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: Outside Of The Box

Are they real conservatives?

88 Comments
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 7:49 AM davecatbone writes:

Close, and a good piece

I'm inflexible about the WOT also. I'm trying to find a dog that has the right accessories to go along with unflinching National Security.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 1:48 PM Scottie writes:

Well here you are

Why do you accuse those that don't agree with you of advocating "Losing to Win"? I haven't heard anyone but you making that accusation, and I've never seen it backed up.

Since you claim here that someone has been chanting it for some time, perhaps you could post a link to one of their "chants" or cut and paste it here with attribution.

And there you have it. Since it's so pervasive, surely you can manage to find an example or two.

BTW, someone advocating "losing to win" is not the same as you accusing them of advocating "losing to win". Now, let's see your cards; I think you're bluffing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 3:58 PM Sanity102 writes:

guy

I'm off to a luncheon meeting so I'll deal with this more in detail later.

Just a quick thought for you since you asked. The groups are by no means exclusive. It doesn't matter which group you belong to, really...the bottom line is, do you want to win...the election, the war, your issues?

And if the idea of losing "THIS" time to "win" later is ok with you, if that concept of losing doesn't churn in your stomach and make you ill, then maybe you ought to ask how concervative you (or whoever is advocating "losing")is.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 6:20 PM Scottie writes:

Sanity

I find your answer underwhelming to say the least. Perhaps you will do better with a full stomach. So far, you haven't answered it at all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 8:47 PM Sanity102 writes:

Scottie

geez, I said I was leaving something for Guy to think about; that I had a luncheon and didn't have time to answer...or what part of my post did you not comprehend?

You know Scottie, here's the deal...THIS IS MY BLOG. On my blog I get to make the rules. If you don't like the rules, you are free to stay away. You can say whatever you want but NEVER think that your right to free speech allows you to excercise it without consequences.

The consequences is that I do not answer you.

I have no idea what you do for a living and frankly I don't care. But MY time is extremely limited.

I do not have time to rattle people's cages. Almost everything I do is based on the end goal...I look toward the probability of attaining something and if that probability is not in my favor, I DO NOT BOTHER.

It is MY time and only I have the right to say how I will spend it.

I am NOT a conservative so any accusations of not being conservative enough bothers me not a whit. I am not here to socialize so don't bother telling me that I offend/hurt/anger you. I really don't care if I impress or upset you.

In other words, all the buzz words you've used is not going to work with me. Again, you have the right to waste your time, but not mine.

Now, if you want to ask honestly intellectual questions with the idea of considering (notice I did not say accepting) the validity of my take, then ask. If all you want to do is challenge my ability to debate; Scottie, take my word on this, you WILL be wasting my time and I won't play.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 9:02 PM Sanity102 writes:

guy

The missing pieces...

This was written by Scottie (yeah the guy who claims that no one has said such a thing) on a blog article entitled "Suicide Voters".

"Not voting for non-coservatives is the proper message to send; even if it costs us the election in the short run. If we don't draw a line somewhere, we will lose the entire country in the long run."

And another so called Conservative (I have my doubts) called BrianR chimed in with: BrianR writes: Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 11:31 PM
Scotti: Well said!
Excellent!

They think that losing (costs us the election in the short run) will somehow get us a "Real" conservative.

The lyrics are a bit different but the tune is the same...lose to win...

Funny eh?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 9:05 PM Sanity102 writes:

Oh Dave...lol!

"accessories"...yeah I hear you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:04 PM Scottie writes:

Here it is in full context.

As the Dems Have Moved Left people of conviction have held onto their values and switched parties because the Republicans better reflected those values. People like Thomas Sowell, Dennis Prager, Evan Sayet, Ronald Reagan, and the list goes on. These people deserve our respect for holding their values above their party affiliation.

While you may disagree with those of us that will not compromise our core principles in the name of party affiliation, we're in pretty good company. We didn't leave the Republican Party, it left us. I side unabashedly with Brian on this one.

Why should we vote for anyone that supports gun control, abortion, and gay marriage? Because the big bad Democrat boogeymen will come and get us? Remember, it took Jimmy Carter to pave the way for Ronald Reagan.

If you settle for inferior goods when shopping, the shelves will soon fill with only inferior goods. The bad drives out the good.

Similarly, if you vote for non-conservatives, your future choices will be limited to non-conservatives, because you've communicated that it's acceptable, good enough, worthy of settling for; why would a serious candidate bother going any farther than that and risk losing from the center? As it is, Republicans have gone so far left, they're now losing votes on the right. Not voting for non-coservatives is the proper message to send; even if it costs us the election in the short run. If we don't draw a line somewhere, we will lose the entire country in the long run.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:21 PM Sanity102 writes:

More data

more people vote on American Idol that all the "people of conviction" that would rather see America burn "for a little while" put together. (according to the NARA stats.)

And "losing" to win is STILL a Liberal concept, no matter how you dress it.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:24 PM Scottie writes:

Ms. (In)Sanity

We can at least agree that basing your vote entirely on a candidate’s WOT position to the exclusion of all else is, by definition, an absolutist position. Do you really think that’s wise?

Doesn’t your propensity to launch ad hominem attacks and to demonize anyone that doesn’t share your single-minded zeal make YOU the real bully? I think it does.

I’ll leave it to the reader to discern who has a sense of balance here and who is unhinged. I think your last few posts make my point better than anything I can add.

And thank you for the warm welcome here at your blog. If I may make a suggestion, try reading Andrew Carnegie. I think you’ll find his advice helpful here and in the rest of your life; if you can spare the time that is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:31 PM Scottie writes:

Correction

That should be Dale Carnegie.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:36 PM Sanity102 writes:

More Liberal ideas

with a "Conservative" twist.

1- Calling your opponent "in"sane but crying over the opponent's "name calling".

2- Blaming Bush for everything and giving him credit for nothing.

3- Having principles that don't include loyalty or support.

4- Calling the terrorist a bunch of Islamic fanatics raising some he11 or hearing that but not having the ba11s to object.

and...

angry at being unfairly accused of any of the above instead of ingoring it because it doesn't apply to you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:41 PM Sanity102 writes:

Scottie...

were those actual questions or are you wasting my time again?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 10:43 PM Jim writes:

Statistics

And about a tenth of the people who vote on American idol, watched Farenheit 911 on it's opening weekend, which is still double the number of poeple who voted for "other" candidates in 2004 presidential election.

Also Scottie, I would take a step back from Reagan, although I thought he did ok, the recent hero worship phenomenon does not change the facts of his tenure. Reagan would not be my choice for conservative icon. In fact I find icons extremely dangerous.

If the future worked out as you outlined, I think you would be quite disappointed in another Reagan.

P.S. love the cute ending to your last post. Presumabley in a few posts time its agree to disagree? Not that I've haven't seen it before.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 1:15 AM Scottie writes:

Jim

My point on Reagan isn't so much to deify him as to point out that he started out as a Democrat and eventually had to switch parties to remain true to his core beliefs.

In many respects, Reagan was a radical right president. His election was only possible because Carter had so infuriated the country, they would have elected ANYONE but Carter. His reelection tends to indicate he did something right in his first term though.

Your point is correct, but I think it reads more into my post than I intended or said.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 1:16 AM Scottie writes:

Ms. (In)Sanity

Well it's your BLOG after all, you decide.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 1:30 AM Scottie writes:

Ms. (In)Sanity

1- Calling your opponent "in"sane but crying over the opponent's "name calling".
[My what a thin skin you have my dear.]

2- Blaming Bush for everything and giving him credit for nothing.
[Must be someone else, I haven't done that.]

3- Having principles that don't include loyalty or support.
[Loyalty and support or Fealty and Sychopancy?]

4- Calling the terrorist a bunch of Islamic fanatics raising some he11 or hearing that but not having the ba11s to object.
[I thought you were a woman. Kind of an odd metaphor for a woman to use, No?]

and...

angry at being unfairly accused of any of the above instead of ingoring it because it doesn't apply to you.

On #1 I'm pretty sure that one was about me.
On #2 It knew it didn't apply to me.
On #3 A little comparative framing, just for fun
On #4 Just an observation
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 10:35 AM davecatbone writes:

Sanity

A lot of flame in here. Much ado about nothing. Different opinions about staying at home or not. But the Morris/Rove statistics (if correct) would signal that Conservatives of Principle who'd rather lose than win the general would be marginalizing their viewpoints, if the GOP still wins. That seems to sum up the points of view. So why all the cage rattling? I'm sensing a lot of anger and hostility from the "Conservatives of Principle".

I don't mind being called an absolutist. I'm not offended. I ABSOLUTELY demand we try and destroy the Islamic Fascists before they destroy us. I'm a PURIST. I demand a government that has the PURE intention of sustaining the Republic, through force of arms, etc...

I suspect that Sandra Wise is close to the mark about the TH community, and has pushed some buttons. You on the other hand, my friend, smash them with a sledgehammer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 11:50 AM Scottie writes:

DaveCat

Are the WOT and other conservative values mutually exclusive? Can't we look for a candidate that offers more than a single issue? No republican can be elected if they oppose the WOT, so the issue is moot. Since that's a given anyway, why aren't we looking for more than the obvious?

Have you seen the positions of Huckabee? Wouldn't Thompson be a better choice than any of the three the MSM seem determined to shove down our collective throats? Either of these candidates would be better than the ones currently being lauded by the MSM. And both of them are also for winning the WOT. In fact, can you name a single Republican candidate that's opposed to the WOT?

In your single issue zeal, you've determined that you will vote Republican, so it doesn't matter to you which Republican. The rest of us aren't as sanguine. That doesn't make us wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:10 PM Sanity102 writes:

Well Dave

I think this is the problem and why many of us are confused...we've heard all the excuses for bashing our war time president and the GOP and allowing the Dems to win "this time" before....it's the Liberal talking points with a Libertarian spin.


For 6 years, the GOP has opened it's tent and allowed "others" to ride on it's tail. Somehow these "guest" decided to take it over and now they believe that THEIR views are the only "real" conservative view points....everyone else's doesn't quite measure up.

I don't mind being called "not Conservative" because I'm not. And as I said in my article (if Scottie had actually read it) that I am an absolutists when it comes to war. I'm not a purist because other than God, no one is pure and all that does is set us up to be disappointed. These titles, do not bother/offend me in the least...but obviously it does them.

Why?

As for the majority, you don't need stats to figure this out. Look around at your own state...even if they lean mostly liberal (in my state, big time)or conservative, how many of them will give more than lip service to the issues?

We are not a nation that has millions of its voters risking life and limb to mark our fingers purple...most voters cannot even give up an hour or two on a Saturday to vote in the primary or in the general when some actually get a whole day (with pay) to vote.

Most people, (and I was one of them), care at tax time, when they put gas in their tank, or when their personal lives get altered by the courts or war.

Unless you are living in those 4 border states...most people will agree it is a good thing to round up law breakers that are taking jobs away from Americans...but to actually give up a few hours of their busy lives to vote for people who run on that issue...ah no.

The thing that upsets me to no end because I HATE utter stupidity is that the GOP was sitting with the only "ace" that most people carried about...the WOT...and threw it away for a "joker" that wasn't even being recongnized in the national game.

Do you realize that the illegal immigration issue could have been a legitimate 2nd ace if only they had sold the issue correctly...but that would have required the RINO pundits to have had experience in selling something other than themselves.

Sorry--that STILL irritates me to no end.

But to answer your question, yes Dave, the 3% who is trying to hijack the GOP tent will continue to marginalize themselves or the GOP will get smart and distance themselves from this group whose principles include destroying the host party and watching America burn to get their way.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:15 PM davecatbone writes:

Scottie

I think you're misrepresenting my views. I'm looking for the candidate who'll do the BEST job of fighting the Islamists. After that, I consider the balance of his views. For now, I'd say Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter appeal to me. I'm not a member of the GOP and have no plans to be. I'm pragmatic in that I weigh what's important to me against the odds of losing. But I don't understand your criticism. I'm not endorsing Giuliani or McCain or Romney. I've repeatedly said that I feel the best candidate hasn't even entered the race yet. And.....I agree with your criticism of the MSM shoving candidates down our throat, like their contention that McCain is the "frontrunner". Rubbish.

My single issue zeal is this. I ABSOLUTELY am determined to see the Democrats defeated and the war won. I feel they are such an enemy to this Republic that I'll work everyday to see them beaten. The MSM is in concert with the Dems, and must be neutralized by the new media over the long haul.

My difference with you is that I don't agree that we should let the Democrats win so we can rebuild the GOP in the future. I'm entirely willing to let you try and convince me that you're right. But so far, BrianR, JimmyC, Phil and yourself have not done so. But I do enjoy honest debate, so keep it going.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:24 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

davecatbone..

..I have never tried to "convince" anyone of letting "..the Democrats win so we can rebuild the GOP in the future."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:29 PM davecatbone writes:

Sanity

I truly understand your opinion about the immigration issue. And when I stop and think about it, it makes sense. The "other" Conservative issues, are only being betrayed by one candidate, Rudy. There just isn't any faith in Romney or McCain. So this big firestorm over Conservative values in the "field of candidates" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to be some HUGE knee jerk reaction to being called absolutists. (again, the sledgehammer). I see some posters going around looking for a fight to pick. But I'm willing to listen to someones' logical ideas, and consider them out of respect for this forum. I'm just not seeing the beef in the rhetoric. What I don't see is others being willing to consider someone else's logic. There's not been a clear response to explain why it would be okay to lose now and rebuild for later. The cost seems insurmountable to me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:30 PM davecatbone writes:

Jimmy

What would refusing to vote accomplish then?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:34 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I have never...

..advocated "refusing to vote" either.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:43 PM davecatbone writes:

Jimmy

My apologies, I misinterpreted you ideas when you said you'd never vote for someone you considered a RINO candidate. If that's not the way you feel, please inform me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:46 PM Jim writes:

Scottie

Oh contrare mon amie!

Reagan began with a right wing agenda, the tax cuts (later rescinded), the unions (ok you can try and find a smaller one than air traffic controllers) and the miltary build up, I don't have anything bad to mention about that, see told you I thought he was ok, but we have not mentioned deficits and boom and bust economy.

He moved what many to perceive to be the middle or left, with social security, amnesty, and we are talking true amnesty and tax hikes 3 through 7.

I do agree anyone could have got elected after Carter. However I do not think finding ourselves in such a situation again would be so helpful.

If you think Carter was bordering on russian roulette with America, then the next term if democrat, could be perceived trying to play the game with an automatic, with the Iranian nuclear program and Iraq and Afghanistan at stake.

Also where is this new Reagan, I'm sorry of the right wing politians I tend to find single issue or radicals so extreme as unelectable.

I can't see a acceptable candidate to you now (despite townhall's "go Mitt campaign", sorry not convinced) and I can't see one coming to the fore in four years.

Moving exactly what the principles are in excrutiating detail off to one side for the moment, what are your options and what the the results of taking those options?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:49 PM Sanity102 writes:

sigh, perhaps the REAL problem is

that people don't READ the article.

3- Jim, Wil, and I are absolutist when it comes to WOT. It isn’t the ONLY issue we care about, but it is the issue that trumps everything else including party lines and pet concerns.

Dave has put himself in this group of absolutes...what part of the next line...it isn't the ONLY issue we care about... did Scottie not get?

And JC is technically correct...he doesn't advocate allowing the Dems to win so that the GOP can win later...he simply doesn't believe the Dems are going to win period, no matter how hard the absolutes try to convince the voters that the GOP is not principled enough and that there is little difference between the two parties.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:55 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Show me where I stated..

..that I would "never vote for someone [I] considered a RINO candidate" and I will eat those words and humbly apologise.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 4:57 PM Sanity102 writes:

clarification

Sorry, the "people don't read was meant for Scottie".

the JC advocation info was for Dave. JC has written that he thinks the real problem is the gloom and doom posters like me who think that we cannot afford a Dem in the WH.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 5:07 PM Sanity102 writes:

jim

love that "playing with an automatic" phrase.

Contrary to JC who thinks I am making too much about a Dem in the WH (which implies that it is ok for the WH to be taken for a term or so--doesn't it? Mmm, that maybe what Dave is saying--but we'll wait for JC to correct us.) I believe that this nation cannot afford to be governed by a Commander In Chief that will take us back to the times of Jimmy Carter.

It was his appeasement program that started the seeds of the terror the world is going thru right now because one of the big boys on the block showed it was not willing to fight--and when that big boy became the ONLY super power, well that Russian Roulette just got an automatic upgrade.

NOw either I am right or I am wrong. If it is the latter, than having a GOP that will be open a conservative agenda is not a bad thing....but if I am right, then having a Dem would be horrific.

It comes down to a matter of risk.

It isn't one I am prepared to take.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 5:37 PM Sanity102 writes:

Dave

I agree...it does seem to be much a do about nothing. With the exception of Rudy, no other GOP candidate seems to betraying conservative values IF...and here's the caveat...if the conservative values are simply conservative and not 3rd party wannabes addendums.

In the case of immigration, all of them want to enforce border control laws...only 1 or 2 of them thinks it's more important than the WOT and will not budge even to get 3/4s of the pie...it's all or nothing. So they get nothing...meaning they are at the end of the candidate list.

As for picking a fight. Tell me Dave, have you ever lost an argument only to later think...ohhhh I should have said this or that? I think the absolutist have been in many fights with liberals and lost. Later, they want to refight the issue, so they come to the blogs of people they think should agree with them just because they claim to be conservatives--and they end up using the SAME tactics that worked on them so well.

I think Dave dear, that people like you and me really get to them because the tactics only work on GOPs, not Independents...and only marginally to conservatives with a small "c" because most conservatives aren't that touchy.

Regarding your being willing to listen...of course you are...that's another thing I notice about conservatives...they seem to be persuaded by reasonable deduction and motivated by logic.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 7:25 PM davecatbone writes:

Jimmy

I'm not going to go back and search all your posts for a "gotcha" quote about who you will or won't vote for. If I've got it wrong, why don't you clear it up and tell me? Who will you vote for, and why. I am sincerely interested in hearing you state your opinion, definitively. What say you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 7:36 PM Sanity102 writes:

And I've got a question

To the CPs (Conservatives of Principles--Dave's term)...did you vote for Bush in 2004 or against Kerry?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 7:44 PM BrianR writes:

Interesting. Scottie,

why are you bothering?

As to the contention that the GOP as it now functions, by basing its candidate selection process solely on a stand on the war is somehow responding to the real concerns of most of America to the exclusion of other issues, all I can say is that, based on poll turnout in recent elections, America seems to be voting with its feet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 7:56 PM Sanity102 writes:

Well Scottie, your master

doesn't think you should waste any more of your time so before you leave, let me offer a nice little parting gift...an excuse you can give to BrianR for failing...tell him that Sanity doesn't have a "cage to rattle."

**for guy's info: this is in reference to Brian's "That's what makes it kinda fun to go in and rattle the cages. Pasadena Phil, Cyne, occasionally Marc of CA, others of us, will go in and shake things up. You should bop in and join the fray."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 8:52 PM Snooper writes:

Open book

If you see something at my place you like, feel free to utilize it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 29, 2007 9:23 PM Sanity102 writes:

Snooper, did and did

Thank you again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 1:05 AM BrianR writes:

102: At last we agree

You: "tell him that Sanity doesn't have a 'cage to rattle.'"

I couldn't agree more.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 2:35 AM Sheila writes:

Hey Sanity

Boy, you seem to be rattling some cages...:)

Yeah, it's a mystery to me how a dem is going to do a better job in the WH than our guy...btw, you described my position correctly...thanks for the mention.:)


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 2:56 AM Sanity102 writes:

Sheila

Actually, I left all that school yard silliness a long time ago. In fact I marvel at how many posts people seem to have time to write...don't they have a life? I also find the idea that "rattling cages" is fun rather sad. A life has to be pretty boring to find disagreement for the sake of disagreeing entertaining.

I'm glad I nailed your position--but I have a feeling that if I hadn't, you'd have let me know without getting bent out of shape.

Conservatives tend to not be as touchy as Liberals, I notice.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 3:01 AM Sanity102 writes:

So...Brian doesn't keep promises either

BrianR writes: Friday, March, 23, 2007 11:10 AM
BTW
Don't even bother responding. I won't be coming back.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 5:12 AM davecatbone writes:

BrianR

I honestly think there's a disconnect here. "As to the contention that the GOP as it now functions, by basing its candidate selection process solely on a stand on the war is somehow responding to the real concerns of most of America to the exclusion of other issues," I personally haven't said or heard anyone say the WOT is the SOLE issue EXCLUDING all others. I'm deeply concerned about small govt., low taxes, law enforcement, and a moral society, and I think you are too. I just feel if you don't win the WOT, we might not be around to achieve the others.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 10:10 AM Scottie writes:

Dave Cat

"My difference with you is that I don't agree that we should let the Democrats win so we can rebuild the GOP in the future. I'm entirely willing to let you try and convince me that you're right. But so far, BrianR, JimmyC, Phil and yourself have not done so. But I do enjoy honest debate, so keep it going."

It's not that I WANT the Dems to win, it's that the Reps aren't doing what they need to do to win. As things stand, we're heading for another Bob Dole candidate at the top of the ticket.

If the WOT is the most important thing (we agree), and if the Reps are the only party that will do so (again we agree), we'd better put up a candidate that can win (we ageee). Our difference seems to be what our definition of a winning candidate is (and I don't think we disagee substantially on that).

Rudy is not a winning candidate (again we agree) and if he's at the top of the ticket, I'm not going to bother voting for him and you will hold your nose and vote for him. But he still won't win. You may not like it, but that's reality as I see it.

So let's work to get the party a better candidate for the top of the ticket and stop announcing at the onset that we will vote Republican, NO MATTER WHAT! What conceivable pressure are you putting on the Reps to put up a better candidate if you announce at square one you will vote for whatever candidate is put forwsrd, no matter how disgusting their ancillary positions are?

The Reps have your vote based on their WOT position. They have no incentive to do anything more for you, so they won't. They don't have my vote yet, and if they don't earn it, I'm not giving it to them. It's called leverage. You are free to surrender yours, but not to demonize me for retaining mine; especially this early in the political season. It is your right to marginalize yourself, but I don't have to support that strategy.

[Good give and take BTW]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 10:23 AM Scottie writes:

Jim

I agreed with you about Reagan, so what's the beef? I said he was Radically Right. Have you noticed he's not on the ticket this time around? How can we expect to disagree without being disagreeable if we can't even agree without being disagreeable? Jeez!

As to who is coming forth, Fred Dalton Thompson. Failing that, Huckabee gets the nod from me.

And just as an aside, the deficit is squarely the fault of Congress. All tax and all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. To get what he wanted, Reagan had to let Congress get what they wanted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 11:33 AM davecatbone writes:

Scottie

I'm not necessarily sure Rudy can't win, though I'll still not vote for him in the primary. That said, if Fred enters as I believe he will, he's got the biggest chance to win. AND, he has the correct extras I'm looking for in a dog to go along with the WOT.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 12:13 PM Sanity102 writes:

Again, my question:

To the "conservatives of principles"...did you vote FOR Bush or AGAINST Kerry in 2004.

Because if it was the latter...you've already done what you claim "your principles" will not let you do in 2008.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 4:40 PM Scottie writes:

Dave Cat

Agreed, I like FDT if he gets in. Good man.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 4:47 PM Scottie writes:

Sanity

"Well Scottie, your master . . ."
[Rest assured I have no master. I know because the Missus tells me I can say that]

". . . doesn't think you should waste any more of your time. . ."
[Perhaps you should address your comment to him then. I am perfectly capable of controlling the use of my time]

" . . so before you leave, let me offer a nice little parting gift. . ."
[I wasn't leaving, but I'm always up for a gift]

'. . .an excuse you can give to BrianR for failing . . ."
[Failing? Failing to do what?]

". . . tell him that Sanity doesn't have a "cage to rattle."
[nor apparently a spell checker, a grammer guide, patience, or a clue either!]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 4:50 PM Scottie writes:

Sanity

To the "conservatives of principles"...did you vote FOR Bush or AGAINST Kerry in 2004?

I can answer that with an unqualified YES!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 30, 2007 9:03 PM SLW writes:

Whew!

I'm exhausted! Such an innocent blog, such a rabid response.

Sanity was just describing the people that are supposedly the "GOP sheep" according to several bloggers.

I am a proud member...baaa..baaa...baaa!

BTW, I also consider the WOT the most important issue. If we don't win that, none of the other issues will matter...

I miss Jevica. I wonder when he'll be back. He missed all the controversy.

Sorry not to have been over sooner. Been so busy with the ongoing debate at my place. I do have a new blog called "Newt, not conservative enough?" The fight goes on....

I miss the comfort of having my "like minded" buds around.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 1:30 AM Sanity102 writes:

That's a start Scottie

you dropped the "in" sanity.

You ALMOST made sense with Dave...except for the end when you concluded that losing would be winning.

And from your non-answer to which you did in 2004...vote FOR Bush or AGAINST Kerry...am I to believe you didn't do either?

Here we are 3 years after 2004 and your sitting it out accomplished exactly what? Your absence from supporting Bush or voting against Kerry made how much of an impact?




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 1:39 AM Sanity102 writes:

And Scottie,

Try reading the posts carefully...Jim was telling you that the idea of having to put up with a Jimmy Carter in time of war is like playing Russian Roulette with an automatic...and he wants to know where we're going to get the Reagan you promise would follow a Jimmy Carter. And he didn't seem to think Reagan was all that conservative. (Ok Jim, you're free to correct me--but that's what I got.)

In the main article I capitalized the word ONLY when I said that the WOT isn't the ONLY issue we care about, yet you keep insisting that it is. Why? Does a different independent answer somehow mess up some written notes you're carrying?

And where pray tell did you get the idea that anyone of us is for Rudy, McCain, or even Romney?
I dislike Rudy because he's Liberal socially, McCain because he didn't support the President and his fellow GOP senators, Romney because the RINO press seems to be pushing him. I haven't read anything from the other posters that would make me believe that any of them are a fan or supporter of those 3. But you keep insisting that we are all for these guys...again, is there some kind of written playbook you're following that doesn't allow for a different answer?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 1:52 AM Sanity102 writes:

Sandra,

Well I guess I'm lucky...Brian went stomping off one day promising..."I won't be coming back".

Of course he broke that promise a couple of times but I've reminded him and he hasn't been back since.

Now, when he wants to come over and make trouble on my blog, he has to choose "fun" or be shown to be a liar.

I believe this is called...check--and mate.




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 2:01 AM Sanity102 writes:

Mmm perhaps subcategories?

Sandra...Dave also said that he was an absolutist about the WOT...but the difference between the 2nd and the 3rd group is that the latter group believes that the GOP is the only hope. I get the feeling that you and Dave and Jev (Group 2) may be open to a Zell or Lieberman if that person could cross off enough items of importance on your list.

Am I wrong?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 3:03 AM Jim writes:

Scottie

Sanity102 is right about that post, so I won't retype it. Thompson eh? Do you think he has a real chance of getting the nod for the nomination?

To me its still a three horse race with the extreme outside chance hunter can make it up, oh incase a Newt supporter is ut there please comment, I like a good laugh.

I assume you read it differently, so how is Thompson going to close this gap and why will he appeal to a wider audience. Townhall is not a wider audience, the politically silent majority are of course.

PS as certain extremists on here wailed once long ago, perhaps Reagan should have used his veto pen. He had the option to voice opposition, he signed off on it instead.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 5:15 AM davecatbone writes:

Sanity

As I'm not a member of the GOP, my vote is available to anyone. But it would have to pass through the filter of my conservative values. I can't see voting for Zell or Lieberman, unless......the alternative was Al Gore or John Kerry. I could never in good conscience sit idly and allow either of those two to live in the White House.
So good one Sanity, you've just articulated your point exactly. The divide is this, one group will not sit idly by and allow the worst to happen. I'm not sure who's in the other group, they send mixed signals. I'm still waiting from a reply from that drive-by poster, Jimmy Carter about who he'd vote for and why. The same question has been asked of him at his site. I never get a clear sense of what he's really after in a candidate, but maybe he'll come out and state it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 5:16 AM davecatbone writes:

Sanity

That would be an interesting poll for our community here. Vote for Zell to stop Kerry, or stay home?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 10:11 AM Scottie writes:

Sanity

"You ALMOST made sense with Dave...except for the end when you concluded that losing would be winning."
[Does your intellectual repertior consist of anything more than the hyper-simplistic "Losing to Win" meme that you wield so indiscrimiately?]

"And from your non-answer to which you did in 2004...vote FOR Bush or AGAINST Kerry...am I to believe you didn't do either?"
[Brilliant! Not only did I answer, you couldn't decipher it despite its simplicity. Did I vote for Bush? YES! Did I vote against Kerry? YES! How do you in any way interpret that answer as a non-vote? Your zeal to demonize the non-voter has rendered you blind to all else. You even see this demon where it obviously doesn't exist.]

"Here we are 3 years after 2004 and your (sic) sitting it out accomplished exactly what? Your absence from supporting Bush or voting against Kerry made how much of an impact?"
[And based on a conclusion you've jumped to without any supporting foundation, off you go again.]

I had hoped with a little prodding you would rise to the occasion, but all I've discovered is you lack the requisite mental horsepower for a rational discussion. Adieu my insane little friend, and good luck.






EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 10:25 AM Scottie writes:

Jim

To me its still a three horse race with the extreme outside chance Hunter can make it up, oh incase a Newt supporter is out there please comment, I like a good laugh.
[Hunter, I don't know. Huckabee, maybe, Newt though has more baggage than Zsa Zsa Gabor on a world cruise, no way. Fred Thompson is still my pick to take it all at this point.]


I assume you read it differently, so how is Thompson going to close this gap and why will he appeal to a wider audience. Townhall is not a wider audience, the politically silent majority are of course.
[Name and Face recognition, ability to play to the camera (mandatory for today's politicians), well spoken (Bush is a syntactic train wreck, Clinton was brilliant), enough political experience to understand the system without going native (8 years in the Senate), good political track record cleaning up corruption in Tennesee, puts forth his positions with conviction, uses language that connects with the average person. And last and most, he's a conservative!]

"PS as certain extremists on here wailed once long ago, perhaps Reagan should have used his veto pen. He had the option to voice opposition, he signed off on it instead."
[That's the rub, his stuff and their stuff were in the same bills. He couldn't get what he wanted without giving congress what they wanted. It's called politics, and politics ain't beanbag.]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 10:33 AM Scottie writes:

It's been fun folks

If you want to bat these or other ideas around further, I'll be over at the Heartland Patriot Blog. DaveCat and Jim, thanks for a good give and take, I truly enjoyed it. It's time to saddle up and move on to greener pastures. I wish you all well. Thanks.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 12:35 PM Sanity102 writes:

Scottie got me folks!

I thought he meant it when he claimed to be a conservative of principle...that he'd rather stay home than vote for a candidate that did not come up to his standard of conservatism....and since he is insisting that staying home is the only "principle" and courageous thing...well I believed that his "yes" answer meant he did nothing (his way of voting FOR and AGAINST a candidate).

I'd ask him what the difference between 2004 and 2008 but I doubt his conscience has any idea.

Sigh, I really keep hoping that somewhere in that absolutism, there is a shred of decency and intelligence.

I am consistantly proven wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 3:55 PM Jim writes:

SledgeHammer

As Dave said Sanity102 you are the SledgeHammer :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 4:37 PM Scottie writes:

Insanity AKA Queen of Hearts

Just couldn't let it go, could you? Well, since sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, let's see how you like being gratuitiously slimed my insane little friend. Fair is fair, after all.

Your arguments are bereft of any gravitas whatsoever. In order to save you yet another trip to the dictionary, that means that if brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your own nose.

If this is the best you can do you self-serving little half-wit, one would think you would have the good sense to veil it from public view, rather than trumpet your obvious lack of intellect in a public forum by repeatedly braying like a jackass.

I thought the Daily Kos style of sliming people of differing views would not find much of a home here at TH. I can only hope it remains here in this isolated, fetid little cesspool of ignorance you've created to agrandize your deranged and unhinged "analysis".

My only regret is having given you the benefit of the doubt and in doing so subjecting myself to your ludicris "analysis by accusation" such as it is. Perhaps a better handle for you would be "Queen of Hearts" (that's a literary allusion to a work by CS Lewis, have someone explain it to you.) I bid thee adieu mighty queen!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 4:40 PM Scottie writes:

Jim

sychophant
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 5:07 PM davecatbone writes:

Sanity

You're a lightning rod!

Would you vote for Zell or Joe Lieb. over Giuliani? There seems to be such a vaccuum in the candidates, I'm wondering if either of those 2 went 3rd, if they'd get much, and who it would draw from the most.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 1:47 AM Sanity102 writes:

Geez Scottie

soooo emotional...mmm...

And here's another parting gift (are you going to leave this time?)....when you pretend to be an educated snob, can you at least spell the word that you called Jim correctly? (there is no "h" after "c" in sycophant.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 2:04 AM Sanity102 writes:

but Dave...

If I'm a lightning rod, which only conducts power...who's producing the lightning? lol.

Zell or Joe over Rudy...mmmm. I have a problem with all three because of their social stand and while Rudy would be better because of his fiscal policies...I don't know if I trust him to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS.

And a 3rd party would only take away votes from the GOP not the Dems because the latter knows how to unite against a common foe.

All three don't quite fit in with their parties but they'll never go 3rd party because they KNOW that they cannot win...that is why Joe continues to play the Liberal even though the Dems turned against him...and why Rudy and Ron Paul pretend to be Reps even though Rudy disagrees with most GOP view points on social issues and Ron Paul is a libertarian.

All three may be men of principles for standing up for the WOT but none of them are stupid enough to throw their lot in with a party that has less than 3% chance of winning.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 2:51 AM Jim writes:

Scottie

You lose.

Sorry losing it to Sanity102 like that, never good. Queen of hearts? Like Diana, didn't think so. Het can we have a moderator over here?

As for me, not that bothered, if I am a sheep, and you are what exactly? The Bald Eagle, symbol of the US, I out vote you, and I don't need legislation to protect me, because I'm not a dying breed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 5:47 AM davecatbone writes:

Sanity

I agree about the 3rd party today. But things can change, and if the nuts go further on the left, you may see some Dems wanting a Dem Lite party option down the road aways.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 5:52 AM davecatbone writes:

Jim

Don't understand the Diana reference. I would enjoy your input at my debate, but I've got to say, you're right about the moderator. Feelings keep getting the conversation side tracked, but I really don't see any sheep anywhere here. Deeply felt positions, and some more emotional than others. The bald eagle has made a spectacular comeback, I watched many in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 1:24 PM Jim writes:

Dave

Normally a moderator unless severely pushed will try and find out what went on, despite the Alice in Wonderland reference, one way out is trying to explain away at least part of the name calling. In this case the late Princess Diana was also called the "Queen of hearts"

As to Eagle, yep, it has up to 65,000 pairs. I was referring sideways to mention of the GOP "sheep" which undoubtably I am referred to, Sheila I know has an issue being called that.

Equally I suspect that Scottie et al think of themselves as protecting America, hence my reference that despite the derogatory name of sheep, Sheep are not preserved by legislation, on the other hand the Eagle had to be.

The Eagle therefore leads quite an artificial existance...see the parallels?

Thanks for the offer I will take you up on it.

I would like to think there was a moderator but realistically I doubt anything will happen, Townhall has always been ummm.... very moderator lite.

Sorry if I have done "egg sucking" explaination, I am not trying to insult you, just trying to cover everything in a single post.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 5:10 PM Jim writes:

Sanity102s and my answers

Sanity102 has posted her answer to this on the comments section of her last blog entry
As for me Lieberman is strong on one issue the War, and so is Rudi, so all Rudi has to do is be firm about another issue say crime and that makes him the better choice. I understand where you are coming from, but I think your example makes the question rather easy to answer.

I must confess it would be interesting to see if anyone answered Democrat, or offered something outside your question.

In answer to one of the underlying themes, do I think any of the candidates is perfect, no far from, but we must use what we are given.

If you keep waiting for the perfect hand you always lose at cards.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 6:26 PM wil writes:

This is about half way up the comments,

"I get the feeling that you and Dave and Jev (Group 2) may be open to a Zell or Lieberman"

Maybe I belong in group 2 too. If the choice were Lieberman vs. Hegel (who is wrong on the war), I would vote for Lieberman. However, the Dems are so opposed to the war, there is no chance of this happening. Lieberman vs. Guiliani is a different story. Both are liberals on social issues, both are liberals on spending policies, Guiliani is a conservative on taxation (I think) while Lieberman is not, both are liberal in Immigration, both appear to be right on the war. This would be a tough call, and in addition to these issues, I would look at leadership, communication skills, character, and clarity in my decision. I cannot say for certain which I would vote for, but I would be much happier making this choice than between two cut and run people I agree with otherwise. I believe what I told John Edwards on my blog and in response to his e-mail. If we lose this war, the consequences are horrendous, so we must do what we can not to lose.

I appreciate being included in this discussion.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 02, 2007 7:06 PM davecatbone writes:

Wil & Jim

I posed this question in a different form at my blog, and there were some pretty hostile responses. But what I'm wondering about is compromise. If the people here at TH would vote outside the GOP to defeat an extreme Lib, or even to avoid a leftist RINO when a really strong hawk independent is running. I'm taking it all in as added thought for myself, and I really appreciate your opinions. Of course, I say we should defeat the Democrats at all costs, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a Repub, just as long as we can win.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 1:48 AM Sanity102 writes:

Dave, I did write a reply

but TH "ate" it when I hit "POST YOUR COMMENTS" and came up with "Can't find your page" AAAARGGGGG!

So I will try to create my brilliant (grin) post...ahem...

The problem with the Dems going further Left is that the absolutists, purist, and isolationist has ALSO gone further Right, thus each side negates the other.

And as the Middle runs, they won't turn to a 3rd party which after all, is the haven of the extremes...they'll settle. Those who lean Left will settle for a tried and true Democrat...those who lean toward the Right will settle for a Joe or a Zell.

Either way, as I see it, the GOP will lose and the way I see it, America cannot afford a Democrat in the WH, not with this nutty Congress, no matter how "lite".





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 2:20 AM Sanity102 writes:

wil

The difference between group 2 and group 3 is that while you'll look for a leader among the Dems, The GOP, or a 3rd party candidate, the Dems are the last place I'd go looking.

I think there is something sick about a party that celebrates the death of their unborn babies and who trashes the military that protects their rights.

Yes, if given a choice between a rock (Joe or Zell) and a hard place (Ron Paul), I'd pick the rock because the WOT trumps everything. But because both Joe and Zell are still beholden to the Dems, it really would be "extreme circumstances" for me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 2:27 AM wil writes:

Me too

I wouldn't make that choice joyfully, but I would make it
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 5:05 AM davecatbone writes:

Extreme Circumstances

I wonder how many elections in our history made the public feel they were voting under extreme circumstances, and why? Certainly wartime. Bruce Catton said the veterans in 1864 voted for Lincoln even though they idolized McClellan, because they knew they had to see it through and win.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 12:32 PM Sanity102 writes:

I'm not big on rhetoric

perhaps because I know how easy it is to use words to manipulate customers (in this case voters.) Every person in sales/marketing/merchandizing/business understands this.

(I'm going to write a post someday on how we could have sold the illegal immigration issue and not hurt the GOP and America.)

Thus what Joe and Zell says has less impact on me than the people who make their money in communication like the radio talk show hosts and pundits.

I'm not looking for another Reagan...the man was desperately needed after years of American bashing but this is a whole generation and a real war later. Thus other than delivering great lines and looking presidential, I agree with Morris that Fred won't move anyone but those looking for a Reagan part 2.

I'm not looking for a maverick...the GOP has one in McCain who like Joe and Zell, kind of danced to a different party drummer.

I like Hunter because from what I've seen so far, he hits all the major targets that concern the MAJORITY of voters, not just the base of a group that would already support him. He has the feisty impatience of a fighter and after 7 years of Bush's trying to remain calm and adult among a bunch of immature idiots...we need someone to bring in the big stick (grin). Yes, he's big on the border issue but not fanatical. And the best...he's ex-military with a son that has done two duties as a marine.

He's someone I could "sell" to the American people.

And right now, this has to be our priority...getting behind a GOP candidate that we can sell to the near other 80% who do NOT share all our concerns.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 7:21 PM davecatbone writes:

If Hunter Was To Win

What would it take? He's so far behind in money and public recognition? What puts him up with the other 3 or 4? All the star power up there is making him seem invisible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 03, 2007 11:27 PM Peppermint writes:

My goodness!

"1- Peppermint and Sheila believe in a real tangible difference between the Dems and the GOP. They will work toward getting as conservative a candidate as possible in the primary, but in the general, they will close ranks around the GOP candidate."

I want to respond to the above. I really don't like to get into discussions that fall into personal attacks.
From what I read and I just now got to this blog, it looks really ugly and I don't like to participate in that kind of ugly behavior with
my fellow TH bloggers. So, I just want to state
my position and I will not comment on anyone else's posts who have engaged in that behavior.

First of all I am not a card carrying Repub. I have never belonged to any party. I consider myself a libertarian actually. I don't want government in my business, that it includes what I eat, drink, smoke, or what drugs I take, what government takes away from me in any form. My position is the government needs to stay out of the citizens business and its' only purpose is to defend us from invasion.

Secondly, I have voted for any number of candidates, but never based solely on any political party. Once, I voted for Daffy Duck because I could not vote for either candidate. It's been so long ago I don't even recall which election it was. It may have been the Carter one.

The WOT, the SOTUS, tax cuts, abortion(rescinding it), preserving family values are all big issues for me.

Right now, I don't see a democrat who supports any of the above issues. That causes me to believe I could not vote for a democrat.

Right now, I don't see a "perfect" repub candidate.

Right now, I don't see a third party candidate I would vote for.

I will choose to vote for the candidate who as closely as possible supports the issues of which are my greatest concern. If there is a candidate who supports some or most of those issues I could vote for that person. I would compromise to get some of my issues supported. I don't feel I can compromise on the WOT. If we don't fight the WOT, there may be no reason to care about the rest, it would be moot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 04, 2007 1:37 AM Sanity102 writes:

Peppermint:

As I said in the article above: "They seem to be in 3 distinct groups (and anyone mentioned, feel free to correct me)"

Notice I used the word "seem"...that means it is MY perception...which is why I stated "feel free to correct me".

Which you did.

Also note, that I never said you were a card carrying GOP or even Sheila or Sandra for that matter. I said the group that frequents Sandra's blog seemed to be in these 3 groups.

I intentionally didn't mention the 4th group who don't seem to care about Sandra's request that her "guest" be respected. I didn't do so because I have no time for useless fighting and stupid games. (This is also the reason that I've stayed away from both sister's blogs.)

The ugliness that you talk about happened because the 4th group came HERE to MY blog and thought they could do to me what they've done to Sandra's and Sheila's blog. And as I told Sheila, I have no doubt it will happen again because those people ARE bullies.

It's not up to me to stop them from making it unpleasant to have a discussion on other people's blog but I can make certain that I am not a part of it.

As for my own blog...the bullies have left with a promise not to return...and I am making them keep that promise.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 04, 2007 1:54 AM Sanity102 writes:

Dave...

you're right again...sigh. Sadly, that is exactly what I was thinking as I caught part of the debate...Hunter looked invisible against the "star" quality of the top contenders.

And yes, he doesn't have the financial backing...I was hoping that if he came across as a possible, the money would follow, but I have to admit, I had difficulty thinking of him beating Queen Hil.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 04, 2007 5:23 AM davecatbone writes:

Sadly

This is such a popularity contest. The cutest cheerleaders. But where the rubber meets the road, it WILL be about ideas. And I liked what I heard from the pack. They are starting to get it, that we want them to FIGHT the Democrats, not take a whipping and then apologize for being conservatives. While I'm thinking of it, I'm going to write all my Reps and reiterate that very point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 04, 2007 2:02 PM Peppermint writes:

Sanity

I was not accusing you of anything to make myself clear. I knew you were just being general in your descriptions. I just used the opportunity to clarify my position and what I believe and how I decide my vote.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 05, 2007 1:22 AM Sanity102 writes:

Peppermint...fair enough

About your "depressing" comment on Sandra's blog...

Think about this...in 2004, they threw everything at Bush and yet he won.

Why?

In fact, I remember telling someone in a GOP forum that I was depressed that ANYBODY voted for Kerry at all after what he had done to our Vietnam Vets and she reminded me that the entire MSM was against Bush including Hollywood with all their star power.

Bush should have lost and taken all the GOP with him.

But he won--big time.

Again, ask yourself why.

What changed?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 05, 2007 9:00 AM davecatbone writes:

Peppermint

You spirit is being suppressed by the Enemedia. Sanity is right (again), Bush won twice when by all counts (grin) he should have lost. And no wonder it gets you down, you've been subjected to an all out onslaught since 2000. That's seven years of hearing how bad you are.

But you're still right. And, it's kind of like my Mom used to say to me when making me do something I didn't like, "that's right, I'm the meanest mom in the world" and then go right on, because she knew it was right, even though I hated her at that moment.

Will the Dumbed Down Moderate Middle hate us when they find out all the attacks that were thwarted? Will the Enemedia still spew when we find the WMDs in Syria (I believe they are there), and will everybody hate us when we win in Iraq, and Petraeus starts handing over the country to the Iraqis? They won't cheer, but there will be a sweet silence.

I've been saying for a long time, I think we can win in Iraq. But I want to tell you, I think we can win in Washington too. Just wait until Thompson declares, it will lift your spirit. Did you read his piece on TH today?

Keep fighting, we can win.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive