Posted on 02/06/2008 3:43:04 AM PST by ovrtaxt
Here's the current state of things, as coldly and accurately as I can portray them:
1> The Dems are rushing headlong into socialism, and possibly something much worse.
2>The GOP leadership has made a decision- namely, that they don't want Conservatives around. Oh, they want us on election day, but after that, “shut up and go stand over there where you won't embarrass us”.
3> We face several national threats. Globalist dilution of our national sovereignty, Radical Islam, a rapidly weakening dollar, Chinese aggression by economic and trade policies, the impending internal losses of vital Constitutional rights, and a general worldwide sentiment of resentment and envy against America. And there's a cruel dagger in our back that's been there for decades, but is now starting to twist- the US economy is staring down the barrel of a Keynesian rifle- the socialist chickens are coming home to roost, and the only thing we get from campaigning politicians is more socialism. Our current debt-based economy is unsustainable. We will be toast if something drastic isn't done, and we won't be able to fight ANY WAR if we can't afford it.
Here's the bitter pill being forced down our throats this morning: WE HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. There's no larger political framework available which will express our desire for freedom, no voice in politics which echoes our heart's desire. We have forums like this, SOME talk radio, and each other. We have a few good people in Congress, here and there. But a national platform, a focused voice to represent Constitutionally limited government, it doesn't exist.
Here's why- many of us are still clinging on to one sorry half-baked liberal candidate or another. Even today, I'm hearing many Freepers stating their continued loyalty to McCain, simply because he isn't Hillary. How much crap will you eat before you start to wonder 'where's the real food'?
It's time to come together and make a common agreement. We must not compromise something so vitally important to the world as the Constitution. Multitudes of enslaved people around the world dream of living the way we do. If we let this slip away, we'll regress to the control freak nightmare that has been the majority of human history.
Remember- the GOP doesn't want us. We need to stick together, however, and decide where to go. A new Conservative leadership is desperately needed, and a new home for Conservative voters is desperately needed.
Suggestions? As for a party apparatus, the first thing that comes to my mind is the Constitution Party. Yes, I know the CP isn't viable right now, but if Conservatives started defecting en masse, it would be. Remember what happened in the 70s- we decided that the GOP could provide our framework. It's taken them 30 years, but the goons who run the party have finally managed to 'extract themselves from our tentacles', at least that's how they probably see it. The current CP would welcome it, since that's who they are anyway.
But political leadership, I have no idea. Who do you like?
Kevmo:>>>>We need the matrix posted and available so that we don’t have to drill down on every FReeping thread.
Angkor: how about a loyalty oath to go along with that?
***No thanks, not interested.
It’s what all TRUE Conservatives would want.
***It really does scare you, doesn’t it? Why is that? What do you have to hide, other than your own positions? When you find yourself on some thread where you post some gobbledegook, we can all check your profile and hold you accountable to at least what YOU claim to hold. It’s responses like yours that further my conviction that this is the right course of action.
Barry Goldwater also ended up in his later years advocating the homosexual agenda.
Your anti-prolife bigotry is exposed here. That makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
>>>>Why are you keying up on Socons but not Fiscons or otherCons? Your antireligious bigotry is why.
False premise Kev. I stated that I don’t believe in your slice-and-dice factionalism of Fiscons, Defcons, Thiscons, Thatcons. I see those as false icons that some might erect in order to justify their own desire for “being different”. “Hey, he’s a Thiscon, so I can be a Thatcon.”
In any case the Thiscons and Thatcons don’t have political action committees and paid lobbyists and offices in DC. They don’t organize. They’re not politicians.
The same cannot be said of Social Conservatives and Values Voters.
>>>>***Wrong. It’s anti-religious bigots like you who caused this trouble.
Sometimes you just outdo yourself with these knee slappers.
So you decide to walk away. Never mind that there were people nominated before that you supported that other members of the party might not have preferred but after the nomination they supported your candidate.
However that's not for you is it, if you can't have it your way you walk out.
You may think that it's high minded, personally I think that's the way quitters operate.
Ban me if you will but that's the facts as I see them, it's the way spoiled children operate.
-----
Absolutely correct. There were four consisent conservatives in the race at the beginning: Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, and Thompson. The first three had no prayer. Thompson did, but ran a poor campaign.
Then there were the poor, deluded Huckabee supporters. They STILL think he's a conservative, the pathetic morons. They were too dumb to make a strategic shift to Romney. I swear they've done their best to make every negative sterotype of conservatives appear true. What a bunch of dolts.
Anyway, the combination of the true conservatives splintering, and Huckster conning a bunch of rubes into believing he's a conservative left a gaping hole for McCain to run through.
As a party, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Hank
Well, I don’t have the power to ban anybody, except myself.
Beyond that, I’m not voting for a liberal Presidential candidate. I’ve done it twice now, and look what it got us. No more.
The GOP puts these clowns up because they think they can win, with no thought as to what they’re actually winning. There’s no foresight for America, their sight goes just to the next election for the party.
Small government is the holy grail. I’ll support candidates that share that goal. The rest can bite me.
He may be all that but he is tough on terrorism. I can’t tell you how but there are many sages on this forum that will be happy to enlighten you on that.
I do know that I am not voting for him.
>>>>>And a lot of folks have jumped onto the train we call conservatism but they never really bought into conservatism. A large contingent of such folks display an anti-christian or anti-religious bigotry. Like you.
That’s a hoot. I was born on that train. It wasn’t a Christian or religious train. It was Conservative. It was Republican. It won’t go where you want it to go, and it was never supposed to.
Bush the first lost because of fiscal irresponsibility, the message of Ross Perot told us, which led to the Contract with America. The Rats lost in 2000 because the Naderites told them they weren't green enough, now every one of their candidates (and our nominal Pubbie front-runner) is pushing the global warming nonsense, that even Albore needed to hone his message on.
What message do we need to send to the muckety-mucks of the Republican Party this fall? Nominate a liberal who pretends to be a conservative, and you'll always lose. Confirming the choice of McCain is far worse for our principles than a Hillary or Obama presidency ever could be.
>>>>> Anyway, the combination of the true conservatives splintering, and Huckster conning a bunch of rubes into believing he’s a conservative left a gaping hole for McCain to run through.
That’s as concise and accurate an analysis as I’ve yet seen. Dead-on correct.
>>>>>As a party, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Absolutely not. Not even the shibboleth of the MSM. The last four weeks have been like watching a slo-mo car wreck.
Kevmo>>>>You won’t define Conservative. I proceeded from JimRob’s definition.
Angkor: Which definition I agree with.
***See, now from the content of your posts and how you key up on social conservatives, I would gather that you do not agree with the definition. After all, it STARTS with “Pro-God”, and yet you are going out of your way to knock down one contingent of the conservative coalition, those who are religious.
I’ve said that at least three times now, in three different posts. For some reason you keep missing it.
***That’s because we’ve got a lag between our two posting schedules. Now that we’re at the end of the thread, the lag will shorten.
Now explain Social Conservative, a term with which you seem to identify (you’ve used it repeatedly).
***You have also.
1) We agree with Jim’s description of Conservative.
***I don’t buy that you agree with it. But I’ll proceed as if you do.
2) I don’t understand what the self-professed “Social Conservative” is attempting to communicate, e.g., how they are different from Conservatives as descibed in (1) above.
***You also don’t understand Defcons nor Fiscons. Since you haven’t asked me to define those terms, I’ll start there, because you can’t hold me accountable to getting it wrong. A Fiscon approaches conservatism from the aspect of being fiscally conservative, with the emphasis on fiscal issues. He may or may not accept the other branches of conservatism; the emphasis is how important low taxes and fiscal conservatism is. A Defcon approaches from the aspect of defense issues, safety and our military receiving the primary emphasis and priority. So, a Socon would have the primary emphasis on social issues such as pro-life, family obligations, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. Basically, a Fill-In-the-Blank_Con approaches conservatism from their cherished notions having emphasis.
Very few people approach conservatism with the blank being filled by Conservativism-above-all-else, which is what you claim to do. You can tell that this is a crock because there’s usually some pillar of the coalition that they show disdain for, such as in your case the religion thing.
3) Since you seem to advocate for and defend the “Social Conservatives”, I am asking you to describe what a “Social Conservative” is, and how that is different from the Conservative of point (1) as written by Jim.
***The way to figure out if someone’s a Fill-in-the-bank_con is to prioritize differently than whatever they have filled in the blank with. Someone who is Socon and Defcon but soft on Fiscon might not care about how much taxes were raised in the 1994 budget, for example. So my description covers the entire ground from Socon to Defcon to Fiscon.
I warned very many posts back that self-professed “Social Conservatives” usually (always) have trouble with this, resulting in a torrent of ad hominems, evasions, ALL CAPS, and insults. Rarely (never) is the question answered.
***You’re the one who’s evading. Why are you resistant to an ideology matrix? Why do you key up on religious conservatives rather than Fiscons or other Fill_in_the_blank-Cons? It betrays your bigotry. Why do you keep wanting socon defined but you say you don’t accept Defcon or Fiscon? Why do you ask for a definition but haven’t proffered one of your own? You have an agenda, you don’t own up to it, and an ideology matrix might just smoke you and others out.
PS — Yes, I use the term “Social Conservative” because I see people using it to describe their political orientation. But I still don’t know what it means, and no one seem willing to explain it. Ain’t that strange?
***If you don’t know what it means, you have no business using it. The definition is FReeping obvious to most of us, you’re just looking to try to build a loaded definition, basically a straw argument so you can tear it down. That’s why you can’t get anyone to cooperate with your ridiculous exercise. We all know you’re just trying to make some partisan point rather than edify.
You seem to think that a political party is nothing more than a team, or a tribe to which we should give unquestioned loyalty....just because.
A political party should represent a set of ideals. True enough everyone won’t agree at all times. But if my party’s standard bearer holds beliefs that are utterly antithetical to those which attracted me to the party in the first place, why should I support it? To fly the club colors? I’ll leave that sort of thinking to the Crips and the Bloods, thank you.
Fighting Global Warming Chicken-Littlism MATTERS to me.
Free market economics MATTERS to me.
Enforcing our borders MATTERS to me.
Expanding domestic oil drilling MATTERS to me.
The First Amendment MATTERS to me.
Allowing our interrogators to do whatever the hell they deem necessary to extract information from Al Queda scumbags MATTERS to me.
I should flush all these beliefs down the toilet on behalf of John McCain becuse he’s a Crip....err...a Republican?
And if I did, just what would being a Republican mean anyway?
Hank
But if my party’s standard bearer holds beliefs that are utterly antithetical to those which attracted me to the party in the first place, why should I support it?
***Good question. I’d like to see Angkor’s response to it.
I think I’ve figured out what I’m going to do.
In the Texas primary, I CANNOT vote for “McLiberal” or “Nanny Stater Huckabee”. Instead, I will write in “Duncan Hunter” (my first choice).
If I happen to receive a call from a poll asking who I support for President - I’m going to say “Hillary”. Shove it to the lamestream liberal media; let them get excited at the prospect and let them mess up as only they can.
If I get a call from the Republican Party asking for a contribution - they can pound sand until they can back a real Conservative; let them sweat a bit.
I’ll still contribute to those real Conservatives on the local level.
However, for the general election, unless there is a major miracle (which I doubt), I’m going to have to, hold my nose, and vote for the Republican nominee - even if it is McCain or Huckabee.
I’ll do this because: 1) No third party candidate is ever going to get it; 2) a “write in” would only be a vote for the “dims”; and 3) If the “dims” do get in, it means at least two more years before we can get more Conservatives in Congress, four years of a “dim” president, and 20 years of liberal federal judicial decisions.
In the meantime - we Conservatives have to really push for more Conservatives candidates and stronger Conservative principles.
>>>>>It really does scare you, doesn’t it? Why is that? What do you have to hide, other than your own positions?
Scare me? Kev, I’m sitting here chuckling that you, Mr. Factionalism, are now so exercised about the RINOs and liberals under the bed that you now need to create a matrix to ID your “enemies” and their Factions. This is just too rich.
You should call it “The Enemies Matrix”.
My God, is there anything more pointless at this juncture than bickering between “social” conservatives and “economic” conservatives?
WE NEED CANDIDATES WHO ARE CONSERVATIVE, PERIOD. All this slicing and dicing gets us nowhere. One who believes in life, economic liberty AND a strong defense. What is the point of fratricidal squabbling?
An “economic” conservative who is pro-abortion isn’t a conservative: he’s a Libertarian.
A “social” conservative who is an economic statist isn’t a conservative: he’s a Nanny-Stater.
And a “foreign policy” conservative who believes in Global Warming, open borders, and high taxes isn’t a conservative.
He’s John McCain.
Hank
Kevmo>>>Why are you keying up on Socons but not Fiscons or otherCons? Your antireligious bigotry is why.
Angkor: False premise Kev. I stated that I don’t believe in your slice-and-dice factionalism of Fiscons, Defcons, Thiscons, Thatcons.
***What you stated was a false premise. I don’t ADVOCATE slice-and-dice factionalism, I’ve just DESCRIBED it. So your whole approach amounts to a straw argument. It’s human nature to approach a team from your own perspective. The front line of a football team doesn’t think it can beat the other guys at catching long balls — that’s the wide receiver’s problem. It approaches the game as a frontline battle. The problem is when the coach decides to replace the front line with a bunch of limpwristed RINO penguins because he doesn’t like Big Guys playing football.
I see those as false icons that some might erect in order to justify their own desire for “being different”. “Hey, he’s a Thiscon, so I can be a Thatcon.”
***You don’t understand when someone’s holding up to their deeply held principles, which is another trait of RINOs who don’t have deeply held principles. When you don’t have strong principles, it’s difficult to understand those who do. That’s one reason why you keep going around in circles. Best of luck with your inner wingnut.
In any case the Thiscons and Thatcons don’t have political action committees and paid lobbyists and offices in DC. They don’t organize. They’re not politicians. The same cannot be said of Social Conservatives and Values Voters.
***So the front line of this football team is strong. What’s wrong with that? The socons have a stronger presence than the ThisCons or the ThatCons, that’s just part of the whole tapestry of politics. As a Whole Brain conservative, you should appreciate that strength, but as an antireligious bigot it bothers you.
Souonds like a plan.
You need to post that to Angkor.
It is my contention that the republican party has been infiltrated and overtaken by RINOs, who in particular seem to want to disenfranchise socons — so does the MSM, hence the alliance. Angkor is posting pretty close to the line of what one of these anti-religious bigots looks like. We don’t see a lot of FReepers posting rants knocking down Fiscons saying that they’re the problem in this coalition, because the focus is on socons. We all know that if we were fiscally more conservative as a nation, there would be fewer fiscal problems. We all know that if we built up our military, we’d be stronger. But the battleground is with values and what that means. Socons didn’t start this fight — antireligious bigots who have infiltrated the GOP did.
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.