Skip to comments.Holding Your Nose, AKA the Lesser of Two Evils (Vanity)
Posted on 02/11/2007 6:00:59 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
It boggles the mind.
First of all, it's only a few months after the 2006 elections ended, and we're already on the move towards the 2008 elections. I'm sorry, but doesn't Bush have two years left? A lot can change until then.
Secondly, let's look at some of the current frontrunners for the GOP.
Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani.
Romney has flip-flopped on positions many times, so I wouldn't give him my vote. John McCain, despite his strong conservative rating from the ACU (lifetime of 83), he is partially responsibility for the travesty of McCain-Feingold, aka CFR. He is also a supporter of amnesty. Sorry.
Giuliani, although strong on national defense, is a devout Leftist. Pro-abortion. Pro-gun control. Pro-homosexual rights. He embraces illegal immigration. It stuns me that he has as large a following on Free Republic as he does.
There are far better candidates out there. Tom Tancredo (lifetime rating of 99). Sam Brownback (lifetime rating of 95). Duncan Hunter (lifetime rating of 92).
Why are so many going to hold their noses and compromise their beliefs? Name recognition? Why? It bewilders me.
We have Pro-Life candidates in Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo. We have anti-illegal immigration and Pro-border control candidates in Hunter and Tancredo (this is where Brownback slips up; support for a guest worker program? Voted yes on allowing illegals access to Social Security? No thanks.). We have pro-second amendment candidates in all three (NRA gave Hunter an A+, and both Brownback and Tancredo an A). All three are supportive of the War on Terror.
So please. Tell me. Why not vote for any of these three (particularly Tancredo and Hunter; Brownback's position on immigration irks me)? Why not?
Who cares about name recognition at this point? It's 2007. November 2008 is a long way away. A lot can change between now and then.
I refuse to compromise on MY beliefs in this matter. I will not vote for a candidate who is socially no different from the socialists on the Left. Hanging up your hat at this point is akin to giving up.
Vote for Hunter. Vote for Tancredo. Get the word out.
You are correct, of course. But, there are bedrock principles that some of us will never compromise.
Well placed vanity and interesting/informative comments. Thanks.
Now I checked out his website and he's only touting 3 issues. Now fair trade, pro-defense, and being pro-life is fine, but it's all moot if government continues to confiscate our incomes and promote liberal policies that destroys families and promotes destructive lifestyles.
"Government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he (Giuliani) said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering."
Just like they did on Bob Dole in 1995, the always-treacherous and slimy Jonathan Alter telling Republicans in one of his magazine essays in August 1995 that in order to be "taken seriously," Republicans would have to nominate Dole because of his gravitas in 1996.
Of course, by that date Dick Morris had already put in Bill Clinton's hands polling data (bought with Chinese reptile money, let's not forget -- that's what Slick used their money for) that showed Dole was their best matchup on the GOP side -- Clinton's ideal opponent.
Let me put this discussion in simply terms;
A Republican President is more likely to ensure that the enemy and his ability to wage war continues to be destroyed, somewhere other than the USA.
A Democratic President will end the killing of terrorists. Ceasefires are just a time for the enemy to reload as lonf as they are alive.
A Democratic President will seal the fate of New York City and hundreds of thousands of civilians who will die at the hand of terrorists that should be being killed themselves.
Okay, We lose NYC or we elect a Republican President who even though he has some personal liberal social views but will nominate strict constitutionally originists judges.
Now go vote!
When it comes down to the national election, I will probably vote R. It depends.
But when it comes to the primaries, there is NO reason to hang up your hat and vote for someone like Giuliani this early.
I could win the war in a matter of weeks...
I could stop the treason, security leaks and sedition coming from the media in New York...
The trouble is your pet liberal hasn't the guts to speak up and challenge his liberal lovers in Rockefeller Plaza...
In that unfortunate event, my vote would be 3rd party. Of course, it will make no difference in the results. But, my conscience will be clear.
"Just one of 435 House members". Yeah, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Sure, that doesn't set him apart!
The Republicans had idea fatigue. This is why term limits are a good thing- these guys forgot how to be Conservative or Republican, and joined the Congressional party.
Party mottos? "Because it's good for you!" and "Don't you know who I am?"
In the primaries, I will vote for Hunter.
In the national election, I will vote for the person with the R by his name. Maybe.
If you are sure that NY city will be destroyed with the Lizard Queen sitting on the throne, that would be a reason for many people in America to support her. If you say Hollywood would be nuked as well, she'll get about 90% of the vote.
Cthulu would like to have NY City destroyed as well. He want to eat their souls.
Maybe the links to the issues will FINALLY make the RINO-rudy-rooters STFU.
Their constant refrain (many might call it whining, bleating, etc.) has been, "Don't just come on FR and trash my candidate, how about providing WHY you want your candidate...blah blah blah).
That refrain is ALMOST as ridiculous and without merit as their favorite, "All of you are just ONE issue voters, blah blah blah).
We TRUE CONSERVAIVES have mentioned WHY we are FOR Duncan Hunter and others like him on MANY occassions, and we have listed CONSERVATIVE ISSUE after CONSERVATIVE ISSUE that our candidate MUST support, including RIGHT-TO-LIFE and 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS (which, even if these were the ONLY two issues mentioned, they are EXTREMEMY important to us, and are more than ONE issue)
Just say NO to any and all RINOs.
Don't forget the "Keating Five".
Like "Speaking truth to Pwer" it also tells you they have no genuine ideas about any real problems. Pelosi has ideas- all bad, but she has them. Trust me, she knows what she wants to do.
The Gang of 14 should NOT be forgotten either - again McCain singlehandedly radicalizes our judicial process and screws the Constitution.
I seriously doubt that I could vote for him under ANY circumstance.
I agree 100%.
It all goes back to VOTE NO if it's a riNO on the ticket.
Well, that completely depends on one's assessment of what the political landscape will be in late 2008. If one concludes that there are no social conservative candidates who can win in the general, then any responsible conservative has to look at who can when and then choose which of those is the best on the issues. But I can certainly understand that there is a difference of opinion right now on who is and isn't electable in the general.
I fail to see how Rudy's gun-control policies are an example of how government exists to keep people safe in their homes.
And government exists to reinforce and protect the RIGHTS of its citizens. Never forget that.
Concerning McCain and CFR: Making mistake is very different than deliberately commtting a wrong.
McCain has a tremendous amount of personal baggage as well!
LOL. There is a good side to a Demonrat victory!! And that would very likely be the outcome of a Hillary presidency- she'd kill off Demonrats.
Lincoln was not a member of the House of Representatives, he was a FORMER member of the House as well as a failed candidate for United States Senator.
Thanks for the ping. Nothing like popcorn in the morning!
Yeah, that's worked out great with Cheney, who SHOULD be our CONSERVATIVE president, not being able to keep Bush's "compassionate", RINO-like tendencies in check.
Our placation is IMPOSSIBLE if there is a RINO at the top of the heap.
Yes, but he was indeed in the lower house, wasn't he?
I do believe that one can take "electability" into account, but...it must not be considered more important than principle, otherwise you end up losing everything you were trying to achieve in the first place.
File that thought in your memory for after the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Won't be many jokes then.
I grok "Lizard Queen" as another interesting epithet for Beastwoman, but whom do you mean by "Cthulhu" (sp?)?
Actually, they're not even that consistent. Many, if not most, of them have said that they won't vote for McCain.
John Ellis Bush.
I'm done "holding my nose" to vote for the lesser of two evils. This is why globalist elites keep getting voted into office. If I don't see any honorable R candidates next time around, I will vote for a third party candidate.
That will be news to Ike Skelton (D) of Missouri.
Well, I'm f'ing worried that so many (even though, a minority - witness the earlier poll n FR) on "our" side are already making the races so personal and trying to PUSH liberal RINO filth upon us.
because it may seem easier than building your guy up.
How CAN you miss what we true Conservatives have been saying all along?
LOOK, READ, COMPREHEND.
There are links to the issues stated/voted on by OUR candidates in this very thread.
So he's now ranking member, but has held the leadership position on the most powerful committee so he is more than just 'another bench warmer'. And, frankly, we now need Hunter in the White House to tell Skelton and the rest of them how it's going to be done.
Why do you need to be reminded over and over and over?
When was a Mayor elected as POTUS?
When was a Women elected as POTUS?
When was a 70 year old elected as POTUS?
When was a Mormon elected as POTUS?
When was a half-Black man elected as POTUS?
Please add me to your ping list. Thanks
[EEE] Perhaps because FReepers care more about our nation's defense and limiting the size of government than about social issues a President has little control over and that Congressional Republicans did nothing to advance?
Congress did little to advance the idea of limited government, either, as George Will pointed out in an essay in which he primly pronounced Goldwaterism dead on the operating-room table.
The MSM is promoting Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and McCain because they think they could get social legislation passed (gun control, socialized medicine) that would kill off what's left of conservativism.
A liberal like Rudy Giuliani who understands defense and how to administer is called a 50's liberal, or sometimes is a.k.a. a NeoCon. He isn't a conservative of any description.
A liberal in charge of the GOP allows the MSM to split the conservatives off from the RNC and give them a Democrat in the White House. That's the play that is being made now.
Then you get down to the "Am I going to cast a vote, or make a gesture?" issue.
How about Hunter?
I think after you learn about Hunter you will change your tagline "Vote For Hunter" instead of "Vote For Rudy". The tide is rising for the "Patriot With The Big "R". Welcome aboard.
Don't speak for the majority of us here on FR, goofball (look at the results of the previous FR poll on this matter).
If that's ALL we care about (how can a true conservative just flippantly set aside two of our most important issues, the protection of innocent LIFE, and our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS), we might as well turn Dem and vote for men like Tester and Webb.
It HAS always been, and SHOULD always BE, about MORE than just security and fiscal matters.
Otherwise, we are no better than our DOMESTIC ENEMIES, the liberal demonRATS, and I would submit (and have submitted on MANY occasions)...
The liberal RINOs amongst us.