Posted on 02/25/2008 11:37:19 AM PST by fightinJAG
My prediction right now based on the way hillary is going to ‘earn’ the democrat nomination is McCain 55% of the vote, Nadar 5%. Hillary less than 40%. So the good news is the marxists will be defeated this year. The bad news is that we’ll have a liberal, McCain, as president. It’s up to the base to re-group and re-energize for the 2010 mid-terms, we must work to get conservatives back in the senate and the house.
Hillary is not going to get the nomination. I wish she would, because she can easily be defeated in November. But she is finished, whether she wants to believe it or not.
Nader is a joke, not a spoiler. In 2000 he meant something, not now.
Oh, there are lots of people out there saying (attributed to TSchermeL)—”Let’s lose one for the Gipper!”
Holy schnikees... Barry "not liberal enough" for some people?
Must be people that the moonbats call "moonbats".
If Clinton thought Gore would have been the best President ever, why didn’t the Democrats run Al Gore in 2004 to “correct” their mistake? Why isn’t he running this year? Is he no longer capable of being the “best president ever”?
The problem is the very mentality / reasoning / approach that caused McCain to be the nominee precludes "[getting] conservatives back in the Senate and House." See mid-terms 2006.
See more [here # 134].
The only way to constitute a Republican majority in congress is for good, decent conservatives in RINO districts to vote for RINOs anyway (so that then true conservatives in the majority can get into positions of national leadership). But isn't that "unprincipled" in the same way it's "unprincipled" to vote for McCain even if it leads to the election of a Rat?
Maybe so. But the teaching point is that many here are advocating doing to the Republican party what Nader did to the Rats in 2000 and what Perot did to the Republicans in 1992 and 1996.
It may be a “joke” in your mind, but many people fail to find it the least bit funny.
Yeah, sounds crazy.
Until you realize we have the same thing going on in our party.
Ralph is a good subject for a book entitled Unsafe at Any Age.
I’ve often said I thought Algore might be VP for Obama. Who knows? He might even suck it up and agree to run with Hildy, just so he can enlarge his greeness from the White House.
That said, the point I take from the article is aimed at all those who think it’s not their problem if they bail on the Republican nominee by not voting or casting a vote for Spongebob.
Right or wrong, the big world out there does not agree with their view and, rather, holds them responsible for handing the election to the other guy. And I think it’s right for those on that path to accept that fact on how they are viewed.
This happens in both parties in every election, and both parties have the same perspective-—the quitters are spoilers and worse.
The parties don’t “get the message.” On the contrary, as seen from this article and many others, the strategy now is to blatantly point out that those associated with the party (even if not actual members) who undermine the party’s goal to win elections are to be-—to put it nicely-—discouraged.
Hildy and Obama both stated more clearly than politicians usually do that those who voted for “x” (in this case Nader) were responsible for “y” (in this case Bush) getting elected. It works the same way on the Republican side.
I think if a conservative candidate acted like a conservative he’d win primaries and general elections. For example, on the issue of immigration, amnesty is opposed by the vast majority of Americans. If Americans in each district were made aware of the true costs of illegal immigration, such as the strain on our health care system, the people would rally behind that candidate. With regards to tax cuts, if candidates stated that tax rate reductions increased revenues to the government, that the rich actually pay more of the nation’s tax burden when rates are lowered, they’d be in real good shape.
The key in my mind is to get true believers to run. Start campaigning the day after an election. Educate the people of their district on a daily bases. Financing will be there from grass roots conservatives if we actually have conservatives to support. So let there be no rino districts. We need to get conservatives to run in every primary.
Yeah, what's up with that JAG?
When the Dem and Repub nominees are so pitiful that they can't even get their base to come out and vote why do they and their supporters always look for scapegoats?
It sure would be nice to have no RINO districts, but that’s not going to happen soon, if ever.
People today have more access to more sources of information than ever before. No one is locked in to the MSM. Yet there’s never enough to educate the vast majority of the electorate.
That said, it’s not the vast majority that votes in primaries. It’s the party’s activists. They are the party’s most educated and most motivated. Yet they still didn’t seem to realize that if they did not unite and rally around a more conservative candidate, they would get a less conservative nominee.
The “my way or the highway” mentality has become so pervasive and so pernicious that even in a place like FR, there was practically zero unity around one conservative candidate.
So the base fragments and will continue to do so. In the meantime, the party will be looking around for whoever they can get to replace those who continually go on strike. By definition, those replacements will not share the strikers’ views. Thus, the strike causes the party to continue to shift leftward.
They don’t look for scapegoats.
They are simply stating facts. Ralph Nader, and candidates like him, take votes away from the major party candidates, potentially changing the result of the election.
That is a fact, not scapegoating.
It’s those who vote for Nader, and candidates like him, or who sit home, who look for scapegoats. They don’t want to acknowledge that the rest of the world views them as responsible for playing into the fact that third party candidates are ALWAYS nothing but spoilers. They want to blame the party, the candidates, the MSM, Hollywood, on and on . . . someone or something FORCED them to vote for a third candidate or to sit home.
Who is FORCING you not to support the Republican nominee?
No one. You are an adult who is making a volitional choice. Deal with it.
What I’d like to know is, who out there considers B. Hussein Obama to be too conservative for their taste?
Ralph Nader for one!
For example, NH and Maine have 4 RINO Senators. The alternative is 4 Democrats, not 4 conservatives.
If conservatives in NH and ME lose those seats, where will they be made up? California?
It can be if we push back against the pernicious victim mentality that has become so prominent here.
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.