Posted on 12/04/2004 9:38:27 AM PST by GeneralHavoc
What a load of CRAP!!!
Spector did a lot better in the general election in Pennsylvania than did George W. Bush. Spector won the race because he is not as conservative as Bush. And Toomey would have not done as well as Bush because Bush is not as conservative as TOOMEY.
Toomey could not even win a race when the only voters were Republicans. Only a Media fool or rank amatuer could believe that a Republican who could not win a Republican primary could win a general election where Democrats are allowed to vote.
Toomey and Kerry are very similar candidates. Neither understands what it takes to win. Toomey in his primary race against Spector, ran a mostly negative campaign. Kerry in the presidential race ran a negative campaign against Bush. Neither one presented a positive agenda.
Niether Toomey or Kerry ever figured out that a winning candidate has to get people to vote for them.. Only losers try go get voters to vote against their opponent. Toomey and Kerry share a common characteristic. Both are too dumb to win a race against a professional opponent.
There is no irony, it just further proves your lack of integrity.
You have read way too much into the posted article than what was there. I think that it is YOU who is seeing ghosts and straw men.
Chris was referring to the state committee trying to annoint Arlen Specter as the candidate without a primary battle. Arlen and the state committee brought lots of pressure to bear at all levels of the Republican party throughout the state -- from promises of money to threats of withholding money to local committees, local politicians, and even the college republican groups.
All Chris, and the rest of wanted was for the party to stay out of it and let the people choose the candidate. That is an entirely appropriate place for democracy to be exercised.
He isn't advocating direct democracy at all. He believes that the direct election of senators is part of what is killing the republic we have. It's your ghosts that you see, not his.
"Without getting into the horrid results of enslaving politicians and legislators to public whim and flattery,..."
WOW! That's an interesting take. You almost make me feel sorry for these conniving, pandering bastards. Almost, but not quite. They can all burn in the hell that they help create and perpetuate.
"We need people who are willing to put principle before party," he said.lol!
Seems you are reading a good bit more into Mr. Lilik's post than he intended. If you read it again, I think you'll see that Chris was proposing a system of REAL primaries where there are MULTIPLE candidates from which to choose, and MULTIPLE ideas are represented and debated. All too often, the candidate is not chosen in a general primary, but indeed is chosen by, and a front for, the "Kingmakers." I see no suggestion of a change in the system, just a suggestion that we should use the system as originally intended, not as it is currently used, abused, and manipulated.
All Chris, and the rest of wanted was for the party to stay out of it and let the people choose the candidate.That's absurd. Nor is it a very good way to take over a party organization. Instead of whining about how unfair it all is, go make that party your own. But I'm not hearing that in the article. Instead, we're getting "principles over party," which is a good way to start reading oneself out of a party.
You can resent what happened, or you can rebuild. Looks like resentment is leading this chorus.
The only CRAP here is you when you showed up.
How many elections have you won? What position do you now hold? How many campaigns have you managed and won?
Were you here in PA? Do you know how many votes Chris got for Bush INSPITE of Bush supporting Specter in the primary? Do you know how many people were refusing to vote for Bush after his involvement in the primary? Read the article. It said he BOOSTED the numbers. It didn't say that he WON the race, but he did help narrow it.
You completely overlook the grass roots efforts that came together in 3 months and came close to winning a race when he was outspent by a 4 to 1 margin and fought an uphill battle against Bush's influence as well as two US senators. Had he won, the momentum would have continued to grow. We were winning over Democrats who hated Specter and his pandering and vote buying. They just didn't get the opportunity to vote for him.
Toomey didn't lose because of his conservatism. That's why he was gaining despite the other disadvantages. Bush DID lose because he wasn't conservative enough to get people to go out and work for him. They limited their support to simply pulling the lever. He got votes mainly because Kerry was so bad, not that he was so wonderfully moderate.
So take your load of crap back to where ever it is that you normally store it. We aren't buying it here.
But for the intervention of Ricky Santorum and GWB, Toomey would have won the primary. Toomey didn't wage a negative campaign...he simply highlighted Arlen's voting record----Do you consider that negative campaigning? If so, then maybe Snarlen Arlen shouldn't have provided us with SOO much ammunition.
Chris did more than "almost" oust Specter, he forced The Republican Machine into action. I think they were shocked at the effectiveness of the message and the methods. I think Chris has a very bright future.
interesting
You are too full of yourself.
Where you see whining, I see commentary about actions taken. This article is about one race. It doesn't really touch on the other activities that Chris and others are involved in to take back the party, nor should it at this time.
But when the party controls are held by those who seek power solely to exercise power with solid conservative and moral principles to guide it, the people who see it differently need to, are are, getting involved to restructure it. Voicing concerns about it isn't whining. It's letting other know that you also see and problem and are seeking help to resolve it.
But when the party controls are held by those who seek power solely to exercise power with without solid conservative and moral principles to guide it,
Bush could not stop McCain from running in 2000. Spector could not stopp Toomey from running. There are no king makers.
How stupid does one have to be to believe that the Republican Party structure wanted Barry Goldwater to win the nomination in 1964. Nearly everyone except Goldwater knew he dwas going down to a massive defeat.
Those principled Republicans who nominated him thought he was going to win. The most telling thing for me was an interview I had with LBJ after he left office. I asked him to what he attributed his success in getting the "Great Society" passed. He replied, "Without having Barry Goldwater to run against in 1964, there is no way the Great Society could have been passed. Only when the Republicans put up a right winger like Goldwater, could Democrats elect enough senators to allow passage.
There is only one barrior to getting a nomination and then the office. That is enough voters to vote for a candidate.
Almost the entire Republican power structure supported Robert Taft for the Republican nominee in 1952. The Republican voters however wanted Ike. Ike won the nomination.
People who cry that the "Party Power Structure" keeps them from winning, are really saying they do not have enough voter support to win.
Politics is so simple. Convince a majority of the voters to your point of view and only those that support your position will win the nominations and the elections. Fail to get enough support to win and they are reduced to crying about how the system is stacked against them.
I agree with him there.
The only CRAP here is you when you showed up. How many elections have you won? What position do you now hold? How many campaigns have you managed and won?I'll write this about Common Tator not for Badray's benefit, for he's already made up his mind about someone of whom he knows not a thing, but for other readers: The man he's attacking wasn't in PA because he was too busy winning in Ohio -- and with an amazing grass-roots campaign that will be studied as exemplary.
This thread is something. I get called full of myself, arrogant, and ignorant amidst calls for "more debate" and "integrity." The Admin Moderator is called upon to shut down my post for supposedly insulting someone who in a newspaper is quoted calling others corrupt, among things.
Folks here can't see past their anger. Enthusiasm is all very good, but once carried away, it becomes counter-productive, in the least, and often far worse. I came here with some advice to tone it down, especially this business about more democracy and less party, and principles over party and how corrupt the party is and so on. I needn't have bothered, for no one's in a listening mood -- a first sign of the disease, by the way.
Badray, if you really plan on taking over the party, I should hope you use a more tactful approach than that displayed in the original article and throughout this thread. Pissing off the agency to your goals is not a good way to get to them.
Thanks for the welcome. this should be a fun palce to visit.
Chris aka the new Rove has been telling me about it for some time.
So who is this hero of yours? Is he nameless? Since we're going to be graced with his story of magnificance, why don't you name him now so we can practice our bowing and scraping?
BTW, is he a Democrat? He certainly isn't a conservative or have any appreciation for conservative values.
I can't figure out why he is on FR.
www.grassrootspa.com
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.