Losing in 2006 to win in 2008

for-q-clinton ^ | 3 Oct 05 | for-q-clinton

[Dead Corpse]

Wouldn't have to LOSE anything if GOP'ers were held to the Conservative standard. The blatant RINO'ism of the last 6-8 years will have a lot of the strict Constitutionalists looking ANYWHERE else for real candidates.

Yes. You do need to give up some battles to win the war. But winning the war by BECOMING the enemy isn't what we need either.

[Howlin]

What will you have to promise to the myraid special interest groups in order to make up the difference?

We have to be PRAGMATIC and COMPROMISE.

Something you tunnel vision people haven't realized yet is required to get yourself in a position to actually DO something.

[malakhi]

You can't lose credibility in politics faster than suggesting its best we lose power short term to maybe gain power long term.

You just don't understand the strategy. You need to purge all the wishy-washy moderate types from the party, so that there remains a smaller, purified core which lacks the votes to win elections except by, ummm, reaching out to the middle, or something. :o)

[madconservative]

BLACKMAILED BY US!!!!???? Are you F*&%ing kidding me?!!! We are the ones who get blackmailed every election when you nominate weaklings and we have to vote for them or suffer the Democrats.

[HitmanLV]

Yes, I think I get it now! ;-)

[deport]

Maybe 2006 is the year to vote for a 3rd party to send a message.

---

Curious......... which 3rd party?

Donner Party
Constitution Party
Reform Party
Libertarian Party
Socialist Party
Communist Party

I'm sure that a message would or could be sent should a 3rd party have a chance of winning but I see none that have that chance. The Libertarians have made strong efforts across the board to have candidates down to the local level and have mostly been unsuccessful except in a few cases. I see no other 3rd party with their organization to win with. You don't win the top job with a 3rd party with no orginization in place... Like yours, jmo of course.

[Black Tooth]

They ate their own. DUH.

No, they survived, unlike others that have implied they'd rather their party die. You're sharp.

[af_vet_rr]

Trying to lump everybody in as a Bush basher diminishes the message - it's not Bush, it's the GOP. He's simply a reflection where where the GOP is going.

You could call me a Bush basher (which would be amusing because I voted for him three times), and I would find myself in good company (many people here, going back to the usenet days, were not fond of the current Bush being picked to run for President), but the fact is, the GOP has changed, and I and many others have not.

Think of it like this - many of the things President Bush and other Republicans at that level (or rather Congress) have said and done - had it been said and done by Clinton, or by Dems in Congress, would have been harshly criticized. Because it's a Republican, it's considered to be okay.

In some ways, it's almost natural that the GOP would have changed - after '94, the GOP has been picking the right battles and stances in order to win.

I full expect that the GOP 20 years from now will be quite unrecognizable to somebody nowadays.

Basically, we are probably considered the dinosaurs of the party.

[raybbr]

Something you tunnel vision people haven't realized yet is required to get yourself in a position to actually DO something.

Guffaw! Guffaw!

Like what? Increase the federal budget in record numbers? Allow an opponent to write the education bill? Allow millions of illegals to stay? Tacitly invite millions more illegals with the promise of amnesty? Appoint moderate conservatives to the Supreme Court?

Yes, he's doing something all right!

[misterrob]

Under that logic then why not just continue to water down the party with moderates and big government spender?

[Dead Corpse]

The GOP has been so "pragmatic" and they have "compromised" so much that they have finally made "conservatism" equal the "liberalism" of 1962. They have compromised "small government" into the most massive increase in government ever.

Tunnel vision? Better than losing sight of the goal. Better than "compromising" on principle to gain an office and then turning on your base. What good is it electing a Republican if they aren't going to be a CONSERVATIVE? If we want liberals, we'd just vote Democrat.

[misterrob]

Screw you and the rest of the sellouts out there. You are sick of being "blackmailed" by those of us who want limited government, lower taxes, better border control and more fiscal discipline on the part of those spending our hard earned money???????

What a f*&%^%'en joke!!!!!

It's all about going along to get along instead of demanding better of the people you put into office. The Republican party is moving further and further away from its principles of smaller government and you can't see it. Too many people see this as a "Keep Hillary Out At All Costs" regardless of what happens.

[misterrob]

AMEN

[for-q-clinton]

I love it when some of the original Bush bashers that never were Republican say they are never voting Republican again because (fill in the blank)!

You nailed it IMHO!

Obviously you must not be referring to me or you don't know my history. I've been a pretty staunch Bush supporter. The one time I was sort of waivering was early on, but I said I'd defer opposition until the mid-term elections. If he delivers the House & Senate in the mid-term election in 2002, I'd stay on board. The thought was that with a Senate & House he'd at least pick true conservatives with a conservative record (as Reagan did) to the Supreme Court. But he's more like his father everyday. And he keeps helping Bill & Hillary take the white house in 08. He spends like a drunken sailor...not even a symbolic veto to cut $1 of pork.

I like the guy personally. But I'm not thrilled with his tactics and his inability to drive our message forward. As you can see I'm looking for reasons why we should care in 2006, not more reasons why I shouldn't care. I've seen one decent response as to why I should care to win in 2006. Instead of bashing me, try influencing me to your way of thinking.

[for-q-clinton]

The reality is, most people like their pet government programs, and don't really want smaller government. And most people don't like radical change. Shrinking government when people don't want it shrunk is a recipe for electoral failure. That's a lesson the Republicans seem to have learned. If they keep control of the purse strings, they have the chance to direct policy to encourage individual responsibility and individual choice. The long term effect of this would be to reduce demand for government.

Very good insight. I appreciate your post. As I mentioned I'm looking for reasons to vote for Republicans in 2006. And your response gives me some understanding of why we need to try to win (even if it means more spending). It's a long term approach.

[for-q-clinton]

You can't lose credibility in politics faster than suggesting its best we lose power short term to maybe gain power long term.

Yeah, but Conservatives would have to be IN POWER to lose power. We aren't in power. The Republicans are. Some of them are Conservative; others aren't. Shedding the excess RINO fat would help us.

[misterrob]

I'll vote for the person at the local level who has the guts to do the following:

1) Limit growth of government spending

2) Limit interference of government in business

3) Support a strong national defense

4) Vote for immigration law enforcement efforts

5) Carry out their Constitutionally Appointed Duties

6) Support efforts to reform SS spending and allow me some freedom to invest my own money like an adult

[for-q-clinton]

What do you call advocating "sending a message" by voting third party? (your #5).

A rhetorical question. Food for thought. And it's not direct campaigning to lose. It's campaigning for a message not a party. Campaigning to lose is putting people like McCain up as our Presidential nominee.

[for-q-clinton]

it took eight years of Bill Clinton to set things right. Once the Democrats regain control of Congress, the entire "mainstream" news and entertainment community will invest all their energy into convincing the Sheeple of America that they never had it so good. It would be criminally naive to think that you could turn that situation around in two years (even if two years were a "lifetime in politics).

The Internet has changed the game. No longer is the Media able to dictate the news. Remember RatherGate? Hell even Monica was first broke on the Web. It's only going to get bigger. The genie is out of the bottle.

[for-q-clinton]

I wouldn't say having Specter there is a "WIN". I'd say it's more of a draw.