Posted on 05/07/2008 9:57:05 AM PDT by captnorb
It’s the damn yankees who have migrated to NC that f-up the election process here.
That’s okay, Dean’s team may have been early members of the McCain 2008 campaing (joining it back in 2006).
The fix was in.
The tree of liberty needs to be “watered” again...
Not necessarily only because there`s a buzz about Obama. He`s like a rock star, a hip-hop Rasputin. For every vote McCain gets there`ll be 2 to cancel it out.
McCain`s done, the GOP is already splintered. Read a story today on House Republicans but can`t find it at the moment. The gist was that there is a sense of CYA, you`re on your own don`t expect the RNC to help.
Do you think it was the heavy black turnout for Obama?
Or the Operation Chaos having to choose local dems?
Or neither?
"and vote for anyone(no matter their professional and personal life) as long as the pork keeps flowing. "
Even in a thread about 'porkers' and voters voting for the porkers - still, NO ONE will mention that McCain has been reelected in his home state time after time even though he has NEVER 'brought home the pork' - He will not, never has, done it.
And yet, no one wants to comment on that - no one wants ANYthing mentioned that is pro-McCain.
the cons get listed ad nauseum - but heaven forbid anything positive get mentioned.
I wonder, just for sh*ts and giggles, how many other congresscritters have a zero pork barrel record??? (I don't expect any horse blinder 'conservatives' to bother researching that.)
“I will hold my nose and vote for McCain...”
And this is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation.
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Just because up to 91% of the black vote goes to the obamama doesn't mean it's anything to do with, cough-cough, race
THAT would be racist to mention
The RNC changed it’s name, now it’s RNSC or the Republican National Socialist Committee.
The news out yesterday indicates that the facts are starting to catch up with them and that they CANNOT win without Conservatives.
Well, all I can say is come on home, but I am not moving to the left, it is they that MUST move to the right.
Well I keep hearing it has nothing to do with race, but I haven’t met an african american that wasn’t orgasmic for the “First Black President”.
One article posted here is Newt saying after a defeat recently in the south somewhere that the republicans need to create a strong message, ie conservative, the other issue was that the Republican party has no money.
Both articles were posted here and were very interesting.
Here is the link to one article:
GOP Leaders warn of Election Disaster
“Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.
The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.
“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2012383/posts
And the other article was about the money isn’t coming in as they hoped it would.
Not only that, but the money is dried up.
How stupid does a Republican candidate have to be to throw the conservative, activist, grassroots base under the bus in favor of "moderates", "independents" and "Reagan Democrats"? THOSE groups are going to open their checkbooks?? Right...
Meanwhile, until I get some dirty streetfighting and smashmouth conservatism out of the Republicans, my checkbook will remain closed. You cannot believe all the RNC and Co. mailings I have thrown away unopened over the past couple of years.
"I know your deeds. I know you are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were one or the other, hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth." (Rev 3:15-16).
Constitutional amendments 15,19,24,26 expanded the right to vote to exactly the types of people Adams and the founders warned against. The Republic will fall, only a matter of when, not if.
This is a mess of our own making.
John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.
But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?
Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?
If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…
I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.
No kidding. Like those 3 chimps...Might as well cover their ears and eyes while they're at it.
We keep getting mugged by socialist and big gov insiders masquerading as conservatives, yet we're expected to keep holding our noses and vote for these people, while being told to compromise our principles for the good of the party?
They've beat the nose holding thing to death.
I'm way done with that crap.
They've sold out conservatives, and pocketed the money.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
I am voting for House and Senate positions. McCain can KMA. As long as whoever wins does not have an overwhelming majority in Congress we’ll be okay. The only hiccup is SCOTUS. The two old geysers are purposely hanging on so GW cannot appoint another.
“dirty streetfighting and smashmouth conservatism out of the Republicans”
I used to watch B1 Bob Dornan, “Duke” Cunningham (just damn sad about him), and others on CSPAN after hours in the House broadcasts. They were inspiring and we ended up with The Contract With America. Blueblood, country club, elite Rinos took it away and it turned out that many elected in 1994 were suborned by power and money in DC. I believe it started going sour with the nomination of Bob “It’s my turn” Dole.
Sounds like deja vu all over again.
Yeah, I know: McCain is weak on border security and totally buys into the global warming hoax. But at least he's not calling for American military defeat, and he's not advocating the nationalization of 1/7 of the economy. These are outcomes that will eventually lead us to becoming a 3rd world country.
Whatever damage McCain inflicts upon us can eventually be reversed if conservatism ever finds its footing again. Reversing the damage done by Obama or Hillary will, IMHO, will not be possible without bloodshed. Think about it: as painful as it is, that's why I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him.
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.