Skip to comments.Earth to purists: Give me an imperfect Republican over a 'perfect' Democrat any day
Posted on 03/24/2014 11:13:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Then maybe we can at least solve some problems.
Last week a caller to my radio show opined about the problems of this Democrat administration and this Congress. The list of complaints was extensive. He touched on foggy foreign policy, a sluggish economy, joblessness, waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars, environmental extremism, lack of leadership . . . and the list goes on.
He then, and rightly so, threw the Republicans under the bus, pointing out that they did not boldly solve things when they were in control of the White House and Congress. I acknowledged that he was correct in his criticism, but that I would rather have an "imperfect Republican" in control of the federal government than a "perfect Democrat".
Our nation is suffering from liberal, inconsistent policies and crony governance like we have not seen for decades, due to a White House and Democrat-controlled Senate gone wild. Lies, deception, corruption and denial in government are at an all-time high.
Imperfect Republicans are simply not nearly as arrogant or blatantly oblivious to the will of the working class. And in fact, they have a better historical record of at least a moderate level of leadership or better, even in a politically partisan climate.
Some people want to make an ideological statement by not supporting or voting for either Democrats or Republicans. I hope they are feeling good about themselves while these "perfect Democrats" continue to impose destructive policies, such as ObamaCare, on businesses and the citizens of this country.
Still others are single-issue voters, or at least they use that as an excuse. Earth to single-issue voters! We have more than a single issue driving this nation in the wrong direction. Agreeing with a candidate 10 out of 10 times would require a miracle. How about six out of 10 times so we can solve some problems!
I personally experienced this years ago when I ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. A certain financially well-to-do Democrat had encouraged me for years to run for public office. When I finally did run in 2004, she would not support me because I was "pro-life" and she was "pro-choice". She refused to support me on the other nine issues we agreed on.
I am not saying that Republicans are all that and a bag of chips. They are not. But at least Republicans don't sell you an empty bag of chips, and then tell you they did you a favor while they control all the chips. That's what perfect Democrats do.
If the Founding Fathers knew what we know today, they probably would have included a balanced budget amendment and term limits in the Constitution, and precluded the possibility of the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows the Congress to tax our income.
Perfect Democrats would never consider those changes to the Constitution. They love power and control over the people too much. But at least we have a chance with imperfect Republicans. They would at least leave some of the chips in the bag.
That's why we continue to fight.
Why bother, they both seem to get you to the same place (totalitarian socialist government) one just gets you there a little slower than the other (and not really all that much slower by the way).
Herman Cain: Back on the scene to give stupid advice. “Last weak on my radio show” I gave a caller advice on how to access Obamacare.
Big difference between an imperfect Republican and a liberal-in-Republican-guise.
Romney was one of the least perfect Republicans I could imagine. But he was an American. I suspect he is patriotic. I do not believe he would have continued to damage America on the world scene as Obama has. I think America would have been much better off under his socialist-lite approach than under a died-in-the-wool communist. But the purists stayed home. They expect that the GOP will eventually have to give them a genuine conservative. Hell will freeze first. Sometimes you have to conduct a retreat and fight has hard as you can. But not to vote at all leaves the winnings to the pure evil of the likes of Obama and the modern day renamed communists.
We have been putting 'imperfect republicans' in office for decades now, and the nation is still circling the commode. Far from than challenging "perfect democrats" on anything, "imperfect republicans' seem to be colluding with them on dozens of big government initiatives.
I say lets give 'perfect republicans' a chance.
"Moderate levels of leadership" come from "moderate" Republicans pitching "moderate" policies, Herman. It takes ideals to produce real leadership.
Romney would have continued the same naive, Ivy League, Neo-con foreign policy of the Bushes. They set us up to become the laughing stock of the world and proved to everyone we’re not just a paper tiger in theory, we are a paper tiger indeed. I did vote for that con man, but I don’t blame anyone who didn’t. I’m not going to be guilted again into voting for Jeb, Krsipy, Huskter, or any other GOPe candidate. They’d better anoint someone else if they want my vote.
We HAVE BEEN trying it your way for decades now! That’s what people like you have termed “the lesser of two evils” concept and it`s undeniably helped bring us to the present state of affairs! So tell us, how`s your concept going to help?
In my nearly 12 years on Free Republic, I have never come across a purist. NOT ONCE.
I've come across many folks, however, who accuse others of being purists.
Voting "against" leftist Democrats necessarily entails voting for something or someone. This is because materially and mathematically, voting "against" is pure sophistry; mathematically and materially, you either vote FOR something, or you decline to vote. Voting "against" is strictly an artifice.
If you vote "against," by definition you must vote FOR something.
Folks who voted for Romney are passionate in writing about what they intended to vote "against."
They are profoundly silent in writing about what they were voting FOR.
I’m with you Skeeter. I have but one litmus test, “Does not collude with liberals, be they Democrat or Republican.”
Meanwhile the true “purist” moderates continue to drag the country leftward.
I will try and vote out the “imperfect” Republicans. I will support the Tea Party persons however I can. In the end I will vote for the glass being half full versus empty. We need to move the Republican party to the Conservative side election by election.
“So tell us, how`s your concept going to help?”
First, it’s not “my” concept. It’s what we have to deal with. Failing to deal with the situation or candidates as they are if failure to deal with reality. Politics is like arbitration. Neither side gets what they want and nobody is happy. But do you really think a Romney presidency would be as bad as or worse than Obama? At least he’s an American.
THIS "purist" voted. THIS "purist" voted FOR weakening whichever amoral leftist government tyrant, Romney OR Obama, ended up in the White House. This "purist" has finally figured out that voting "against" guarantees EXACTLY the same elusive outcome as hunting unicorns.
BOTH Romney and Obama were 100 percent ON BOARD, Gen. Blather, with a) forcing all businesses, individuals, organizations, employers, schools, civic clubs, adoption agencies, etc. to accommodate open homosexuals or else; b) government-run micro-managed control of health and medical care; c) on-demand "affordable" (tax payer subsidized) abortion; d) heavy and onerous government control of food and energy production and consumption in the name of "saving the planet" global warming.
General Blather, when you voted for Romney, you were voting FOR the Republican Party to lead the way in promoting those things. That is what you were voting FOR.
"Purist," my foot. COMMON SENSE. Try it some time.
Both political parties have one thing in view and it has nothing to do with any of the citizenry consider “honest governing”.
They BOTH see a multi-trillion dollar US Treasury they can use to buy the petty-favors of the populace to assure them in their positions of power.
It is why we have a single party system.
It IS that simple.
Amen. Please see my post #17.
“...voting “against” is pure sophistry;...”
Pure sophistry? Isn’t that a factory that upholsters sofas? lol
“But the purists stayed home. They expect that the GOP will eventually have to give them a genuine conservative. Hell will freeze first.”
Then the GOP’s fate is sealed, with or without the purists’ votes.
General Blather, you are just too cowed, intimidated, frightened, and faint-hearted to seek OTHER ways we can deal with this.
The most important first step is to face the uncomfortable truth that YOU ONLY GET TO VOTE FOR.
What have you been voting for, Gen. Blather?
I don't want to know what you've been voting against. I want to know what you've been voting FOR.
“They BOTH see a multi-trillion dollar US Treasury they can use to buy the petty-favors of the populace to assure them in their positions of power.
It is why we have a single party system.
It IS that simple.”
Pretty much sums it up. Sadly I don’t see us ever getting a real change as any reformers elected are soon corrupted after spending a few years in DC.
Apparently, a “purist” is anyone who won’t vote for the latest GOPe flavor. So if in 2016 it’s Jeb, or Christie, or Romney Redux, and you won’t jump on the bandwagon and dance to their tune, then you’re a “purist”.
So, Herman ... remind us why you ran for President again?
Demographics is destiny...
Conservatives to “Earth”.
We tried it that way. Even if you get elected you still hate us.
Quit being our enemy.
“Attack” the treasury.
Politicians by definition lean on the larger body politic.
If they can’t get a consensus (politics being the art of the possible) then they can’t do the thing envisioned, no matter how virtuous.
Our answer is in a different direction. Get the Lord exalted among the people. Last time I looked that constitution still began “We The People.” There’s the onus. You can not pump this from the political end any more than you can push a rope!
In the meantime, Republican lite may be the best you can affirm... everyone else having washed out.
The real purists are those progressive Republicans insisting on party line voting to THEIR benefit. But it’s been proven over and over they do not support conservatives.
Lugar and another retired GOPe just endorsed DEMOCRATS for pete’s sake. I’m still waiting for Cain’s column brow beating them.
The fact remains: voting "against" is an oxymoron. Even when you vote "against" a yes-or-no ballot proposition, in reality you're voting FOR nixing it. You either vote "Yes," I'm FOR nixing this proposition, or you vote "No," I'm FOR keeping it as is.
Either way, you are voting FOR something. EVERYONE, please grasp the reality: voting "against" is a fallacy. No matter how much you wish it wasn't true, you ONLY get to vote for.
So when you vote, vote in terms of FOR because it is the ONLY thing that counts.
Gen.blather huh? Well it suits you! Blather on because my mind is made up and I don`t give a rat`s ass what a spineless blathering braying jackass like you thinks. Get bent, asshole!
Hey I told the truth again.
The purists assume that the GOPe WANTS to win a presidential election. I don't. I'm thinking that the GOPe is just fine with being out of the presidency. If there was a Republican in the White House, the GOPe would be held accountable for results by the R voters.
With a Dem in the White House, the congressional Repubs can continue to get the perks of office and route goodies to their friends in exchange for playing ball with the Dems.
Morality is destiny. Demographics is PRETENSE.
In that case nobody would get voted in because there is bound to be at least one skeleton.
Perfection won’t be found on this mortal coil till Christ returns and then it’ll only be Him.
Nope not even morality.
A real live God who USES morality, is.
moderates are the most extreme people you will ever meet.
George Romney wanting Goldwater thrown out of the party and then turning to Saul Alinsky to help solve the problems of Detroit.
You have got to stop this stalking and trying to drag me into threads that I’m not on, to carry your arguments from thread to thread.
Earth to GOP establishment—
Stop treating tea party people like they are the bad guys.
I was doing the play with words thing again. Carry on..
I am sick of voting for anyone with a “U” next to their names arn’t you?
I still like Herman a lot
Ha ha ha! Go ahead and flag even Jim Robinson again if you want. moder_ator. Did you even notice what appeared?
I remember when the US seante ws filled with genuine Lib Republicans Coooper, Case,Percy, pearson,weicker, goodell, Hatfield, Packwood,Mathias and others. These were real liberals not just moderates or squishes. But they were all better then any of the Dems(well almost all of them). They were genrally Republcians and supported you on the partisan issues(Goodell and Weicker excepted). The Rinos of today are not liberal like they are they are just squishes. The problem isn’t so much with the moderates it is the backstabbers namely McCain and Grahamamnesty. These idiots both have generally conservative records that are not lib. But, they have an ego driven need to stab you in the back when it is really important. These two they need to be replaced no matter what.
However, there are many who accuse others of looking for perfection in a political candidate. THAT is as far as it goes.
Anyone anywhere who accuses someone of seeking a "perfect" political candidate is openly, intentionally insulting that person. THAT IS AS FAR AS IT GOES.
Why? Because any sensible person understands the truth of what you write: Perfection wont be found on this mortal coil till Christ returns and then itll only be Him.
I know it, you know it, and I guarantee you that every person on Free Republic knows it, even if they're atheists. THEREFORE, the only function of accusing someone of seeking a "perfect" political candidate is to intentionally insult that someone.
THAT IS AS FAR AS IT GOES.
“The purists assume that the GOPe WANTS to win a presidential election.”
It was astonishing that H. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney ran such poor campaigns. My thinking at the time was, except for H. Bush and Romney that it was their last chance to play for the brass ring. They’d banked enough political capital and had enough chips to play. But they were incredibly bad candidates.
In business I’ve seen horrible candidates politic for and get high status jobs they were unsuited for. It’s a disaster, though usually not for the jobseeker who gets a golden parachute. All of the above ran anemic lackadaisical campaigns. I don’t think it was because they didn’t want the job. I think it was because they had been locked into their various jobs with no serious rivals so they didn’t know how to run a competitive campaign. Because ego-wise, they all wanted that job.
Obama was transported into the office twice by the media and white guilt. We see how horrible he is at the job because, like the others, he never really had to defend himself. He stands before the few angry questions he does get like a deer in the headlights. Pitiful.
I think you really do got a trust-in-princes mindset.
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.