Posted on 05/02/2012 8:01:39 AM PDT by Mozilla
I'm done. I'm a lifelong Republican and I'm done. I've been a Republican since I was 6 and I saw Reagan speak on our old 13" black and white television set about freedom and about the evils of the Soviet Union, where I was born. I grew up listening to Reagan and I kind of always thought that he was what the Republican Party stood for. For individual liberty at home & abroad. "Moderates" like George H. W. Bush seemed like some sort of aberration to me, an exception to the conservative Republican rule. Looking back though, it's pretty clear that Ronald Reagan was the aberration. In 1988, instead of nominating the father of the Reagan tax cuts, Jack Kemp, the GOP nominated the anti-Israel squishy moderate George H. W. Bush. In 1996, instead of nominating the stalwart conservative Phil Gramm (lifetime ACU rating of 95) or the flat tax visionary Steve Forbes, the GOP nominated another squishy moderate, Bob Dole (lifetime ACU rating of only 82). 2000 was a joke as the establishment had pre-decided that W was going to be the nominee and he really didn't have any real opposition. W, the "compassionate conservative". We all know how that ended. Ballooning federal spending and even a new entitlement! It was so bad that even in his home state of Texas I heard of people say that he destroyed the Republican Party by governing the way he did.
Looking back before Reagan, I think the last Republican President I actually would have liked was Calvin Coolidge, who was elected in 1924, a whopping 88 years ago (even Reagan's 1980 election was a hell of along time ago, a whopping 32 years). So in 88 years, there have been a total of 2 Republican Presidents and only 3 nominees (add Barry Goldwater in 1964 to the mix) who believed in small government, free markets and individual liberty. Being a Republican who believes in those things seems to be a great way to torture yourself. You are constantly tempted into thinking "maybe this time" but more often than not they end up giving you someone you despise but feel you have to support as they are the lesser of two evils. Well, I am done supporting any sort of evil, lesser or otherwise. Alternating the Presidency between lesser evils and full-on evils are how we got into the mess we are in. When the Democrats are in charge, the size and scope of government is increased dramatically (except under Clinton, where he tried to nationalize healthcare but was stopped and then a Gingrich-led Republican Congress kept him in check) and when the Republicans are in charge, government also increases, albeit at a slower rate. We're now to the point where even if we cut all discretionary spending to zero, we will just be balancing the budget, thanks to all the promises of entitlements made in prior administrations (Mary Meeker has a great presentation on how screwed we really are).
Romney is just the last straw for me. I can't really say for certain what I agree with him on or exactly how he differs from how Obama has been governing (as George Soros said, "If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them"). He believes in the individual mandate as a way to reform healthcare despite it being an abrogation of individual liberty. He is going to raise taxes if elected President, he has said as much. I'm not even sure how his foreign policy would be different. So far, all I understand is that he would leave Afghanistan 3 months later than Obama and would only criticize Israel in private. Sure, I'm sure his decisions would be less bad than Obama, his regulations less over-reaching, but that is simply not enough for me. And the worst part of this whole process was that so many conservatives stood on the sidelines, not doing all that they could to keep a progressive from becoming the GOP nominee. Where was Sarah Palin's endorsement? Where was Jim DeMint's? Why weren't they out there campaigning, highlighting Romney's terrible record as Governor? The establishment had clearly decided on a candidate and these so-called iconoclasts didn't want to hurt their own careers. They just wanted to go along to get along. The conservative press was no better. They didn't want to hurt their future access to politicians and/or the White House.
So what now? Ideally, I'd like the Tea Party to get together and form a proper political party and then act somewhat like the Conservative Party of New York. Sometimes they would endorse the Republican, but if they don't agree with the choice, they would field their own candidate. That would act as an incentive for the Republicans to nominate a candidate that is acceptable to conservatives. Having a convention before the Republican primaries even start would probably maximize the Tea Party's impact. Imagine if a conservative nominating convention had come together and endorsed just 1 of the conservatives running for the nomination before Iowa. Instead of the vote being horribly split, allowing the only moderate in the race to win race after race with under 50% of the vote, the story might have been vastly different.
For 2012, I seem to have only two choices. Vote for the Constitution Party candidate or the Libertarian Party candidate. There is clearly a lot of overlap between the two groups (Ron Paul actually endorsed the Constitution Party candidate in 2008) but the Constitution Party is just a bit too anti-immigrant (even legal immigrants) and socially conservative for my taste. Heck, their last nominee, Chuck Baldwin, even said that people "misunderstand Southern slavery". What exactly is there to misunderstand about chattel slavery? Now, it's okay to sympathize with Confederate arguments over states rights, but slavery? That just goes way too far for me. I would find the Confederacy a lot more sympathetic if they had freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter.
So we’re electing Ron Paul, are we?
Just hope for every misfit in the Republican party like this there are two or more in the Democratic party who will vote for Nader because Obama hasn’t yet nationalized the big oil.
I believe that the GOP is the right party for those people who are neither fiscally conservative nor socially conservative.
Since I am neither a Mittbot nor a Democrat, I may vote for the Constitution Party.
I live in NY, and that's an idiotic thought. The Conservative Party in NY is like an old ladies' social club whose only functions seems to be public in-fighting about who said what. They wind up supporting democrats, leftists and liberals for God knows what reason, and then they are completely ignored once the election is over. Meanwhile the Progressive leviathon has taken over NY State from top to bottom.
Sounds like he’s pimping for 0bama.
Bad idea.
We should form a caucus WITHIN the Republican Party so that we run ONE conservative against the Republican chosen candidate.
We would have never had a President Reagan if there were five other conservatives fighting him for the chance to go against GHW Bush.
What an IDIOT!Nobody is political at age 6!!We need EVERY vote AGAINST Obongo that we can get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's keep our eyes on the ball people - if you are not for the Republican then you are for the Democrat; wither you vote or don't. There is no other alternative.
I haven't voted for a President since 1984. With the exception of 1980 and 1984 I have voted against Presidential candidates and have done so since 1972. I don't like it but there is no other alternative.
`Screw the GOP, They Don’t Seem to Want My Vote Anyway’
Keeping in mind that Romney and his team:
believe they have conservatives lined up, ready to vote GOP; or,
believe they can win without conservatives and the Tea Party,
they really do want our votes.
But then—more than anything—they want us to go away ... for four years.
I’m going to give them what they want, but about 6 months early.
Evil is still evil, whatever face it wears.
...which is exactly how we get Obongo Light instead.
I'm not playing that game, thanks.
That is where we party. I want to punish the GOP-e. You want to not stand on principla to elect Romney because you want Obama out.
My question is how long till you turn on Romney if he won and starts betraying conservatives or will you defend him?
Will the anger for Obama change to Anger for Romney?
Look when it is this bad there in no choice. SO it was bound to become murky and one should have seen it coming a long long time ago. It is the reasont he tea party began. it is the reason this site has been against Romney for years.
So what would you expect to happen? Eveeryone in lock step to rush to coronate Romney?
That is where we party. I want to punish the GOP-e. You want to not stand on principla to elect Romney because you want Obama out.
My question is how long till you turn on Romney if he won and starts betraying conservatives or will you defend him?
Will the anger for Obama change to anger for Romney?
Look when it is this bad there is no choice. So it was bound to become murky and one should have seen it coming a long long time ago. It is the reason the tea party began. it is the reason this site has been against Romney for years.
So what would you expect to happen? Everyone in lock step to rush to coronate Romney?
Then this country's existence as a true republic is over, and it's every man for himself. Thanks for the heads-up.
I meant this si where we part. Not party. Basically what I am saying is this the tea party was betrayed. Conservatives got the worst candidate possible. It is going to be a mess to figure out what to do. But I am sticking by prinicpals and voting third party for the constitution party.
At this point conservatives are secrew no matter who wins and that means even if Romney wins things are still going to get bad.
I meant this is where we part. Not party. Basically what I am saying is this the tea party was betrayed. Conservatives got the worst candidate possible. It is going to be a mess to figure out what to do. But I am sticking by prinicpals and voting third party for the constitution party.
At this point conservatives are screwed no matter who wins and that means even if Romney wins things are still going to get bad.
The caucus idea is very interesting.
For one thing, in so many townships, the local conservatives need tutorials on RRO (ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER) to defend themselves knowledgably against the entrenched precinct & county leaders who in some cases are quite liberal and unfriendly to TEA PARTY concerns, experienced in shutting newcomers down, but doing so by the book.
A caucus could educate those who would resist the Leftward movement of the Rep. Party who need the skills.
Screw yourself. A vote for anyone but the Republican nominee is a vote for at least 4 more years of Obama. If the Democrats don’t mind ignoring the constitutional requirements for holding the presidency, why would they care if they ignore the 22nd amendment in 2016 too?
I don’t like Romney either, but he’ll have to do. In November either Romney or Obama will be elected president. Period. there’s your 2 choices.
If conservatives are not strong enough or unified enough to win the GOP nomination, what makes anyone think we would be strong enough or unified enough to win a general election in an unknown third (or fourth) party?
The RINOs will support a conservative if they have to. So why not use them, like they have used us?
Yes, we will be getting Romneycare instead of Obamacare. Illegal Aliens will be covered, just as in Massachusetts. We will be getting gay marriage just like in Massachusetts.
Yep, I will vote AGAINST Obama in this election. But after that will be active in the Tea Party and not vote automatically for Republicans.
Republicans have given us RINOs for President in the last few elections and I've never seen a bumper sticker or yard sign for Romney in the Suburbs where I live. No one likes him here.
I'm headed for the Tea Party big time.
Apparently there are more of us who are willing to *be* cornered (by the GOP-E) than to corner.
The GOP-E is clearly moving Left and there are plenty of trembling, useful idiots willing to shuffle along and board that train, believing a socialist will bring them peace and safety.
If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be laughable, but it’s alarming that Americans won’t fight fire with fire anymore.
YOU DIDN’T ABANDONED YOUR PARTY, YOUR PARTY ABANDONED YOU.
I walked away from this ‘Duo-oply’ last week when Romney became the poster child.
While I agree with your sentiments, we should remember the choice Reagan had in 1968 and 1972.
He was also ‘cornered’ into supporting Nixon, who gave us wage/price freeze, the EPA and a liberal SCOTUS justice.
Reagan supported Nixon and ‘lived to fight another day.’ But I can’t say that he sacrificed his principles. If he did not do that he never would have become president.
Hey Mozilla, thanks for posting this on Free Republic. I just want to say that if you look at the blog’s history, I was a die hard Newt supporter throughout the process until he couldnt even come close in Delaware last week. Only then did I switch to Gary Johnson, who as I mention has a very conservative record, a much better record than the current Republican nominee. So far Romney hasn’t done anything to make me regret my decision.
Only then did I switch to Gary Johnson, who as I mention has a very conservative record.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why? For the love of God - why are liberals allowed on this site supporting a nut-case who is pro-gay, pro dope, pro-abortion and (hard to believe, but true) nuttier than L. Ron Paul?
IBTZ
While what you say is true, and one could say Obama did exactly the same as Reagan in order to advance his ideology, this tactical maneuvering has run out the clock, imho.
But, I like answering the GOPE war on conservatives with your idea of caucusing for this cycle. That is action, over beard stroking the past. .)
You should rephrase your statement to:
Either you are a socialist or you are not....
Which are you?
They are equally bad; the choices are the same.
Voting for Mitt or Obama = voting for someone who places the State above the Individual.
It is disgusting all these fools who think "OMG, it's the end of life as we know if we don't vote for Mitt"?
To all those weak kneeded Republicans, I say Man up.
Either one elected will do great damage to our Republic. The worse that will happen is the Federal government will be clearly seen as totally impotent. At that point it can be rolled back.
I’m not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. The Libertarian Party is not the perfect choice for me but I dont think I have one this time around. At least Gary Johnson wants to cut spending AND cut taxes. I might not agree with him on abortion and foreign policy but given the state of our finances, I think I can overlook them. Just take a look at his record as Governor.
I’m not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong. You are a liberal. A Social Liberal. And libertarians are always fooled into thinking that if their candidate is right on economic issues but wrong on abortion, drugs, porn and so on; then that is good enough and you “overlook” their social failures.
That is just ridiculous. Look where that liberal thinking has gotten the Republican Party. Because the GOP has abandoned conservative values, we are stuck with Mitt Romney as a candidate. With an (un)healthy dose of Ron Paul added into the mix.
(Puke)
I hate libertarians. I blame you for the sorry state this country is in economically and socially.
We believe in small government, pure and simple. Why do you think government regulation of drugs and porn will stop there? I’d argue you are a big government conservative based on that last post.
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.