Posted on 02/06/2012 9:02:50 AM PST by JoanVarga
The GOP has made it very, very clear that they don’t actually need the Conservative vote. They merely trade on our dislike for the Democrat label and thus rightly discern that we will go along with the GOP label. And we go along with it because it’s easier to maintain our expectations of the GOP than to face its realities: it IS the Left. . . in drag.
So, why should I vote? The GOP has all the votes their ideology needs, regardless of who wins.
****
A heretical question: Is actively withholding one's vote in protest a sign of apathy, or can it be an apothecary for the patient in question?
Will the GOP get better if I keep feeding its fever for more power?
Even with a liberal like Clinton, a “more” conservative Congress (well, House of Reps) was able to contain the damage somewhat of the Executive..led by Gingrich by the way.
So, even if Mitt were to oust Obama (although I’ll be voting for Gingrich if he’s on the ballot when the primary gets to my state), a “more” conservative Congress could conceivably force Mitt to govern more to the right (as it did with Clinton) than it ever could a 2nd-term Obama.
Folks who elect to abstain from voting because of their dislike of the Republican nominee, or who vote third party and allow Obama another 4 years will be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, in my view.
Bottom line: we need to do what we can to increase the power and influence of constitutional conservatives in every level of our government and not focus solely on the Executive.
Put another way, which would be easier for a more conservative Congress to check, a radical ideologue like Obama or a semi-liberal, RINO like Romney?
Not the ideal situation here (much rather have a good constitutional conservative candidate), but there it is.
LOL, My first name starts with a D and the rest is kind of my last name.
But I liked your clever post dtrees.
>>...There are a lot chicken-livered types here on FR who become apoplectic at the mere mention of not supporting the country-club endorsed GOP candidate...<<
I don’t think it matters either way. Vote your conscience, sit it out, write-in, whatever — the RNC/GOP does not appear concerned one whit. We aren’t even a pest to them.
IF WE WERE, we would not be carping about the piss-poor choices before us and we wouldn’t have the RNC/GOP-e cramming Romney down our throats.
I’m a broken record about this, but we need to increase our number of diligent voters. Right now, I don’t think we even register on the RNC/GOP-e’s radar. They will pay us lip-service in front of the cameras, but ignore us otherwise. They *know* they can count on the moderate (R)’s and independants who seem to outnumber us. Just dang!
Until the Civilian National Security Force enforces a suspension of elections.
OWS is getting the memo that they moved to soon. Wait until mid-October and cause such an alarming commotion that O has "no choice but to suspend elections."
/jaded remarks
If Romney is elected as the Republican leader it is GAME OVER!! The Conservative movement will be set back 3 decades at best. And all the arguments in the world about SCOTUS won't matter if the other guy appoints liberal too.
Republicans were sent packing in 2006 & 2008 precisely because the electorate thought they were more liberal than their opponents. All it took was 6-years under Bush/Hassert/Frist to lead to the party to near obliteration. Imagine the damage after 4 (or 8) under the Liberal from Mass!!
Exactly. True Conservatives know the Federal government is heading to insolvency. The sooner we fix the problem the better it will be. Mitt would just delay the fix at least 4 more years. He would be a failure as President and likely usher in another Marxist.
The true solution lies in the crisis of such magnitude that the "several States" gather and vote to dissolve the Federal Union. The current socialist Federal government can then be replaced by a strict Constitutional Republic.
The dissolution will not be pretty, but it will quickly accomplish the removal of almost all Federal Agencies, the firing are very large numbers of Federal parasites, the dissolution of all Federal Courts except the Supreme Court (to rid the lower courts of Marxists). Remember, the Congress created all the lower courts.
A reconstituted Republic can quickly rebound and unleash the energy of a free people.
My reading of history tells me a solution that is much different that Mark Levin's. He says we took 80 years to get here (socialism) and it will take 80 years to get back to Liberty. I say societies that are heavily socialistic cannot transition to Liberty over time. Liberty (from Socialism) can only be realized in a relatively quick time frame(few years)
In order to defeat the bureaucratic class, they must be dislodged all at once and in a short timeframe. If not, they will work around those seeking Liberty. The only way I see a solution for the U.S. is for the States to dissolve the current Federal union.
Now, the trillion dollar question is how do you get leadership at the State level with true political Warrior spine and second, the circumstances that would warrant such drastic action. Short of that, I think a long decline to a Socialist third world sewer is in our future.
Thanks for a well-considered reply. I really am casting about for a “voice” in the national conversation about whether or not we have one party or two. Much will depend on that assessment.
If we have two parties, if there are enough monied individuals not beholden to the national weal— for a paycheck or payout or handout or bailout— that can use their powers for good, then sign me up. The GOP locally made it clear that they needed my money to support their choice, not my active volunteerism for Conservatism.
If we have one party, it’s time to end the charade.
I think if you are at that point you focus your political energy on House/Senate/Governorships etc. I am almost positive you have several serious conservatives running for one or more of these offices. Even getting to the local level, Mayor or Supervisor and so on.
Unfortunately, Newt also has a habit of taking up a few ideas popular with socialists in the last 10 years. He hasn’t convinced me I can trust him either. Truth is, I don’t care for Newt too much. Smart guy who makes silly choices too often. Another thing about Newt is he lacks eexcutive experience. That used to mean something to conservatives. That is all we heard early on. The candidate has to have executive experience.
I am totally awake and not fond of any of our choices.
We could have done better, and if we would have done that, we would be kicking azz right now. Romney wouldn’t be at the top.
I will have to trust those that will vote in primaries before me. By May, the candidate will most likely be clear.
I will vote against Obama for whoever that ends up being.
“3. God will not reward doing what is expedient rather than doing what is right. “
While I agree with this sentiment, I think you are mis-applying it.
It would not be a sin to vote for Romney.
God gave each of us a vote; some will do one thing with it, some another. I don’t have a problem with the decision anyone else makes. However I don’t want an informed decision I make to support Romney in the general to be characterized as “wrong” in a moral context.
“Less harmful is still harmful.”
Yes, and more harmful is still more harmful.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you can get less evil. I’d rather less evil than more evil.
And you think that voting for the big government, statist liberal with the R behind his name, is going to improve your progeny's future?
This 'lesser of two evils' thinking is suicidal. Put Romney in the White House, and little will change. He's not a reformer, and he isn't going to roll back Obama's commie agenda. He might slow it down a couple of miles per hour, but he's not going to yank the wheel to the right like he needs to.
Once a Republican is back in the White House, all the fight will go out of our side, and Washington will get right back to business the following day, selling us down the river toward a globalist, totalitarian future.
Pardon me, but I'd rather maintain my personal honor and integrity by refusing to give my vote to that. If we're going to go down, it won't be with my willing assistance.
What you've got to understand, is that we can't just put someone in office who's got an R on their club jacket. We need to put someone in that office who's going to stomp on the brakes with both feet, and yank the wheel hard right, or die trying. That is the only hope we have of keeping this country from flying off the cliff.
I suggest you work your tail off right now, to ensure that we're not left with the choice of Obama or Obama-Lite in November.
“I’ve been hoping for a Ross Perot type insurgency with a conservative at the head.”
That gave us Bill Clinton.
I DO like your three points....
Well done for voicing them, as they are real, and accurate in scope and meaning.
EL
“Is it best to be shot with a .22 or a .45 is what you are saying.”
A .22. I have a much better chance of surviving a .22 to fight another day.
Yes, I often used that as a defense of the indefensible GOP action of offering up McCain for our consideration.
I am now convinced that it is irrelevant. If we had a two-party system it would be one thing, but I'm trying very hard to see the delineations between R and D.
I know what you are saying, now we need to find a person capable of doing that. Not someone who got there because he is second to the last flavor of the day.
Newt cannot argue Obamacare with Obozo any more than Romney can.
They both supported mandates.
You are going to have to go out and convince far more people than you find here on FR. But, that is Newt’s job.
I suppose we will watch how he does on Super Tuesday.
I know what you are saying, now we need to find a person capable of doing that. Not someone who got there because he is second to the last flavor of the day.
Newt cannot argue Obamacare with Obozo any more than Romney can.
They both supported mandates.
You are going to have to go out and convince far more people than you find here on FR. But, that is Newt’s job.
I suppose we will watch how he does on Super Tuesday.
“Anything you can do with a third party you can do easier and quicker within the GOP.”
Amen to that. SO MUCH time and energy and money involved in reinventing the wheel.
The frustration here is, the conservatives in the GOP are not happy with Romney. Bear in mind, many conservatives are supporting Romney ‘cause they think he’s not that bad, and, rightly or wrongly, they think he can win. There is an attitude on FR that “The Man” is “keeping us down” and forcing Romney on us. I don’t think so. The rank and file GOP primary voter is voting for him, and while I oppose the open primary garbage, the closed primary in FL gave the victory to Romney also.
The solution, in my mind, is two fold:
increase the conservative base in the GOP; and
put conservatives in positions of influence in the party, both central committees and more local candidates.
It is not, IMO, to start another party, which would be nothing but a siphon.
Whenever I see folks at DU or Daily Kos agitate for a third party I am delighted. I know that decreases the chance that Obama and his type will win.
Milt Rominy still supports mandates. Newt can argue against them because he no longer supports mandates since he realized they are unconstitutional and not conducive to a free market. That you would try to hide those fatcs says a lot about your agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.