Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

You May Need to Vote for a RINO

Ross PerotTo save the country, you may have no choice but to vote for a RINO – or more realistically – a moderate Republican. Even more important – you have ability to keep it from coming to that.

The primaries start in February so the current polls showing Romney leading the pack are going to change. Whether or not Romney falls is yet to be seen, but the polling statistics will change.

The primary vote is where you get to be slective – pick a Romney, Bachmann, Huntsman (really?), Paul .. whoever. If you don’t vote in the primaries, don’t complain about who goes up against Obama and certainly don’t sit at home and sulk. Either be active during the primary season or be prepared to support whoever wins – inaction has consequences.

Once the general election starts, you have one choice – the GOP nominee. You could choose to support whatever moronic candidate decides to come back in as a third party candidate. There is historical precedence for that – its big-eared name was H. Ross Perot. In a failed third party bid, he not only didn’t get himself elected, he actually caused the loss of the right-of-center candidate.

If you love your Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump so much .. get them nominated. Go get your grass-roots effort in-motion so that they might take the primaries. If they lose .. buck up and take one for the country.

Vote your conscience in the primaries and be prepared to swallow your pride in the general election. If you don’t, what will four more years of Obama look like?

  • Obamacare will be fully implemented
  • QE3 and perhaps QE4 (AKA stimulus 2 and 3) will be complete
  • The Senate will ratify the U.N. treaty on personal arms (guns) and he will sign
  • Unions will continue to run our government and run our employers out of the country
  • Education will continue to be run by big labor
  • Your kids will be left with a bill they can NOT pay

It’s time to be the parent and/or patriot. Swallow your pride and realize that either you got off your butt and got your candidate nominated or that someone else did. If your candidate does not take the nomination, do NOT take it out on OUR country. Obama must go, we must take the Senate – plain and simple.

It is understandable that we all pick the perfect candidate as the primaries come closer. There will not be general agreement on who should take that spot – that is precisely why primaries are held. Use that mechanism to voice your opinion about one Republican candidate or another. Once the primaries are over – it’s time to understand the real decision in front of you. Do you have the will to drop your pride and decide that having a good candidate is better than losing the election while hoping for a perfect one? Can you vote for someone that at least approaches your beliefs – or will you sacrifice the country just to show that you and 8% of the electorate voted for your favorite candidate?

If you aren’t active in the primaries, you may just have to vote for a RINO – no way to soften the blow.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RHytonen says:

    President Obama isn’t even centrist.
    He’s just another Wall Street/AHIP/PhRMA/BigOil-funded, center right, corporatist Republican, in Democrat’s clothing.

    THat;s because the cuckoo has yanked the right so far beyond its level of partisan insanity that the center teeters on the edge of that far-right cliff.

    – And the Fascist march continues in the midwest.
    (Just not for long. You know what they say about payback, and duped voters are very unruly when discovering they’ve been had by liars. But greed has never been known for its restraint.)

  2. savetheusa says:

    Ross Perot and 1992. Easterbook argues that George H.W. Bush lost because the Texas billionaire “siphoned off conservative votes.” False.

    The endurance of this particular myth, regular readers will recognize, is particularly bothersome to me, and I’ve written about it several times. Easterbrook is hardly the only one who’s still pushing it. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone matter-of-factly make this claim in the past few years. Generally, it’s from conservatives who like to pretend that Bill Clinton’s ’92 victory was a fluke, but there are liberals who still fall for it too.

    Instead of recounting all of the details of the ’92 race here, I’ll simply refer you to one of my previous posts on the subject. If you want the Cliff’s Notes version it goes like this: (1) Economic anxiety was high, causing Bush’s poll numbers to drop to poisonous levels — by the fall of ’92 he was not an incumbent who, on paper, should have won reelection; (2) Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in; (3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally). Here’s how the Washington Post summarized the exit poll:

    Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

    The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

    And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

    In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.

    Repeat after me: Ross Perot did not “cost” George H.W. Bush the 1992 election. If you see or hear a commentator using this claim as supporting evidence, immediately discount whatever argument that commentator is advancing. The poor economy doomed George H.W. Bush in 1992 — not a short billionaire from Texas.

    • Anonymous says:

      Exit polls have been proven errant and unreliable. Pre-poll data even less useful in arguments of fact. You summarily dismissed the effect of a third party candidate using public polling data. You may have written about it many times, that obviously did not therefore make you an expert. How many states were won with less than 5% margin? How would a fiscal conservative evenly split liberals and conservatives? Your self-professed expertice is questionable at-best. Because you must profess such yourself gives the appearance that you are not what you are trying to convince us that you are.

  3. Winghunter says:

    There are less than a handful of Americans who I hold in higher regard than Mark and no one despises Obama more than I but, my clear example above should make everyone’s blood freeze in the realization of continuing down the same suicidal path in not choosing and then drafting our own candidates. Therefore, the lesser of two evils is the shamefully disloyal price of an uninvolved society. Here we are three years after 65 million brain-dead Darwin’s Nominees voted for the most treasonous excuse for a president in the history of our country and we still haven’t done what it takes to be capable for our own governance and are faced with RINOs of every unworthy flavor of the rainbow.

    The system has clearly failed us as even the simplest of checks and balances were intentionally denied us. Despite millions of personal requests to elected officials and numerous lawsuits, both Obama’s eligibility to hold office and his criminal use of Social Security numbers not his own is still being outright ignored. The fact of whether he is ineligible and/or guilty is irrelevant as no agency, high official or judge actively pursued a Constitutionally mandated investigation. In fact, I remember hearing the drool of a clown official that We, The People were responsible for vetting presidential nominees.

    “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.” – Ayn Rand

    • R. Mitchell says:

      The point of the article is not that we should have to choose between the lesser of two evils, but that if you don’t get off your butts and vote in the primaries, that will be precisely what your left with.

      • Winghunter says:

        OK, WHO is running that is not a RINO??

        Some advice: I have all of their information, records, etc.

        • R. Mitchell says:

          Honestly, RINO is a subjective term. I could find things in Reagan’s record to pain him as a RINO.

          Again, the point of the article is to stay focused on the primaries to avoid having another McCain to vote for. If you’re saying that you can’t find anyone to vote for and you have the records to back up your stance … it means you are waiting for perfection in a human. That’s only happened once in the entirety of human history and projected to only happen once more.

          • Winghunter says:

            Reagan was very forthcoming, humble and helpful in defining his life-altering epiphany without even being asked to while the current crop of RINOs attempt to defend the indefensible in a whole host of subversive ways. Mostly, by lying their heads off. Therefore, there’s no comparison.

            Adhering to the straight-forward principles and values of our Founding Fathers clear instructions is not perfection. Having the commonsense we all should have been born with isn’t either. This isn’t rocket-science. These clowns are either self-serving, stone ignorant or just flat out stupid. All of which we were specifically warned against.

            “It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.
            If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.” — Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 1, 27 October 1787) Reference: Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

      • Max says:

        “The point of the article is not that we should have to choose between the lesser of two evils, but that if you don’t get off your butts and vote in the primaries, that will be precisely what your left with.” (Mitchell)

        Moot point. Assume you have 8 candidates, each candidate will draw their share of votes. So even if everyone got off their butts and voted for their candidate, the losers are still left with a lesser candidate. And it’s the losing candidate supporters stuck with a choice likened to the lesser of two evils.

        Every election is a lesser of two evils proposition, since their is no righteousness in government. RINO’s only complicate the issue with their lukewarm appeal.

        • R. Mitchell says:

          “They will each draw their share of the votes’ .. uh yeah.. that’s why there’s a primary. What was the point to your comment?

          • Max says:

            Mitchell, If the intent of your exchanges is to turn off all discussion (due to your own sense of superiority… of course) then you have succeeded brilliantly.

            I’ll be avoiding all of your future posts.

        • R. Mitchell says:

          Perhaps it could have been handled better, but calling my point “moot” set the tone for the rest of the discussion. I still fail to understand the point you’ve been trying to make.

          If your main point was that every election is always a choice between the lesser of two evils, I disagree.

          Not every GOP candidate is evil. All with the exception of one have something about them I like. All of them have characteristics I dislike. There is no perfect candidate.

          • Max says:

            Slight misunderstandings are easily clarified amongst fellow conservatives. Ho harm no foul.

            Your article explains the process well enough and calls for people to be engaged. I get that. It also discourages throwing away a good vote on a third party candidate, I couldn’t agree more.

            Wether or not one votes in the primaries has nothing to do with getting a lesser of two evils scenario. That doesn’t downplay the importance of the primaries. The best outcome would be for all losing candidates to throw their supporters over to the winner (not likely, as Perot didn’t). In any case, we disagree that elections are about the lesser of two evils. I fully believe this since government (of both parties) does more to restrict our freedoms than not. There is no righteousness in government, therefore how can we expect pure goodness from it? Ah… lesser of two evils.

          • Max says:

            Slight misunderstandings are easily clarified amongst fellow conservatives. No harm no foul.

            Your article explains the process well enough and calls for people to be engaged. I get that. It also discourages throwing away a good vote on a third party candidate, I couldn’t agree more.

            Wether or not one votes in the primaries has nothing to do with getting a lesser of two evils scenario. That doesn’t downplay the importance of the primaries. The best outcome would be for all losing candidates to throw their supporters over to the winner (not likely, as Perot didn’t). In any case, we disagree that elections are about the lesser of two evils. I fully believe this since government (of both parties) does more to restrict our freedoms than not. There is no righteousness in government, therefore how can we expect pure goodness from it? Ah… lesser of two evils.

  4. Winghunter says:

    RINOs are much more dangerous than even the Comrade In Chief we have now. Willard Romney explained in detail why this is true: “There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.”
    Willard “Mitt” Romney http://bit.ly/bad8PI

    I held my nose to vote for McClown, I won’t do that again for ANY RINO.

    • Max says:

      Like Mark Levin says, “I’d vote for an empty orange juice can running against Obama.” (or words to that effect)

      Elections are always about the lesser of two evils. If you are waiting for the perfect candidate, you might as well stop voting, because they don’t exist. It isn’t about the person as it is about the system, and America has the right mix of checks and balances to keep far-left Obama-nuts from destroying it, as well as far-right wackos.