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

To: Breto
When the choice is to vote for a liberal with an R behind their name or a liberal with a D behind their name whats the point.

Fiorina was a pro life, pro 2nd Amendment, anti tax God fearing conservative! So what is the excuse in not voting for her against Boxer?
10 posted on 11/15/2010 7:13:33 PM PST by Amos McCoy (I am, The Real McCoy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Amos McCoy

Actually did vote for her but not Meg. I do believe Carley would have gone into the McCain Gramnisty camp once she got there though.

And your right she was pro life vs the abortionist loving boxer


21 posted on 11/15/2010 7:49:31 PM PST by Breto (never accept the premise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Amos McCoy; Korah; Carry_Okie; DoughtyOne; ElkGroveDan; CounterCounterCulture; SierraWasp; Czar
Fiorina was a pro life, pro 2nd Amendment, anti tax God fearing conservative!

And what about the other 100 issues a Senator deals with?

Carly was not a conservative when you look at the total package. Carly bragged about favoring the repeal of DADT, was pro-amnesty, pro-DREAM Act, pro-green energy and "green jobs", talked of more regulation and meddling by the feds, would not renounce global warming and touted cap and trade during the presidential election. She said she was pro-life but would not consider it a litmus test for judges and was for states rights -- and that California had already decided that it favored abortion so she would respect their wishes. The same for offshore drilling: she supported it but since the people didn't want it, she wouldn't fight for it. Anti-tax? Not really. She wanted more handouts for big business (see her plan for "special economic zones".) The list goes on.....

Carly ran TV ads saying how she would oppose Republicans "when they were wrong" (see issues above). Her ads trying to paint Boxer as arrogant exemplified her own arrogance. Is Boxer worse? Sure! But Carly certainly did not give folks much to vote FOR.

The campaign hacks who ran botched campaigns are reiterating the mantra of California being a Blue State, how the demographics will never allow a conservative (or Republican) to get elected, if only more "moderate" candidates ran (and on and on, ad infinitum). Well of course they will say that - how else can they excuse their miserable performance in terms of candidates and the campaigns they ran. Mike Murphy was the worst -- he tries to blame his own incompetence on everything but himself.

Look at the numbers -- people say that the Dems have a higher registration (true) therefore the GOP should move leftward. They use this to justify forever chasing the non-existent "middle" and completely ignoring that three-fifths to one-half of the electorate didn't even bother to show up and vote. Conservatives won't get excited about electing liberals, even when they put an R next to their name. And why would Democrats vote for a Republican when they have a liberal in their own party to vote for?

But year after year, the idiots "leading" our state party give us the same non-choice choices. Which makes me believe they are not "idiots" at all, but utterly corrupt at the core.

32 posted on 11/15/2010 10:36:33 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

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