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.
In TODAY's Democratic Party?
Good luck!
I don't think many of your type will get through the vetting process.
I see strong parallels between My campaign and the Tea Party's fight with the establishment leadership of the Republican party. I'm the black sheep pushing for reform and a return to the traditional values which made My party strong. Only with support from like-minded individuals can those of us who undertake the quest to serve attain those offices and make real, lasting change in our country.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09
The issue is that if you caucus with them you will be supporting them in an effort at majority control, whatever your claims of separate values are in your personal platform.
At best you will be an outcast from your party, given no role in legislative terms and be a less than effective representative. Call yourself a federalist democrat if you will, but now try and distance yourself from the democrat foreign policy, federal aid to our less than friends abroad and the whole kit and caboodle of democrat history.
Its a gimmick, nothing more. Product differentiation like selling fruit in the vegetable section by mislabeling it.
You oughta be a Republican!
I was offered the chance to switch when I first ran. I'm sticking with Jefferson and Jackson.
A Conservative at least...
I'm an Anti-Federalist. I'm more "conservative" than most conservatives when it comes to strictly interpreting the Constitution, which means I'm opposed to laws which try to legislate morality (a thing many conservatives are for). I believe the States are sovereign and that the People are the final arbiters of constitutionality not the Supreme Court.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09
The issue is that if you caucus with them you will be supporting them in an effort at majority control, whatever your claims of separate values are in your personal platform.
So, you are saying the Tea Party Republicans in the House are supporting John Boehner and the establishment Republicans' positions and "values" by caucusing with them?
At best you will be an outcast from your party, given no role in legislative terms and be a less than effective representative. Call yourself a federalist democrat if you will, but now try and distance yourself from the democrat foreign policy, federal aid to our less than friends abroad and the whole kit and caboodle of democrat history.
I'll be no more an outcast than the existing Blue Dogs or Tea Partiers are. I'm an Anti-Federalist Democrat, not a Federalist. I can and do distance Myself from ideas I don't support or espouse. That is no different than anyone else running for office. Trying to paint a whole party with one stroke is a mistake before your brush hits the canvas. My Democrats are all pre-Wilson and I am proud to stand with them.
Its a gimmick, nothing more. Product differentiation like selling fruit in the vegetable section by mislabeling it.
From what you write, I conclude that you believe all the Tea Party congressmen are gimmicks and charlatans, also.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09
On the other hand, had he won with less than 50 percent of the vote with most American voters on record as having opposed him, I would be okay with that. That would weaken leftism all around.
Only bad can come of "supporting" such a figure. We must resort to another path in terms of the ballot box.
Why do you try to get people "out to vote" who don't care enough to do it themselves?
Listen, I consider voting a DUTY. Blood and sacrified paid for my vote; to stay home and decline to use that franchise when I knew better would be spitting in the faces of veterans, as far as I'm concerned. I have a DUTY to vote because I pay attention. Ignorance is bliss -- ignorant, lazy folks should stay home. But knowledgeable folks?
If what you say is true, then the "purists" you're talking about have either never voted or vote very seldom. Those kinds of one-issue "purists" are not purists. They're shallow one-issue voters too lazy to do their due diligence. When those people stay home, we're ALL better off. I'm glad when they stay home because they're doing it not to protest lack of decent candidates, but because voting is out of their league. America is better off when elections are decided by folks who care enough to vote carefully.
But for FReepers to stay home? I rarely say so, but I consider staying home as a protest to be surrender, stupid surrender, and a betrayal.
And one other thing, Mogger -- even mostly indifferent shallow one-issue Americans who nonetheless really just want the same things we do -- freedom to live morally and prosperously -- would get out in DROVES if they ever had anything to vote for. But intead, they get browbeaten into voting "against" the other guy by voting FOR somebody they loathe.
You hold your nose. WHY? Your nose is WARNING YOU that you're voting for something that STINKS!!!!
Unless you've been voting steadfastly Republican in every election since before the late 1970s, I wager I have held my nose a lot more than you have. It took me 35 years to figure out that I should have been heeding it.
Those of us who want to restore limited government so we have the freedom to live morally -- that is, the freedom to tell open homosexuals to take a hike, the freedom to prevent murder (abortion), the freedom to embrace this nation's CHRISTIAN heritage and put it in its rightful place as the inspiration for our laws, the freedom to have Christmas trees and creches where ever we want, the freedom to be charitable in a CHRISTIAN way rather than the amoral government welfare EBT entitlement way -- we have a duty to vote.
Since the option of voting "against" is moot (learned the long and hard way), if you're going to use your vote WISELY, you will vote FOR. Always. The imperfect candidate -- Newt -- I'd have voted for him gladly in 2012, though he was about as far from perfect as you could get. No "purism" there, but the "you purist 'cause you didn't vote for Romney!" folks erase that truth because they cannot handle acknowleding it.
I have to vote. Sitting at home is surrender, it is betrayal of the men who died for my right to vote. So I vote, and I encourage other people to vote.
Do you know why they stay home, mogger, not the "purists" that you're talking about who would probably stay home anyway, pardon me, but real every day folks who normally vote in eveyr election but who sat it out because of Romney. Do you know why they stayed home?
I do.
When REagan left, it went to hell in a hand basket.
Is that right?
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
If the GOP had either the executive or one house of the legislative branch, we wouldn’t have the affordable care act to deal with.
Stay home, Purists or vote for a third party and you will feel great COMPLAINING for thenext 20 years and Apologizing to your kids and grandkids!!
Yeah, I caught just that.
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
The early Democrats were pro-slavery. How in the hell can you call those HYPOCRITS "honest men with integrity"?
And you want to be like them. Well, thanks for your honesty!
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
Nope. But certain trends can be determined by looking at demographics.
Does not matter if I stay home or not. I live in California, nuf said.
Do I think Gingrich was perfect? FAR FROM IT. But I'd have voted for him gladly.
Do you know why? WHY would I have voted for Gingrich, ANN??? HELLO??????? Even though I disagree with him considerably on many issues and principles? WHY would I have voted for him, ANN??????? Hey, ANN?
Because I'm not a purist, you idiot. Yes, "idiot," a deliberate insult because the accusation of "purist" is nothing MORE and nothing LESS than an insult. PURISTS ARE FIGMENTS OF YOUR ANGRY IMAGINATION.
Ann, you will no more have the guts to answer this question than any of the other dozen FReepers I've asked, but WHAT did you vote FOR? Don't tell me what you voted against, Ann. I already know that. What did you vote FOR?
Hey, Ann -- TELL US. In writing, right here on Free Republic. When you voted for Romney what were you voting FOR?
Don't tell me what you were voting "against." I already know.
Explain to me: WHAT WERE YOU VOTING FOR?
Morality is destiny. Demography is pretense.
I can answer that for her I WAS VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A MUSLIM MARXIST END OF STORY!!!!!
That is a lazy, piss-poor answer and you know it. When you voted for Romney as someone who "a muslim Marxist end of story," what were you voting FOR?
For the love of God, THINK about it! Don't you even wonder what you were voting FOR????????
As opposed to voting FOR someone who was a leftist tyrant? Because that is what you DID vote for, though he wasn't Muslim and wasn't Marxist.
In other words, Kit Cat, Ann Archer, and all the rest of you who insist that those of us who refused to vote for Romney were "purists" even though most of us would have voted for Gingrich when we disagree with him profoundly on many issues ... hmmm .. how is that purist???? .... but ...
... in other words, you voted without a single solitary reflection as to what you were voting FOR.
How do you vote "against"?
By voting FOR something else.
So -- when you voted for Romney, I know you were voting "against" Obama. WHAT WERE YOU VOTING FOR?
I voted third party and I know exactly what I was voting for. Do ANY OF YOU know what you were voting for? Did any of you who so stupidly and defensively and deceitfully insult me and others as being "purists," did any of you even give any thought as to what you were voting FOR?
Or were you so blindly panicked and fearful that you failed completely to consider what you were voting FOR?
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.