Skip to comments.THE GOP DOESN'T WANT US- SO WHAT'S NEXT?
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?
My definition of an anti-religious agenda would be one whose aim was to make it illegal to freely practice one’s religion.
In my view, disagreement with my religious views is not an anti-religious agenda.
I think your Monopoly analogy is great.
***I’ve been in that position where one player had the natural monopoly and was bleeding us dry. So I proposed to the 3 remaining players that we all pool our resources, throw the dice and whoever wins the die roll wins all the resources, the losers end up with a playing piece and $1. It worked in Monopoly but doesn’t work in the real world. We need some kind of bold strategy that will break the conservative logjam and MSM stranglehold on the process. Debate rules, dates, and who’s invited all need to be determined fairly beforehand, in such a way that the GOP wouldn’t find themselves withdrawing their sponsorship like they did when Hunter was excluded — fat lotta good that did.
One thing to do is my suggestion of an idealogy matrix for FR. We need to smoke out RINOs. It’s okay to have them around but they are not owning up to their intentions; it’s okay to have a bias but it’s not okay to hide it.
Second thing is the order of the primaries should be determined by the percentage of republicans in the last vote. The higher the %pubbie, the sooner the state appears on the primary schedule, with a mix of big & little states and our staunchest republican states get to go FIRST.
Third, the GOP needs to file an official complaint about how the media is affecting the election process with their biased poll results and resulting exclusion from debates based upon such biased polls.
On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
Fourth, Time for the FALCONservatives to assert themselves.
Death of the GOP and the Birth of a New Political Party
We need to move forward on this so GOP really gets the message and a chill goes down the spine of GOP leadership.
***The problem with your analogy is that the team is working towards a goal that is antithetical to some of the players, i.e. the front line that I keep coming back to.
Please answer Hanks question:
Hank>>>But if my partys 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?
I think you and I got this straightened out earlier, but I'll go ahead and answer here, too.
I never said anyone must support the team if for any reason they don't feel they should. It's not relevant to my point to keep pointing out that people who are bailing on the team think they have a good reason to do so.
My point, which I think you agree with to some extent, is that, regardless of what justifies quitting, it's still a gamble for the individual and the country. That's because, just like in football, if some players quit, the team still has to play the game. So it may try to get the players back, it may look for new players, but whatever it does it tries to find a way to win with what it's got.
Interestingly, this thread (link below) about something Rush said illustrates my point perfectly.
Rush made my point a year ago:
RUSH ARCHIVES: This notion that it doesn't matter who wins because the Democrats aren't going to have a big enough majority? That's going to lead to another thing that I will share with you. It's going to lead to the nomination of John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy. In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it. And right now, that looks like McCain, above anybody else -- who, I must tell you, is not a conservative. And so what are you probably going to end up doing? You're going to be so frustrated by 2008, and the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming president so obnoxious, so abhorrent; that in 2008 you will flush your precious principles down the drain and elect a Republican, precisely the kind of Republican you think you're running against now -- or you will at least nominate one. Who knows how that election will go? So the very principle that you are fighting here, if you succeed, you will be given a candidate who fits the very thing you're angry about: somebody who's not conservative enough but probably has the best chance of winning.
When we began this conversation, that's what I was addressing: WHY McCain is the nominee. It's not because of anti-Christian bigotry.
It's because conservatives bailed on the party in 2006 and now they're saying they are going to bail again. It's because conservatives barely voted for the more conservatives candidates in the primaries when they had every opportunity to do so.
So the party, which must has a nominee, and which exists for the purpose of winning elections, has no choice (from their point of view) but to try to find a way to win with what they got. And McCain has always said he's the man to bring in Independents and Reagan Democrats---IOW, he's the man who can provide some replacement players so the party can try to win this thing.
As Rush said:
In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it.
This is WHY McCain is the nominee. Political parties exist to win. When the conservative way doesn't deliver, then the party (meaning: the majority of people voting in the primaries and lending support to candidates) does something else. That's all.
Rush goes on to make a point about voting for congresscritters, not president. But his analysis (and my analogy) is certainly something to think about.
Again, quitting may be justified, but the risk that the team will truly move on without those who quit (which would not be good for the country, IMHO) is real. That's all. Whether it's the coach or the players to blame, that's all.
My definition of an anti-religious agenda would be one whose aim was to make it illegal to freely practice ones religion. In my view, disagreement with my religious views is not an anti-religious agenda.
***Sounds good enough. What we see in the R party now is an infiltration of antichristian bigots who hide behind various code words like “separation of church & state” and that kind of thing as they push their anti-religion agenda. They rarely own up to their bias, so it is, once again, a hidden agenda.
You can disagree over religious views till the cows come home, both sides are protected under the first amendment. But the antireligionists take one step further and attempt to keep religiosity out of politics under various thin guises, just as you have seen on this thread.
***The problem with your analogy is that the team is working towards a goal that is antithetical to some of the players, i.e. the front line that I keep coming back to.
One last point on this, Kevmo.
Again, the players may be perfectly justified in quitting. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans to the team. At some point, the team says "we're not going to rely on them and get in this lurch ever again."
You are saying "BUT --- BUT --- the quarterback walked off the field because the game plan was 'antithetical' to his personal goals."
I am saying the team says: "I don't care what the quarterback's problem was, you don't walk out during a big game; you handle your disagreement some other way, some other time. And I'll be damned if I or any other coach in this league wants to try to win a game with a quarterback who may get up and quit at any time."
That's just how a team would react, and at some point that's how a political party is going to react, especially to players who aren't delivering (votes) anyway.
I agree with Rush that we're in this situation in large part because conservatives quit the team in 2006, and were a nonfactor the only place it counts---the ballot box---in the primaries, leading to McCain. In my view, quitting last time brought nothing but a worse situation for conservatives, and I think there's a genuine risk that the same thing could happen in this election.
Apparently, this fact has been little noticed.
In fact, McCain won precisely *because* he owes conservatives nothing.
He consistently has advertised himself as the man who can win with Independents and Reagan Democrats. That particular skill became a premium after conservatives sat out the 2006 election, were a non-factor in the primaries, and early on began declaring that they would NOT vote for this guy, that guy and the other guy.
Since political parties exist for the purpose of winning elections, of course the majority of people joined in that enterprise will look for someone who possibly can win the election. Some people have a problem with that, but it is what it is.
So I see McCain attempting to unify the party and bring at least some of those people back. But I also see the signs everywhere that the whole motivation for backing him was the chance that, by attracting Independents and Reagan Democrats, he could win despite those who choose to bail.
And I don't know what else the majority of Republicans could have done. Not enough conservatives supported the more conservative candidates; they couldn't even bump them out of the bottom single digits. With conservatives failing to deliver in the primaries, the party had to move on and try to find a way to win anyway.
I don't think anyone in the field would have "excited" conservatives or Republicans, or led to really good turn-out. So it's no wonder the rank and file turned to someone who might "excite" Independents and Reagan Democrats, because that's going to be critical to the party's chances.
It's a risky strategy, in my view. But, again, what practical choice did the party have when conservative candidates bombed?
If conservatives were excited enough about Thompson and Hunter to “draft” them, why didn’t they just vote for them in the primaries?
Kevmo, you keep asking this question and I keep answering it! Anyway, here's one more thought on it:
Again, to reiterate my basic answer, I never said you should support it. Do what you think is right.
That said, I think it grossly denigrates the reality of what is occurring on Election Day to flip off voting for the President of the United States as "flying the club's colors."
I'm quite sure you didn't mean it that way, but I do want to point out that such attitude is truly unwise.
As I see it, we vote for one purpose only: to hire a President and Commander in Chief that is the best *of the available and viable* alternatives FOR THE COUNTRY.
If a person genuinely feels that bailing on Election Day is *best for the country,* well, okay. But that's the question.
Why should you support any candidate, ever? Because we each have a responsibility to get the best result for the country that we can get.
Of course, reasonable people can disagree as to what the "best result" is. But that is a complex and multi-dimensional inquiry. It is not as simple as "do I agree with this one man whose name happens to be on the top of the ticket?".
You need only look up my profile.
Thanks for responding. It is kind of a complicated thing. It bothers me when RINOs tell us that we have to betray our principles and vote for someone who’s antithetical to our positions.
I am saying the team says: “I don’t care what the quarterback’s problem was, you don’t walk out during a big game; you handle your disagreement some other way, some other time. And I’ll be damned if I or any other coach in this league wants to try to win a game with a quarterback who may get up and quit at any time.”
***This happened before, when the Republicans split off from the Whigs. I really don’t care what the Whigs had to say at that point, they were simply wrong. And since that time, most people say, “who were the Whigs”? In other words, it’s the END of that team. So your team is acting like the crew of the Titanic, rearranging deck chairs when the ship goes down. So, you can keep making this look like the team is changing out one or 2 players, but in reality this would be a death blow to the team. So you need to adjust your analogy to the point where you start to see it that way, and then process accordingly.
I don’t know if the Republican party just hit an iceberg. Most of the passengers on the Titanic didn’t know in the beginning, only a select few were encouraged to get onto the half-empty lifeboats. Basically, we hit something in the night, the captain isn’t telling us what we hit because he thinks that by keeping all of us on the boat he can maintain the facade of grandiosity.
I guarantee they’d be damned more excited now, given the distressing turn of events. Remember, hindsight is 20/20.
Why could a ticket which did not attract 15% OF THE REPUBLICANS gain a plurality when those Republicans are only 1/3 of the voters?
YOU may be serious, but your comment isn't.
Because, old chap, these were the only true conservatives on the ticket. You seem to take comfort in a race between McPain and Hilobama.
I see that too, but we have to be careful ourselves as well. Regarding the primary (and I know you to be an Hunterite) the candidate the SoCons prefer (Huckabee) is equally as unpalatable as the others... So there is fault enough to go around.
***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. Thats why the coalition is breaking apart.
MCCAIN=Only positive attribute is strong defense, military experience
ROMNEY=Only positive attribute is management of economy
HUCKABEE= Only positive attribute is strong Cristian credentials.
Split right down factional lines. The product of "electability" overriding principle.
What do you think of Agent Hanks question:
A political party should represent a set of ideals. True enough everyone wont agree at all times. But if my partys 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?
Quite obviously, one should not support that which represents one's antithesis. But in the midst of all the talk of new parties and etc, I will make a prediction that will be stunning to some:
Any Conservative party that attempts to upend the Republicans will surely fail unless it is able to serve all three conservative factions in the same fashion as Reagan's Coalition. The three "kinds" are tied at the hip, because all else is certainly against us.
“Can you say, “Welcome President Hillary”?
Its going to happen.”
Yawn. And would it be much different after 4 years of Pres., McCain? Doubtful. Well, maybe the White House would still have all it’s silver ware....
But to allow the party, by way of one's acquiescence, to continue to drift closer to the rocks of liberalism is a markedly destructive form of negligence. A form of suicide by apathy, as it were.
It is the "pulling for the big "R"" that has gotten us where we are, settling for the moderate hawkers of "compassionate conservatism" rather than the truth of Reagan Conservatism.
There has been a saying going around this board as of late: "The perfect is the enemy of the good". There could not be anything further from the truth, and especially so when considering Conservatism. We cannot win with "good 'nuff", as has been so perfectly demonstrated by this primary cycle.
You may be right. But the point is, it could go either way, don’t you think?
It could be that the team crashes and goes away. But it could also be that the team adapts, improvises and overcomes. That it moves on and more or less permanently shuts out those who quit.
If the latter happened-—and it likely will if, for example, McCain were to win with Independents and Reagan Democrats and over the loud objections of conservatives-—those who walked will be marginalized for good, just like strikers who are replaced by new employees.
That would not be a good thing for our country, if it were to come about. And the substantial risk exists.
Did conservatives not realize that if they didn’t vote for a conservative candidate that a non-conservative candidate would get the nomination?
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.