Eight reasons to vote Republican

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Eight reasons to vote Republican

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Wow! The justice Stevens reason alone scared the heck out of me!

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

It was funny, I like it.

1-Regarding judges, a real issue that has to be taken seriously. Bench nominations have repercussions that will be felt for a very long time.

2-Regarding encouraging the enema. I think enemas pretty much define the friends we have. Sometimes friends feel like enemas. Usama bin Ladin is a dangerous enema. And he may also give an enema endorsement to the democrats, who act as if they have enemas too.

3-Security isn't a new issue, but it is a real winner for the republicans. It is hard to answer the question (if you are a liberal) whether you would be safer with wiretapping terrorist connections in the US or whether you would be safer if you didn't wiretap terrorist connections in the US. The dems are left dancing with themselves when this question is raised.

4-Taxes - You want to know why Schwarzenegger is ahead by 15 points in most CA polls? Schwarzeneggar won't raise taxes. Angelides has stated he will raise them substantially.

5-Immigration is a coin toss. Personally I like Bush's idea, but it has no chance if dems control the House or Senate.

6-Framing the debate? That would be interesting. It seems there are many different political stripes inside the party and so "framing the debate" is harder than some might think. It might actually be good to get back to "core" values, but then, at what price?

7-I agree with seven, but it ties to six.

8-To lose majority seats or chairmanships would invite all kinds of problems including continuous "investigations" into a presidency to drive distractions to the over all international strategy.

Lesser of two evils? Or simply lesser of two weevils?

arbilad · Head Chef

I disagree most strongly with the article. For instance, I think that Pres. Bush made piss poor choices for judges. With a republican majority in the house and the senate, he had the best chance he was ever going to have to put forward strong, no compromise candidates. Instead, he went for candidates that he believed could pass through the self appointed guardians of the gate, that is, McCain and his gang of 14.
Bush has been actively bad on immigration. It isn't that hard, really, to seal a border. He has done more than almost any other president to open up the border further. I can't imagine that any democrat would be worse.
As far as security, I think it hurts security to fight a war with one hand tied behind our back. We're fighting the war in Iraq like a police action, not a war. We have to fight the war in as politically correct a way as possible, and it's killing us.
As far as taxes, true, it is likely that Democrats would expand our taxes. But Pres. Bush has vastly expanded the government and federal spending. Tax cuts are good, but they have to be accompanied by spending cuts.
In my opinion, Bush has been a disaster. The Republican party in general is going that way. Are you telling me that I either have a choice between a disaster and a major disaster, that isn't any choice at all. It's like asking if I want to get drawn and quartered or have my head chopped off.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

So... which shall it be then, being drawn and quartered, boiled in oil, or take what is behind door three? (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!).

I think the article is not necessarily extoling the virtues of the Bush presidency or what has happened and what has not happened over the past 6 years. I think it is trying to point out that it may not be very wise long term for conservatives (regardless of their flavor) to punish the Republican party by either not voting at all or by voting for Democrats, because if liberals gain control, their game plan is to get entrenched and instead of going forward to undue all the good and progress the conservative controlled legislative and executive branchs have accomplished since the Billary era.

Frankly, I haven't really heard much about why I should vote for anyone from either party other than the rhetorical "vote for me because I'm so much better than the other person and that other person is from the party that is gonna ruin the country and you are probably gonna go to hell anyway if you vote for that party."

Pt314 · Senior Member

Just read all of the replies to the article, its quite entertaining.

I mostly agree with Michael Medved's arguements. The cost of the democratic party in power is too high.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Arbi,

I would have expected the Judges argument to be the most compelling to you. What do you have against Roberts and Alito? Are you really that unwilling to settle for 3/4 of a loaf?

arbilad · Head Chef

How about Roberts' statements that he considers Roe v Wade to be settled law, and would do nothing to challenge it? Or his pro-bono work for Lambda legal defense? A long time friend of Roberts had this to say about him: "Putting politics aside, the current Court member Roberts most resembles is Stephen Breyer."
He doesn't sound like much of a right-wing christian to me.
And why did Sam Alito, as a lesser court judge, overturn New Hampshire's ban on partial birth abortions? In his decision he cited Roe v. Wade approvingly.
They certainly don't sound at all like the sorts of judges that we were promised. I agree; it's very important to have the right person in the judge's chair. But Bush hasn't been picking the right people.
I do understand where you're coming from, Shiz. If you cannot afford the rolls royce, buy the Honda. It's still much better than an ox cart. But to my understanding the Democrats and Republicans are much more similar than dissimilar. So the choice would be more along the lines of choosing between the rolls royce, or falling from a galloping horse, or being dragged by the horse.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm a Medhead, and can't objectively read or critique his work...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I'm a Medhead! Great article!

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The most significant statement so far on this thread is "...the Democrats and Republicans are much more similar than dissimilar." Of course they are similar. The real powers of both despise a principled conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist agenda. They are controlled by the same Latter Day Gadiantons, and therefore pursuing the same basic agenda.: more socialism, more war, more intervention, more globalism, more abortion, more deficits, more immigration from Mexico, more amnesty for illegals, and more reduction in core civil liberties.

Most true conservatives are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for fear of "throwing their vote away". Conservatives have fallen for this "lesser of two evils" argument for decades and what have we got to show for it? More socialism, more war, more intervention, more globalism, more abortion, more deficits, more immigration from Mexico, more amnesty for illegals, and more reduction in core civil liberties.

If a Republican loses because of third party defections, there is a better chance the Republicans will be forced to pay more attention to hard-line conservative/constitutionalist demands next time. If a third party were to break the 10% threshold, voter's perceptions about the ultimate possibilities of breaking the two party monopoly will be changed, and we might also get some legitimate opposition candidates invited to election debates in the future. Currently, most establishment debates are off-limits to third parties (unless they are a phony opposition like Ross Perot's independent candidacy in the 90s which made possible Clinton's election). I intend to keep trying, if nothing else, to influence other good people who may eventually see the light.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Sorry, right now I'm not willing to allow the Democrats to take control and then allow them to stay there until the Republicans "learn their lesson". I don't want to see what happens to the country with the nutburgers the Democrats have for leadership in power. I have yet to be impressed enough with any third party to sacrifice that much.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

From Church HQ and read in our Sacrament Meeting today:

In this election year, we urge Church members to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then vote for those they believe will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government. Latter-day Saints are under special obligation to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are ‘wise,’ ‘good,’ and ‘honest,’ (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).

Full text of the letter is here: http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-462-44-462,00.html

This is why I think the strategy of voting Republican just so the Democrats won't gain any more political power is misguided.

As I have in the past, I am studying the issues and will vote for those candidates who will most nearly carry out my ideas of good government, and who are women and men of integrity, regardless of political affiliation.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

That has little to do with the original post. The church may not endorse a single candidate, or party, but the party that seems to do the most damage to the morality of a nation, with its endorsement of same sex marriage, its endorsement of actions that undermine the family in general. That party, if we are honest with each other, tends to be the democratic party. There are individual exceptions of course, but one has to wonder why we would support someone like Nancy Pelosi who, in her CA politics is indeed an anathema to much that the LDS hold important to their lives. Does voting for a democrat ensure someone like her rises to a position of extraordinary power in the capitol? Or is there some hope that somehow the party can be changed from within?

How would the democratic party be changed from within by the vote given to a democrat?

arbilad · Head Chef

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

That has little to do with the original post. The church may not endorse a single candidate, or party, but the party that seems to do the most damage to the morality of a nation, with its endorsement of same sex marriage, its endorsement of actions that undermine the family in general. That party, if we are honest with each other, tends to be the democratic party. There are individual exceptions of course, but one has to wonder why we would support someone like Nancy Pelosi who, in her CA politics is indeed an anathema to much that the LDS hold important to their lives. Does voting for a democrat ensure someone like her rises to a position of extraordinary power in the capitol? Or is there some hope that somehow the party can be changed from within?

How would the democratic party be changed from within by the vote given to a democrat?

Jeffrey, what I understand Roper to be saying is that we are given positive instruction in that letter. That is, vote for someone who you feel will best implement the values and beliefs you have. We are not given a negative injunction to vote against those who we feel would do the worst job. It's a fine, but very important point. In my case, I do not feel that either the democratic candidate or the republican candidate will even approximately implement my beliefs and values, so I vote for those who would. That's usually Constitution Party. The original poster is saying that we should vote against that which is the greatest evil, the democratic party. It seems to me that Roper is pointing out (and perhaps it seems that way to me because I agree with the point) that instead of voting against something, we should vote for something.
If I vote for a Republican candidate, that is an explicit expression of support for what that candidate stands for. If I don't support what that candidate stands for, then I am being dishonest, in my opinion.
BTW,

Glenn Beck

said something similar recently. In a recent election he voted for the Constitution party candidate, because he couldn't stomach the Republican candidate, and there was no way that he was going to vote for the Democratic candidate.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

This is why I think the strategy of voting Republican just so the Democrats won't gain any more political power is misguided.

As I have in the past, I am studying the issues and will vote for those candidates who will most nearly carry out my ideas of good government, and who are women and men of integrity, regardless of political affiliation.

I don't vote against a candidate, I vote for a candidate. I don't vote for Republicans just so the Democrats won't win. I vote according to the issues and most often that means I don't vote Democrat. A third party with viable candidates has yet to surface that I feel confident in voting for.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Allow me to make an example:

A conservative democrat runs for office (there are many more now than before). He projects certain values you believe in. In fact, he is equal to or slightly better than the republican candidate.

Now, do you look at this strategically or do you look at it along the lines of tactics? In other words, a federalist view, or a state view? Which has the greater impact on your life?

If republicans win, there are certain conservative agendas that remain in place, and there are upcoming issues that are also strengthened, some of them mentioned here.

1-Supreme court judges

2-Wiretap issues

3-Guantanamo Bay

4-Iraq

5-Taxes

On a moral basis:

A-Same sex marriage

B-Abortion

C-Planned Parenthood

These are the strategic or federal issues.

State issues vary by state, but lets be honest, congressmen have less impact (beyond pork barrel spending), than state assemblymen or state senators.

So let us say many vote democratic, and in fact enough vote democratic so that Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House and Reid becomes the majority leader in the Senate.

So what are the strategic effects?

1-PATRIOT ACT is reduced or even eliminated (as she desires)

2-No wiretapping of terrorists calling into the US.

3-We have seen, or heard of conservative judges or judges viewed as conservative assigned to the Supreme Court that make liberal decisions. How often has we seen the opposite happen? A new Supreme Court Judge will be chosen in the near future. There won't need to be a filibuster then, the congress will simply deny the person chosen by the president, qualifications don't matter, given that the democratic leadership has promised to obstruct anything the president puts forward.

4-Iraq. I can see an immediate withdrawal. A "declaration" of victory (which will be empty) and an abandonment of Iraq. What will Arab moderates take from that lesson? That the US has "sticktoitness" in its policy? That we do not retreat? That we do not abandon our friends?

Perhaps the worst policy decision was when Ford decided not to support Vietnam when the North Vietnamese invaded and broke their treaty with South and the US. No one believed the US for the next six or seven years, when it stated that it would carry out any mission internationally, in fact it was the low point of our international influence.

Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon. That showed Usama bin Ladin that the US could be defeated and forced to leave.

Iraq is larger than both on the strategic level. What will it do to the US ability to influence world events?

4-Taxes-Married couples and families will have their taxes raised substantially since the tax breaks for families will be lifted. To give you an idea of how important the view is. The French population, knowing its numbers (ie births) are dwindling has instituted large tax breaks for groups of people thorought France that bear children. Yet our democratic friends seem unaware of the issue and want to rescind, what even Europe recognizes as important.

On a moral basis;

1-Same sex marriage. A federal law requireing states to recognize same sex marriages would pretty much up end any state constitutions. Remember that Nancy Pelosi comes from San Francisco and must respond to an overwhelming power group that could kick her out of office and put a more liberal person in (speakership does not mean you are immune to election debacles).

2-Abortion. While the right to privacy is not the key issue as far as abortion is concerned. How about the need for minors to contact their parents? Both Pelosi and Reid propose that such a law should not be in place, that a constitutional right extends to the point where parents don't have to be informed.

3-Planned Parenthood has a number of acts, and requirements that they would like to institute as part of the education system funded from a federal level.

The question isn't necessarily whether or not you believe that the republicans are doing everything they should (I would agree with you that they aren't), the real question is whether or not you think the democrats would be doing anything near the level of things that you hope to accomplish.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

An editorial from the Wall Street Journal.

<<Quote>>

By JAMES TARANTO

Lieberman's Revenge
It has been less than three months since Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary. The New York Times editorial page hailed an "uprising" by "irate moderates," which, translated into normal political nomenclature, means a victory for the crazy left. It seemed that the Democratic Party was moving left just at a time when the party's fortunes were about to take a turn for the better.

We'll know in eight days whether the party's fortunes have improved, but already there is reason to question whether the move to the left is as pronounced as we thought on Aug. 8. Not only does Lieberman, now an independent, seem a shoo-in against Lamont, but the Times (the news side, that is, not the crazy editorial page) reports that "in their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party":

One such candidate, Heath Shuler, was courted by Republicans to run for office in 2001. Mr. Shuler, 34, is a retired National Football League quarterback who is running in the 11th Congressional District in North Carolina. He is an evangelical Christian and holds fast to many conservative social views, like opposition to abortion rights. . . .

While Democratic leaders have gone to great lengths to promote the views of these candidates, some, like Mr. Shuler, have views on issues like gun control and abortion that are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party. On some issues, they may even be expected to side with Republicans and the Bush White House.

Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views.

This would pose an interesting difficulty for a Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which Dick Armey, an erstwhile GOP majority leader, sums up in a Washington Post op-ed:

In essence, Pelosi will be forced to choose between a vocal base--expecting immediate satisfaction on issues such as withdrawing from Iraq, legalizing same-sex marriage and the impeachment of President Bush--or policies that are tolerable to a majority of Americans. That's quite a dilemma: appeasing a base that has been hungry for political revenge since 2000 and 2004, or alienating moderate and swing voters.

Pelosi has stated that House committee chairmen will be chosen by seniority. This could backfire on the Democrats, because members from the most consistently partisan districts are usually the ones who stick around the longest. Chairmen have the power of the subpoena; Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the would-be judiciary chairman, has already drafted articles of impeachment for Bush, while others are calling for investigations on the war in Iraq and the federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. A revenge-hungry Democratic majority, substituting political grudge matches for serious policy, will not remain a majority for long.

Perhaps Pelosi has the skills to negotiate this; as the Los Angeles Times notes, she does manage to get re-elected in San Francisco, a district much too liberal even for her:

Even as Republicans across the country vilify Pelosi as the face of the lunatic left, here she faces the enmity of the fire-breathing liberals she supposedly represents. Only in San Francisco would Pelosi be picketed as a right-wing warmonger, as she was at a January town hall meeting overrun by protesters who jeered her refusal to cut off funds for U.S. troops in Iraq.

But it's hard to see how to keep together a slender majority that would include both Heath Shuler and John Conyers. They have no policy agenda like the Contract With America, and while Democrats are united now in their opposition to President Bush, he won't be much of a factor two years hence when the Democrats will have to defend their putative majority. Even if the Democrats win next week, they will face some enormous challenges.<<unquote>>

It reflects some of the views I presented earlier, though with better "pinache".

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/10/31/note_to_angry_republicans_stay_angry,_but_vote_republican

"Any Republican, let alone conservative, who votes Democrat or stays home out of pique with the Republican Congress or the president has chosen emotion over reason."

"Vote out of anger, and you'll either vote Democrat or stay home. Vote out of reason, and you'll vote Republican. Please choose reason. If you don't like the Republican candidate, the place to get rid of him is in the primary, not the general election. The general election is not between good Republicans and irresponsible Republicans; it's between Republicans and Democrats."

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I have always voted for those who I believe will most nearly carry out my ideas of good government. Over the years I have had to adjust those ideas to conform to my understanding of the US Constitution as that understanding gradually increased. As a Latter-day Saint I am under special obligation to seek out and then uphold leaders who not only will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest, but who espouse the principles encoded in the US Constitution..

Since I believe both the Republican and Democrat parties are essentially controlled by the same system, the LDGs, I made it a point to get acquainted with and then vote for Constitution Party candidates where they were on the ballot. I also voted for a couple of Libertarian candidates where no CP candidate was running because their stated ideas of good government parallel mine. The only other votes I cast were for a very few candidates about whom I had some encouraging information. Being only 2+ months in Utah, I know next to nothing about most of the D & R candidates, and felt I had no right to vote for something or somebody I know nothing about.

In trying to judge any candidate I do not rule out any one because of party affiliation. Two congressman who have compiled outstanding records as totally Constitutionalist Congrressman have been Congressman Larry McDonald (D-GA) who served almost nine years in the House of Representatives, fighting for his deeply held belief that the federal government must return to abiding by Christian principles and the Constitution. Today, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has been doing exactly the same.