Posted on 02/25/2008 5:34:34 PM PST by ovrtaxt
over here
this is it
. The electoral map from 04 highlighted voter fraud hot spots that are unbelievable. My own Cook County is the hottest spot outside of NYC and LA.
IMHO Wisconsin was stolen by fraud in ‘00 and’04.
Tim Johnson and Maria Cantwell are siting in the senate because of voter Fraud on Indian reservations.
AZ, NM and CO will turn blue this year because of this fraud.
Wasn’t it documented that 200,000 people voted in both NY state and Florida in 2000?
Dogs voted in ST. Louis.
I am very grateful for the small number of Freepers who have volunteered computer skills, or time, or funds, to my run for the North Carolina 11th District. This District in the Blue Ridge Mountains is now held by Heath Shuler, a Democrat who ran as a "conservative with mountain values" but who cast his first vote to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker, and has voted with her 81% of the time, since then.
If you mean it, do it. Choose any conservative, not just me. Then, jump in with both feet.
Congressman Billybob
2) As a local advisor to the Mont. County GOP, I listened to focus groups of all the major candidates for state office from our districts. I do think that was a pretty good gauge as to where they stood. It was clear who was truly conservative and who was "conservative" until they got to Columbus.
3) That said, I did not detect in those meetings a tremendous amount of, "I'll do whatever it takes to get you (conservatives) to vote for me." Instead, I heard several tell us what "Columbus would do for us." It really turned me off, as it did some others---but not enough.
Our best hope is to clean out the voter rolls, but Acorn and other vigilante groups are way ahead of that. Isn't Mark Levin leading that fight in the courts?
Do you disagree with what Mr. Viguerie says in the piece that is posted on this thread?
Bump
More food for thought.
People keep talking about ‘principles’ as if the only principle worth mentioning is whining about the ever-present inadequacies of politicians running for office. How about some real principles to base your actions on:
1. There is a lot more to advancing the conservative cause than voting. We do more for the cause with letters to editor, agitating the politicians, getting the liberals we know educated, etc.
2. You never get to vote for someone who thinks 100% like you unless you are on the ballot.
3. Unity is strength, and divided we fall. If conservatives dont unite, then we lose.
4. You should select the candidate based on character, competence and vision.
5. Count your blessings and savor your victories. Too many see the empty part of the glass only and discount the good our guys do. And goodness - Jeb Hensarling, John Carter, Ted Poe - 3 solid conservatives in the House from Texas, that’s probably more good conservatism than any other state. Why don we praise the good guys more?
6. Whining and winning never happen at the same time.
7. Stopping a bad thing (like an Obama presidency) is often most important thing we can do. Political tides come and go, so let it wash over us and we are doen for, or stop it now and we can rebuild and move forward another day.
8. someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is an ally not a traitor.
9. To advance conservative agenda with your vote, vote for the most conservative viable candidate.
10. The good is the enemy of the perfect. Aim for the good, as the perfect is never found near politics.
... clip-n-save, that way when asked to ‘vote your principles’ you can find what principles to vote on!
“I haven’t been a fan of Viguerie for a while, but I agree with him on this. It’s one thing to support the party when you lose out to someone who you don’t think is conservative. It’s another for them to completely shut you out of the big races, time after time, and then rig the system so you can never win.”
Nobody rigged the system. The system was based on primary voters ... if we found a good conservative who who GET MORE VOTES than John McCain we would not be having this discussion.
Who was Vigurie pushing? Ron Paul? There’s your problem right there!!!
5% of the libertarian right went for the anti-war anti-Fed guy.
20% of the socon right went for the preacher.
The businessman (Romney) running conservative was left with too few votes and a hardened anti-mormon ankle-biting crew to overcome the ol’ man RINO, McCain.
Meanwhile, real conservatives Hunter and Tancredo were stuck at 2% and Thompson never got his campaign in gear.
A clusterhuck.
His example in Maryland of the ousting of Rep Wayne Gilcrest disproves the conspiracy theories: Get good conservatives, run them, get them supported - UNIFY AROUND THE BEST CONSERVATIVE IN THE PRIMARY - and conservatives will win.
We didnt do that, so we lost. Simple as that.
bttt
I agree with you on #5, but would like to add something.
In addition to looking at it as individual markets that are interconnected, there is also the concept that there is one market, or a global economy.
As raw materials, components, factory intermediates, etc move around the world to a final assembly point, it is not accurate to describe the country where the assembly takes place as the country that manufactured product.
The $7 watch at walmart has a movement made in Japan, a case made in Brazil, and a band made in China. Because it is assembled in China doesn't mean it is made in China.
In addition to manufactured goods, services, such as financial or telecommunications, are are also moving around
Obviously, the Country Clubbers like it this way. The process is not set up for a conservative to overcome the MSM opposition by winning a bunch of early primaries. The Bushes and their friends in Connecticut society are fine with it. However this system came about, if conservatives are going to have a voice in this party, they may need to work outside of it first.
I repeat: Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain. Enough is enough!
Got to win legislatures in 2010.
McCain=Amnesty=Destruction of this country as we know it. McCain and Obama both support amnesty. Neither one deserves our vote.
There is nothing I fail to understand here.
I do not fail to understand that the delegate process already *is* weighted as you suggest it is. Perasap you are not aware of that. I do not fail to understand that there are Republicans in every state and so it is absurd to cut out certain states completely.
I do not fail to understand that we won most states in 1988 and almost every state in 1984, so the “give almost no weight to the preferences of states where you have almost no chance of winning electoral votes” is a subjective and self-defeating concept.
I do not fail to understand that McCain won in South Carolina. I do not fail to understand that the process did care enough about those states you mentioned to give Romney almost 300 delegates. Nor do I fail to understand this: If McCain lost in South Carolina and lost in Florida, two red states with conservative voters, he would not be the nominee.
McCain won in conservative South Carolina and he won in Florida. He won because unlike in 2000 when a single candidate became the ‘conservative choice’, we were split with Huck and Romney, and McCain won by narrow margins.
So be it. This was not a decision by elites, nor was it dictated by the state ordering, but a consequence of multiple campaigns running in a GOP primary and the choices of over 10 million voters getting reflected in the nominee.
Bump. Glad to hear Gilcrest got the boot.
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.