FORGETFUL, TOO
FORGETFUL
Re: W. James Antle, III's
Antisocial Conservatives:
Just four years ago, after Bush's re-election, Democratic
politicians and pundits were saying that Democratic candidates
needed to talk more about their religious faith in order to
compete with Republicans. People in politics certainly have very
short memories.
-- Bill Leventon
For me, the most important requirement for Republican/Conservative success in the next presidential election is for the RNC to do now whatever is necessary to ensure that no Republican state primary be open to anyone except registered Republicans.
The second most important requirement is for the RNC to do now whatever is necessary to ensure that no Republican state primary be a "caucus."
Why call it a "Republican primary election" when it is not
one?
-- A. C. Santore
You are spot-on regarding the current atmosphere of who to blame for the failure of the Republican's in all the races. The religious Right is not responsible for the losses. The Republican Party is. I, like many others, told the RNC years ago we would no longer financially support a party who will not close the borders, quit spending billions to buy votes, and fail to call the corruption on the Democratic side with an equal amount of vigor as they do to the Republicans. I will not continue to back the spineless and the moderates.
As for the leadership of the Religious Right I do blame them for failing to raise up candidates who have conservative principles for local, county, state and national office. ACORN at least got governors moved to the Democratic side, while running as conservatives, as well as Congressional candidates. The Democrats had a strategy of changing the bully pulpit in as many states as possible, thereby creating a wave of "tolerable" Democrats who can set the agenda at all levels of government. They spent the money and got the seats and when this election came, they had a new base of operations in every state.
Republicans used to have a core set of beliefs 20 years ago when
Reagan ran that started with "I am a Republican because..." look
it up, follow it, run on it and govern with it and 2008 will be
the last election some will be trying to blame conservatives for
losing, since we will be winning.
-- Bill Elsasser
The more these characters pile on Sarah, the more I'm convinced that she's the real deal...
I was not going to vote at all. Never liked McCain and at times, to me at least, he looked more like a RINO instead of a paquiderm.
It was Sarah's name on the ticket that made me jump with joy and support the ticket... Truth be told I was hoping an early departure for the senator once elected and that will leave her as the first woman president of the country. She's got my vote, my wife's, my brothers/wife/sons/daughters' and in 2012 my young daughter's...all of whom (excepting the young one) were ready to skip the ballot box until Sarah came onboard...by the way those were 7 legal votes for McCain/Palin in just two households made of legal first generation immigrants from Latin America.
Now it's clear this nation believes in aristocracy and that
unless you're bred in a certain way you do not qualify to be in
DC. All these critics and characters keep that up and pretty soon
a group of leaders may decide to start up a true conservative
party with true conservative leaders and the elephants will be
left wondering what happened in their big empty tent.
-- Dario Giraldo
Houston, Texas
Just a quick note to commend Mr. Antle for this excellent piece.
Keep up the great work.
Kind regards,
-- Keith Jones
Rocco| 11.11.08 @ 12:14PM
RE: A.C. Santore's letter above.
If I am not mistaken, I think I read a few days ago that the Republican party reaffirmed its rules on primaries for 2012. That may or may not be true; I also understand that the individual states set the rules for primary elections. Nonetheless, if that or some combination thereof is true, then it confirms the moniker "stupid party" for the GOP. Isn't insanity defined as doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different outcome?
Mr. Elsasser: Right on the money concerning the Republicans' loss of conviction on core beliefs.
David Govett| 11.11.08 @ 12:17PM
As for "Democrats are compelled to follow Republicans with pooper-scoopers," let it be remembered that it was Pelosi-led Democrats who led Congress these past two years. What Congress taxes, it get less of; what is subsidizes, it gets more of. (The President is little more than an economic cheerleader.)
Rocco| 11.11.08 @ 12:29PM
Now on which planet does M. Delphia Block live? There's proof of the efficacy of our public education system - lack of historical perspective, ignorance of history. Citing NPR's "Fresh Air" (anything but) was a dead giveaway. The credit problem didn't happen overnight - it was a long term consequence of Carter's CRA program, aided and abetted by the Clinton administration's pressure on the financial system to increase home ownership. Any banker will tell you of pressure to overlook credit standards because of government pressure to increase lending. Standards were thrown out the window. Any financial institution cannot long survive once that happens. Sooner or later the house of cards will collapse. The Republicans, on paper, did have control of Congress, but in reality could not pass reform legislation into the 2000's when it became clear (McCain's warning in 2005) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were on the way to collapse. Contrast that with Maxine Waters' moronic comment on the "outstanding leadership" of Franklin Raines. I am not a Republican, and damn sure not a Democrat, but I will give credit where it is due. Republicans did sound the warning, but corrupt Democrats like Dodd, Frank, and even the Redeemer himself blocked reform and were recipients of the largess of those two agencies.
Geez, where do these ignoramuses come from?
Rocco| 11.11.08 @ 12:59PM
Also, the so-called Savings & Loan debacle cited by Block had its genesis in the 1970's due to inflation, migration of savings from low-rate long term savings deposits to higher rate money funds, vs. lower rate long term mortgages. S&L;'s were funding 6% mortgages with 10% short term deposits. At the time, securitization of mortgages was not common. So, over time, the net worth of these institutions was eroded. By 1981, most of the country's nearly 4,000 S&L;'s lost money. And by the way, didn't Reagan enter office in 1981? The issue is not lack of regulation overall, it was the government's mismanagement of the economy which caused the S&L;crisis, and government dictates on the financial services industry which has caused the current crisis - Housing Sec. Cuomo, Dodd, Frank et al. at the helm.
But, I guess facts don't matter much with these Koolaid-drinking idiots on the left.
Ms. Know| 11.15.08 @ 8:06PM
You would think values would play a role in how we pick those who will lead us, but somehow they went out the door, and the left-wing illuminati came on it.