Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: "one eighty"

The Absurdity of Not Voting for the GOP Nominee.

51 Comments
Monday, October, 15, 2007 10:04 PM SLW writes:

A brave essay!

Yes there are many of us like you. We are the silent majority. For a year now, a loud voice has presided here and the sheeple have followed!

Many who think like us have left because what they have to say is not popular. We must keep our voices alive! Thanks.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 2:06 PM Sheila writes:

Sandra

Turning the country over to those who have only their power in mind is not a smart idea...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 2:13 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Doc!

Ha! LOL

I respectfully disagree about the "lesser of two evils". There is only one "evil" in this game. I can't name anyone on our side who is "evil", and has done "evil".

I believe we will have our conservative nominee, but if we don't, intelligence would dictate not allowing the "evil" side to take over...there is true evil in the world, and we don't have any "lesser" of two on our side.

We may have people who are sinners like everyone on this planet, but evil...don't think so.:)



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 3:13 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

The only thing I'd add

is that if there is a 3rd party nominee I agree with more, he will get my vote...

If not, I will suck it up and vote for Rudy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 4:29 PM jevica writes:

Shelia

First Virginia Daddy any third party vote would be a vote for Hillary and insure her election as Perot did with her husband [that's if she is the nominee].

Shelia I do agree with Sandra that is was brave of you to put this up.

Yes he is not a Socialist, but I lived here during his time as mayor, yes it is different being a Mayor of a big time liberal city and President. I don't hate Rudy but you are not getting some person who is anyway to the right. He is not pro Second Amendment, not pro-life. Any judicial appointments were not conservative in NYC. You're getting a RINO, a Rockefeller Republican [those in NY know what I mean].

What in his past in public service convince you he would not be a liberal Republican President, except for he is not Hillary would convince you to vote for him?

To use a comment mentioned, if someone would have to chose between Rudy and Hillary it is the lesser of two evils. I can't vote for Rudy, that's why I'm working to nominate another candidate.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 4:38 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Jevica

In the end, I agree whole heartedly, work on getting another candidate...

But if there is a viable (plausible) third, I would vote that way. We are to vote what we think best, not necessarilly for who might win or lose...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 4:48 PM jevica writes:

Virginia Daddy

Your prior comment did not seem to say that.

BTW I don't think any third party candidate could be/would be "viable (plausible)" as you say.

I'm glad to see you would vote for the best not other considerations.

But between Hillary and Rudy it looks like you would chose Rudy. Looking at it the way I see it it's on liberal or another liberal.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 5:10 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Jev

Yeah, if I was unclear, my mistake.

But I will vote for who I agree with more, in the end. And while a vote for a thrid party may, as you say, help elect Hillary, if we continue on this system and way of thinking, where will we go? If we all cave, what will happen? At some point, we will lose our identity or we will be forced to break free.

Just some thoughts. I am not as ardent on this issue as some, but there is credence to the thinking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 5:42 PM jevica writes:

Sheila

Rudy endorsed Mario Cuomo [Democrat] over Republican Pataki, in an election for Gov.

See it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVieg3vJG0I
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 11:01 PM Sheila writes:

VDaddy

Third party elects Hillary...if it's between Hill and Rudy, after what I have heard from him in terms of what he would do it's a no brainer, for me.

Rep Peter King's endorsement is impressive. He is a pro-life conservative.

When in our history have we had a president we agreed with 100% of the time?

I will vote for our nominee, not put Hillary in office, and I' hearing there are lots of folks who agree with me out there.;)

I don't trust Hill for one second in the WH.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 11:06 PM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

Third party elects Hill...no way do I want a Marxist in the WH.

Rep.Peter King's endorsement of Rudy means a lot...he's a pro-life conservative.

If it's Hill or one of our guys, I'm voting our guy.

I will not contribute to a Marxist win.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 11:08 PM Sheila writes:

Well, that was weird...

thought I lost the post...sorry about the repeat.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 11:13 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica ;-)

People do change over their experience in politics, as Reagan did.

If it's Rudy or Hill, it's Rudy for me.

I am not worried about any of our candidates causing more abortions, taking our guns away, raising our taxes, losing the WOT.

Btw, did Rudy take your guns away whaen he was Mayor? How did you feel about him cleaning up NY?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 11:20 PM Sheila writes:

Oh, and Jev

I'm just getting tired of the "clone" syndrome here at TH.

I'm afraid, in the attempt to be popular here, some people have quit thinking for themselves and are paroting someone else's words...

If we use our brains we will realize there is evil we are fighting. It's not just about who's going to do a, b or c. It's our country and our future, and I could care less about being popular here, when that is at stake.

We are talking about a dangerous situation. This isn't a game. It is our country in the balance.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 11:30 PM Sheila writes:

Also, Jev and VDaddy

Gary Bauer is no slouch. He has had the experience of running for president, and has proven his conservative credentials. He is as strong a conservative on every issue. I trust his judgement regarding the future of the country, and where a Marxist president will take us. He sees it the way I do, and to me that is a high compliment! :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 12:04 AM jevica writes:

Shelia

I did not say he would take your guns away, or he did, but his outlook is not pro gun. BTW I was a police office during the Rudy time so I was not worried about having my guns taken. If that was a rhetorical question look at the rest of this comment.

I said he is anti-second amendment. As mayor he started lawsuits against out of state gun shops, he continued the difficult procedure of getting a concealed carry permit.

He did do well in cleaning up NYC, I didn't say otherwise. What I'm saying is he is a liberal.

He is not pro life so there will not be less abortions, I'm glad you are not worried about taxes going up because Rudy is not a tax cutter.

None of the second tier people have a chance for the nomination. They may be good, great but as of now look for Rudy, Fred, McCain or Mitt.

What's with this "clone" thing. I know exactly what we are fighting [read my blog and see] Islamic terror is the main problem now.

If I wanted to be popular here I would back Rudy against Hillary, or anyone against her Socialist self. I don't care about popular I know what's at stake in the next election that's why I say we can't let either one of them get into the White House. You're right it's no game that's why we have to keep them out of the White House.

I don't "parrot" someone else's words. When I get into a debate with someone else and they are able to convince me that their point of view is correct [with a reasoned argument, and ideas], there is no "parrot" involved.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 1:39 AM Sheila writes:

Jevica

I can't believe I just lost my response...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 2:03 AM Sheila writes:

Jevica

I don't understand how having a Marxist in the White House advances the conservative cause.

If Rudy is the nominee, Rudy has said he would appoint strict constructionist judges, he is against partial birth abortion, and for adoption.

Do you think he will abolish the 2nd amendment? How would he do that? And do you know what he has said about making the tax cuts permanent?

If Rep.Peter King, pro life conservative is backing Rudy I think that's a good sign.

I am with Bauer on this one.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 2:30 AM Sheila writes:

Also, Jev

Hannity agrees with me too.:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 2:31 AM Sheila writes:

Oh, and

Hugh Hewitt as well!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 4:03 AM jevica writes:

Shiela

I know about Hannity [I hear it when I listen to him]

The first AG of Bush [Ashcroft] came out with a statement that the Second amendment was an individual right not a collective right, Rudy would have to continue that or else it would do the same as abolish it. I know what he said to the NRA but his actions as Mayor were different.

About his budget as Mayor-from FactCheck;

. . . comparing what he inherited with what he left, which would be a logical way to look at it. When he took office in 1994, Giuliani was indeed facing a $2.3 billion deficit for the next fiscal year. But Giuliani's last budget, issued in May 2001 – before 9/11 – for fiscal 2002, projected a deficit of nearly $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003, the first budget year the new mayor would face. The IBO estimated the deficit would be even larger, about $3.3 billion. In reality, thanks to 9/11, the budget hole turned out to be around $5 billion.

That does no seem like he is a tax cutter.

Most sane people are against PBA, but its being against abortion itself that is important esp. the social conservatives. The way the adoption figures how Giuliani portrays them are different from how the figures are. Again FactCheck- ". . . saying adoptions went up 65 to 70 percent when he was mayor, when in fact adoptions at the end of his tenure were only 17 percent higher than at the start, and falling.

Many people may be backing Rudy because they feel he can beat Hillary-the expected Democrat. I'm not saying all are but it's possible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 1:22 PM USA Eagle writes:

Sheila

Interesting topic...I must admit the #1 issue for me has to be entitlements.Hence,with the threats Hillary is making concerning healthcare,baby bonuses,etc taxes will just go up and future generations will be saddled with yet another gubmint entitlement program(gee social security was such a wonderful idea).No way,no how will I ever vote for a tax and spend dem like Hillary.I have yet to decide who I'd vote for but I'd like to see Thompson or Hunter in the mix.I guess you could say I'm waiting to see who rises to the top.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 1:23 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

To add

At what point do we say, OK, our nominee is pretty much the antithesis of what we believe, and even if a better choice than the alternative, is too far off the mark?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 1:42 PM USA Eagle writes:

Va Dad

That my friend,is the quandry I'm in now.In my case,since I'm against ANY more gubmint sponsored social services being enacted,I would have to vote for the candidate not in favor of such legislation.In the case above,Hill vs Rudy,I would have to vote for Rudy.Besides,if we get to the point you cite that there are no viable candidates,I believe this country will no longer exist as we know it so it won't matter who you vote for.Pretty grim....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 1:48 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

USA Eagle

But if there were another candidate who fit your view more appropriately, who would you vote for?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 12:48 AM Sheila writes:

Jevica

I still say how will having a Marxist in the WH help the conservative cause?

I don't see the benefit of letting Hill win if we don't get the candidate we voted for in the primaries...will you let her win when you have a vote? Not me.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 12:53 AM Sheila writes:

USA Eagle

My sentiments exactly!

Why should I hand over the country on a silver platter to a Marxist, because the nominee wasn't my first choice?

I like Huckabee, Thompson, and Hunter is good too. We will see who rises to the top.

However, as you say, no way will I put Hill in the WH!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 12:55 AM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

No one is further off the mark than a Marxist!:)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 1:01 AM Sheila writes:

USA Eagle

Right again...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 1:05 AM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

My answer to your question would be "after the primaries are over, if my guy didn't get the nomination, with a Marxist as the opposition, I vote for our nominee"...

we'll see what USA Eagle says...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 1:16 AM Sheila writes:

Btw, Doc Steech

I'm still laughing at your comment..."duh"! Too funny.

I guess some levity is appropriate when the world seems to be going mad...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 3:16 AM jevica writes:

Sheila

So the point is, will you vote for any Republican that runs against Hillary, no matter who it is?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 9:11 AM USA Eagle writes:

Va Dad

The one person I would vote for is Newt Gingrich who disappointed me by not running.Personally,I believe he'd of been the only one to beat Hill and I like his no-nonsense style of addressing issues.For now,I agree with Sheila.I'm have to wait to see who rises to the top and go from there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 12:04 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica ;-)

This is a funny question...

Do we have any Marxists running for president on our side?

After voting for my choice in the primaries, I will vote for the nominee, who will hopefully be my pick, but frankly, I don't see any evil Marxists running on our side...

So what you are saying is you would not vote for our nominee despite a Marxist as the dem nominee?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 12:14 PM Sheila writes:

USA Eagle

It boggles the mind that in a free country, we would willfully choose to give up our freedoms, and hand the country over to someone who we all know desires to turn our country into a soviet style "utopia" ...

I simply can't understand this mentality.





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 12:51 PM ShiningCity writes:

Hmm.

I am left wondering if truly this post was constructed simply to irritate.

The offensive nature of the "clones" statement is hardly something I've encountered, especially from someone calling for me to unite WITH THEM to vote for a candidate who parades around in a dress, who advocates killing human beings using my tax money, who thinks it's fine for homosexuals to marry, and who has made very liberal judicial appointments in spite of his shreaking otherwise.

I wonder if an appeal sans such harsh rhetoric towards those whom you cease to unite (namely, me) might be better received by those whom you are trying to reach? Maybe a logical argument about why I should forsake my principles and vote for a liberal, as opposed to calling me a "clone" who is simply trying to get "kudos" from others?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 1:21 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Sheila/Eagle

The only difference is timing, unless we emphatically put a stop to the leftward drift.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 3:51 PM Sheila writes:

Shinning City

Sorry,I didn't mean to irritate...:)I was making an observation...









EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 3:58 PM Sheila writes:

VDaddy

We won't have a choice in the matter if we give the country over to the radicals who are now in the majority...it won't be a leftward drift, it will will a leftward suicide dive...:)

We can reverse the drift...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 4:09 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Sheila

When and how do you propose doing it? Is it not a possibility that as politicians see success in moving left, ie folks still vote for them if they do, what will it take and when should we do it?

BTW, I am not against you, just looking for the alternative... If pushed, I will vote for Rudy... I agree, he's better than the alternative, but as of now, there are alternatives to him that are better...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 6:03 PM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

It's an ongoing thing...we never give up working on improving things. We have to keep on keeping on. We don't get anywher by getting the enemy elected.

The way we do it is to be active and work for those candidates and campaigns who best represent our positions.

When it comes to presidential campaings, work for our candidates in the primaries.

It's a constant thing...we don't always have a perfect hand dealt...we deal with the situation as it relates to what is best for the country. My opinion is Marxism isn't an option. It must be repudiated.

I think people tend to not listen to the candidates they don't want to hear, and jump to conclusions, and then repeat the same things over and over.

I have always appreciated your approach...I'm not against you either...:) I think you are an independent thinker who doesn't just go along to get along...I admire that.

This is simply something I am very concerned about, and I just had to make a statement on it.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 6:16 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

We're probably on the same page

looking at it from opposite views.

I agree it is probably very foolish to hand it over to the enemy. And will do all I can to keep that from happening (probably not, too much, but try I will).

But I do think if a better alternative comes, that has a chance to make an impression or even win, I very well may do that...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 6:16 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

BTW

I have a new post up, a bit more whimsical... I think you'll appreciate.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 8:10 PM jevica writes:

Sheila

I never said anything about Marxist on the Republican side.

My question was not what I would do but what you would do.

My question was;
"So the point is, will you vote for any Republican that runs against Hillary, no matter who it is?"

You seem to say since Hillary should not become President [I agree] you would vote for whomever the Republicans nominated regardless of their ideas, and/or policies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 10:55 PM Sheila writes:

VDaddy

Yeah it's a sad thing...who would have thought that in this country we'd be worrying about the democrat party going Marxist!

We shall see what happens...ultimately it's in God's hands.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 11:21 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

Sorry...when you said "will you vote for ANY REPUBLICAN that runs against Hillary, no matter who it is"...,my thought was "it's like we have Count Dracula running on the Republican side"...;)LOL

I just don't see any "evil republicans" running...the evil I see is the Marxist candidate that will probably be the nominee on the dem side...

To answer your question, I will vote for any of our candidates (other than Ron Paul, he's not a viable candidate) who might get the nomination...They are all far superior to Hill, in my opinion...even if I don't agree with all of them 100% of the time.

My question to you was, will you NOT vote for our nominee if you have some disagreements with them, and let Hill the Marxist win?

Btw, Jevica...I've always appreciated your blog...you definitely understand what our country is facing, and the dangers in the world.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 11:30 PM Sheila writes:

Btw VDaddy

I'm heading over to your place...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 11:31 PM jevica writes:

Sheila

I would have to see the nominee.

I could not vote for Rudy, he his not how he presents himself, he is a liberal, he did good when he was mayor, cleaning up NYC, but his conduct is that of a liberal.

I can't see just voting for someone that I don't want, because it's the lesser of two evils.

BTW Thanks for the kind words.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 11:49 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jev

Like I said earlier, I can't think of anything worse than having Hillary back in the WH, and our country facing the challenges it faces with her at the helm. The only thing she's ever done well is Cattle Futures and Bimbo Irruption prevention (as per Rush)...

I'm not looking at any of our candidates as the "lesser of two evils". I'm hoping of course for my guy to win, but I know in life we don't always get exactly what we want, and the worst would be to allow truly evil people to reach the pinnacle of power, and take our country down.

And, you're welcome! I'm serious, and I appreciate what you do for the cause.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 27, 2007 1:21 PM Rightmindedmom writes:

Romney's my choice

With Mitt Romney, there's no issue with clean living, conservative values, pro life (though admittedly, he's a recent convert), and protection of our borders. The former Governor has oodles of experience in various Executive positions, bringing people together to solve problems.

Rudy WILL get my vote in the general election, because Hillary the SOCIALIST must not be our President. But Romney will get my vote in the Primary.

Mom in Wisconsin P.S. Check out my blog for comments on this very subject.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 27, 2007 2:34 PM jevica writes:

Shelia

You might want to check this column about Rudy for President.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58346.ht ml

This last sentence may sum it up, but please try to read it all;
"Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one's soul."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive