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

Skip to comments.

What does the Republican Party Want?
Dan Miller's Blog ^ | January 12, 2013 | Dan Miller

Posted on 01/12/2013 1:39:44 PM PST by DanMiller

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
What should we do? Any other ideas?
1 posted on 01/12/2013 1:39:57 PM PST by DanMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

Sammich maker for the Rats.


2 posted on 01/12/2013 1:41:19 PM PST by deadrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

Get involved in you local GOP and change things. Griping on the internet is not going to get it done.


3 posted on 01/12/2013 1:50:38 PM PST by Sarabaracuda (Glenn Beck is right. Victory through peaceful resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

Stop voting Liberal

Voting for a Liberal with an R next to its name is still voting Liberal

The GOP better wake up and get over its Liberal fetish. If it think it can win with coalitions of Illegal Aliens and NE Liberals....good riddance. The conservative base will go elsewhere


4 posted on 01/12/2013 2:04:28 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (The only automatic weapon is the one Obama uses to take your paycheck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarabaracuda; DanMiller
*correct*
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting
the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
... Thomas Jefferson
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#XMfWMtdvwdLi5JTP.99

5 posted on 01/12/2013 2:21:48 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller
The Senate was, after all, modeled on the House of Peers . . .

Not exactly, but that aside, the Framers learned from the eleven year experience of the States since the Declaration. The first State constitutions leaned heavily on the "democratic" side, most with strong legislatures derived entirely from the people, and purposely weak governors. These popular State governments were unstable and abusive of property rights.

Our Framers knew the source of the troubles, the people and corrected the problem at the national level with a Senate NOT derived from the people. That lesson was apparently forgotten with the 17th Amendment.

Our "Senators," of six year terms present a far greater threat to our liberties that our Framers understood. They are just as subject to the whims of the popular mob, and react in the same fashion as Congressmen.

As long as the 17th Amendment, and its sister in evil, the 16th, remain, there is little hope for our republic.

6 posted on 01/12/2013 2:31:29 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; BillyBoy

This notion many FReepers have that abolishing the 17th will somehow serve as a (partial) panacea for what ails Congress is a sadly misguided one. It was passed in the first place precisely because the Senate had become corrupted and unaccountable.


7 posted on 01/12/2013 2:54:58 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

The Republican party is a joke. Boehner and the other so-called “leaders” are Obama’s Monica Lewinksy! They even bring their own kneepads! The Republicans are done. They are as corrupt as the Democrats and serve the same true masters - the NWO elite who want to destroy this country and crush the American spirit.


8 posted on 01/12/2013 3:19:07 PM PST by Astronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
State governments proved in quick time that 100% popularly derived legislatures were dangerous. Our political history since passage of the 17th is more or less a reflection of that short period, 1776-1787, a muddle of populism that has damaged our property rights.

As for eliminating corruption, as the 17th was designed to do, it was a failure, yes?

I didn't say repeal of the 17th was a panacea. Repeal is necessary, but not by any means alone sufficient to restore federal government, our republic and liberty.

9 posted on 01/12/2013 3:26:10 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; BillyBoy; Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; Clemenza; Perdogg; GOPsterinMA; ...

I find myself having to address the misguidedness of the anti-17thers almost weekly. Simply put, I do not trust my elected state legislators (although a GOP majority in my state, my state Senator & Rep. are leftist Dem buffoons) to elect my Senators. Indeed, it would remove the last office other than Governor I have any say in (since my U.S. House seat hasn’t elected a Republican since President Grant won reelection in 1872). Those are my personal reasons.

As for other reasons, restoring legislative selection for Senators would assure that Democrat states never have a competitive race again (as distasteful as some FReepers find Scott Brown in MA to be, it would be absolutely impossible for him to get past a legislature almost 90% Democrat). Other states like Illinois would not have been able to elect a GOP Senator since 1980. In states where we do dominate, the Republicans elected would be establishment flunkies.

Texas, for example, would’ve never allowed Ted Cruz to reach the Senate, because the liberal RINO Lt Governor David Dewhurst (AKA “DewCrist) would’ve used every method at his disposal to ensure his election (indeed, he was strong-arming legislators in the primary to pimp for his candidacy, lest they lose important committee positions).

Indeed, you would have Democrat states sending the most horrid members without an ounce of accountability to the public (Harry Reid would never have to worry about reelection in NV removing the popular vote) and Republican states would send squishies and go along to get along RINOs. If Texas wouldn’t send a Conservative under such a model, how exactly do you think the new Senate would be ?

If I thought for a moment this would be an improvement, I’d support repeal, but I’ve looked at it backwards and forwards and there’s nothing that would contribute to its reigning in of the federal government size and restoration of states’ rights. Indeed, what you’re doing is putting the full faith and trust IN government to choose your Senators. Government officials are the last people I’d want choosing them.


10 posted on 01/12/2013 4:03:13 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller
Abandon ship.

Republicans want to win without having to either campaign or govern. The party also has this "dues paid" mentality that keeps giving us the likes of Dole, McCain, Romney, both Bushes, ad nauseum.

A lot of Republicans are very tired of voting for "not the democrat".

11 posted on 01/12/2013 4:10:34 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

The GOP wants Big Government and to be perpetual losers to the Democrats.


12 posted on 01/12/2013 4:15:35 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Sorry. History is on my side, not yours.


13 posted on 01/12/2013 5:22:09 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

My understanding of the Founding Fathers decision to elect Representatives and Senators in a different manner is that it was to serve as a check and balance. They were not going to have a House of Lords and a House of Commons (and look at how that changed), but they saw the need for representation for both the average citizen, and for the wealthy. The tyranny of the inner city voting bloc is no better than any other tyranny. It is possible that electing Senators by state legislators would still be a problem. In the more rural states, it would result in a different kind of Senator being elected. The history of politics in the US shows that there has always been an attempt by the large cities to control everything in the country, and this has been resisted by the people living outside of the cities. And, we aren’t the only country with this conflict. The Khmer Rouge forced all the people out of the cities in Cambodia to relearn the truths of an agrarian lifestyle. Their solution was to put plastic bags over the heads of the city people who disagreed with them.


14 posted on 01/12/2013 5:25:31 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

That’s not a valid argument. If you’re willing to defend repeal of the 17th, try addressing my points.


15 posted on 01/12/2013 5:27:59 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
"It is possible that electing Senators by state legislators would still be a problem."

Not only possible, but definitely. The Texas example on the GOP side alone, nevermind what Illinois, Massachusetts, California, et al, would produce on the Democrat side (and that there would be zero chance of anything Republican getting elected). Corruption and unaccountability was already an epidemic problem by the 1910s. The makeup of a Senate under a repealed 17th with an even more elitist and corrupt ultraleft Democrat membership, combined with a "moderate milquetoast RINO" big gubmint contingent would make a bad situation even worse.

16 posted on 01/12/2013 5:42:16 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

Eff the Republican Party. You are an American first or not. Party afilliations be damned


17 posted on 01/12/2013 8:23:47 PM PST by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; DarthVader; BillyBoy; Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; Clemenza; Perdogg; ...

This is cool!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/sean-connery-set-to-join-fellow-1525163


18 posted on 01/13/2013 9:28:22 AM PST by GOPsterinMA (Time to musk up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA; Perdogg

Who gets to carry Barry Nelson’s urn ?


19 posted on 01/13/2013 12:59:12 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Perdogg

Not sure.

I did send a request in that you stand in for Hervé Villechaize.


20 posted on 01/13/2013 2:01:15 PM PST by GOPsterinMA (Time to musk up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next 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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson