Skip to comments.Republican Party has ignored its principles
Posted on 03/26/2004 12:06:46 PM PST by Willie GreenEdited on 05/07/2004 9:06:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In a recent letter to the president of the United States, I informed him of my resignation from the Republican Party in Greenville. I shall continue to be involved in the local political arena, but not as a Republican.
I am sick and tired of the Republicans selling us down the river. No matter how hard I try to institute positive change, Republicans and the Republican Party ignore my pleas. For this reason I have joined the U.S. Constitution Party and urge other conservatives to do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenvilleonline.com ...
I understand your problems with the Republican Party...a Party I left a few years ago for many of the same reasons you state.
Last election I voted (Proudly) for the Constitution Party Candidate.
But there is a large difference between this election and the last one.
We are at War. At war with people (and I use the term v-e-r-y loosely) who would attack Americans who wanted nothing more than to help provide food and aid...and then drag their burned bodies thru the streets.
We are at War with a group of terrorists who have rammed aircraft into buildings..killing 3,000 of our countrymen.
Make NO mistake...where I believe President Bush is wrong...I will say so just as you have the chance to do.(and the obligation to do)
There are some areas I disagree with President Bush.But he is the ONLY President in my life time that seems to understand that there is NO chance of working out any other solution to the terrorist problem...other than to kill every one of them.
...and for that, and if need be, that alone...I will vote for him.
You have yet to deal with any of the substantive points I laid out for you clearly in my previous post, newbie. I kind of hate to point it out, and I'm really starting to feel like I'm kicking a puppy, but to simply drop your head and keep repeating "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" is yet another liberal debating tactic. It's their last resort actually, when they've been thoroughly beaten on the facts, common sense and logic, and they have nothing left to fire back with. Since liberals just can't bring themselves to admit they've been beaten, they simply fold their arms, close their eyes and scream the "you're wrong" mantra. I hate to say it, newbie, but you've pulled yet another play from the liberal book. This is the point at which the conservative claims victory, as I do now.
Therefore, either deal with the meat of my argument, with specifics, and tell me what exactly you find wrong about my assertion that:
1)Bush and Kerry are Socialists, taking us down the exact same path to ruin, only Bush a little slower than Kerry would, and
2) to not vote one's conscience, but to hold one's nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, is wasting one's vote, rather that voting for someone in whom you believe.
If you can't address these points, and tell me how I'm wrong, please do not bother posting to me again, because I've already claimed victory.
PS...I read in one of your earlier posts to another FReeper that you like Bush because he can always find "the middle ground". A leader doesn't lead from the middle...he leads from the front. Bush's biggest failings have been because he's tried to please everyone, and you just can't do that...it doesn't work. You have to pick a side and work from there. All he's done is pick up a few middle ground voters, like you, while alienating a whole slew of conservative voters, like me. Maggie Thatcher said it best when she said "Consensus is the negation of leadership." We need a leader, not just someone who, with the best of intentions, is paving our way down the road to hell.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I believe I said his opinion is in the middle between the extreme left and the extreme right.
Your opinion is that Bush is a SOB and a Socialist. Does it do any good to discuss anything with extremists from the far right or the far left? Don't bother answering, the answer is no.
By definition, the middle is the middle no matter if its between the fringe left and right, or simply the left and right. On a scale of 1 to 10, the middle is still 5. A conservative leader should be a solid 7.5 to 8. So again, Bush is wrong to take the mushy middle ground...he needs to pick a side and go from there.
"Your opinion is that Bush is a SOB and a Socialist. Does it do any good to discuss anything with extremists from the far right or the far left? Don't bother answering, the answer is no."
Oh man, this is too easy!!! There you go again! Another liberal tactic!!! When you've been thoroughly trashed in a debate, and you have embarrassed yourself in front of God and everyone, fake some righteous indignation and hide behind it as you duck out the back door.
Look, you might want to re-think your participation on FReep. Not everyone on here is as nice and easy going as I am, and frankly, would have chewed you up and spit you out had they been debating you instead of yours truly. In order to survive, you need to have a better argument than, in essence, "Bush is great and you're stupid. If you're not going to vote for him, you're weird, even if you have plenty of reasons not to vote for him", repeated over and over again, with slight variations. You need to, for instance, ask me why I believe Bush is a Socialist, then pick my answers to pieces with what you believe is the truth. You need to ask me why I believe there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Bush and Kerry, then shoot my argument full of holes with your beliefs. You can't just simply say "if you don't vote for him you're weird". That works in the sand box, but not on the soap box. It works on the playground, but not the battleground. In short, your debating skills need to graduate from third grade to at least high school level. Just a little free advice. It's worth what it cost you. See you in the funny pages.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You're sarcasm is noted as is you're point. The Republicans have obviously let him and many of us down, too many times, and the Democrats are worse.
Seems to me you are suggesting a third party.
Amen! A voice of reason!
Though as a conservative I can think of MANY MORE reasons to vote for Bush as well.
If he is so hard on terrorism, why did he not reform our out of control immigration policies, and close and secure out national borders within 24 hours of the 911 attack? Most all the terrorist in 911 were in this country illegally, and we all know, that our borders are an *extreme* security risk to all of us.
With hundereds of thousands of people entering illegally, routinely, bringing in TONS of illegal drugs, well, it doesn't take a security expert to realize that these open borders are a security time bomb, not to mention the domestic nightmare is causing this country.
So why the broken chain in security? You know as well as I, anyone can enter this country with little effort. Osama could put on a NY Yankees cap, and walk right.
Do you not see a glaring discrepancy here?
How can he be tough on terrorism, yet leave the doors and windows wide open to our house? If there was a pack of murderers roaming the neighborhood, would you leave your doors and windows wide open?
Then again, you cannot predict the future, and the two party cartel will do everything possible to remain the only two parties in the beltway.
You ever notice how the rich and the major corporations routinely contribute to both of the beltway partys.
And if you actually understood conservative principles,
you'd also realize that Kerry is automaticly excluded from consideration.
But, even tho I disagree with President Bush's approach to the border 'mess', I do NOT find it reason enough NOT to vote for him.
But it IS something that I believe we need to work on.
Taxes happen when any politician gets a taste of power and contemplates reelection.
As a responsible citizen, I view my right to vote as a civic duty.
I have voted in every election and referendum (primaries and general, federal, state and local) in which I was an eligible voter over the last ~33 years.
If an acceptable candidate is not on the ballot, I have no qualms about writing in the name of an alternative whom I admire. Or writing in "none of the above" if necessary.
A candidate must EARN my vote by best representing my positions on issues.
I won't be conned into voting against my principles or interests by some snow-job argument that it'll "help" some boogeyman who's supposedly worse. I hold politicians accountable for their own positions, regardless of whom they're running against.
That's why I switched from the Dem party during the Clinton regime.
Yes, It was during the same period that the GOP clearly began to abandon its principles and embark on its leftward odyssey. Oh, there was a brief resurgence of grass roots conservatism with the "Contract with America" which I fully supported. But the powers-that-be quickly scuttled and back-burnered that at their earliest convenience. And I began to consider more principled alternatives in the Reform Party.
What do the candidates talk about? The children have no books.
Look at the fancy gymnasium, the concert-grade auditorium, and the 8 soccer fields where all the hitlerjugend are becoming so healthy in their bodies, and don't look in the library--no one is there.
What politician can tell the truth and have a prayer of winning the election?
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.