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?
I agree with most of your analysis re Thompson and Hunter.
But let’s take the names away and just talk about the idea of conservatives “creating” a conservative (or *more* conservative) candidate in the same way that liberals created, first, Howard Dean, and, then, Obama.
For whatever reason, it didn’t happen. This time, last time, now.
What are we to make of that?
There’s a whole bunch of things we could hash out as to why it didn’t happen. In my view, what would NOT be helpful is to focus on “the MSM did it, the GOP did it,” etc. IOW, I don’t see how ANYOUT outside, external source could stop conservatives from emerging (if I can make up a new word!) a conservative candidate.
Hinder conservatives, why sure. But stop? No.
Think back to how much the Rat establishment hated and was worred about the Dean thing. But no one could stop him from emerging until he SELF-destructed.
Same thing with Obama. Think back to how much the Rat establishment was sure that he was a gnat and Hildy was the inevitable nominee. No one in any quarter, not even the low tactics of Bubba himself, has been able to stop Obama from emerging from the Democrat base / rank and file / grassroots.
I got on this because the title of the thread was “the GOP doesn’t want us.” And I feel it’s not helpful to blame the GOP or any external entity. Conservatives CAN emerge a candidate, but only if they start looking at themselves to do so and stop acting so helpless.
BTW, as I was writing this, it occurred to me that maybe the Rats were able to emerge two grassroots candidates in the last election because of one thing they have overarching unity on-—they are anti-war.
Republicans and conservatives also used to unite around national security issues. That was always seen as trumping all else-—after all, the election is hiring a Commander in Chief.
More and more, conservatives are factionalizing on that, with some even claiming that national security is not the supreme function of government.
Without some overriding issue like that, by definition there won’t and can’t be unity and conservative won’t emerge a candidate.
No, it doesn't.
You are still arguing for WHY people quit the team---in this case, because they disagree with the coaching.
My analogy goes to what the team does after some players quit. The team moves on and tries to find a way to win with the players it has.
It doesn't matter how justified the players the are in quitting. They could be quitting the worst team in history.
But the team does whatever it can to keep going without them.
I agree with you. But note:
Reagan left the Democrat party. And where did he go? To the Republican party.
Why?
Because at this point in history, our two major political party system is entrenched.
People who talk about quitting the Republican party are not generally talking about moving to the Democrat party. So the practical and political consequences of what they are talking about doing are not the same as what Reagan did.
Reagan went on to win the presidency as the candidate of one of the two major political parties in America. He would have had no chance as a third party candidate.
I’ve been following your interesting discussion with angkor.
You have used the term “anti-religious agenda.” May I ask what you mean by that?
I am not asking you to point to angkor’s post. I’m asking what type of things/ideas you think constitute an “anti-religious agenda.”
>>>>Commander in Chief. More and more, conservatives are factionalizing on that, with some even claiming that national security is not the supreme function of government.
I don’t see a heck of a lot of that. Maybe I need to get out more.
In a related manner I don’t see a lot of factionalization along traditional Conservative values.
Being a bit dim, I have to look at the most obvious and devisive issues that Conservatives have faced over the last decade or two. That’s where the factions would occur.
I’ve already made my case above. I agree with Tony Perkins. And I haven’t been dissuaded from that conclusion even one single iota.
At some juncture Conservatives and Republicans will have to look long and hard at that very painful current reality. I’m afraid there’s no other solution.
You analysis is spot on.
Repeating the obvious, a political party is a voluntary organization (much like a team of diverse players) that exists for the sole purpose of winning elections.
At some point, the rest of the team becomes impatient with quitters. At some point, the rest of the team says, “You know what? We can NEVER depend on those players. They want to use us to win, but if things don’t go their way, right before the big game, they bail. Forget about it.”
I’m wondering if we just might be reaching that point. If some people who join the team reserve the right to quit during the big game, why would those people think the team will want to work with them?
When players quit, a team may make overtures to get them back. But the team also just moves on and tries to find a way to win with the players it has.
>>>>>>>Your anti-prolife bigotry is exposed here. That makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Even though you’re once again wrong in your premise, it is true that I would never in a zillion eons buy into the Values Voter or Social Conservative agendas.
I am proud to be their problem.
Probably why Conservatives want to leave the Republican party.
Using the game analogy. A high school decides to start a football team. A man approaches the Principal for the job of coach. The Principal (RNC) says, 'Well, financially the school budget is kind of tight, but, I suppose we could have a team and hire you. But, with a condition. My son gets to be quarterback (McCain). The newly hired coach isn't happy, but accepts.
At the first practice, the coach meets the quarterback. He's short, extremely fat, and can barely walk much less run. The other players take a good hard look at their quaterback (McCain), and return to the locker room to change their clothes and go home.
Who is to blame for the lack of moral from the other players?
If the RNC can't support and present a good, healthy strong candidate, they should not be surprised if people choose to look elsewhere. Last time around they presented us with GW. Many of us didn't like it, but we went along for the ride, anyway. All that did was make the RNC think that that was what we wanted. So, now they present us with something a little worse. It would up being a mistake, that I for one am not going to repeat.
I guess that makes you a NOT!
>>>>I guess that makes you a NOT!
You know, Conservatives don’t have to make alliance with every political faction that comes along to glom onto the Conservative movement.
I can be a gun owner and support gun ownership but not support the NRA. I can like the outdoors but disagree vehemently with the Sierra Club and the way it conducts itself. I can love God but scream bloody murder at those religious groups which would like to bend Conservatism to their own agenda.
We’ve been going along OK here, but your comment above says that you equate the Values Voters political organization and its goals and methods to Conservatism, on a one-to-one basis.
Conservatism is NOT the Values Voters or their agenda.
Conservatism is NOT the Social Conservatives or their agenda.
That you make such a huge implicit equality between the two shows just how far down the road we’ve gone. You just proved how bad it really is.
Thanks for the admission that Conservatives and Republicans are not one and the same.
To: angkor I don’t believe in 10 or 20 versions of Conservatism. I believe in one. You are, or you are not. If you need qualifiers, you’re something else.
There aren't 20 versions, the various factions are all part of the One. What you see as a 'version' is merely one person's preference for one faction over the others, while embracing all. And as you say, if you don't embrace one of those factions, then you are 'something else'.
778 posted on 02/08/2008 8:42:24 AM EST by Netizen
it is true that I would never in a zillion eons buy into the Values Voter or Social Conservative agendas. I am proud to be their problem.
***Thanks for being honest about it. That position, of course, makes you a hypocrite. Someone who claims to be a BigC conservative and is “proud to be the problem” of some smallC conservative, is a hypocrite. And, an impolite one at that, since this website was founded by socons. Guys like you are causing the split.
Of course they are! They are destroying the party from within. Pretty much a done deal, too.
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.
***That is one of the new pillars of the republican party: the “electability” pillar. Tootyfruityrudy was “electable”, so was Romney and I suppose so is McCain. Even if republicans win, conservatism loses, just as what happened under aRINOld.
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.
***No, it’s because I’ve identified you as a hypocrite, a pretender, an antireligious bigot, and basically a RINO.
I sorry John McCain is not your friend. John McCain is no ones friend.
I have no dog in this fight, I will vote the down ticket and blank the presidency or write in Fred Thompson.
If by some miracle Fred is the VP choice, I will vote for Fred in hopes that the lord calls McCain home early in his presidency, other than that I have no interest in this election and look forward to a conservative in some future that may be more amenable to common since.
For those of you who fear a democratic presidency, fear can be a motivator but is rarely a winning motivation. But I wish you luck in that strategy.
I agree with you. I will vote for McCain for reasons I have already mentioned, but I will not contribute to the Republican Party. My wife, God bless her, has been sending back all their mail with a note saying that we will contribute again when they start representing our conservative values. She also says the same thing when they call us.
Punish the Republican party by not giving them money. Don’t punish fellow conservatives by letting Clinton or Obama win the election.
McCain’s damage will be short lived if any. The damage from Clinton and/or Obama will take decades to undo.
wow! You won’t vote for him-—and you’re his WIFE, even!!
wow! You won’t vote for him-—and you’re his WIFE, even!!
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.