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?
You can take your ball and go home, but don't expect that others will do similarly.
Your biggest problem with McCain and the Republican Party is both simple and clear. McCain won without you. All your complaints and unhappineses didn’t work. All the ad hominems failed. He now owes you little if anything.
While you may indulge your fantasy life with staying home—and surely you may—but the actual percentage of Republicans supporting John McCain is about equal to the actual percentage of Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton. (If you don’t believe me see Rasmussen)
American politics is won in the center by those who can cobble together disparate groups into an effective effort. Your present approach of hostility and name calling results in your leaving yourself behind.
So take your ball and go home; others will find another real quick and continue the game without you--if that is what you choose.
McCain prevailed by the use of a stalking horse named Huckabee. Sadly, the Husckster hasn’t yet figured out that he is most expendable now. Huckabee is a fool being used to best effect for McCain’s egomanical empowermnet.
Pardon me for butting in. I would be happy to resolve the issue, dependent upon the definition of "big c" Conservatism. If we can all agree to the idea that Reagan Conservatism is an equitable standard, then the rest is quite simple.
One can imagine Conservatism being made up of three interlocking rings, those being:
Social Conservatism (SoCons)
Fiscal / libertarian Conservatism (FiCons)
Strong Defense / Foreign Policy Conservatism (DefCons)
Each of these, while a subset of the whole, is a legitimate form of conservatism in it's own right, each a constellation of factions and individuals gravitating toward which ever form suits their fancy. Each also exists in its own right by way of it's constituency, and is present in it's native form in the greater electorate.
While there is a great amount of overlap and interaction, it is unreasonable to suppose that all three, with their various interests, would necessarily uphold the beliefs of the others, as each revolves around very different and separated priorities, and even interests. Yet each is determined to preserve a very important aspect of the American way, and thus earn their respective right as a conservative entity.
But because each can claim conservatism, and each believes greatly in their cause, there has historically been much bickering and infighting within these subsets, their actions generally opposing each other in their zeal, while trying to claim the true way- That their own (and no other) is truly the real "big c" Conservatism.
It was Reagan who brought these subsets together, firmly planting his tents exactly within and between the interlocking rings. He appealed to all of the factions, revealing to all the very common nature of their causes. Each needed the other and complimented each other.
The nature of Reagan's compromise was not to take one form over the other, causing any to lose or sacrifice deeply held convictions, But to embrace all three, giving each an equal voice and a place at the table.
The beauty of the Reagan Coalition is that each faction need only to recognize the needs of the others, campaigning and voting for those who embrace all three forms,and conversely, refusing to support those who are unable to satisfy any one of the three.
This agreement codifies the convictions of all three factions into a single set of Conservative principles, making way for the formation of the modern "big c" Conservative, those who adhere to those greater Conservative principles, forming a political powerhouse harnessing the various capable means of all of the factions as a single entity.
But the three factions remain, even though they can submit to one guiding force. It is important to realize this truth, for they form the basis of the power of Conservatism, and by their diverse intentions, ensure that Conservatism cannot be usurped for a purpose not useful to it's true function. In the act of subsuming or removing any one of the factions, the utility and the power of Conservatism ceases to exist, having neither the will nor the power to continue forward.
As I said before, SoCons are an equal partner with the FiCons and DefCons. Without all three, there is nothing.
Then he can try to win in November without us too. Good luck to him, he'll need it. Meanwhile, I'll happily vote for the most conservative Presidential candidate I can find. The GOP has taken us for granted and lied to us enough.
yup, the primary campaign is over. We have selected a candidate. If you want to leave the party—it is a free country so nothing is stopping you.
I don’t think Governor Huckabee would agree that he ran as a “stalking horse” for Senator McCain. Even if he did, Senator McCain did win the election. Now he and we must prepare to beat either Hillary or Barack.
If a new party forms to the right of the GOP, I’m gone. Will the GOP lose elections because of it? Yep. Let em. They’re determined to be socialists, fine with me. Be loser socialists.
What concerns me more than McCain is the effect he will have on turnout ... if Obama is the dem nominee, Republican turnout will be short with no one to go to work for. You and I both know what that will do for the House and Senate races. The thing Romney had going for him in that regard is the controversy which would raise voter interests and coul dhave resulted in increased Republican voter turnout. I don’t see conservatives getting excited about voting for McCain the democrat in pubby wool.
Well, he must have had some kind of a turnout if he won the election. Dobson may not show and others like Dobson may not show, but others may who would not.
Predicting turnout is like predicting the weather—best done only a few days ahead.
Time for a new party. Draft Thompson and Hunter and pray for a plurality in the fall. Hey! I’m serious!
I’d love to see it. Slim chance though, but I’d be down with it.
Sounds reasonable enough as a start towards a definition, even though I had worked one up earlier that Angkor didn’t even bother to comment on except to claim that I didn’t do it.
When you write, “The nature of Reagan’s compromise was not to take one form over the other, causing any to lose or sacrifice deeply held convictions, “that points out the problem here — socons are being asked to sacrifice deeply held convictions.
But to embrace all three, giving each an equal voice and a place at the table.
***That certainly isn’t the case with socons in the republican party today.
The beauty of the Reagan Coalition is that each faction need only to recognize the needs of the others, campaigning and voting for those who embrace all three forms,and conversely, refusing to support those who are unable to satisfy any one of the three.
***None of the current candidates can claim to embrace all 3 forms, and all of them are unable to satisfy some particular branch of the three. That’s why the coalition is breaking apart.
What do you think of Agent Hank’s question:
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 think your Monopoly analogy is great.
Well, I don’t know that I can go with you to the blame part. The coach, the players. I’m more inclined to go with the players, but I definitely see your point.
And, yes, it is a gamble for the guys on the team who want to bail. Actually, IMHO, it’s not a gamble for them so much as a gamble for the country.
All the factors you set out were factors. But, again, I don’t see that being the full story.
Do any of those things affect how you vote? I’d bet not.
And I don’t see them really effecting how other conservatives vote either. Rush says “stop listening to the MSM” and I think, what conservative gives a rat’s be-hind about what the MSM says in the first place?
IOW, just by virtue of being conservative, I don’t see how conservatives could fall into the traps you listed. So, IMHO, something else happened.
(Sorry I wasn't putting your quotes in my posts previously. That does make it easier, so thanks for doing it and I will from here on out.)
In talking about the justification for bailing on the team, you said "if it's *strong* enough," the manuever could be successful.
Your example of slavery made me think, however, it's more accurate to say if the justification is sufficiently *unifying*, rather than just *strong.*
The issue of slavery transcended a whole bunch of other issues on which the new Republican party might otherwise bust up over. The problem today is that there isn't a sufficiently unifying issue---that's just the way it is. And, as you said, if the justification isn't sufficient---I would say sufficiently unifying---the manuever will be a dismal failure.
In the long term try Conservatism in 2012. It works. If there are any young aspiring public serpents out there like me, I hope you are paying attention. There is a market for conservative ideas. You just need to be able to sell it...and the world will be yours.
All the factors you set out were factors. But, again, I don’t see that being the full story. Do any of those things affect how you vote? I’d bet not.
***Of course not. Those are the factors that a candidate faces in trying to gain the nomination, not the factors that a typical voter considers in a ballot decision.
And I don’t see them really effecting how other conservatives vote either.
***Again, of course not. One has little to do with the other.
Rush says “stop listening to the MSM” and I think, what conservative gives a rat’s be-hind about what the MSM says in the first place?
***The “conservatives” who care what the MSM says are the “electabiityCONs”, the new branch of conservatism that brought us tootyfruityrudy and Romney and of course, McCain. Such conservatives are pretenders, faux conservatives.
IOW, just by virtue of being conservative, I don’t see how conservatives could fall into the traps you listed. So, IMHO, something else happened.
***You’re getting confused between the factors that hold back a candidate from moving forward and the factors that voters consider in choosing a candidate.
I see I just posted your point here in my last post! We agree, then, that the only time in history a new "major" political party with staying power was formed was when there was a sufficiently unifying issue, to wit, slavery.
And there isn't a sufficiently unifying issue among conservatives today. There should be, but there isn't. For example, you suggested maybe being pro-life. To be honest, I see lots and lots of unity on the issue of being pro-life. What I don't see is any unity on the ways to work to advance the cause of life.
Then again, to my way of thinking, there doesn't have to be unity on HOW to advance the cause of life, because there are many different ways we are each called to do this work. But it seems to me there must be unity on that point, but there isn't!
IOW, if there were just unity on the point that there are all kinds of approaches that are worthy and helpful, then there would be room for those approaches and those individuals.
Here's what I mean: say one person who is sincerely pro-life feels called to change hearts and minds by working in counselling, adoption, and so on. That person thinks that work is very important and effective. Another sincerely pro-life person feels very strongly about working to change the law, get a more balanced judiciary and so on. That person thinks that work is very important and effective.
One person may think the President's views on abortion are very consequential for the pro-life movement. Another person may feel the President's views are hardly relevant; that progress will only be made by people changing our culture and hearts.
The reality is that both people are right and both may be doing exactly what they are called to do! Yet too often one denigrates the other and slanders their good-faith efforts as insufficient or misdirected or not as important as their own. That is the overriding reason there is no unity on such a huge issue as abortion.
The problem today is that there isn’t a sufficiently unifying issue-—that’s just the way it is.
***You’re probably right. The only one that comes close is Right to Life, and it’s not like McCain is like tootyfruityrudy & pro-abortion. Plus, there’s still a chance the staunch prolifer could catch on.
For awhile I thought there might be a perfect storm of Right to Life/WOT/immigration/economic patriotism/Military that would lead folks to consider the best conservative in the race, but I overlooked how heavily infiltrated RINOs have become.
I wanted to address your last point, but forgot in my last post.
I think in that last post I described what I see as the "internal dispute," at least as regards the pro-life movement. People care so much and see so much at stake, I think they just sometimes don't see the bigger picture of how all the little ants working on a project each have their own job to do, which may not make sense at all to someone observing them go about their business.
I honestly do not think it is "anti-Christian bigotry." I think it is more along the lines of "intra-Christian bigotry"!
AGain, most often this is caused in my view because people do care so much about this issue. But just like denominations split over whether one should sit or stand while singing hymns, it's mostly one part of the body of Christ condemning another part for not seeing it their way.
I hasten to add I do believe there is absolute truth. However, I don't see the rancor that pro-life factions have against each other as based on truth.
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.