GOP Left Holds Right Hostage

Insight Magazine ^ | September 16th, 2002 | Rod D. Martin

[rb22982]

Nothing in my premise is false and there is no way you can prove that it is.

[rb22982]

Yes I am angry at American socialism. If you aren't then you might not want to call yourself a conservative.

[snopercod]

The irony, of course, is that the Republican leadership gave Jeffords and Chafee this power.

'Nuff said. They capitulated before the battle was joined, as usual.

[Sabertooth]

Because the conservatives do NOT deliver enough votes to make up for the lost votes in the middle, and have not done so since 1992.

Only once were conservatives appealed to since (and including) 1992, and that was in 1994. Did they show up? Can you name a bigger GOP victory in that time?

Your premise is simply wrong.

Bottom line: your flavor of conservative charges too much for its vote. The result is that the GOP looks elsewhere to get votes.

The price of conservative votes is GOP victory. That's too steep for "centrists," so they continue to look elsewhere in campaign after failed campaign.

If centrist campaigns lose, it's the centrists' fault.
If conservative campaigns lose, it's the conservatives' fault.

How can it be otherwise?

[Sabertooth]

They capitulated before the battle was joined, as usual.

One must concede that playing prevent defense when receiving a kickoff as at least a novel strategy.

Or was.

[Poohbah]

I'm not angry at it, I just accept that it's another obstacle to accomplishing conservative goals.

If you aren't then you might not want to call yourself a conservative.

(PBX Hold Voice) "Thank you for your input. Your call is very important to me. Please wait on the line and someone who actually cares what you think will be on the line. The estimated waiting period is 276 days, 19 hours, and 37 minutes. Please wait on the line."

[rb22982]

The RP asking conservatives to vote for 'centrists' (aka socialism-lite) is like saying would you prefer being kicked in your 'boys' (dems) or punched in the side (RINOs).

[rb22982]

So explain to me how we get around this obstacle by increasing the size of that obstacle.

[snopercod]

So what do you recommend that I do this November here in North Carolina? In the senate race, I have a choice between Elizabeth Dole, a gun-grabbing big-government welfare-state "republican" who is just as liberal as any democrat, or Erskine Bowles, a clinton butt-boy.

Whichever one wins, the end results will be the same: Bigger government, higher taxes, less freedom.

[Poohbah]

Only once were conservatives appealed to since (and including) 1992, and that was in 1994. Did they show up?

Not in sufficient numbers by themselves to guarantee victory--the dreaded "RINOs" were the biggest chunk of the vote. The reason the GOP won is that an even greater percentage of liberals stayed home than conservatives did. But y'all were REAL QUICK to claim credit for the win despite not showing up.

Can you name a bigger GOP victory in that time?

No.

Can you guarantee that all subsequent Democrat turnouts will be equally low?

Your premise is simply wrong.

No, it isn't. It's just one that you dislike.

[Poohbah]

So explain to me how we get around this obstacle by increasing the size of that obstacle.

Explain to me how not showing up for a decade gives the GOP any incentive to listen to you.

[Jim Robinson]

Vote for Dole. It is absolutely essential that we retake the Senate. If we don't, then you can be assured that Daschle and Co will not only continue their gun control activism, but there will be zero change in the liberal activist judiciary. Conservative judges need not apply. We need every Republican Senator we can get. Vote out the DemocRATS!

[deport]

That makes THEM the REPUBLICANS in name only.

Yep it seems to me that the RINOs are the majority thus they are the party.......

This article is interesting but I doubt this will even come to a point assuming Congress adjourns as scheduled on Oct. 24, 2002. Of course they may not but if little tommie thinks the Republicans can get control then he'll get what needs to be done completed and then they will adjourn, imo.

[rb22982]

I'm only 20, the first time I could vote was in 2000. I voted all Republican on over 30 choices on all but one, where a Republican was running just against just third parties where I voted Libertarian. I voted for Snyder in the primary here in NC. I'll probably vote for Dole just because I think the only chance in the world we can curtail socialism from the RP side is through conservative judges who will just maybe claim some or all of this crap as unconstitutional and maybe toss out Roe Vs Wade. My (R) congressman is pretty conservative and I plan on voting for him.

That had nothing to do with my point, which is why SHOULD conservatives vote for "me too" Republicans aka RINOs. You still haven't given us a good reason to vote for Republicans--especially in the Senate. The house Republicans are generally 'centrists' to conservative and I can stand that. In the senate most are 'centrists' or liberal.

Read the Texas GOP platform. THAT'S conservatism.

[Black Agnes]

Good points. Why is it that this country is the only one with any sort of remaining pharma research? Even most of the European companies do their research over here. This program sounds *just* like medicare/medicaid when they started out. I mean really, who can be against a few extra $$'s to help the little old people? However, once the socialists are through, the pharma/drug industry will be as wrecked and unaffordable for *everyone* of any means as our medical industry is now. Not only that, once government begins paying the bill for drugs, they'll start to tell pharma companies what to research. Research will be highly politicized. After all, they'll be the biggest customer. Look for all drugs to either target breast cander or AIDS within 10 years...

[snopercod]

OK, I'll hold my nose and do it, but I won't like it.

[Poohbah]

That had nothing to do with my point, which is why SHOULD conservatives vote for "me too" Republicans aka RINOs. You still haven't given us a good reason to vote for Republicans--especially in the Senate.

Judgeships. RINOs will, at the very least, vote for qualified judges.

If that alone isn't a good enough reason for you, then you're either (a) a Democrat shill trying to play-act at sounding like a conservative, or (b) too stupid to be allowed to vote.

[rb22982]

That's the only reason, and it is why I am still registered GOP. However your A is an out and out lie. And B would be incorrect as some people expect more than just judges. Just because you have low expectations doesn't mean everyone does.

[Poohbah]

OK, sonny, a word of friendly advice: LEARN HOW TO READ. Your response makes it clear that you didn't read (or, if you did, that you did not comprehend) my post.

Good grief, if we only would require that imbeciles not be allowed to vote, the GOP might lose 5% of its base, but the Dems would lose 90%...

[rb22982]

I Agree, I'm in the same position you are in here in NC.

But Jim, if lets say Bush can choose anyone he wants to get on the Supreme Court with a GOP majority, and he chooses someone who isn't really conservative, and at least moderately anti-Roe Vs Wade, the GOP as a whole will have lost my vote for a very very long time. Ill still support individual candidates but probably not vote for the national party for a very long time.