "instruct the Republican Party as one would a child" is nothing but self-delusion. The analogy is old but very appropriate. These people believe in cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They know they have no chance with a third party. Their only goal is to get Hillary elected in the foolish belief that it will somehow "teach the Republicans a lesson."

The African Americans have been using that strategy against Republicans for fifty years. You may have noticed how much progress they have made in persuading Republicans to move in their direction.

Michael Medved was correct in his article. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Well we have tangible results from the Conservative boycott of the 2006 election. See how well it worked? Why we have nothing but Conservatives running for office and all of the RINO's are running for cover...oh wait, that's wrong. The RINO's are now in ascendency, not in hiding.

Oh well better luck next time...if Hillary allows a next time. After all her politics is closer to Hugo Chavez's than Rudy Giuliani's. She might just make herself El Presidente for life.
142 posted on 11/02/2007 8:51:10 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Only God can declare a person evil. You can and may easily declare their acts evil, but you presume too much to attack the person and not the message. Any Christian worth his salt should know that.

Above and beyond anything else, Christ's message was one of forgiveness and compassion, not hatred. No one can make such a judgment of a fellow human being, only their actions and words.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." or how about this one-"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" and even more appropriate-"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

You argue more like a knee-jerk Liberal than a rational Conservative. You sound as though you are being ruled by your emotions, rather than your reason.
143 posted on 11/02/2007 9:07:01 PM PDT by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
Only God can declare a person evil. You can and may easily declare their acts evil, but you presume too much to attack the person and not the message. Any Christian worth his salt should know that.

Funny, some of the saints do exactly that. Ever heard of Polycarp?

"Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said 'Recognise us', replied, 'Ay, ay, I recognise the first-born of Satan.'"

Above and beyond anything else, Christ's message was one of forgiveness and compassion, not hatred. No one can make such a judgment of a fellow human being, only their actions and words.

You've got half of Christianity--the half that the libs love. The part you don't have is that which says that you MUST REPENT to be worthy of forgiveness. I forgive anyone at any time who seeks my forgiveness for evil acts against me. Recall that Christ didn't forgive those whose repentence and rejection of sin wasn't sincere. Those people he called hypocrites.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." or how about this one-"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" and even more appropriate-"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

LOL! And you say that I argue like a knee-jerk liberal? You've quoted the only verses from Scripture that every liberal libertine knows by heart. Look up the word "transference" in the dictionary and see what you find out about yourself.

Abortion is evil. If you support abortion, you are partaking in evil. If you die an unrepentant supporter of the killing of unborn children, you will go to Hell without passing go or collecting $200.

How's that for rational and conservative?
144 posted on 11/03/2007 11:23:37 AM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans who support Rudy owe Bill Clinton an apology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-144 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