Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The sometimes-painful nomination process

If there is one absolute certainty in the race for the Republican nomination it is this: One candidate will win it, and the others will go home-and this year (except for the obligatory convention appearance) they'll be parting ways in record early time.

I recall the first Presidential election in which I was able to vote. After helping bring Republicans to Congressional control in 1994, I really wanted to use the opportunity in '96 to bring about a real conservative trend. I became gung-ho in my support of Pat Buchanan for the Republican nomination. What's more, I didn't appreciate the way the other candidates and their supporters treated Buchanan. After he won the New Hampshire Primary, the party establishment proceeded to use the mainstream press to declare that Pat Buchanan was not a "real Republican" despite having served in White Houses under Nixon and Reagan, and convince people that a Buchanan nomination would be the end of the world as we know it. I knew enough history to know that some of these same sorts of people were saying the same kinds of things when Barry Goldwater was nominated in 1964. Yes, Goldwater got hammered in the General Election-but as a result of what he did in '64, he paved the way for Ronald Reagan. I was convinced that the reports of voter fraud coming from the Arizona Primary that year were true, and that certain people fixed the process in that State so that a real momentum for Buchanan didn't take off.

In spite of my anger at what happened during the nominating process, I swallowed my pride in November and voted for Bob Dole. What's more, I felt good about doing so because my conscience told me that I did everything in my power to stop the Clintons. I tried to help nominate the best man, and voted to keep the Clintons out of power. Bob Dole might have won that election if voter-turnout in Republican areas was higher-a lot of people stayed home and gave Bill Clinton another term.

Nothing brought home the harsh reality that infighting can keep the best man out of office more than the 2006 Tennessee U.S. Senate race. I didn't just support Ed Bryant, I opposed Bob Corker with every fiber of my being during that Primary. Corker was buying name recognition and, I felt, lying his way into the Senate. He was running around the State telling everyone how conservative he was and how he was pro-life. His record said something completely different, because in 1994 he said he was pro-abortion. He once favored a State income tax when he worked as Don Sundquist's Commissioner of Revenue, and as Chattanooga Mayor he had raised taxes. He seemed to be the antithesis of everything conservative, and the thought of him being in the Senate left me with a stomach ailment. I blamed Van Hilleary as much as anyone else for Corker's Primary victory, because the numbers seemed to show that if Hilleary were not in the race, Ed Bryant may very well have beaten Corker in a two-man race.

Corker went on to defeat Harold Ford, Jr. last November.

Corker promised that he would vote pro-life if elected to the Senate, and he kept telling people how conservative he was even during his General Election campaign. What did he do when he got to the Senate? He has voted pro-life just as he promised he would do, and has come out to Lamar Alexander's right both on the issue of life (he voted against embryonic stem cell research-Lamar supported it) and immigration. He didn't have to be pushed near as hard as Lamar did to vote right. We can say that this conversion isn't sincere and that the reason Corker has done these things is all political. That may very well be the case, but considering he has a six-year term and the electorate have short memories, he could get away with political murder if he wanted to, and he has (for the most part) stayed on the conservative straight-and-narrow way. I thought the floor was going to fall out of the conservative wing of the GOP in this State with Corker's nomination. It not only hasn't, but so far Corker has not disappointed me and has forced me to eat crow. The world has not ended for Tennessee conservatives because Bob Corker is our Senator-not so far, anyway.

What is the point of all this? Well, there seems to be an attitude in the circles of several Republican presidential candidates where some of their supporters are saying "if my candidate doesn't win the nomination, I'm staying home in November," or worse, some are even threatening to vote for the Democrat in protest. What good does this do, except to destroy the political credibility of those supporters and potentially put another Clinton in the White House? I can guarantee that the other Republican candidates will not publicly disavow the party nominee. If it is a certain New Yorker, they may not give him assistance (unlike some, I don't think the New Yorker will be nominated when it is done), but that will be their way to protest, not to run the GOP down.

This old Buchananite learned his lesson long ago about the cost of abandoning the party when the chips are down. The Republican Party can sometimes be like a sick loved one: It loses its will to go on when the people who believe the most abandon it. You can rest assured that the Democrats will go into the General Election united and ready to fight. If the GOP looks fractured and wounded, that could damage both the party and the country for years to come.

Remember the Supreme Court...

Labels:

17 Comments:

At Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:01:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

David,

If your comments about "certain Republicans" are about me and Renee, please just have the courage to say so. It's not really hard for us to read between the lines.

Anyway...do you really think that all of the problems our party (and our country) currently face are the fault of the Democrats?

I hope not, because to believe so would be equal to wearing VERY rose-colored glasses.

The sad truth is that virtually all of the problems that our party is facing and most of the recent problems that have developed in our country are our own fault. The majority that we elected into Congress did some things right, but they continued to expand government. Instead of using the brilliant tax cuts enacted in Bush's first term to slash spending, spending has dramatically increased (in no small part due to the Iraq war) and a needless deficit has ensued. Nothing has been done about the entitlement structure that threatens to bankrupt our nation (in fact, it's been expanded), nor has anything been done about immigration.

And the President we elected in 2000 (because he was electable and we couldn't find anyone better) and re-elected in 2004 (because we completed ignored what he did in his first 4 years and decided he would be better than Kerry) has done great damage to the image of the party (and the nation) in many ways...again, in no small part because of how he responded to 9/11/01.

And all for what??? Tax cuts whose benefits were completely wasted and a few judicial nominations that have done NOTHING to accomplish what social conservatives wanted?

I'm sorry David, but this notion that the party and our country will be hurt if people don't stick to party lines is absolutely ridiculous. If we can elect a good candidate...that's great. But if we put forward another "electable" candidate that we have to compromise and sacrifice for...THAT will be what causes harm to our party and our country. Electing a Giuliani, a Romney, or a Huckabee would be no better than electing a Clinton. The placement of "Republican" next to one's name doesn't automatically make that person great.

Would you vote for the Antichrist if he registered Republican?

You may prioritize the Republican Party first, the pro-life movement second, and conservatism third...but don't count me in on that racket. For me, my country and conservatism come first above all else. The Republican Party is meaningless to me if it doesn't stand for what it should. And the pro-life movement is important, but it's not EVERYTHING.

As I told Ned Williams on his blog, our country has many, many problems that are more important than the abortion issue. Chief among those are Immigration, security, the economy, and what to do about entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, programs that threaten to absolutely bankrupt us within 15-20 years.

Answer me this -- what other Republican candidate has put forth serious plans on Social Security besides Thompson? NONE. What does that tell you?

Again, as I told Ned...what I do is what I do. Who I support is who I support. "My way or the highway" is just for me. I don't just expect anyone to "toe the Thompson line" without believing in what he says, and in fact, I would prefer that people NOT do that.

But don't expect me to just toe the Republican line "just because". If we're going to have a bad President in the White House, I'd just as soon it be a Clinton -- at least then, conservatives can't get blamed for what ensues.

And I will not apologize for refusing to sacrifice my principles to support candidates whose only good points are their pro-life platforms -- especially when those platforms center around a Constitutional amendment that currently has no chance of getting past Congress.

What good is electing a pro-life President if he can't do anything about the issue?

What say you?

 
At Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:18:00 AM, Blogger Adam Graham said...

First of all, Matt, I doubt that David is singling you out. You may have an opinion (and may have sparked the piece), but a lot of folks do. Be it Huckabee, or Romney, or whoever, a lot of people have a very long "no" list of candidates they won't support.

My "no" list is considerably shorter (really 2 1/2 names) and I doubt I'll make my opinion public, but in the voting booth, only God and I need to know.

However, in overall tenor, David has a point, if you're going to play the Republican Party game as an active Republican, than most of the time it makes sense to cast your vote for the Republican Candidate and live to fight another day. If you don't vote for the party, you don't make a big deal about it. There's a reason the Party Animal's an elephant: they never forget. They'll remember next time you want to get their help with a candidate ("Oh, this is the guy that goes out and dissed our nominee.") If one doesn't want to vote Republican for an office, I reccomend keeping it to yourself.

In my short voting life, I've voted for someone other than the Republican, six times. For what offices and what years, I won't say. However, because it occurred in the privacy of the ballot box and by doing so, I offended no one.

In addition, I think one thing you have to beware of is how the threat of not voting for another candidates reflects on your candidate and yourself.

First of all, I'm neutral towards the campaign and I look and I see people supporting Candidate X talking about how if Candidate Y gets the nomination, they're out of there, I might conclude Candidate X's supporters are not very confident and if they're not confident of their candidate's ability to win, why should I be either?

Second point, given the current state of play, what has the greater odds of occurring: Fred Thompson winning or Mike Huckabee winning? Given Mr. Huckabee's total lack of staffers in later states, as well as a lack of fundraising, I'd say the odds are far greater that Thompson supporters will be given the task of reaching out to Huckabee and his supporters. Is what you're doing now going to make it easier or harder for the GOP to unite behind your candidate should he win?

 
At Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:56:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Adam;
Well thought out and well-written. Your thoughts were taken (as were my own) from accumulated experiences in several elections-I could not have said it any better myself.

Matt;
My post was not aimed at any one person, as you are certainly not the first person I have heard make the ever-popular "I will not support the nominee" threat. Publicly dissing the nominee won't help you (or anyone else) if Fred doesn't get the nomination, because Fred certainly wouldn't be doing that-not on your life. As Adam rightly points out, what you do in the privacy of the voting booth is between you and God and should so remain.

Just remember-Adam is right. Let's think positive and presume that Fred will be the nominee. In a General Election you absolutely need the united support of the friends and supporters of the other candidates once they are out of it. You can't expect to get that necessary support if you for one minute lead these folks to believe that you and your people would not return the favor in a similar situation.

That's precisely why you will not hear Fred say such things, or any of the people close to him-they know what the cost could be if they DO get the nomination.

 
At Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:52:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

David and Adam,

I'm not going to say that you guys don't mean well, because deep down, I think you do. So please consider that when reading the following...

First, let me be very frank. If you guys think that your tack is going to change my mind...that it's going to make me "see the light", you better think again. In fact, I'd say that you're only strengthening my resolve.

I'm being talked down to...being told that bad things are going to happen if I don't do things the way you think I should. But whose worse...me, or Paul Weyrich, who accused the NRLC of selling their endorsement to Thompson? Whose worse...me, or Huckabee supporters who make backhanded comments such as saying that the NRLC is an example of a great organization that can make bad decisions?

And the idea that I should just shut up if I don't say what you think I should say? Well, let's just say that I do know when to bite my tongue. I know you guys didn't say exactly that, but that's the clear intent behind your message, especially with regards to my voting intentions.

I'm angry...at the Party, for becoming a worthless shell of it's former self, and at the politics being played, for how they have negatively impacted the whole process. And you're nuts if you think that I'm going to keep that quiet.

What good is being an activist -- what good is the desire for change -- if I can't espouse the views and call for necessary action because it might "offend" the Party?

And further, what good is giving any candidate support if I'm just obligated to support whomever the nominee is anyway? I might as well save my money and reserve my effort. I should just sit back, drink a beer, and bide my time until the convention. It would do me as much good, apparently.

You guys may be beholden to the Party, but I've clearly expressed that I am not. I am a conservative first. I suppose I might as well just identify as Independent or Libertarian. At least then, I wouldn't have to deal with the headaches.

As for how my tone reflects on me and on Fred...

1) People are going to think of me what they want to think. And I really don't care what people think of me. If people understand my message and agree, they'll listen. If they don't, they won't. Either way, it's no skin off my back. If I can look in a mirror and know that I'm not contributing to these problems, that's fine.

2) If what I do or say causes someone to choose not to support Thompson, that person is probably not one I'd want to support Thompson in the first place. Either you agree with Thompson's platform or not. If you do above all others, support him. If you don't, don't support him. It's really not all that difficult. People in this country seriously need to get minds of their own and quit being sheep.

And finally, regarding the abortion issue...it's been 35 years since Roe v Wade. How many more years have to pass before we realize that maybe we need to change our approach for how we defeat abortion?

The bottom line is this -- I've got the future of a three-year-old son to consider. I have grave concerns about the path of this country and where it will be when my son gets older. So, don't hold your breath on me sacrificing for the short-term, toeing a party line that I don't support anymore, or keeping quiet on issues that I am passionate about.

It just isn't going to happen. And quite frankly, the more you don't like it, the more I know that I'm doing the right thing.

 
At Thursday, November 15, 2007 3:19:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Matt;
I'm certainly not talking down to you. If you think I am, I'm sorry-both Adam and I are speaking from having "been there and done that" in more ways than I have time to explain here (by the way, I have known Adam as long as I have known you-he is an experienced political veteran with many "battle scars" to prove that he knows how to fight the good fight).

I know that your principles are real and genuine, and I fully applaud you for sticking to them. Over the years I've learned that there is an effective way to do things that advances the Cause in the long term, and a way that only hurts you, your candidate, and the Cause-and yes, I have learned it the hard way.

You won't hear Fred use talk in public that he won't support the Republican nominee if it is not him (I can guarantee you he will) because he knows that hurts his credibility. Likewise, if Fred's supporters speak like that in large numbers (and they aren't),it severely damages Fred's credibility (that is what is killing Ron Paul). At this point, when Weyrich makes comments like that, he helps Fred. In that sense, I sincerely hope he sticks his foot as far into his mouth as it will go.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here...

 
At Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:06:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

David,

I'm not Fred Thompson. I'm not running for President. What he does or would do is entirely irrelevant. If he wins the nomination, all this will be moot. If he doesn't, it's not really going to matter what he does. What he does at that point would be entirely up to him. It certainly wouldn't drive what I do -- and even if that happens and he were to endorse another candidate, that doesn't mean that I would support that candidate.

And I would likely choose not to for the reasons you state -- because, politically speaking, Thompson must support someone. He doesn't really have the freedom to act independently. It's a great shame, but it's the way things are.

As for your assertion that Fred supporters won't speak out en masse, you're correct. But then again, very few people have the courage or conviction to do and say what's necessary and what's right -- especially in the face of unwarranted but heavy criticism. Rather, people are in it for themselves (what can ______ do for me?) and don't generally care about much else.

This is why it is so vital for persons such as myself to remain as active and vocal as I can possibly be. Voices of change -- voices of conviction -- must exist. The status quo cannot be acceptable. And don't you dare compare me to Ron Paul supporters. I may be vocal and very firm in my convictions, but I also behave ethically and within the boundaries of common decency. I will not insult or denigrate other candidates; rather, I'll just stick to the facts.

For now, though, I'll continue my support of Thompson and continue to be outspoken about that which is necessary. We're less than 50 days out now from the first votes, and five weeks after that, we ought to have a very, very good idea about who the nominee will be.

And then we'll see what hits the fan...

 
At Thursday, November 15, 2007 3:25:00 PM, Blogger A. Renee Daley said...

Fred's Giving Day

For any and all Fred Heads that are interested. Please make a donation on Fred's Giving Day - which has been scheduled for November 21st.

Every little bit helps! Get behind our Grassroots effort to help show Fred how much we support his candidacy!

Please use the website above for more information or contact me at ardaley@falconsforfred.com.

Thank You!

 
At Friday, November 16, 2007 2:27:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

The point is simple: You've made not just a stand but (in this age of the internet) a very public one in favor of Fred.

You are absolutely entitled to do and say as you please as it pertains to your vote-after all, we still live in America, and I still believe in those freedoms.

If large numbers of a candidate's supporters threaten to abandon the Party upon losing a Primary, it destroys the credibility of not only those supporters but of everything that candidate was trying to accomplish-because if that candidate wins the nomination, he needs the support of the other former candidates and their supporters. If they think they couldn't count on him or his people, why return the favor when they are on the losing end?

Politics is not always pleasant or comfortable, nor is it for the faint of heart. Oftentimes you do have to hold your nose and do something you don't like to avoid the result you most hate. This is one of the great complaints of American politics today, but a careful study of American history shows that this dilemma is nearly as old as the Republic itself.

If Fred wins the nomination, he will need the support of Huckabee people, Romney people, Tancredo people, Hunter people, and even Paul people. For Fred to win in November, the Party will need to unite behind Fred completely.

That is not always a pleasant proposition for supporters of the other candidates-but it is a two-way street.

Unfortunately, politics does make strange bedfellows.

 
At Friday, November 16, 2007 1:41:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

David,

What you just said is one of the primary problems with the two-party system in America. Ultimately, the party is more important than the candidate -- the candidate is rather irrelevant to the process.

Like I said before, if you want to be beholden to the Party, that's your choice. As for me, I refuse to bow to such draconian group-think. I'm not a sheep -- I would rather think for myself. I have said repeatedly that I support a complete array of true conservative values first, above all else. And the Republican Party has made great sacrifices to their conservative platform in recent times -- so to say that I am a Republican at heart would be an exaggeration at this point.

And honestly, its repulsive to think that I'm obligated to support someone else -- even if I don't agree with them -- just because they might choose to support my candidate. Sorry, but I'm not demanding that people support Thompson "just because" and I have said multiple time that I would prefer people NOT do that. If people choose to support Thompson "just because", it's their choice. I refuse to be beholden to that. People should support Thompson because they agree with him -- and if they don't, they shouldn't support him.

If he wins, he wins. If he doesn't, he doesn't.

It just seems as though you're equating my stance with some sort of tantrum (Thompson didn't win, so I'm taking my ball and going home -- WAHHH!) and it's not like that at all.

If there were another Republican whom I could agree with on most issues, whom I thought would be good for the country, and whom I could vote for in good conscience, then i would support them wholeheartedly.

My problem is that the Republicans have no other candidates like that.

You also seem to ascribe blindly to the idea that any Republican President will be better than the Democrat alternative, that such a person will not harm the Party, and that we'll all be better off.

I vehemently disagree, and I again point to the current Bush administration as my example. Bush is the primary reason why there's even a question as to who's going to win in 2008. Because we blindly sacrificed our principles and elected an "electable" guy instead of a good one in 2000 and 2004 to avoid a supposedly worse alternative, our Party is ridiculed in many circles. We're struggling to keep the independent vote, and the Party seems as fractured as ever.

And now, for 2008, we're hearing the same things AGAIN. "We all have to stand behind the nominee, whomever he is, so Hillary doesn't win!"

As far as I'm concerned, electing Hillary would be much better (for the Republican Party, anyway) than holding our collective noses and electing the wrong Republican.

As a Party, blindly sacrificing values and voting for a guy "just because" en masse has put us in this position. Sorry if I refuse to participate further.

And if you don't want to believe me, that's your choice. But I really don't want to hear or see any complaining for your corner if Huckabee or Romney get elected and things like tax hikes, government expansion, and illegal immigrant amnesty all happen while nothing positive happens regarding gay marriage or abortion...nor do I want to hear about how we'll have even less of a chance of winning in 2012.

The American public can only be fooled so many times.

 
At Saturday, November 17, 2007 12:52:00 AM, Blogger Fabian's straight talk said...

interesting

 
At Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:58:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Matt;
You'll get no complaints from my corner unless a Republican Congress is elected and promotes amnesty, tax hikes, and government expansion the way the present Democratic one is doing.

For all of this talk of "I'm going to vote for a Democrat if Fred is not the nominee," you really seem to forget what happened in this country the last time Democrats were in total control of all branches of Government. Not only will the Presidency and Congress go to pot, but the Supreme Court will be ruined-I can promise you that-if a Democrat is elected next year.

As I said, you may do as you like, and I applaud you for sticking to your guns. I will stick to mine-and not assist in marching the country off to political and social suicide because my candidate was not the Republican nominee.

For your sake, I hope and pray Fred gets nominated!

 
At Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:48:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

David,

Yes, I do remember the period from 1992-2000. Part of what I remember is that the President occupying the White House during that time was much more popular than the current one. But I guess the opinion of the people is irrelevant.

However, I also remember something that you seem to be choosing to purposely ignore -- the period from 2000-2006 when the Republicans had both the White House and a Congressional majority. And what do I remember about that time? Hm. The Patriot Act. Suspension of habeas corpus. An incredibly stupid expansion of Medicare. Appointments based more on cronyism and loyalty than anything else, producing scandals at FEMA and the DoJ, among others. An ill-advised war that has cost trillions of dollars and that has been managed horribly.

But I guess all of those things had ZERO contribution at all to why Republicans lost their Congressional majority. I guess none of it has anything to do with the unpopularity of our President (a burden our nominee must face).

And I guess that all of that has to be accepted so the Supreme Court can be packed with judges who claim support for originalism and who say they will be non-activist -- but only do so when it's politically prudent.

You do realize that the best judges -- true originalists -- would often rule in ways you would disagree with, right? That is to say, they wouldn't just stick to the Republican social agenda...

Another thing that bothers me is this blanket assumption you seem to be making that Republicans can do no wrong, or that they could NEVER be as bad as a Democrat, or that the Party will always be better off if a Republican is in office, no matter who it is. Given what I've already covered in this note, I wonder just what it would take to burst this bubble.

But what gets me the most is how you seem to be prioritizing things...that you would put yoru Party allegiances ahead of things that (to me) should clearly be more important. You seem to be willing to compromise any of your beliefs if it enables the Party, regardless of what it is or how important you have claimed that belief to be in the past.

And there are several things that you have claimed to be very important in the past, in conversations with me, that you seem quite willing to give up.

Regardless, you don't need to hope and pray that Fred gets nominated for my sake. Whether he does or not, I'll be fine. I'm a realist, and I'm not putting blinders on with regards to where our country is going.

Rather, I hope and pray for YOU that either Fred gets nominated or that the Democrats re-take the White House in 2008. Because if a Republican other than Thompson wins in 2008, I have a very strong suspicion that things will be even more difficult for you and for the Republican Party come the 2010 mid-terms and the 2012 Presidential election -- very difficult, indeed.

 
At Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:19:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Matt;
I didn't speak of 1992-2000, I spoke of 1992-1994-and I said so explicitly...I don't think you paid much mind to what I actually wrote-but that's alright.

14-3.

 
At Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:23:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

David,

My apologies -- I misread that. However, it really doesn't change my point, and it sort of speaks to what I'm talking about that you would try to use the dodge.

Even if we compare the time from 1992-1994 to the time from 2000-2006, are the results any different? Republican control of both the White House and the Congress did not exactly produce sterling results, and I highlighted some of the more egregious things in my last comment.

And not to delve deep into a subject that may still be touchy, but one thing I have really come to like and respect about Sharon Cobb is that she really, really cares about the country and it's future. And I believe that she places that above her Party and her particular ideology. That's not to say that she would take my particular approach -- but there is more than one right way to get to the same goal.

And as I've said before, I do believe that you mean well, David. I'm just of the opinion that the current system is broken...and to continue to espouse the current system, for whatever reason you chose to do so, is neither beneficial to you, your Party, or your country.

You earlier compared the Republican Party to sometimes being like a sick loved one. Well, let me ask you -- say that you has a loved one who had cancer. Would you ask a physician to use a treatment that you knew in advance was ineffective, in lieu of chemotherapy, to try to make the loved one better?

Think about that.

 
At Monday, November 19, 2007 1:36:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Matt;
Chemotherapy is designed to purge the cancer.

What you propose doesn't seem to be political chemotherapy (that process is usually accomplished away from public view), but instead seems to be leaving our "sick loved one" to die from the cancer.

There is great truth in the old saying "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."

 
At Monday, November 19, 2007 11:16:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

Well, Daivd, if the Party is going to choose to continue in the direction that it's headed for at least the last 8 years or so, maybe it would be better off "dead".

As I've said, I care more about the country than the Party, so if that's what must be, then that's what must be. I'm under no delusion that the Party can never be wrong, or that America is in imminent danger only if the Democrats are in power. As far as I'm concerned, people must have the courage and conviction to stand up for what's right.

And I'm not saying that you aren't doing that in your own way -- all I'm saying is that, if you belive the Republcan party and the abortion issue are right and important above all else, you are going to be wasting your vote in vain. The Human Life amendment is not going to happen -- not now, anyway -- and no amount of believing will make it so. And no matter how much the Supreme Court is packed, it's no guarantee that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned.

After that, what is there to offer from candidates other than Thompson?

Do as you must, but recognize what the consequences of your vote may be. I certainly have done so.

 
At Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Oatney, in your comments regarding Senator Corker I would like to add the following. He voted for the Law of the Sea Treaty in committee. This treaty threatens America's sovereignty according to many, including Ed Meese, Mike Huckabee, Senator DeMint, Senator Vitter, and others. Almost all of the current Presidential candidates on the Republican side have openly voiced opposition to the Lost Treaty. Senator Corker should be ashamed to sacrifice America even further to international organizations who seldom stand with us.

We should always choose the protection of our sovereignty, our constitution and our laws, and the Law of the Sea Treaty would threaten all of these. All Americans, every Tennessean should contact Senator Corker and Senator Alexander and tell them NO.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map