Home | Commentary | News | Forum | The Loft | Online Activist | State News | Resources | Classifieds Subscribe | Mobile | RSS | Contact

       


Go Back   The Forum at GOPUSA > Politics > Inside the Beltway > Editorials on Politics

 
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-04-2007, 09:37 AM
Terri's Avatar
Terri Terri is offline
Mob Boss
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 69,644
Default We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

By Randy Rudder
October 4, 2007

I can still remember that dreadful evening in November of 1992. I was sitting on the floor in front of the television set at my girlfriend's apartment as I watched the states turn colors one by one on CNN. I slowly came to the realization that a man who had earlier boldly pledged that he would "only nominate Supreme Court judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade," would soon be moving into the White House. My depression was exacerbated by the fact that this man would be elected to the highest office of the land with the support of only 43% of voting Americans. The "now you see me, now you don't" third party campaign of Ross Perot only served to pull enough votes away from Bush the elder to solidify Clinton's place in history for the next eight years.

Upon hearing this week that some evangelicals, disgruntled with many of the Republican candidates, might consider backing a third party candidate, I immediately had flashbacks to that infamous evening fifteen years ago.

It was not a pleasant memory.

More
__________________
Moving the Republican Party to the Right!

GOPUSA Mission Statement

  #2  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:25 AM
MCB777 MCB777 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 48
Default Re: We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

It truly confounds me as well.

I'm a conservative Christian. I am voting for Fred Thompson. I do not see why Dobson or any other evangelics have come out against him. Especially since the field is so crowded by RINO GOP politicians.

All I can figure is some GOP politicians are whispering in their ears, filling them with lies and distortions and they have chosen to believe them.

This would certainly be an embarrassment to Dobson and other evangelicals. There is a move underfoot to trash Thompson. Personally, I believe it's coming from the Guilliani camp although not directly.

Those Christian conservatives don't like Guilliani either.

I like Huckabee, Brownback and Thompson, if any of them get nominated, I'm voting for them.

But if Guilliani gets in, we conservatives better put together a third party candidate or else I will not be voting for President for the first time in decades.

Why? Because the GOP failed miserably to put up a candidate I can vote for.

I hope there's not a replay of 2002, it all comes down to who the GOP nominate for that top spot.

But know this, CONSERVATIVES DO NOT COMPROMISE CORE BELIEFS

We will not vote for Guilliani out of fear for Hillary. You all need to accept this as fact.

Put Guilliani on that platform, you will lose the Presidency.
  #3  
Old 10-04-2007, 11:30 AM
Terri's Avatar
Terri Terri is offline
Mob Boss
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 69,644
Default Re: We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

I don't have a candidate yet but there are a few hard truths that I accept as fact.

One of them refutes this:
Quote:
Put Guilliani on that platform, you will lose the Presidency.
Put Hillary in the White House and lose America.

Your choice.
__________________
Moving the Republican Party to the Right!

GOPUSA Mission Statement

  #4  
Old 10-04-2007, 11:44 AM
Billary2004's Avatar
Billary2004 Billary2004 is offline
Ambassador
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,030
Default Re: We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

Yup Terri-

How many Republican voters are willing to be honest and admit they are merely RINOs.....there has to be a reason behind there being so many RINOs in Congress?
__________________
Are the rumors true? Is Mr. Durden building an army?
  #5  
Old 10-04-2007, 12:09 PM
RealDeal's Avatar
RealDeal RealDeal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 8,879
Default Re: We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

Quote:
A third party candidate endorsement by evangelicals would be disastrous for conservatives, disastrous for family values, and possibly enable another Clinton to enter the White House with only 43% of the vote.



Quote:
But know this, CONSERVATIVES DO NOT COMPROMISE CORE BELIEFS


When Hillary and the socialist/ humanist/ atheists take over, I hope that "non-compromising conservatives" don't come around here complaining and blaming everyone else but themselves because CONSERVATIVES DON'T DELUDE THEMSELVES INTO BELIEVING THAT LOSING IS WINNING.
  #6  
Old 10-08-2007, 10:29 AM
greg greg is offline
Ambassador
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,168
Default Re: We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

Second the Yup to Terri and to Real Deal:

Because, we conservatives can control a President Giulliani through our conservative feedback accountability control of Congress, even this rabid liberal Democrat 110th Congress, based on today's Results!!--Remember Shamesty?--making it the most ineffective Congress in history, as far as the lib Dem agenda is concerned. Then we individual and aggregate organized conservatives continue to work to make it a one term President Giulliani by cultivating and supporting the best all-around conservative Presidential candidates that we can have for 2012, and so forth for the indefinite forseeable future, while noting all the way out that the liberal Democrats will get morally, socially, politically, economically, anti-American worse and worse, replete with more and more imaginative lying and falsehood as befitting their world view, all supported by an equally progressively perverted MSM (only time such a lib Dem hijacked word, "progressive" is well used), until they blow us all away if we conservatives lose our way or dies out as a world view.

But if we have both a lib Dem Congress backed by any lib Dem Presidency for 2008, MCB777 and others who share similar third party thoughts, there is no stopping the lib Dem agenda. Supported by the mind-poisoning (how many of us conservatives know that?) liberally controlled MSM, such a Congress and Presidency will positive-feedback each other to the exclusion of the citizens that hired them.

It'll be Europe, move over, America is taking the lead towards national self-destruction, saving many suicide bomber lives. Our conservatism of any stripe, whether fiscal, social, or foreign policy/defense, will be nationally, and eventually state-wise, shredded to near non-existence by all three branches-Executive/Presidential, Congressional, and their resultant worse-than-present Judicial tyrannical. Or, the work that we conservatives and our conservative leaders would have to do to contain the multiple piggybacking liberal travesties will make the work that we all have been doing since the beginning of this 110th Congress look like a picnic at RightMarch. So much for "principle" in this messy imperfect world. Risks being not around to live those principles.

It'll NOT be a replay of 1992 in consequence, but it will be a worse rendition, if this near 10 month trendable behavior of this lib Dem Congress is any indication to any conservative who thinks about these "all-or-nothing" consequences. There will be no "all" in American politics/never has been, there is only hard, long term conservative grass roots work over a period of years, if not decades. [ Note that the liberals have been working for 45 years since the 1960s, 75 years since FDR's liberalism, 150 years since Charles Darwin. ] But that "nothing" attitude greatly risks a total conservative-world-view destruction, assuming that this nation lasts the 4 years of a Hellory Presidency (or any one of the liberal Democratic Presidential contenders). This is easy to trend, even with 'conservative' spread margins, based on the lib Dem attitudes and behaviors since the beginning of the 110th Congress.

With all those illegal anti-First Amendment and anti-Second Amendment arrests of conservative citizens peacefully protesting, there may not be any conservative activists out there to complain and blame with the Hugo Chavez pro-IslamoFascist laws that will be the law of the land--don't think so? Look at these very kinds of laws that the lib Dems are trying to get passed now. Unless we go the way of the Burmese protestors. Think not such a reality? Just do the trending of the First Amendment related criminal arrestings going on all over the country, and the laws that the lib Dems are trying to get passed aimed against conservatives of any stripe, like the anti-conservative "Fairness Doctrine" when the liberals have a lock control over CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, UPI, Reuters, NY Times, LA Times, whiteWashington Post, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Signs of the times, easy to read them.

Fellow perfectionist conservatives, this ain't a perfect world. No such thing as "my way or the highway." We all share the same highway. An imperfect world needs solutions which account for such imperfection, or the consequences will be a very much worse imperfection. (This is not to say that our multi-faceted conservatism even approaches perfection, let alone being "perfect." But our aggregate conservatism--fiscal, social/moral, foreign policy/defense--does oppose the inconsistent contradictory hypocritical suicidal liberal Democratic world view for our nation continued longevity.) The Republican Party right now has the best option to retain our conservatism, only if we want to work hard and long.

Quote:
But if Guilliani gets in, we conservatives better put together a third party candidate or else I will not be voting for President for the first time in decades.

If we truly want am all-around conservative third party, IT CANNOT be promulgated from the top down, or it will be just like the lib Dems--totalitarian dictatorial. Probably get side lined or swallowed up by the lib Dems, because there would be no external public difference. It has to come from the bottom up, with the same equally hard, years long work of self-governance at the grass roots--the precinct, or lower, level, not appearing magically the day before yesterday. You also needed to have started this third party quite a few years ago, with the associated growth pains, and the MSM pain you'll get when your third party gets big enough to get noticed, in order to have any real impact today, other than just this verbal breast beating. ---which the liberal Democrats and their IslamoFascist allies just hope you will do--boycott the elections--in order to gracefully take power from your all-too-willing hands, and lop your and our conservative heads off, like has been happening since November 7, 2006. And that will be: so much for "salt in society" and "light on the hill" particularly for conservative Christians who have not the patience of their own Savior Christ.

In the mean time, we still have this vehicle for conservatism, as broken down as we conservatives have let it become by failing to give the massive constant consistent feedback accountability that we have shown that we can do (like that successful set of shamnesty battles). It's called the Republican Party.

Randy Rudder concluded, "And that is a memory I have no desire to relive." It'll be a worse memory, where truth will be indeed stranger and more deadly than fiction.

Quote:
We will not vote for Guilliani out of fear for Hillary. You all need to accept this as fact.

Put Guilliani on that platform, you will lose the Presidency.
You can boast now, until you reap the consequences spelled out above that you have sown on November 4, 2008. As for the rest of us aggregate conservatives? Did you care about your neighboring conservative?

Last edited by greg : 10-08-2007 at 11:24 AM.
  #7  
Old 10-08-2007, 10:38 AM
greg greg is offline
Ambassador
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,168
Default Re: We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992

Real Deal signed off:
Quote:
IF WE LOSE: RTL WON'T MATTER, THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDEMENTS WON'T MATTER, THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE WON'T MATTER, THE DEBATE OVER UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WON'T MATTER, AD INFINITUM!!

Brigitte Gabriel stated 'identically' similarly:
Quote:
If we don't win the war against Islamofascism other issues won't matter at all.

We won't have an economy to worry about.
We won't have equal rights for all.
We won't have our cherished freedom.
And we will live under Sharia Law.
Substitute "liberal Democratism" for "IslamoFascism" and "Communism" (for all practical intents and purposes) for "Sharia Law."

Ms Gabriel has a lot more to say about the latter, by the way. It pays to surf to her web site, and read it through for the IslamoFascist threat. Keep in mind that the left-leaners are pro-IslamoFascist, from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin to the American Democratic Party that the Islamist terrorist leadership supports to the hilt. They all connect at various levels.

All three persons, Randy Rudder, Real Deal and Brigitte Gabriel, and their observations are entirely correct, based on actual historical results (and if we don't know our history, we are bound to repeat it, worse the second time around--take a look at the history of third parties in America--Theodore Roosevelt was as popular and effective as any President, but his Bull Moose (third) Party put that globalist liberal Woodrow Wilson into the White House--and so on down to the present day to Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Ralph Nader [Nadir?] ).

Last edited by greg : 10-08-2007 at 10:47 AM.
 


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 


Not a member? Click here.
Discuss Issues in the Forum

Grassroots Survey Team
View recent survey results
Join the survey team!



GOPUSA Cartoons
Click here!