Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Screw the GOP, They Don't Seem to Want My Vote Anyway
Libertarian-NeoCon ^ | Libertarian NeoCon

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.

TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012; conservatives; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Mozilla
At this point conservatives are screwed no matter who wins and that means even if Romney wins things are still going to get bad.

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.

21 posted on 05/02/2012 9:11:20 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand

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.

22 posted on 05/02/2012 9:20:24 AM PDT by RitaOK (Nevermind, Newt. Forget the convention. I'm trusting God for the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

I walked away from this ‘Duo-oply’ last week when Romney became the poster child.

23 posted on 05/02/2012 9:22:10 AM PDT by MtnMan101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

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.

24 posted on 05/02/2012 9:27:05 AM PDT by Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

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.

25 posted on 05/02/2012 9:36:02 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertarian neocon

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?


26 posted on 05/02/2012 10:06:51 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand

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. .)

27 posted on 05/02/2012 10:07:24 AM PDT by RitaOK (Nevermind, Newt. Forget the convention. I'm trusting God for the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nip

You should rephrase your statement to:

Either you are a socialist or you are not....

Which are you?

28 posted on 05/02/2012 10:08:27 AM PDT by joe fonebone (If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wny
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.

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.

29 posted on 05/02/2012 10:20:19 AM PDT by sand88 (Nothing on this Earth would get me to vote for Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

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.

30 posted on 05/02/2012 10:20:52 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: libertarian neocon

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.


I hate libertarians. I blame you for the sorry state this country is in economically and socially.

31 posted on 05/02/2012 11:02:39 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

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.

32 posted on 05/02/2012 11:18:23 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson