Friday, February 8, 2008

Lil Orphan Voltron...

Well once again the RNC has handed us a shit candidate for president.

From this point on I am no longer a Republican. I am now an Independent, still conservative, but Independent. Being a conservative means having principles, and one of those principles is NOT "winning at any cost". And a "win" with McCain is a cost to dear to pay. And I cannot consider that event a "win".

I now know how Reagan must have felt when he said, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, they left me". And so has the Republican party left me.

I will continue to vote for Conservatives (when offered that choice) no matter the party affiliation. I will vote this November for conservatives in the House and Senate, but will vote Hillary for president. I do this with a heavy heart and much saddness.
I could go on and note every thing McCain has done against us, but you all know the drill.
McCain has spent his entire career poking Republicans in general, and Conservatives in particular in the eye with a sharp stick. Now he wants us to forget all about it and reward him with the presidency.

I cannot forget, nor will I reward him with that position.

If he IS elected, the Republicans in congress will be forced to go along with every bullshit plan he proposes. Some may through misguided party loyalty, but most will because the RNC will hold re-election funds and other sticks over their heads to enforce party unity.
Hillary is the only answer. At least Republicans will know enough to oppose her and will not be punished for it.

This SHOULD be a major wake up call for Conservatives. The blame is to be placed squarely on the RNC. They have allowed our candidates to be filtered through the left before we even get to vote on them. A MAJOR shakeup is required at the RNC.
Even in spite of Republicans repeatedly getting elected when they stick to conservative values, they somehow STILL think the way to get elected is to emulate liberals.

Here's what I think needs to happen:

First, WHY OH WHY do we have to follow the Democrats around in primaries? Forget Iowa and New Hampshire. Let's have OUR opening primaries in Conservative stronghold states. That way, when we get to days like "Super Tuesday" we will have some good conservatives still in the race.

Second, ELIMINATE "open vote" primaries. Lets make ALL Republican primaries registered Republicans ONLY.

As long as we allow the liberals to tell us who our candidates will be, we will NEVER EVER get the candidates who we can FULLY support and elect.

-Just my two cents,


Mike said...

Well, i have to say i gained new respect for you for not blindly supporting the esablishment candidate.

I feel your pain, since I do not like Hillary and simply loathe McCaine, and I am an independent who feels betrayed by the spineless dems in Congress..........that said I loathe McCaine and may be forced to vote for Hillary because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Dont get me wrong after the train wreck of the Bush Administration Hillary wont seem that bad and will actually be a somewhat decent president like some of the more moderate repugs were but we have so much better candidates it would REALLY be a shame if McCaine and Hillary were the nominees.

I REALLY hope Obama wins because he is a much better candidate.

lil orphan Voltron said...


Conservatives are the life blood of the Republican party. They ignore us at their own peril.

(btw, I didn't support Bush on the Harriet Myers nomination, the Dubai ports deal, The Ted Kennedy written education bill. I didn't didn't support his signing the Incumbent protection/anti free speech bill (McCain/Fiengold) OR the Amnesty bill for illegals, another McCain mess.)

Bush supports SOME conservative ideals, but he is not a true Conservative.
McCain is giving us lip service now because he needs us, but he's pretty much ignored us his whole career.
Huckabee is only a social conservative, and Romney was simply the best of the lot.

As I noted all of our nominees are filtered through your side first.
Open voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, BOTH of which are liberal stronghold states.

We only get to choose from the candidates your side allows through.

lil orphan Voltron said...

And actually I'm counting on Hillary being a train wreck.

After all, it took a Carter to get us a Reagan.

Freedom Fan said...


I agree. However, I plan to write in "Romney", fully expecting the Dhimmicrat candidate to win.

Then I hope for a backlash similar to 1994 after bill and hill tried to take us for a socialist ride, following slick willy's election in 1992.

Either obama or hillary will do just fine as examples of pure liberal tyrants.

A RINO like McCain winning would only confuse everyone as to what Conservatives were supposed to be. So given a choice between a fake Dhimmicrat and a real Dhimmicrat, let's choose the latter so everyone can see what a potential disaster it means for our precious country:

We most certainly will have appointment of liberal activist judges, hidden confiscatory taxation in the form of a Carbon Tax, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, rampant corruption, special rights for favored groups, prosecution of "hate speech", an economy in the dumpster, nationalization of health care and other key industries, and a sell-out of our friends in Iraq and Israel, and a final goodbye kiss to our vital national security interest in the Middle East.

Bring it. Let's let the whining libs have their President. Then let's have the grown-ups come to the rescue once again.

Freedom Fan said...


I have been reading reviews of a book called Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch.

Rauch does a brilliant defense of classic liberalism. He defines the Conservative world view as "order without authority", consisting of three systems, similar to natural evolution:

Democracy- in which we decide who may use force, Capitalism- in which we decide how to allocate natural and human resources, and Liberal Science- in which we decide who is right on any given topic.

You can see how a fundamental requirement for Conservatism is freedom of speech, which Rauch defends brilliantly by asking "What should be society's principle for raising and settling differences of opinion?" By what means do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Rauch analyzes five major historical methods:

The Fundamentalist Principle: Those who know the truth should decide what is right

The Simple Egalitarian Principle: All sincere persons' beliefs have equal claims to respect.

The Radical Egalitarian Principle: Like the simple egalitarian principle, but the beliefs of persons in historically oppressed classes get special consideration.

The Humanitarian Principle: Any of the above, but with the condition that the first priority be to cause no hurt.

The Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide which is right.

Interesting that Rauch is openly gay. Also interesting is that today's Conservatives are those who embrace yesterday's classical liberal values.

A review of Kindly Inquisitors, by Jonathan Rauch

lil orphan Voltron said...

Howdy FF!

Sorry I've been a little lax lately, This election cycle is pretty depressing.
However, I HAVE found a bright spot.
Since I don't have a horse in this race, I can sit back and watch the Dem backstabbing with full attention.
Funny how the Clinton's were just great when their corruption went against Republicans, but now that they're smearing and sicced the machine on fellow dems they've suddenly turned into horrible people.
I briefly glance at your link and will read it fully before the week is out. Looks interesting.

Voltron said...

FF, I was doing some further reading on your link. To be honest, I don't think I like any of the choices as they all seem flawed.

The Fundamentalist Principle: Those who know the truth should decide what is right
This sounds good in principle, but how are we assured that "those who know the truth" actually do?

The Simple Egalitarian Principle: All sincere persons' beliefs have equal claims to respect.
I have to reject this one out of hand. I may sincerely believe the world is flat, but that really doesn't have an "equal claim" to respect.

The Radical Egalitarian Principle: Like the simple egalitarian principle, but the beliefs of persons in historically oppressed classes get special consideration.
See above. And historical oppression doesn't merit special consideration when the belief is obviously flawed.

The Humanitarian Principle: Any of the above, but with the condition that the first priority be to cause no hurt.
Define "hurt". False beliefs require challenging.

The Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide which is right.
My knee-jerk reaction is that this is wrong, but maybe we should take a poll first?

Freedom Fan said...


It is rather poorly worded, but choice #5, The (classical) Liberal Principle suggests that for any society, truth is what the majority says it is, provided every viewpoint, especially the minority viewpoint, is allowed freedom of expression.

This method is democracy as applied to science. Obviously the majority can be wrong, but if allow everyone to talk, eventually the truth will shine.

The controversy raging in Canada currently, is whether their misnamed Human Rights Commissions now have a mission to crush the most fundamental human right: freedom of speech.

How on earth Canadians allowed these egregious laws to be passed is an embarrassment to the Canadians. However, this is an excellent example of how Western governments have become fascist tyrants. The U.S. is also headed down that road, Canada has just started sooner so is farther along.

I am closely watching the fight between Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant vs. Richard Warman, Warren Kinsella, and the rest of the Canadian thought police. See Censorship In Canada.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance- Jefferson.

Freedom Fan said...

Hey Volt,

Check this out:

There will be bamboozling!

Voltron said...

That was interesting FF.

I'm beginning to think Obama may just be the most dangerous person we've ever had running for high office.

He seems to be accumulating a "cult of personality" type following. They're buying into his charismatic rock star/messiah bull with no idea what he may actually do in office.

Let's hope the Clinton machine can take him out at the knees at the DNC convention. I don't think McCain can beat him, and even if he could that wouldn't satisfy me much.

Voltron said...

Found this on another board, kinda how I'm feeling too...

Obama's Dangerous Cult of Personality
Filed under: Post — ProudNeoCon @ 12:12:14 pm

A lot of people are starting to notice that the Obama "movement" reduces to one thing: a spooky cult of personality with a messianic pied piper and a hypnotized crowd of adoring worshippers eager to crown a new Julius Caesar.

Think I'm exagerrating? Think again.

Audiences erupt into applause when the man blows his nose. Women faint at his campaign rallies. A self-described Obama supporter suddenly finds herself uneasy because she's starting to realize how much a lot of her fellow Obama supporters remind her of the Heaven's Gate cult. Grown adults get "weepy" over Obama campaign videos. George Clooney says he wants to follow Obama "somewhere, anywhere". Halle Berry will "do whatever he says to do...collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear".

It's downright disturbing. Even longtime liberals like ABC Nightline anchor Terry Moran and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have been caught wondering if the Obama "movement" is becoming a cult of personality.

Personality cults never end with the election of a decent political figure. Personality cults lead to Hitlers and Castros and Kim Jong Ils. Obama's cult of personality is a threat to our very democracy.

Obama must be stopped. Vote Hillary.

Freedom Fan said...


I fully expect Obama to win, but that could be ideal for Conservatives.

If McCain wins, then Conservative ideas will not be represented, and the difference between Republicans and democrats will be muddied.

If hillary and slick willie win, then they have the experience to do some real damage, plus hillary is more idealistically liberal than the pragmatic willie.

Obama is at least as liberal as Hillary but has little experience and will make some serious mistakes, after which there will be a major Conservative backlash. His wife will also turn out to be a major liability.

Remember how Newt and his Contract With America swept the country in 1994? The election of Bill Clinton turned out to be one of the best of times for Conservatives. Look for a replay with Obama.