Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party

vanity ^ | 12/17/03 | Destro

[Destro]

In a discussion on this thread Tom Ridge's Immigration Remarks Draw Fire a post regarding the conservative angst about the recent campaign finance reform that Bush signed into law and that the Supreme Court approved (and the approval was praised by the White House), on the heals of the Medicare entitlement enacted under a Republican controlled government the following was posted:

I'm hearing Rush now. He claims the republicans have ONLY one party to go to. He has put this issue squarely on the problem. We need to vote outside of this corrupt party apparatus.

12 posted on 12/11/2003 12:39:52 PM EST by Digger

I also heard this on Rush and my blood boiled. Rush said conservatives have no place else to go and thus will continue to vote as a block to the Republicans.....and then it hit me. That is exactly what we conservatives lament about Blacks and the Democratic party. Black Democrats who vote straight Democratic and are rewarded by being ignored.

In other words, Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party!!!

I urge the same solution to Republican conservatives that Black conservatives offer to Black Democrats. QUIT! Become independents and let the parties fight for our votes. If we can't take the GOP back we should leave the GOP.

I did not change. My party did. I thank God Ronald Reagan is unable to comprehend what is happening to the party he saved.

[Protagoras]

The hero called you a coward. I don't understand why you aren't going to run right out and vote as he says. Hmmmm,,,

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

I could very easily be pursuaded to cast my vote for the Constitution Party if Ann Coulter was their candidate.

That also says alot about my frustration with Bush but you give us good alternatives and watch us defect. TO give the Dims national security again will really make me consider taking up arms against terrorist countries and joing a militia that is willing to go after these guys becuase somebodies gotta protect my family and I'm not gonna sit back and let Dean give the key to my front door.

[af_vet_1981]

The illusion that there is any difference in substance. The illusion that Republicans defend the constitution. The illusion that people like you can count on conservatives to be continually scared into voting for Dem-lite. The illusion that people will give you their votes forever no matter how much you belittle and insult them and that you will get them to vote for your choice while you call them evil and stupid. That illusion.

You don't think there is a substantial difference between the Democrat Congresses prior to 1994 and the Republican ones afterward, no subtantive difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton and George and Laura Bush, no real difference between Dick Cheney and Al Gore.

I concede nothing to you. The real illusion is your masquerade as a conservative. Real conservatives don't have to be scared into voting against Dean/Hillary. We already understand the stakes. We would not betray our bond of brotherhood with those dying around the world in the War You are a troll for Dean/Clinton. Your objective is to defeat Bush. You don't care if Dean wins and we lose the war. You are on FR to sow dissension and peel away perceived Bush voters from the weak minded. After Clinton's 8 years most people are not stupid enough to buy your product.

[general_re]

The lesson that Republicans seem to have difficulty in learning is that the people are conservative and when presented a conservative agenda they will vote for it.

And if you don't agree with his roadmap 100%, you're not a "real conservative", whatever that means. What a horribly arrogant little screed - I'm almost sorry I missed it when it was fresh.

Since the original author of that thread is no longer with us, you can take his place, if you like. Let me introduce myself - hello, I'm the Republican candidate for Congress for your district. How are you today?

The reason I'm here today is to talk to you about a certain set of voters, those voters questioning my conservative principles because I sometimes take a pragmatic, incremental road to implementing a conservative agenda. Now, you may disagree with my characterization of what I'm up to, but that's not really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is that set of voters who are publicly trying to flex their muscles in order to steer the ship of state in their preferred direction, using their preferred methods. Recently, one of those voters stated that his vote should not be taken for granted, and that he would require candidates who wished his votes to "bid" for it, in the form of platforms that drew ever closer to his personal political preferences. And if his bid is not met, he'll simply stay home and sit out the election this fall.

Now, as a candidate, I certainly respect the right of voters to vote for whomever they see fit, for whatever reasons they see fit - that's one of the great things about this country, after all. But what's really implied by this sort of thing is an assertion that a particular voter is inherently indispensible. Based on that belief, that voter is, in fact, making a veiled threat to insure the defeat of candidates he finds unacceptable, by simply staying home.

This is certainly an intriguing notion, without a doubt. But it occurs to me that the voter who made such a proposal isn't really putting his assertions to the test - he isn't willing, apparently, to actually risk anything in making such assertions. By that, I mean that he demands 100% of his particular minimum agenda be implemented, or no conservative anywhere will have any of it - it's an all or nothing proposal. Either he gets everything he wants, or he forces everyone else to take nothing at all.

But what if he actually put the value of his vote to the test, by risking the thing he seem to dread most, far more than he dreads any liberal - moderation and incrementalism? After all, I dispute his basic assertion, that he is as indispensible as he thinks he is, so why not put it to a real test?

So, with that in mind, here's the counteroffer I make. I provisionally accept the aforementioned voter's minimum bid - in exchange for his vote, I will agree to implement every one of his proposals to the very best of my ability. But by doing so, I'm taking a risk - I may sign on to his agenda, only to be proven right in my concern that his vote isn't as valuable as he says it is. Or even worse, I may find that signing on to his agenda causes the liberal candidate to be elected, in which case he'll have done more harm than good.

And if I'm taking a risk, it's only fair he should take a risk as well, besides just the risk that my liberal opponent will be elected. So when I say "provisionally", what I mean is, in exchange for his vote, I will, if elected, implement every one of his proposals to the best of my ability, but if and only if I win by exactly one vote. Ater all, if I win by more than that, I didn't really need him, and the value of his vote is precisely as imaginary as I suspect it is. And in that case, he gets nothing of his agenda, now and forever - he'll never get anything from me, except what I see fit to give him. And he'll be stuck with yet another middle-of-the-road pragmatist, the kind he so loves to hate.

So how's that deal? He can prove that he's as important as he claims he is, and thereby get what he wants, or he can get stuck with exactly the thing he appears to hate most - folks like me. Do you suppose he'll take that bet, that he's as confident of his importance as he appears to be?

[Protagoras]

I know the difference - Bush spends more.

Spot on in that regard.

[Sloth]

Insightful. I can say so because I noted this reality myself days ago.

[King Prout]

one could argue that all of the deer in the woods belong to the hunter that can bag 'em.
fine.
If I fail to bag a deer, is my freezer any less empty for this egalitarian way of looking at things?
This is a struggle between one who is somewhat less than ideal (Dubya) and one or another of a set of mutant slugs.
To throw away your vote on a shoe-in loser (any third party presidential candidate lacking significant power bases in local, state, and federal government) is nothing but help for the slugs, in terms of actual results.
There is a time to wax philosophic, and a time to get in the trenches and take your lumps like a man.
By all means: work towards establishing third-party powerbases in local, state, and federal legislatures and executive branches. Just don't help hand the federal executive head to the damned slugs in a fit of pique, alright?

[looscnnn]

Plus the fact that there were the "undecided" people that voted for Perot, they might have voted Bush or the might have voted Clinton.

[TomServo]

Since 1865, states have been treated less like unique communities of Americans with the prerogative of self-rule and more like administrative departments of the huge, bloated federal bureaucracy.

I agree. And I'll also grant it's not totally Lincoln's fault. We to a great extent allowed this to happen. And it only got worse with FDR. We've held our legislators as the "responsible" custodians of the Constitution, while at the same time forgetting that we, the people, are the ultimate custodians. And I believe this has happened because some of us have forgotten what it says, the ideas proposed and the Freedoms it states.

[Consort]

A "base" is defined as such because they are typically the strongest supporters of their own party because their views are farthest from the opposition.

Conservatives constantly differentiate between conservatives and republicans — a base of convenience, IMO. In '92, Conservatives told the GOP "screw you" and stayed home or voted for Perot, etc. Now the GOP is looking to the center for votes and conservatives wonder why.

[philosofy123]

No one know what is Ros Perot thinks about today events? What is the independent party agenda, or who is the leader?

[af_vet_1981]

Buddy, you seriously need to get out that militant mindset. You are a civilian now.

Oh gee, since you put it that way, can I borrow your copy of Dude, Where's My Country.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Those who voted for Peort have no right to criticize the Clintons', IMO, since they indirectly helped his election.

Excellent. You have just proven yourself to be a bigger a$$ than I thought you were. You've raised the bar. Mega-kudos. The above statement will serve as a good means to measure delusional tendencies in our resident BushBots and other pom-pom carrying agents of the RNC.

[mysterio]

I've been thinking about the Constitution party a lot, too. Much better than the redemopublicrats.

[DoctorMichael]

I received my regular yearly $165 'Republican National Committee' membership flyer.......................

..........I tore it up.

The same will go for 'Republican House Committee' and the 'Republican Senate Committee' and any other yo-yo Republican telemarketer that calls me.

This is the way I'm handling it: I will continue to vote Republican but they have lost my 'monetary' support.

[looscnnn]

We talk about the libs not getting over the fact that Bush won and here you are doing the same thing over Perot. Get over it. I hated Clinton just as much, but that election can not be done over or changed. Also, Clinton was reelected and there was nobody to "take votes" away from the Republicans. What's your excuse for this?

[KantianBurke]

See post #40 please.

[flashbunny]

Um, no it doesn't. Just the fact that you say it is doesn't make it so. Your opinion seems to be you can use any racial group in an analogy (probably except whites) without it being considered racist. How laughable. You are part of the problem - an over sensitive, no guts republican. Wagging your finger that you can't say this or make that comparison merely because someone, somewhere might label it with a racist sticker, even though by no logicial definition is it racist.

[Little Ray]

Just remember, the last time we turned over parties (from Whigs / Democrats to Democrats / Republicans) was called "The Civil War."
At that time, the Republicans would have been the left wing party ("Radical Republicans").

Wouldn't it be more efficient to take back the party AND avoid the shoot 'em up?

[CSM]

Send it back with a personal note of explanation. They pay the postage and get to find out why their previous donars are not investing in them.