Maybe you should stop blaming the people who are trying to hold onto their principles now, and start blaming the Republicans who have lost their principles since 1994.
Because what you describe is their fault, not mine.
Rob - 12:02pm on 02/02/2008
Your omissions are as conspicuous as your arrogance is prominent.
If your belief is that John McCain, whom you left out of the above composite, would be a better choice, I suggest you vote for him.
When the conservative movement becomes idle, then you can take comfort knowing that you and people of your persussion led to its’ demise.
laydownSally - 02:02pm on 02/02/2008
Laydownsally: If you seriously believe that John McCain will surrender to the terrorists, name a Ginzberg to the Supreme Court and make socialized health care the law of the land, then you’re not nearly as smart as I think you are.
Because we both know that Hillary or Obama will!
pparets - 03:02pm on 02/02/2008
pparets-
If not now, when do you suggest we draw a line in the sand and say “no more- it has to stop here?” What gain is there for our society to let this go any further? To say we won an election means nothing if we put someone in office that is just another shade of liberal.
Following this line of reasoning down through the years has brought us to where we are now- a nation of children banging spoons on their highchairs, screaming for their entitlements, unable to rally around someone willing to tell the people what they need to hear- The gravy train has left the staion! So now we are supposed to work towards winning for the sake of winning? So we can say a Republican is in the White House, though it means nothing? Someone who has enjoyed sticking his thumb in conservatives eyes for all these years? Feh. Winning isn’t everything- not at the expense of our souls.
Good Ol' Boy - 05:02pm on 02/02/2008
Good Ol’ Boy: Well said! But this election is not about ‘winning’. Its about who will be Commander In Chief in the war on Islamic jihad, who will nominate the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices, and whether we will have socialized medicine shoved down our throats.
Hillary or Obama will have a blank check from a friendly, liberal congress to do whatever they want. McCain or Romney will have to do battle with a hostile congress on most issues.
Once the election is over, we can all get busy and rebuild the party.
pparets - 05:02pm on 02/02/2008
So we can say a Republican is in the White House, though it means nothing?
No, you vote for the most conservative candidate, even if it is only by comparison.
Does it have to be a Republican? No. I would vote for Zell Miller before I would vote for McCain or Ron Paul. I would vote for Joe Lieberman before I would vote for Hillary. News flash: Zell and Joe ain’t going to be the nominees!
Qualifications, character and ideology are important, not just an “R” after the name.
In this case, however, all the “D"s are so far to the left that even liberal Republican make a better choice!
Proof - 06:02pm on 02/02/2008
I remember holding my nose and pulling the lever for GWB in 2000. He was our best choice in the national election then, and I remember hoping for some “party rebuilding” to happen back then. Did it? Judge for yourself. As long as their feet aren’t held to the fire, nothing positive is going to happen amongst our Republican politicians.
Chalk it up to intellectual inbreeding, spoils system, whatever, politicians don’t seem to retain the lessons the electorate sometimes tries to teach them. I just think the only way to pull the Republican party back, if even just to the right of center is to give it a pail of ice water in the face on election day.
Good Ol' Boy - 06:02pm on 02/02/2008
I just think the only way to pull the Republican party back… is to give it a pail of ice water in the face on election day.
Nice in theory, but I’ve seen this fail over and over again in California politics.
In California, I saw conservatives sit out elections where the candidate was not “conservative” enough. The results were: Liberal Democrats were elected. Liberal justices were appointed. And the Republican party STILL pandered to those left of center because they wanted to maintain their “electability”.
Elect the best possible people you can to any given election, because the next one may not fall the way you think. (They never do!)
Proof - 06:02pm on 02/02/2008
Just go back to my desk to find this flattering note:
then you’re not nearly as smart as I think you are.
You’re right, of course. I’m not nearly as smart as you think I am.
That’s why I scour the news and blogs (like SAB); to see where I’m wrong. To argue my point and then recieve directions on where to go next.
Okay? I’ll go next.
I think we can agree that McCain has several liberal views; illegal immigration, tax-cuts, campaign finance reform, etc.
Your contention is that his strong points are the War and nomination of Judges to the Supreme Court.
To the former.
Both Eisenhower and Bush Sr. (both of whom are decidedly more conservative than McCain, nominated Warren and Stevens, who you should astutely notice are quite liberal.
McCain, with his ego, could easily end up making the same dubious appointments. If, unless, he could get a real conservative passed by a liberal congress, which is highly doubtful.
As far as the War on Terror or our current military encampments, McCain it would seem would be tougher. Until you look at his record of compromises.
A compromise is where each party gives in on certain points so as to reach legislation agreeable to all.
Understand?
As liberal as McCain is, what would he give up on his end for a compromise? Think it might be war funding or troop withdrawal?
laydownSally - 06:02pm on 02/02/2008
Qualifications, character and ideology are important, not just an “R” after the name.
In this case, however, all the “D"s are so far to the left that even liberal Republican make a better choice!
Good. Qualifications, character and ideology are important. So just where is McCains’ value in this trilogy of diagnostic tools?
Oh, that’s right, he could be a real piece of horse do-do, but as long as he doesn’t smell as bad as hillary or Obama, let’s scoop him up and place him in the white house.
Maybe you should stop blaming the people who are trying to hold onto their principles now, and start blaming the Republicans who have lost their principles since 1994.
Because what you describe is their fault, not mine.
Your omissions are as conspicuous as your arrogance is prominent.
If your belief is that John McCain, whom you left out of the above composite, would be a better choice, I suggest you vote for him.
When the conservative movement becomes idle, then you can take comfort knowing that you and people of your persussion led to its’ demise.
Laydownsally: If you seriously believe that John McCain will surrender to the terrorists, name a Ginzberg to the Supreme Court and make socialized health care the law of the land, then you’re not nearly as smart as I think you are.
Because we both know that Hillary or Obama will!
pparets-
If not now, when do you suggest we draw a line in the sand and say “no more- it has to stop here?” What gain is there for our society to let this go any further? To say we won an election means nothing if we put someone in office that is just another shade of liberal.
Following this line of reasoning down through the years has brought us to where we are now- a nation of children banging spoons on their highchairs, screaming for their entitlements, unable to rally around someone willing to tell the people what they need to hear- The gravy train has left the staion! So now we are supposed to work towards winning for the sake of winning? So we can say a Republican is in the White House, though it means nothing? Someone who has enjoyed sticking his thumb in conservatives eyes for all these years? Feh. Winning isn’t everything- not at the expense of our souls.
Good Ol’ Boy: Well said! But this election is not about ‘winning’. Its about who will be Commander In Chief in the war on Islamic jihad, who will nominate the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices, and whether we will have socialized medicine shoved down our throats.
Hillary or Obama will have a blank check from a friendly, liberal congress to do whatever they want. McCain or Romney will have to do battle with a hostile congress on most issues.
Once the election is over, we can all get busy and rebuild the party.
No, you vote for the most conservative candidate, even if it is only by comparison.
Does it have to be a Republican? No. I would vote for Zell Miller before I would vote for McCain or Ron Paul. I would vote for Joe Lieberman before I would vote for Hillary. News flash: Zell and Joe ain’t going to be the nominees!
Qualifications, character and ideology are important, not just an “R” after the name.
In this case, however, all the “D"s are so far to the left that even liberal Republican make a better choice!
I remember holding my nose and pulling the lever for GWB in 2000. He was our best choice in the national election then, and I remember hoping for some “party rebuilding” to happen back then. Did it? Judge for yourself. As long as their feet aren’t held to the fire, nothing positive is going to happen amongst our Republican politicians.
Chalk it up to intellectual inbreeding, spoils system, whatever, politicians don’t seem to retain the lessons the electorate sometimes tries to teach them. I just think the only way to pull the Republican party back, if even just to the right of center is to give it a pail of ice water in the face on election day.
Nice in theory, but I’ve seen this fail over and over again in California politics.
In California, I saw conservatives sit out elections where the candidate was not “conservative” enough. The results were: Liberal Democrats were elected. Liberal justices were appointed. And the Republican party STILL pandered to those left of center because they wanted to maintain their “electability”.
Elect the best possible people you can to any given election, because the next one may not fall the way you think. (They never do!)
Just go back to my desk to find this flattering note:
You’re right, of course. I’m not nearly as smart as you think I am.
That’s why I scour the news and blogs (like SAB); to see where I’m wrong. To argue my point and then recieve directions on where to go next.
Okay? I’ll go next.
I think we can agree that McCain has several liberal views; illegal immigration, tax-cuts, campaign finance reform, etc.
Your contention is that his strong points are the War and nomination of Judges to the Supreme Court.
To the former.
Both Eisenhower and Bush Sr. (both of whom are decidedly more conservative than McCain, nominated Warren and Stevens, who you should astutely notice are quite liberal.
McCain, with his ego, could easily end up making the same dubious appointments. If, unless, he could get a real conservative passed by a liberal congress, which is highly doubtful.
As far as the War on Terror or our current military encampments, McCain it would seem would be tougher. Until you look at his record of compromises.
A compromise is where each party gives in on certain points so as to reach legislation agreeable to all.
Understand?
As liberal as McCain is, what would he give up on his end for a compromise? Think it might be war funding or troop withdrawal?
Good. Qualifications, character and ideology are important. So just where is McCains’ value in this trilogy of diagnostic tools?
Oh, that’s right, he could be a real piece of horse do-do, but as long as he doesn’t smell as bad as hillary or Obama, let’s scoop him up and place him in the white house.