8 Reasons Why Conservatives Must Defeat Hillary

[CharlieChan]

8 Reasons Why Conservatives Must Defeat Hillary

Now, I will be the first to admit that the GOP was very disappointing in the 2006 election cycle and although the Republicans have improved significantly in a lot of areas, they're still not doing as much as conservatives have asked them to do on spending, corruption, immigration, and foreign policy.

That being said, while conservatives need to continue to hold the feet of the GOP to the fire, as we did in the illegal immigration fight, we should not forget the potential perils of having a Democratic President at this sensitive time in our nation's history.


Today's Democratic Party and its likely nominee, Hillary Clinton, have moved well to the left of where they were in the pre-George W. Bush era. That could have some rather serious consequences if she becomes the next President of the United States.

Consider the following:

CLICK HERE TO READ REST OF 8 REASONS
http://gettinafterlefty.multiply.com/journal/item/33/8_Reasons_Why_Conservatives_Must_Defeat_Hillary_

[Rhino]

1 Reason Why Conservatives Can't Defeat Hillary

There are no conservatives running.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

1 Reason Why Conservatives Can't Defeat Hillary


There are no conservatives running.

Yep!

[Suzie]

I think they are talking about the voters.

[Rhino]

The voters can't defeat her either, if there are no conservatives running.

[Suzie]

Sure you can, you just don't vote for her. You vote against her.

[Rhino]

I think I see what you mean. By holding their noses and voting McCain in, they don't actually win, but they do manage to defeat Hillary. It's funny how you can defeat someone else, but still not win.

[Suzie]

I think I see what you mean. By holding their noses and voting McCain in, they don't actually win, but they do manage to defeat Hillary. It's funny how you can defeat someone else, but still not win.

That's true, but it's a little better than the alternative. When the only roads you have to take barefoot is one with rusty nails or land mines, you might survive one with a tetanus shot, the other you are maimed for life ... if you survive at all.

[Rhino]

Not if you throw out the tetanus vaccine.

[Taylor1]

:confused::confused: what are we suppose to do..


No conservatives running

We must defeat hillary

We have no way to defeat hillary

Its not possible to vote for someone running against her and still have a conservative president..


:thumb: I think I just summed this up.

[Suzie]

Well now you don't know if that is going to happen until you take that road. If you take the other one with the bombs you know you don't have a chance of avoiding anything.

[Nutrider99]

Why can't we just get hillary and Obama to go for a ride with Ted Kennedy?

[Rhino]

If you abandon conservatism, you abandon the vaccine. There's no chance of recovery without that, so even if you do take the less dangerous road in the short term, you still end up dying in the long term.

[Suzie]

But in this case you are abandoning a lot of other people who really are dodging bombs right now if you let Hillary get control of them.

[Rhino]

No, just preserving an eventual possibility of recovery at the expense of some short term pain, rather than avoiding some short term pain at the expense of throwing away a chance for an eventual cure. Abandoning conservatism could well alleviate some short term pain, but it guarantees eventual death. Not abandoning it may indeed result in some severe short term pain, but it preserves the possibility of an eventual recovery. I'd rather endure the short term pain with a chance for eventual recovery, than simply take a less painful and slower path to sure death.

[Suzie]

All fine and dandy, unless it's your someone who gets sacrificed.

[Rhino]

All of my 'someones' are more than willing to endure short term pain if it gives us the chance for a long term recovery. They're not happy about it, but they know it's the better option. And if we throw away the chance at recovery, they'll all be sacrificed anyway.

[Suzie]

You don't endure pain if you are dead.

[Rhino]

Correct, which is why I don't choose the path of assured destruction. To me, suicide is not generally a good solution to pain, when an eventual recovery is still possible.

[Suzie]

I think our troops would like a better option than Hillary's "we are going to stay till the job is done" and her buddies cutting off their funding to get things to keep them alive. In fact I am sure of it. Stay with no money to do the job is the option you are choosing.

[Rhino]

No, I'm not.

[Suzie]

That's what the result will be if we don't vote against her.

[Rhino]

We've been over all of this before. Could our troops suffer from a democratic administration? Absolutely. But to say that I am happy about that, or that I condone it, is a gross misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm worried about what happens down the road if our party abandons conservatism. If that happens, our troops will suffer a whole lot more than what the next dem administration could inflict upon them. I'd prefer that they don't suffer at all, just as you would. But if our party continues to embrace liberalism, centrism or whatever label you want to put on it, I greatly fear that we will never recover from that. That's far worse for everyone, our troops included. I don't know for certain that this is what will happen. No one knows that. No one knows it won't happen either. But I see ominous signs of it, and I am seeing it as more and more likely as time goes by. Yes, what I'm saying may hurt the troops in the short run. But I prefer that to destroying them permanently. No one is more pro-military than I am.

[Suzie]

Rhino, if 9/11 didn't "preserve" anything for anyone it isn't going to happen, no matter how you vote in this election.

[Rhino]

If that is true, then it doesn't matter anyway.

[Suzie]

It matters to the troops that they don't get Hillary.

[MrSanity]

On the issues where McCain is not in alignment with conservatives: I think we need to remind ourselves what THE PEOPLE can accomplish by holding a Republican president's feet to the fire. Remember Dubai Ports, the failed amnesty plan, and Harriet Miers? They all would have gone through if it weren't for THE PEOPLE.

[Suzie]

On the issues where McCain is not in alignment with conservatives: I think we need to remind ourselves what THE PEOPLE can accomplish by holding a Republican president's feet to the fire. Remember Dubai Ports, the failed amnesty plan, and Harriet Miers? They all would have gone through if it weren't for THE PEOPLE.

:claps: Exactly. But with a Dem president and a Dem house we have nothing.

[Rhino]

It matters to the troops that they don't get Hillary.It also matters to them that they have a chance for a good president in the future. And, like myself, many of them realize that the future is far more than this one election.

[Suzie]

Like I said, if this is what we have after 9/11, what makes you think how you vote in this one election is going to change anything?

[Rhino]

On the issues where McCain is not in alignment with conservatives: I think we need to remind ourselves what THE PEOPLE can accomplish by holding a Republican president's feet to the fire. Remember Dubai Ports, the failed amnesty plan, and Harriet Miers? They all would have gone through if it weren't for THE PEOPLE.There was nothing wrong with the Dubai ports deal, unless you were naive enough to fall for the dem talking points on it. Plenty of Republicans voted for amnesty, including McVain, despite the huge public outcry. And if we go more liberal in our party, Harriet Miers will eventually look quite good in comparison to what we'll see in the future.

[Rhino]

Like I said, if this is what we have after 9/11, what makes you think how you vote in this one election is going to change anything?If this election is so inconsequential to you, why are you expending so much effort to debate it? If, as you say, there is no hope for a resurgence of conservatism, then my position should make no difference. All hope is lost anyway. All we would be arguing is what color the casket should be that we're buried in. I don't believe that there is no hope. I think conservatism can come back as long as we don't abandon it by being supportive of our party moving to the left.

[Rhino]

As I said earlier, we've covered all this ground before, and nothing new is being presented here. I have to go home now.

[Suzie]

Then we need to nominate a better candidate next time. That ship has sailed right now. But you don't blow yourself up and take others with you for a cause you can fight another day. That's what suicide bombers do.

There is hope in OTHER elections but we don't have to forget this one to get it. Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford and went on to campaign for him. Then we figured out he was what we needed without forgetting about that election. Reagan came after we screwed up big time.

[MrSanity]

if we go more liberal in our party, Harriet Miers will eventually look quite good in comparison to what we'll see in the future.The way I see it is not so much that the country is shifting left, but moving towards the center. The Dems don't get it, either (just look at their wack-job candidates). Ned Lamont was booed off the scene for a reason. Unfortunately, so was Rick Santorum. However, I don't think that a lack of high-profile staunch conservatives contending in one presidential race is enough to suggest that the R's are going liberal. The rock-ribbed conservatives have not done us a favor by shying away from the spotlight. James Inhofe, Jim DeMint, and the like should throw their hats in the ring. And -- wouldn't it be great if Tom DeLay fought back against the charges?

The GOP's biggest problem isn't that it's "going liberal", it's that the rock-ribbed conservatives aren't willing to hold higher positions of public office.

Their second biggest problem is that the conservative base won't show up at the primaries if they're convinced that they'll be getting any less than Ronald Reagan. That's why we have McCain to begin with as a sure nominee.

[MrSanity]

It's a terrifying thought that conservatives, who agree with McCain on taxes, terror, life, and fiscal responsibility don't seem to hold those principles strong enough to enforce them at the polls.

[Rhino]

Then we need to nominate a better candidate next time. That ship has sailed right now. But you don't blow yourself up and take others with you for a cause you can fight another day. That's what suicide bombers do.And I think that's exactly what we may be doing by voting for McCain.

[Rhino]

The GOP's biggest problem isn't that it's "going liberal", it's that the rock-ribbed conservatives aren't willing to hold higher positions of public office.

Their second biggest problem is that the conservative base won't show up at the primaries if they're convinced that they'll be getting any less than Ronald Reagan. That's why we have McCain to begin with as a sure nominee.I think the latter is more likely than the former.

[Suzie]

And I think that's exactly what we may be doing by voting for McCain.

There is no MAY if Hillary or Obama get elected, then it certain.

There will never be another Ronald Reagan. But all the numbskulls we voted in before we got him didn't change him coming later. I don't know about you but if I could go back and erase Jimmy Carter with my only option being having Gerald Ford win that election I would. He wasn't exactly the best president we ever had, but we know Carter was far worse. Reagan knew that too that's why he campaigned for him.

[Rhino]

It's a terrifying thought that conservatives, who agree with McCain on taxes, terror, life, and fiscal responsibility don't seem to hold those principles strong enough to enforce them at the polls.It's also terrifying that some ignore other principles that are just as important, if not more so. Ron Paul actually agrees with me on more principles than McCain does. But that doesn't mean I'll vote for him, because the other principles that we disagree on are also vitally important. The same principle applies to McCain. Just because a candidate agrees with you on some issues, does not mean it's advisable to vote for them. There's no such thing as a candidate that any person would agree 100% with on all possible issues, but there are core critical issues for every voter. If a candidate does not agree with them on those core critical issues, it's ludicrous to simply expect them to vote for that candidate. It just doesn't work that way, nor should it. I happen to agree with Rush on this issue. Either McCain or a dem administration will bring ruin on this country. If ruin is going to occur, I'd much rather have it be at the hands of a liberal. That way we have the future option of turning to a conservative to set things right. If the conservatives are the ones bringing that ruin, and steadfastly supported that candidate in the process, then there will likely be nothing left to turn to for salvation. You don't avoid ruination by being complicit in it. You may indeed slow it down, but you guarantee the inevitability of it in the process.

I can vote in any manner I choose, and, at this time, I choose not to vote for McCain. All the lectures and pontifications to the contrary are just solidifying my position, because they illustrate just how far downhill this party has gone if they are willing to not only accept, but to embrace a candidate like him. Terrifying? You're damned right it is! But for me, no thanks. Folks can feel free to continue arguing this all they want, but all they're doing is making my decision even more solid with every argument.

[Nutrider99]

President Bush has a lifetime conservative rating of 95%. Mcvain is 82.3% Since 2000, it is 60%.

Also, this (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177).
John McCain funded by Soros since 2001
<!-- end head --><!-- deck -->Candidate's Reform Institute also accepted funds from Teresa Kerry

[Jack_Savage]

President Bush has a lifetime conservative rating of 95%. Mcvain is 82.3% Since 2000, it is 60%.

Also, this (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177).
John McCain funded by Soros since 2001
<!-- end head --><!-- deck -->Candidate's Reform Institute also accepted funds from Teresa Kerry


Very good. I didn't know this. Anything Arianna Huffington is connected with,
I am against. Is this group what any of us wants to sit in a trench with when the going gets tough?

Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist and creator of the HuffingtonPost.com, has served on the Reform Institute's advisory committee since the group's inception. (http://www.reforminstitute.org/about/AboutAdvisory.aspx)

[Venus de Smilo]

I think I see what you mean. By holding their noses and voting McCain in, they don't actually win, but they do manage to defeat Hillary. It's funny how you can defeat someone else, but still not win.
The universal odds are that nobody wins all the time, even when the contest is left to chance. When odds are not left to chance and are manipulated by other factors, it's even more assured that any given entity will not win all the time. Once people accept that truth, and the premise of the two-party system, the option of being able to tread water for a while instead of drowning becomes desirable or at least acceptable.

It's time for all of us to stop whining and pouting like four year-olds and do the best we can with what we have to work with.

[Rhino]

How about this? It's time for some of us to stop whining and pouting like four year-olds because the rest of us may not agree with them on the best course of action. It's no secret that I and many other conservatives, both here and elsewhere, do not want to vote for McCain. But some of the arrogant pontificating and name calling over this does nothing to enhance the opposition argument. On the contrary, it's far more likely to make enemies than to win converts. Besides, it's very juvenile too. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, nor with debating on that. But I have to say that this spoiled adolescent name calling is an extremely poor methodology for debate, so much so that I have now been forced to do the same in this post.

I'll put it simply. If someone would like to debate or discuss the point with me, I have no problem with that, as long as we don't contunually try to re-cover points that have already been repeatedly covered. But if all you can resort to is childishly deriding or insulting others because they have an opposing viewpoint, then you can just piss off.