Thursday, November 7, 2013


Op-ed: 
Losing by a hair…winning by a RINO 
By: Diane Sori

We won New Jersey…sort of. We lost Virginia by a hair…a hair split by an anything but Libertarian candidate put into the race strictly to fracture the Republican vote.

And fracture it he did for if Robert Sarvis’ 6.6% of the vote had gone over to Cuccheneli, Virginia would have turned RED…but he ran just so that would NOT become reality.

But in New Jersey…the Garden State…sitting Republican Governor Chris Christie steam-rolled over his opponent, Democratic State Senator Barbara Buono, by over 20 points, securing a second term in office. Sounds good on the surface but one needs to look deeper as Christie is the epitome of the proverbial RINO…a RINO with presidential aspirations…and a RINO is the last thing we need in the White House following the disaster that is the Obama presidency.

Yet Christie became the first ‘so-called’ Republican in 25 years to win more than 50% of the New Jersey vote by bringing minorities, women, and Democrats…who outnumber Republicans among registered voters by more than 3 to 2…to his side in what has become known as ‘pragmatic bipartisanship’…a modus-operandi where it’s now been deemed politically correct to begin the so-called ‘healing process’…a process where despite obvious political differences both parties can, should, and must work together for mutually agreeable policies that benefit ‘We the People’ they were elected to serve.

Ummm…aren’t we supposed to that at all times NOT just when it’s been deemed politically correct to do so…just saying.

So while it does sound good in theory the reality is that ‘pragmatic bipartisanship’ when used by a RINO becomes the sell-out of core Republican principals and values replacing them with the touchy-feely nonsense that is the hallmark of the Democrats, but it worked for Christie in his left-leaning state that Obama carried by more than 17 points in 2012.

And it’s sad to say but when it's all said and done we have to take our ‘wins’ wherever we can, so better a RINO for New Jersey’s governor than an out-and-out progressive Democrat I guess.

Now as for Virginia, there I have a real bone to pick for we had a chance to turn Virginia RED and due to entrance of a Democratic ‘plant’ into the governor’s race Virginia became a rub it in our faces BLUE.

Democrat Terry McAuliffe was elected Virginia’s governor by a margin of 48% to 46% (1,066,149 to 1,010,929) over Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s conservative attorney general. And while Virginia has historically been a conservative-leaning ‘swing state’…a state that backed every Republican presidential candidate from Richard Nixon through George W. Bush and in 2009 elected a Republican governor by 59% to 41%…the entrance of ‘supposed’ Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis into the race spoiled the election for Cuccinelli, who would have won as most of Sarvis’ 6.6% of the vote would have been added to his total (145,762 in actual numbers).

McAuliffe was able to win basically because he ran a highly financed negative campaign (outspending Cuccinelli by over 15+million dollars). By saying over and over ad-nauseum that Cuccinelli was a social conservative who was anti-woman because he vehemently opposed abortion, McAuiffe was able to garner the women’s vote by a 51-42 margin. And by also constantly repeating that Cucchinelli refused to admit that it was the Republicans who were to blame for the recent government shutdown, McAufliffe was able to play to the heavily populated Northern Virginia area, where many work for the government or for government contractors.

But truth be told it was both ‘anything but Libertarian’ Robert Sarvis and a lack of support… including the all important and much needed financial support…by his own Republican Party that cost Cuchinelli the election. Using tactics more Democratic than Libertarian, Sarvis, kept demeaning Cuccinelli’s social issue positions instead of focusing on the Libertarian agenda of small government and individual liberties, leading many to rightfully believe he was ‘planted’ in the race by the Democrats who knew the election was NOT a sure deal after the ObamaCare website and insurance policy cancellation fiascoes.

In fact, software billionaire Joe Liemandt, a Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler, helped pay professional petition circulators to get Robert Sarvis on the ballot as the Libertarian candidate for NO other purpose than to split and syphon off the Republican vote…split and cause friction between the old guard Republican establishment base and the new true conservative Republican grassroots movement...AKA TEA Party Republicans. 

And after proving just how successful base splitting was in Virginia with the insertion of unknown Sarvis into the governor’s race, come 2014 and 2016 this base splitting might be the ultimate Democratic strategy they will use anytime a race seems a bit too close for comfort so listen up people…NO third party candidate must be allowed to split the vote ever again…they simply cannot win so voting for a third party candidate is an actual wasted vote or worse yet…a vote for the Democratic opponent.

As for Republicans, especially high ticket Republican donors who stabbed Cucchineli in the back by NOT contributing more to his campaign when ObamaCare went sour…something they should have seen coming…something that allowed the race to tighten up so much so that what was once felt to be unwinable was now very much winnable as the ObamaCare nightmare allowed Cuccinelli to close the gap between him and McCauliffe to withing a mere 3-points, and pouring money into his campaign even at that late date just might have made a difference in the election'
s outcome.

So like I said in the beginning we win some…we lose some…but if we are to take our country back we must start winning more than we lose…and we must do it by supporting TEA Party Republicans over old guard establishment Republicans who are more RINO than true conservatives…and we must turn our backs on all third party candidates, period…and I do mean…period.

12 comments:

  1. I think it's wrong to ignore third parties, since they seem to be the only parties that are constitutionally correct. Instead of ignoring your libertarian-leaning constituents, why don't you provide us with a Republican candidate who leans more towards smaller government and individual liberties? You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely NO 3rd party candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election of importance. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote or worse...it goes to the Democratic opposition.

      Delete
    2. ...THE TRUTH...

      Delete
    3. The reason no third party candidate can win is because the "two parties" keep changing the rules to freeze them out which is not what the founders intended. George Washington Farewell Address: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty." Don't think I have to argue our liberties are in danger. I agree with unknown above that the Republican party should present candidates that are Republican; ie believe in smaller government and protecting individual liberties. Even Republicans that believe in the Constitution and proudly say so cannot get the support of the Republican party. Was the Libertarian a "plant" to break up the election? Perhaps. Even probably. But there is a reason that Christie won by such a large margin. He is a politician just like McCain, Jeff Flake and so-forth. They are not Republicans.

      Delete
  2. Great post! I tried and tried to make people aware of the danger of 3rd parties during the 2008 and 2012 elections. I heard over and over, "Well, I have to stand on principle." That principle got us Obama, twice! And it isn't only about 3rd parties, but about a libertarian continuing to pose as a Republican refusing to leave the primarty and ensuring a divided party at election time. Further, all the name calling in the GOP has got to stop, as well as all the destructive attacks among the same party candidates during the primaries. People are tired of it, and when it comes time to vote, the negative is what they remember. We will never get unity by labels. We simply need to point out the differences. And take it back one step at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Diane, I luv ya....but not sure I agree with you on this one.....
    We, the patriots of America, are under attack by our own Republican party....it is war....and we need to defeat the snakes in our midst....vigorously.
    The "politics as usual" crowd have allied themselves against us.

    How do we defeat the McCains and Boehners?

    If a star like Sarah Palin launches a new party, I will be sorely tempted to go along just so we will have a fighting unit without traitors in our midst.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO...the key is for the TEA Party to bring the Republican Party back to its core values NOT to start another party to fracture and split the vote even more. Through TEA Party Republicans like Sarah and Ted Cruz that can be done. Third parties are divisive...always have been...so let's shape up what we have by getting rid of the old establishment guard and replacing them with TEA Party Republicans. We've already started infiltrating BREC by bringing new members who are TEA Partiers to the membership rolls and its spreading. The Republicans must NOT be allowed to chase us away...we MUST bring them back to God and Country because America functions best with a two-party system.

      Delete
    2. Good Point....if we can join the leper colony and clean out the leprosy fine....but if we can't...I say burn it down (bwa..ha ha ha...evil chuckle)

      Delete
    3. On this point I can agree with you, Diane. The question is how to do it? Immigration reform is scorned by just about every Republican web site you find. Even the Hispanic Republicans are against it. Yet McCain, Flake and others are pushing for it. Even Ted Cruz is getting on board, though perhaps reluctantly. It's difficult when they won't listen to their "constituents."

      Delete
  4. I knew you'd see it my way...LOL Seriously though, I do agree we need to clean the Republican house as its high past time for the TEA Party Republicans to take over...NOT a game of divide and conquer per se but by re-establishing the foundation the Republican Party was built upon sprinkled with a great BIG helping of TEA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The voters who, based on principle, voted for Ross Perot in the 1996 Presidential Election gave a second term to Bill Clinton. The voters who voted for Ron Paul as a matter of principle in 2012 helped to elect Barak Obama to a second term. Face it folks, chances are if you vote for someone based on principle alone, THE CANDIDATE YOU DON'T WANT IS LIKELY TO WIN. If you are one of those voters, I'd rather not hear YOUR complaints about our nation’s decaying economy and international reputation – for YOU are as responsible as if you had voted for Obama.

    Did I particularly like Bush (the elder) for a second term in 1992? Not really. But I knew Perot could not possibly win so I cast my vote where it might do some good. Clinton was elected anyway, but it wasn’t with MY help, it was with the help of Perot voters. Likewise, I may not have been particularly fond of Romney in 2012, but I knew my preferred Ron Paul could not possibly win, so again I cast my vote where it might do some good. Obama won the election, but once again, it was not with my help, it was with the help of the Ron Paul voters. In today’s elections, where most politicians are corrupt, sometimes it is necessary to vote against the candidate you oppose by voting for the opponent who stands the best chance defeating her or him.

    ReplyDelete