« Update | Main | Immigation Myths »

Wednesday, May 17, 2006


"Disagree, dissent, march, email, telephone the White House and the Congress, heck, even mail a brick, but it doesn’t make sense to completely destroy the man who will be leading the country for two more years, or to destroy the Republican Party unless you are ready to accept the agenda of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid."

Well said!

Lorie - either you read my mind or I read yours (see my comment at the end of your previous post). And I agree completely.

Hi Lorie,
I was so sad to see that you were leaving Polipundit -- one of my favorite blog stops every day. I've enjoyed your posts and your pleasant means of delivery. So, I guess I'll be visiting this site instead.
Cheers and best wishes,

Jayson's prescience in often writing about the "send a message" crowd resonates quite loudly these days.

This is crybaby conservatism: if I don't get it all on my pet issue, I'll take my ball and go home. To hell with everything else. Hardly responsible, mature, prudent.

Our only hope in November is that mature conservatives realize the fallout from staying home and, despite their misgivings, do the right thing.

It really scares me when intelligent people like Oak, Ace, etc. write posts anticipating how amusing it would be if Pelosi becomes Speaker in '06. I think they've lost it. As Geraghty said, they're seeing some triple bank shot that'll win it for them in '08.

This is sheer lunacy.

Bah. We did the same thing with the Myers nomination, and it didn't destroy the president. In fact, it got him to do the right thing and nominate Scalia.

I'm going to continue to b*tch and moan until he gets to work on real border security. If he does this, I'll get right back on the support bandwagon. Until he does, he'll get no support or defense from me. Just like he received no support while Harriet Myers was the nominee.

And JB, it's not about a 'pet issue'. With Republicans in charge of the House, Senate, and the white house, we still don't have:

Social Security reform
Drilling in ANWR
A grasp on government pork
A secure border

These are not pet issues. These are the ONLY issues for me. Aside from helping the economy and working on the courts, he's done nothing for us :(. If by November comes around and they haven't resolved at least two of the above, I'm for letting someone else have a crack at it.

If that makes me an imprudent, immature crybaby, then so be it. I have a more W.C. Fieldy view. "If at first they don't succeed, try, try again. But after that, give someone else a try. No use being a damn fool about it."


Personally, with the Harriet Miers nomination I was left asking myself - what was the point of electing George W. Bush president, and then re-electing him, if we can't count on him to be a conservative (let alone a "compassionate" one). The Miers nomination was like the straw that broke the camels back.

When he finally withdrew the Miers nomination, many conservatives were relieved - but, going back to the camel analogy, that was just taking off one straw - there is still a lot of pent up anger and frustration that this president has not been that conservative on many issues that conservatives care about.

You suggest that it would be worse to stay home and let the Democrats get elected by default - but what options are left?

If you cannot hold your elected officials accountable, especially ones from your own party - then what options are left?

If politicians believe they need to "toe the party line" in order to get elected - but once elected, they are free to do whatever they want - because the alternative to them is somebody from the other party - then are we really better off with that person?

I don't know if you have children or not - but what if your child knew that no matter how badly they acted, you were never going to punish them - what would keep them from acting out and misbehaving?

You know that phrase that parents say to kids "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you"? Perhaps that's because parents are doing something that is difficult to do in the short term - but important enough to do for the long term.

Some conservatives are starting to feel that way. They're willing to risk years of Democratic rule - if Republicans and Conservative elected officials get the message that "if you burn us - we will hold you accountable on election day - and we just might stay home."

I am an American before I am a Republican or Conservative. I vote for the candidate that I believe is best for the country.

President Bush is that choice. Yes, I disagree with some of his positions, but again, he is the best person for the job.

Even though I despised President Clinton, he was the President of the United States, so I spoke of him--as the the holder of the office--with respect while I dissented from his positions. When I spoke of him as the individual, I criticized his behavior.

Lorie, I applaud your approach.

JB: No candidate will ever satisfy you thn, because there is no candidate in existance that coudl give you that entire list. President have to choose their battles - and I daresay Bush has had more on his plate than most other presidents in recent history. INcluding an opposition party that has gone so far over the edge that often their only reason for opposing something is "YEah, it might work, but he proposed it so we have to oppose it"

Sadly, several people purportedly on OUR side are becoming the same way.

With friends like Flint, who needs enemys? Lorie, your words ring for me today! Remember Tom Daschele? Remember the hardships that he was able to put upon the Presidency? We finally got rid of him.

If you nitwit Republicans play the all-or-nothing card in today's politics, woe to America as we watch the other all-or-nothing political party make straw out of every conservative gain we have made in the last six or twenty years. And then watch the War on Terror stop... then Osama made Middle East King! The UN will be impowered to make it so.

Where were all of us on this imigration issue fifteen years ago? Today we have made our case for borders action so if we don't want a wall circling the whole continental US for our prophylacticity, my words for you are grow up or run for president yourself!


I laud your passion, but keep in mind that the four issues that are dear to your heart do not make up the entirety of the Republican party platform.

Withdrawing support might be your tactic to encourage change, but I'm not sure if that is the answer.

You know, the things that are so important to you seem to align more with the Constitution Party platform.

Perhaps if the Republican party does not have the same passion for the issues as you do, then you should look elsewhere.

But then again, that opens up the debate about the ridiculous nature of America's overwhelmingly 2 party system and the FEC's ridiculous rules regarding Presidential (and party representation) debates. I believe this is a shame. The American public deserves the right to listen to all the party candidates express their views.

Some people are angry with the Federal Election Commission for what they consider a monopoly (starting on page 11 - "John Hagelin, et. al. v. FEC"). It seems Republicans and Democrats hold all the cards for deciding which persons can participate.

What are your thoughts about the FEC's CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) and their criteria for candidate inclusion? Obviously not every fringe candidate should participate, but what should be the criteria for inclusion?


Rather than running off to third parties, why not use the primaries of the two paries to elect the candidates that most reflect the values you see as most important. I don't like them, but maybe the RINO's are what most people want.

Again, it's like the Simpson's episode...you have to vote for one alien or the other, which will it be?

Does GWBush hold true to ANY conservative principles? If Pelosi is speaker, what can she really do? What can any of them do? There is still the Supreme Court to stop anything illegal, right? Oh, I forgot, we relied on Bush to stop McCain-Feingold, but then, he let us down, didn't he? And so did the Surpreme Court.

The number of times he has let us down has grown longer than pinocchio's nose, and just like his nose, grows longer with each speech. He is not just in favor of illegal immigration, he is unapologetically supportive of Mexicans. He is way too biased in this respect.

Spending is out of control, and he has failed bill after bill to restrain it, when he had that power in his own hands. You can't blame this one on the Senate and Congress, though they take their own blame for spending it, he takes the blame for not stopping them.

Freedoms are under attack. Which ones? I don't know, but I don't trust anyone who starts throwing around "We're at War!!" to justify ANYTHING. When you ignore so much of what is already illegal and turn to me and say, well, just let me do THIS and we'll all be safe, I say bull. Start enforcing the laws you already have on the books. When you show me you can do that, I'll examine what you say.

You want me to support someone who says we've already caught, detained, and exported 6 million illegals, but says that no one realistically believes we can deport 12 million? Come on, Lorie, I thought even YOU would go nuts over that one.

You want Republicans in office to stop socialism? Then where did the drug program come from? What about the data mining? Sure, you think it's innocent now, but it means they think they have the right to search amongst the general population now. So what if the info was already in the public domain, now all they have to do is figure out how to get it in the public domain, and they can have a look. They tell you it's not tagged to any personal info, but they lie, because if it isn't, how can it tell them anything about who to go surveille? It cant', it's not logical. The answer is the phone number. With that, they can find out who you are, all they need to know is in another database somewhere they supposedly only they have access to. And if someone says "well, if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Did you not read Orwell? Did you think people actually voted to go from freedom to that? Come on, Lorie, you sould like your having kool-aid for breakfast.

This president has betrayed me for the last time, and the entire party seems bent on declaring amnesty again. No more. I will not fall for Lucy's promise again. I'm tired of politicians treating me like I was poor Charlie Brown. He's stupid, he'll fall for it again, he'll forget by the time the elections roll around.

No, I won't. Not this time. I will do what I can in the primaries, that is the right thing to do, but I will NOT vote for anyone who votes for AMNESTY.

And think about this...they didn't stop McCain Feingold...why? Because they knew it was as good for them as it was for the Democrats. They colluded on this, sure as the world. The Dems put it through, the Republicans said, well, the Supreme Court will stop it, but didn't. Both sides benefitted, because it is nothing but incumbent protection. Gerrymandering is incumbent protection. The politicians are spending their time not taking care of business but making themselves money and writing laws to protect themselves, not us. All of them who vote for amnesty, OUT. All who voted for McCain Feingold, OUT. All who voted for prescription drugs, OUT. All who vote for socialism, OUT.

At least the anti-Bush crowd that moved from Poli to this wonderful site are civil in their discourse.

Their agenda is the same but apparently know the DUmpster language will not be tolerated.

What is their agenda? Why,of course to try and sway as many voters as possible to abandon the Republican Party and vote for "their" Pogressive ideals side.

This tactic will not work for the truly enlightened who well remember Democrat majorities in congress and the House. I count myself among the truly enlightened.

Re what USMC Pilot said--it's happening in Pennsylvania--check out the news stories re their primaries..

Great Townhall post, Lorie--I linked to it this morning from Lucianne.com and agree wholeheartedly..

"All who voted for prescription drugs, OUT."

...and what is the beef with the prescription drug program? I have grandparents in their 80's who were paying about $410 a month for their medications and now are paying about $170 I think.

They seem happy as can be. Heck who wouldn't be?

I have always supported the republican leadership. They actually have to win elections. Extremists can not seem to understand that they are actually fighting for the other side. Glad to see you gone from wacko polipundit.

I have been a staunch loyal republican all my life. I believe the republicans have failed to listen to their base and will "reap what they have sown" come fall.

We all agree that the most pressing issue in the immigration debate is border security. Yet, all I hear from our right wing is no amnesty. If we are going to pick an issue to die for it should be the former rather than the latter. We need a border security bill now and if we don't it will be the fault not of the President or even the Democrats but of those Rabies Republicans -- thanks DJ for the term -- who wish to die over the latter. If this happens, Republicans will be punished at the polls because they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. In fact, if this happens Republicans ought to be punished not because they failed their "base" but because they failed all of the American people.

My kid brother has an expression that sums it up best. "If you think settling for the lesser of two evils is bad, consider what happens when you get the greater evil."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

Support This Site

Share this