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

Skip to comments.

The False Myth of the 80% Conservative
Canada Free Press ^ | March 23, 2014 | Jonathon Moseley

Posted on 03/23/2014 5:34:26 AM PDT by Moseley

The danger is this: In the USA’s upcoming 2014 elections, Republican elites assume that everyone all now agrees that conservatives ‘must’ support non-conservative candidates to win more elections. The GOP is operating on the belief that everyone is on board, simply because insiders have officially decreed it to be so.

However, the grassroots in the USA remains unconvinced. Worse, the Republican establishment has no plan for truly healing the actual wounds. Elites want to avoid change more fervently than they do want to win elections. Elites violated trust by advancing liberal policies in the U.S. Congress, but they won’t apologize or reform. The GOP will do anything to win elections – except change.

It simply doesn’t matter what you or I think. Activists are going to sit on their hands whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, unless the GOP fields conservative nominees. Elites can denounce such thinking all day long, but that changes nothing. So the Republican Party is heading into the 2014 elections with the establishment deceiving itself into thinking that grassroots volunteers agree with Party plans.

Also, the grassroots acts independently in the US. Washington insiders suffer from the delusion that the tea party follows tea party “leaders.” But the tea party came first. Self-appointed “leaders” later on tried to rush in front of the parade. Many tea party “leaders” are cooperative this year. But that does not mean grassroots activists, donors, and voters will fall into line with Republican Party strategists.

The crucial debate threatening to tear the GOP apart is this: Ronald Reagan said: “Somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.” Therefore, conservatives must bite their tongue and support Republican candidates and office-holders who are not conservative. That’s the thesis.

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Delaware; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2014midterms; 80; conspiracynutjobs; ntsa; randnesty; randsconcerntroll; reagan; rino; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
Then we see John Warner, apparently 80% our friend. The former Republican U.S. Senator from Virginia just endorsed the Democrat incumbent Mark Warner for re-election this November. Republican John Warner earned a 79.2% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Democrat Mark Warner votes with Barack Obama 97% of the time. (The Warners are not related in any way.)

So how can Republican voters tell when a candidate truly is “80% conservative” or when he is going to endorse a liberal Democrat? Ed Gillespie is the establishment’s great hope for taking back the Virginia US Senate seat. An establishment leader himself, John Warner stabbed Gillespie in the back. Gillespie is the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and senior adviser to George W. Bush.

I don’t think anyone expects or demands a 100% perfect conservative. I rub a lot of shoulders with tea party leaders and activists. What they want is to not be lied to and betrayed. Conservatives realize that “80% conservatives” usually vote only 50% conservative once in office. The problem is betrayal.

For years, John Warner and Tom Davis were the quarterbacks for attacking Virginia conservatives. John Warner led the campaign to sabotage Ollie North’s nearly-successful campaign for U.S. Senate in 1994. John Warner arranged for Marshall Coleman to run as an independent. North lost by only 2.7% running as the Republican nominee while former Congressman Coleman took 11.4% running as an Independent

1 posted on 03/23/2014 5:34:26 AM PDT by Moseley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I understand the concept of the 80% Republican completely.

However, when that 20% disagreement extends to Amnesty, legalization, normalization or acceptance in any fashion that remotely includes citizenship, or when it includes wild capitulation to Democrats on debt, vastly inflate budgets and creates or perpetuates undeserved entitlements, they become 100% opposition to me.

And there isn’t even a Tea Party group, earnest or otherwise that could convince me to vote for it - EVER.


2 posted on 03/23/2014 5:43:18 AM PDT by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Politicians lie. That's a given. They usually want what's best for them and not what's in our Republic's best interest. It's up to the voters to be informed. Check out politicians and see who their friends are before pulling that lever.
3 posted on 03/23/2014 5:46:57 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Who would you vote for?


4 posted on 03/23/2014 5:49:31 AM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mulligan

Here in Georgia, I’m going to vote against my congressman who voted with John Lewis and Hank Johnson (Ds) on the Paul Ryan debt capitulation bill. He did this unapologetically after I’d told his office three times that unwarranted debt is one of my triggers (along with any Amnesty of any sort).

I will vote against him in the primary if he has an opponent. If not, I’ll not vote.

For the Senate seat traitor Chambliss is deserting, I’ll vote for any candidate that pledges no debt increases, no Amnesty, and who will pledge to NOT vote for McConnell for leader of anything.

I’m not a Republican, but it is in those races where I might find a viable conservative candidate, so that’s where I’ll vote. At the minimum, I can hopefully influence the reduction in RINOs Georgia sends to DC.


5 posted on 03/23/2014 5:55:23 AM PDT by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I agree with the 80% theory. But if the 20% are the items you mention I will not vote for that so called conservative.


6 posted on 03/23/2014 5:57:48 AM PDT by certrtwngnut (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Thank you. Good luck.


7 posted on 03/23/2014 6:04:07 AM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The Buckley Rule: Support the rightwardmost viable candidate

Do so in every primary and general election. Do so based on your own sound conservative principals, and not the sweet songs of paid political operatives.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/340485/print


8 posted on 03/23/2014 6:04:42 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: certrtwngnut
I agree with the 80% theory. But if the 20% are the items you mention I will not vote for that so called conservative.

Yeah - it's always better to vote against 80% of what you believe in and insure you get someone who is 99% against everything you believe in.

If Sun Tzu had written about warfare like that, he might have an entry that says, "If you cannot win 100% of every battle, you should stay off the field and fall on your sword because you are obviously unable to grasp the concept of fighting".

9 posted on 03/23/2014 6:07:06 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The problem is that ~80% of a politician’s votes are meaningless, on issues where they have no effect on the outcome, so they can vote in a way that burnishes their conservative credentials while doing nothing for the cause.

They can then vote 20% of the time in a way to undermine conservative principles, when it counts.


10 posted on 03/23/2014 6:20:22 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: certrtwngnut

IMHO the 80% rule is old and no longer applies. Reagen was 80’s. Twenty five years in the history of politics in today’s world, is new normal, and those who are on the side of amnesty, debt, spending like a drunken sailor, and trust with no need to verify, do not ever need to be elected to dog catcher, much less a position of trust. They are the enemy, and anyone supporting them is also your enemy.

The hard part is convincing folks that not voting for Republican’s is as dangerous if not more so, than voting Democrat. There is a difference in fundamental beliefs in the two parties. Read the platform and hold your candidates feet to the fire, but do not allow another obama to sneak into office because four million whatever’s just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the lesser enemy.

Perspective, and example says there is not a sane person alive who would make the case that Mitt Romney at his worst, would even hold a candle to the unconstitutional and illegal activities of the present occupant of the White House, and vacations would be none. There I’ve said it.


11 posted on 03/23/2014 6:23:51 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mulligan

Who would you vote for?


Good question.

I believe 80% of the posters on FR should run for president because they won’t find someone that will support 100% of their views. The democrats love these “activists” that sit on their hands while they keep putting their clowns in office.


12 posted on 03/23/2014 6:36:14 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed

Agreed. Reagan made a gee-gosh comment as a PRELUDE to negotiation and to reassure conservatives why he was compromising with Tip O’Neill to move the ball down the field, to gain some ground.

Reagan was NOT laying down a hard and fast rule to govern all campaigns for all time. He was referring to the compromises he cut with Tip O’Neill.

But the 80% figure — any measurement — is meaningless because votes are not all of equal importance.

1 vote may be so important that it outweighs all the other votes.

If the 20% where a Member of Congress diverges are the most important, then the other 80% don’t matter.

The implication is that the 80% agreement matters.

In reality, the RINO’s are voting liberal on the most damaging and most significant and most important issues, and voting conservatives on the LEAST significant issues.


13 posted on 03/23/2014 6:36:42 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

In other words, the entire discussion assumes at all votes have the same value or importance.

They don’t.

The canard assumes that it is possible to measure such things. It isn’t.

The canard also assumes that votes are the only things that matter. They aren’t. An elected official can hurt conservatives and advance liberal policies in many ways other than voting on the floor of Congress.

Suppose a politician had a high conservative ranking based on votes, but campaigned for liberal democrats for office. Would you call that person 80% your friend?


14 posted on 03/23/2014 6:39:29 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Anyone who tells the truth, if that is possible. Smaller government, balanced budget, no amnesty (follow the law), eliminate many federal departments, quit killing the unborn, no quotas, no man/man or women/women marriages, and get evil off the throne and good off the gallows and back on the throne. Social issues are important for without them you have no decent nation.


15 posted on 03/23/2014 6:44:32 AM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Indeed. I can live with the 80% rule as far as politicians who share 80% of the following views (to pick 5, so that they can falter on one of these and hold fast on the others):

Immigration/amnesty
Debt ceiling
Balanced budget
9th and 10th amendment
Closing many unconstitutional federal agencies.

Or, if a politician will fight to close 80% of the federal agencies I think should be shut, then I’ll support them.

If they will work to repeal 80% of the gun laws I think are unconstitutional, they have my vote.

If they will eliminate 80% of the unjustified power of the IRS and NSA, I’m for them.


16 posted on 03/23/2014 6:54:44 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

the problem is ... what is the 20% they disagree with us on?

if it’s:

support for abortion
against gun rights
amnesty for illegal aliens
support for sodomites

Then they might as well be democrats.

I will never support anyone who differs much from me on one of the above issues, I don’t care if I agree with 99% of everything else they believe in


17 posted on 03/23/2014 7:04:41 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

That’s what the little American voters cannot understand: the politician is out for himself, but our uninformed think the politician he recognizes is “on my side”.


18 posted on 03/23/2014 7:08:47 AM PDT by Theodore R. (It was inevitable: Texans will always be for Cornball and George P.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

20% disagreement extends to Amnesty

Exactly!


19 posted on 03/23/2014 7:16:05 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Yeah - it's always better to vote against 80% of what you believe in and insure you get someone who is 99% against everything you believe in.

What will your side do to earn my vote, rather than simply expect it?

20 posted on 03/23/2014 7:21:19 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trebb

So would you eat a slice of cake that had in its ingredients 20% dog shit?


21 posted on 03/23/2014 7:26:16 AM PDT by 60Gunner (Fight with your head high, or grovel with your head low.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Hopefully some of the foolish will wakeup and look more closely at who's running.............and turn off the propaganda called nightly news.

It's also helpful to check if they've made the "right" enemies. However, that doesn't guarantee that they won't get sucked in to the good ole boys vortex.

22 posted on 03/23/2014 7:31:04 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: boycott
The democrats love these “activists” that sit on their hands while they keep putting their clowns in office.

Very well said. Perhaps we should add another rule to the mix: Do not do what the Democrats want you to do.

23 posted on 03/23/2014 7:37:03 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mulligan

no amnesty


I am not suggesting amnesty but we’re not going to be sending 20,000,000 back. We’ve got to be real.


24 posted on 03/23/2014 7:38:02 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Might as well legalize all sin, as we know we can’t stamp it out.


25 posted on 03/23/2014 7:41:31 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Very well said. Perhaps we should add another rule to the mix: Do not do what the Democrats want you to do.


Democrats should send all those “activists” that sit on their hands “Thank You” letters.

80% of what I want is sure better than 0% (this would be Hussein Obama). I will admit that I would still never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I will draw the line there.


26 posted on 03/23/2014 7:41:49 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Might as well legalize all sin, as we know we can’t stamp it out.


80% of what I want still beats the hell out of 0%. Personally, I don’t believe I’ve ever met someone I agree with 100% of the time.


27 posted on 03/23/2014 7:48:13 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Me either, which is why I won’t support any open-borders shill. Politicians claiming to be conservatives but supporting amnesty know they will NEVER have to deliver on their conservative promises. Other stands are negotiable.

Amnesty or anything remotely like it is a deal-breaker.


28 posted on 03/23/2014 7:53:44 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

IMHO, the more fundamental problem is a population rejecting God. Conservatives who reject God are likely to accept any legalistic alternative to failed consequences.

I’ve started meeting more 30 year conservatives who take the position regarding totalitarianism, communism, and socialism as viable alternatives to democracy. Their attitude is “just get over it”.


29 posted on 03/23/2014 7:54:07 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Total nonsense. We have deported millions before and we can do it again. Every other country in the world deports illegals. It’s only a matter of increasing the rate of deportations and making it harder to sneak across the border or overstay one’s visa.

If we give amnesty to the illegals who are here now, America is done.

ANYTHING LESS THAN DEPORTATION IS AMNESTY.


30 posted on 03/23/2014 8:56:28 AM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
The Buckley Rule: Support the rightwardmost viable candidate
As we live in an imperfect world, only God being perfect, that's what I do. And I do it based on what I believe.
31 posted on 03/23/2014 8:56:29 AM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Screw that cr@p! I vote as I damn well please and whoever I damn well please and ALL the so called “leaders” can kiss my @ss. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”


32 posted on 03/23/2014 9:00:35 AM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I could handle 80%, the problem with recent candidates is they’re 0%.


33 posted on 03/23/2014 9:03:04 AM PDT by discostu (Call it collect, call it direct, call it TODAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom

It’s the same with me.

Another thing I do is never stay home and pout on election day because my perfect candidate is not on the ballot. To do so would be to dishonor all of those Americans who have fought to defend and preserve our liberty and our rights.


34 posted on 03/23/2014 9:43:56 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: trebb
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."- Ronald Reagan
35 posted on 03/23/2014 10:49:16 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Romney cleaned up with Independents.

He not only lost to Jimmy Carter’s second term, he is the first candidate to win hugely with Independents, and lose the election.


36 posted on 03/23/2014 10:59:31 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: boycott
I will admit that I would still never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I will draw the line there.

Mitt Romney returned to his pro-abortion position after winning the nomination, and came out against the party's pro-life platform, and ran pro-choice ads in Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

37 posted on 03/23/2014 11:04:00 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

A candidate need not be “perfect.” Loyalty to conservative ideals isn’t “perfect” and isn’t too damned much to ask.


38 posted on 03/23/2014 11:05:16 AM PDT by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rides_A_Red_Horse

Heck, I’d settle for “mediocre.”


39 posted on 03/23/2014 11:06:06 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Another thing I do is never stay home and pout on election day because my perfect candidate is not on the ballot. To do so would be to dishonor all of those Americans who have fought to defend and preserve our liberty and our rights.

And who cares? The fact is that millions of conservatives WILL NOT follow your example.

While you are out doing that, millions of conservatives will be staying home -- NOT campaigning for a candidate who does not inspire them to donate their time -- mowing the lawn, painting the house, studying for a better job, fishing with their grandchildren, spending quality time with their wife or husband, pursuing a hobby or just watching TV.

No matter how strongly you may feel about what you said, what good does that do when millions of conservatives in the grassroots will NOT do as you do?

So the solution is for the GOP to run conservative candidates that make it worth people's trouble to give up their personal, private lives to campaign for the candidate.

What is the alternative? To pound your chest about what SHOULD happen -- BUT WILL NOT happen in reality.


40 posted on 03/23/2014 11:10:15 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: boycott

We should try.


41 posted on 03/23/2014 11:13:10 AM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: boycott
I am not suggesting amnesty but we’re not going to be sending 20,000,000 back. We’ve got to be real.

We could if we wanted to. Bottom line: You don't want to.

Everyone of those people arrived here without help from the U.S. government. Why do they need any help going home again? They knew how to get here when it is illegal. How hard would it be for them to go home with official approval and encouragement for their trip home?

About a million illegal aliens left during the recession because they could not get jobs. Starting to see the recipe?
42 posted on 03/23/2014 11:13:45 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed
Indeed. I can live with the 80% rule as far as politicians who share 80% of the following views

But what if Republican candidates LIE? What if they promise you that they will support 80% of those issues... but they lied? Then when they get into office, they turn around and stab you in the back?

Is someone "80% our friend" if they promise us what we want to hear, but then break their promises once in office (again(?
43 posted on 03/23/2014 11:16:01 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: boycott
80% of what I want is sure better than 0% (this would be Hussein Obama).

If a candidate PROMISES you "80% of what I want" do you imagine you will actually get it after the election and they take office? What does it mean for someone to agree with you 80% of the time if you cannot trust the promises he or she makes to you?
44 posted on 03/23/2014 11:18:13 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Conservatives realize that “80% conservatives” usually vote only 50% conservative once in office. The problem is betrayal.

I disagree: THey still get the 80% ACU rating. It's that the 20% always seems to be on the votes for which they are needed the most. McQueeg is like that...he rolls over for the Rats right when we need him the most. That's "betrayal." Flake the flake set himself upon that path the instant the vote count declared him the winner in the November.

45 posted on 03/23/2014 11:19:48 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
And who cares?

Those who see voting as an obligation of good citizenship. Those who understand and practice the Buckley Rule. Those who appreciate and respect the rights they have as Americans.

If you don't count yourself in that number I will not insult you because of it. Go your own way, stay home. The Republic will survive without you.

46 posted on 03/23/2014 11:23:15 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wita

>>There is a difference in fundamental beliefs in the two parties. <<

Oh really? I notice there is a strong push to repeal Obamacare and balance the budget. Actually both parties are against these issues, strongly against them. I laugh when McCain support Obama and FReepers get upset. Where’s the party line? According to McCain, Lindsey, Issa and Boehner it is across the aisle.

I went to the Independent side of the voting line years ago. Republicans don’t carry enough KY Jelly for me to withstand being cornholed twice weekly.


47 posted on 03/23/2014 11:27:52 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Elites want to avoid change more fervently than they do want to win elections

because the GOP is not an opposition party, but a red herring party intended to fool people into thinking that someone in the establishment still represents them. They'd like to keep up this illusion going until the fundamental transformation is complete.

48 posted on 03/23/2014 11:28:58 AM PDT by uncitizen (Impeach the Communist Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Maybe there was a time when a "moderate" Republican (i.e. liberal) was preferable to a Democrat, but not any more.

If the "moderate" Republican uses that 20% opposing votes to:

No, these bastards don't deserve a vote. They deserve a fair trial, and a fine hanging.
49 posted on 03/23/2014 11:34:50 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
I've been unaffiliated since the "R" party nominated McCain for president. They've only doubled down in most cases since then. If the "R" party, a.k.a. the Stupid party, doesn't put at least a semi-conservative up for any election in which I can participate in for the future, I can *guarantee* I'm voting third party or not at all if there's no better individual nominee. The elitist libtards running the GOPe can go to hell along with their "D" party brethren. The "you have to hold your nose and vote for the liberal Repub or you're really voting for the Dem" argument has run its course.
50 posted on 03/23/2014 11:51:20 AM PDT by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next 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