1. You had me until I read that the undersign pledge to stay home or vote for a third party. The only way I would vote for a third party is if they truly had a viable candidate (which to date has not happened). As for staying home, forget it. That is just handing the Democrats a victory and that is not acceptable. We in the 3rd CD saw the Republicans stay home this last election and because of this a good solid Conservative lost to a Democrat who votes "present" on important bills instead of taking a stand. I would rather hold my tongue and vote for the lesser of two evils than to let Hillary or Obama stroll into the White House. I do agree that the Republicans need to start listening to their base and stop listening to the liberal MSM polls and I hope they do this before it is too late.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 18, 2007 06:57 PM

2. TS - I agree. This attitude has allowed Dems to take more seats and make their position stronger. Any way you look at it, if you let the Dem gain in power or keep their seats, you won't get any of your goals.

The only way to get any of your conservative goals achieved is to try to get rid of some of the Dem advantages. There are times when you just have to do it one step at a time - all or nothing these days gives you nothing, at least here in Washington.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 18, 2007 09:28 PM

3. Those aren't conservatives, ccwt; they are Buchanan isolationists, or you could say Buchanan liberals since that fellow has more in common with the left than the right.

Posted by: swatter on March 19, 2007 08:57 AM

4. Keep voting for RINO's - yeah, that's the ticket!

Which would you rather have:
1) Hillary holding court in the WH, with a Conservative-controlled Congress?

2) Or, some RINO, Neo-Conned clown in the WH, with a Demonrat-controlled Congress? (like we have now)

The choice is yours - sounds like you'd want #2 - more of the same incoherent mush.

A Conservative would take #1 any day over #2.

-JP

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 19, 2007 12:39 PM

5. JP,

how do you suggest getting A Conservative controlled Congress when this pledge says to stay home and not vote if a real Conservative candidate does not emerge? If you do not vote then you will not get control of Congress; therefore by staying home and not voting you get both a democrat WH and A democrat Congress. Seems to me that a true Conservative would oppose this even more.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 19, 2007 01:51 PM

6. Because I believe Slick Billary back in the WH would force the right to coalesce again and regain control of Congress to oppose her maniacal schemes.

Remember how precisely this happened in 1992-1994, where Republicans were incensed by the new radical agenda coming from the WH under Der Schlickmeister. But, now, consider the Witch of the West Wing as POTUS who is really the virulent left-wing idealogue and is eminently disciplined compared to WJC. How would the Right then react?

I think nothing would bring the fractured and demoralized right-wing coalition back together more strongly and more quickly than to face the reality of Billary as POTUS. But, remember, the POTUS is powerful, but is only one person. Congress, however, incessantly LEGISLATES further control of our lives and pisses away our Rights.

The alternative trend is likely to have another RINO in the WH, who is hardly a Conservative, opposed by a Demonrat Congress (like it is now) which likley would retain and increase their power to make our lives more miserable. I'd be happy to debate the fact that GWB has amply revealed he is an unmitigated Neo-Con disaster if you would care to.

So, I agree, "staying home" is a poor substitute for voting third-party (which many consider to be the equivalent in effect). But, to answer your question, instead of staying home, one can vote for all of the Congressional Republicans and third-party candidates one wishes without voting for another RINO such Judy McRomnesty (or God forbid, actual voting FOR Billary for POTUS).

The bottom line is, unless we decide to stop compromising on Conservatism, we're going to get more socialism and more totalitarianism no matter what. The question is, will we vote for it affirmatively, or will we vote our consciences and make the effort to get what we want - while running the risk of getting more of leftism indirectly??

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see ANY Conservative in the WH (but not any old leftist Republican) instead of Billary, but I won't embolden a strengthened Demoncat Congress - while running the risk of getting Billary too - by robotically voting for another RINO (and not creating a better chance to get something good out of the deal).

-JP

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 19, 2007 08:53 PM

7. JP, I will agree the GW has been a bit of a disaster and that the R's lost control do to their own ineptness, but I really am not willing to give Hillary or Obama a two year run with a possibly Democratically controlled Congress. The path they would take us down for those two years would be detrimental for our nation and we may never recover.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 20, 2007 08:16 AM

8. How about we just work our tails off now, to get a one of the conservatives elected, instead of a RINO? Attend your district meetings, attend your caucuses, rally the troops around a conservative.

Posted by: Michelle on March 20, 2007 02:31 PM

9. I guess I am one of those RINO, neocon, what was the last thing I am? Why should I kowtow to the left wing of the Democrat party? I ain't having none of it.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2007 04:28 PM

10. Tom Tancredo is good for these guys? He is a one-trick pony. He is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party.

He was in my top 5 based on his immigration stance, but since then, I realize he is out of mainstream conservatism. His immigration policy is unworkable and impossible to implement unless you annihilate the Democrat Party, which I assume is a party we still have to deal with. And then there is another 100 million Americans to deal with after that.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2007 04:34 PM

11. Tancredo has received a lifetime 99% from the American Conservative Union, that rates candidates on a broad range of issues regarding how well they measure up to the conservative agenda as a whole. He has the highest score of ANY of the presidential candidates. How can you say he's a "one trick pony"? He may be on a mission with his solutions to illegal immigration, but he is an across the board conservative. What more could you want?

And how is his solution to illegal immigration "not workable"? Enforcing the law is not workable? If employers of illegals were fined or put in jail for hiring them, that would be incentive for them to stop. That would be incentive for the illegals who are here for the jobs to go home. Problem solved, for the most part. This is a plan you could even get honest Democrats behind. Punishing CEOs for their greedy exploitation of the poor.

Posted by: Michelle on March 20, 2007 06:47 PM

12. While I agree with you, Michelle, that Tancredo is a true conservative. You are wrong that he has the highest rating of any of the Presidential candidates.

Ron Paul - 100%

Posted by: Trent Hill on March 21, 2007 08:21 AM

13. Swatter, Trent,

You might want to check your facts next time lest you find yourselves ensconced in the Kucinich wing of the Republican party (or worse).

The ACU has long been the gold standard for rating members of Congress, from a Conservative perspective, based on a panolply of important issues upon which they have voted.

Michelle quoted Tancredo's lifetime ACU rating of his cumulative votes through 2005. Seeing as Ron Paul has just recently entered the race, I checked with the ACU and, lo and behold, they have just updated their numbers based on congressional voting through 2006.

Let's see how well your Kucinich-wing heroes stack up: The most recent ACU ratings for 2004, 2005, 2006, and their Lifetime are as follows:

Tancredo 100 100 92 98
Hunter 87 92 88 92
Paul 78 76 76 82
Reichert na 64 56 60
Kucinich 0 0 4 10

Whoopsie..

Now, as to your lame 'one-trick-pony' assertions, name a national security issue which is more important to preserving our Amercian civilization than sercuring our borders from invasion and determining a strategy to deal with tens of millions of illegal insurgents who are currently untracable within our society?

Second, name your top three proposals that Tom Tancredo has issued which come remotely close to the whacky nonsense which Kucinich regularly spews. (looniness which is eerily consistent which your own lame arguments here)?

-JP

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 21, 2007 10:09 AM

14. jp, you proved my point. You are so tightly esconced in the person that you don't see the forest from the trees.

Personally, I like Tancredo's immigration idea on the surface; however, what he is proposing is not a solution because it doesn't have a chance to pass.

I like Kucinich's ideas, too; but I don't think they have a chance to be passed, or in the case of the Iraq war, accepted by the terrorists. But, if only it could work. I like that message- peace without bloodshed.

Therefore, I tied the two together- both have good ideas but have zero percent to succeed.

So, other than immigration, what on the national level that people know about does Tancredo stand for? And don't go to the web page, but I am asking what the GeneralPublic associate him with.

Posted by: swatter on March 22, 2007 01:58 PM

15. How about fiscal conservatism/smaller government/constitutional limits to the federal government? He was one of only a few Republicans who had the courage to go against the President and vote against the Kennedy/Bush "No Child Left Behind" Act that expanded the unconstitutional role of the federal government in education (which belongs to local governments and ultimately the parents).

Ditto for expanding medicare.

How about being pro-life? He is consistent on his pro-life position. From conception, a person has a right to life, which shall not be infringed. He has carried the endorsement of Republican National Coalition for Life and has a 100% voting record with National Right to Life. (of the presidential candidates, only Tancredo, Hunter and Brownback can claim this, which is why the MSM likes to ignore them as much as possible)

Posted by: Michelle on March 23, 2007 11:06 AM

16. Swatter,

According to your logic, one is in the "Kucinich wing of the Republican party", if his conservative ideas supposedly "have zero chance of passing" (because you say so), rather than those in the party who are actual leftists and have more in common with Kucinich's own ideas on social issues, the environment, spending? That is absurd! The true "one trick pony" is Giuliani, the "liberal democrat who is tough on crime".

As for Tancredo's ideas having "zero chance of passing": that is only true if you attempt to project what others think, when you decide who to vote for. The immigration reform caucus of which Tancredo was chairman, successfully held the line against the Kennedy/McCain/Bush Amnesty bill, and sparked a groundswell of a movement that just might even stop it this time, inspite of the newly Democrat controlled Congress (due to the squishy Republicans defeat).

Posted by: Michelle on March 23, 2007 11:28 AM

17. If Michelle ever DID anything other than blather on websites, I would tend to believe her more... BUT she does nothing for the conservative cause.

Posted by: Eunice Burns on March 23, 2007 01:40 PM

18. Eunice,

How, exactly, do you define the 'conservative cause', and what, pray tell, have you accomplished yourself to advance it?

If you had any credible basis for your spurious comment, I'd consider respecting you..

-JP

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 23, 2007 02:37 PM

19. Eunice,

I've never heard of you. How in the world would you know what I do aside from comment on blogs? Unless you're stalking me....but then you would know otherwise.

Posted by: Michelle on March 25, 2007 05:19 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?