Message to ?Conservatives

Vanity | Feb. 11, 2004 | Nix Two

[EternalVigilance]

I didn't claim to bring in votes you did.

Nice dodge.

You said millions and I find it fascinating since it was Keyes’ base that sat out 2000.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

There is no doubt that 4 million sat out 2000...

Statistically meaningless. They sat out with tens of millions of other Americans.

...and that 4 million alone would have given Bush a real mandate not to mention the Millions you claim to have mobilized. It is also fascinating that many in that same base are now threatening to sit out 2004.

Ever wonder why Pat Buchanan was a nonfactor in 2000, receiving less than one percent of the total vote? Do you think deeply enough for these matters?

Who held the right flank of the GOP in 2000, Tex?

What would the electoral effect for GW have been if we had taken our ball and gone home?

[Texasforever]

How do you explain the 4 million that sat at home? How do you reconcile that with your claim that YOU as the head of the organization orchestrated a turn out in the "millions". If you did that and if you were the leader you surely could provide record proof of that. You made the claim and it is incumbent on you to validate it or don't make the claim again. The primaries showed a record turn out but the general election went right back to historical averages. That alone shows that many whose primary favorite did not win stayed at home. BTW 4 million is far from statistically irrelevant in an election where the popular vote winner only won by 500,000. Try to at least be intellectually honest.

[EternalVigilance]

I was just sitting here thinking about why I even bother to respond to people like you.

I think the answer is that you are representative of many of the arrogant jerks who run the GOP.

They are the people who treated Alan and the rest of us just exactly like you all treat us here...with total disrespect and scorn.

They are the ones who excluded Dr. Keyes from speaking at the convention even though he represented the views of a majority of the party, and even though he is the best communicator of the conservative message alive today.

If we were selfish, and reacting to the insults suffered, instead of thinking of what was the best for the republic, we WOULD have told the GOP to stuff it in 2000.

If we were selfish, and reacting to the insults suffered from the same types now, we would tell the GOP to stuff it.

But we didn't then, and we won't now.

It is obvious to all thinking people that we cannot afford to have John Kerry and the Democrats in the White House, and that in a two-party system we have no other alternative than the one presented to us by Providence.

The Republican Party is the conservative party in this country, and we will fight for it.

[Texasforever]

Well it is obvious that you can't back up your claim so I will leave you alone until the next time to make it.

[EternalVigilance]

You certainly haven't backed up your spurious claim of 4 million evangelicals staying home, either.

At least I was there.

[EternalVigilance]

So, how many of your supposed 4 million were you personally responsible for in 2000, and what is your quota this time out?

[EternalVigilance]

In recent years, I have traveled much of this great country. Wherever I have gone, I have had conversations with Republicans at all levels.

Invariably, almost always, the response to them finding our about my association with Dr. Keyes is "Oh, I love Alan Keyes!"

This is true from the halls of power in Washington to mainstreets here in Texas.

Now why is that?

It is because his words and the principles he presents represent the great conservative mainstream of the GOP today, and because people appreciate the power of the way he presents THEIR values.

There are only two groups of people that I have ever found that don't like the man: 1) Liberals and 2) Political hacks. Both groups are exceedingly tiny in the Republican Party, although they are represented in powerful positions far beyond their numbers.

[EternalVigilance]

Well, you seem to have taken your ball and gone home, so I'll get some much needed sleep.

Adios.

[Nix 2]

I NEVER referred to ANY Freepers as demons, but like EV, you have taken a common FR pseudonym for democrats and made it seem as if it meant something else. Typical for these kinds of tactics, and most dishonest. Reprehensible, even.

Other than listening to the demons wail about the deficit,...

Now STOP it! As for Keyes, I admire Keyes no end. He is a fantastic orator with exemplary credentials. There would have been no problem with me if he would have WON the nomination. Unfortunately for him, and for his supporters, he didn't. And that makes ALL the difference. He ran and lost. Rigidity has its admirable qualities, but it also has its drawbacks. Few people perceived him as a man who could accomplish much within the brimstone palaces of the House and Senate. Had he won, his principles could not have held his head above water and he and the presidency would have sunk like a stone. Articulating a position in stark black and white is wonderful if your candidacy is based on stating a message and not actually being elected.
You claim to admire him. If you admire him so much, you surely must understand that he had no intention of winning the primaries and/or becoming the nominee. His candidacy was to deliver a message to conservatives. It was received with fervor by many of us, like a cool drink in the midst of a desert. But being elected is something else again. Alan Keyes occupies a prized position on my wall of great people, autographed picture and all. But great people don't always make great presidents and vice-versa.
Alan IS his message, but it would have echoed hollow in a place built on the crumbling foundation of our beloved Constitution where no one listens.
Being free to be real is a life option I don't think Keyes would have really wanted to give up. I was sorely dissappointed when he used the race card to proclaim his skin color as the reason for his loss. It wasn't.
There aren't very many conservatives who didn't believe in their heart of hearts that Alan keyes won every debate he was in. Just as there weren't many conservatives who didn't agree with his stated principles. The VOTE wasn't just based on his orating skills, but on the ability to get things done within the confines of reality. In a perfect world, Alan was a perfect candidate. In the real world, he would not have been able to take even half the heat President Bush has had to endure because he couldn't have controlled the situation OR his temper. Character counts. So does temperament. One he has. The other, he unfortunately does not.
Had he been running for the Senate anywhere but in Moose Country, that great bastion of Mikulski-ites, there is not a doubt in my mind that he could have beaten just about any dem running anywhere west of the Catskills. But Maryland HATES anti-abortionists, AND conservatives, especially BLACK conservatives. He is doing fantastic work where he is free to be who he is. Kudos to the man. He deserves all the respect I can offer. May his flame never go out.

KEYES

[Nix 2]

Let's see your credentials on this subject.

So far, all the *credentials* I've seen from you are what you say you are, (and what I remember about you.) If you want to play fallacy and fantasy philosophy, might I DARE suggest that some of your *comments* about my comments are ad hominem, ridiculous, as well as woefully uninformed.
The pharmaceutical companies have been used against Bush on this thread.
Enron has been used against Bush on this thread.
Halliburton too, if my eyes haven't deceived me.
Any idea why they are slaughtering cattle, EV?

Strawman? In a pig's eye, pal. I KNEW I knew you.

[George W. Bush]

I fully expect them to sit at home in 2004. They never change.

Your arguments are actually quite ridiculous.

If they don't turn out to vote, then you shouldn't fear their influence. If they amount to even 5% of the vote, then you're in trouble. You simply won't know until November. If this matter is so unimportant, it wouldn't even be a part of the political discussion among congressmen and Rove and other GOP strategists.

What you've missed is that you "broken-glass Republicans" are as utterly irrelevant to the political process as are your Democrat counterparts. Nothing will change your vote. Nothing.

Therefore, it is you who are irrelevant. It is you who is the real FRinger in this election year.

In this matter, the fighting of bushbots and bashbots here at FR is little more than a distraction from far more effective action we might otherwise take together to restrain spending by this runaway Congress, a cause to which both bashbots and bushbots could lend their support. And it is a profound error to let Congress off the hook for its spending, even if Bush or his staff have recommended the spending or even twisted arms unwisely a few times.

At this point in the political season, we are having too many threads where we fight pointlessly. And few threads dedicated to actually fighting the issues we argue about endlessly.

The Liberty Caucus

[Dane]

A mere 2% of Freepers said they would vote for Kerry at FR's poll.

I know and you know that there are two viable candidates for the office of President(Bush and Kerry), but it also looks like you want to ignore that reality, so you join the other 8% of the people on FR who does not cast in reality, IMO.

[Bikers4Bush]

For starters you're wrong, it's not one pet issue it's a number of issues that have me heading for more conservative ground.

As for the "modern day reality of the politics", I couldn't care less about what you consider it to be. My reality is that I'm no longer going to vote for liberals, be they democrat or republican.

[TigersEye]

Since when is the Bill of Rights now the Bill of Needs?

Since about 1934 at the very least. ;^)

[EternalVigilance]

The pharmaceutical companies have been used against Bush on this thread. Enron has been used against Bush on this thread. Halliburton too, if my eyes haven't deceived me.

There you go again. It is dishonest to bring those things into a discussion between you and I, since I certainly didn't bring any of them up, nor were any of them central to this discussion. It is a cheap ploy to drop them in the middle of our talk in the vain hope that somehow the silliness of others might somehow stick to me.

That's the kind of crap I'm complaining about. While I have not said a word against the President, and am in fact a supporter that is actually doing something positive on this behalf, you, and others here, by throwing every argument you can think of against everybody, simply piss off people who don't need to be further pissed off right now.

Y'all are bulls in the china shop, politically speaking. None of you will ever be offered a diplomatic post, I assure you.

Any idea why they are slaughtering cattle, EV?

Yes, I know. Contrary to what you obviously believe, I'm not stupid. They are slaughtering cattle because of mad cow disease.

But the idea that this is an intentional attack on us by the Canadians is about the most classic case of tinfiol conspiracy crap I've ever seen.

As to relevency? Well, you'll have to explain that.

[EternalVigilance]

Your remarks vis a vis Dr. Keyes are the most reasonable remarks I have seen you make yet on this thread.

I could quibble with some few of them, but I won't.

[Missouri]

Other than listening to the demons wail about the deficit, what difference has it made in any of your lives?

Sounds to me that this statement applies to anyone who is unhappy about the deficit. If freepers are excluded, please say so.

Ref. post #1. You ask to be flamed. I hope your satified.

BTW. I seen alot worse so-called flame wars than this. This was more like a mild agrument.

[USCG-RET]

Soylent Dem:
Taxes will not have to go up to address the debt, rather the current fiscal policy should maintain a positive growth rate with increased tax receipts / revenues to the Treasury. Taxes do not need to be raised; that's a socialist's answer.

Are tax recipts/revenues higher or lower after Bushs' tax cuts? Does anybody know?