Posted on 02/06/2008 3:43:04 AM PST by ovrtaxt
Nope. We need to look backward to the election of 1912. When Theodore Roosevelt was finished with incumbent Republican President Taft's re-election hopes after Taft [TR's former VP, who TR had previously endorsed and supported until Taft strayed too far from TR's policies and principles] Taft came in third, in some states fourth, behind Eugene Debs' Socialists.
If the Republican Party fails to learn from that history then they will repeat it. Along with what followed....
Kevmo>>>Angkor is posting pretty close to the line of what one of these anti-religious bigots looks like.
Angkor: Just to be accurate, I’m an anti-”Values Voter” bigot, an anti-”Social Conservative” bigot, and an anti-anti-Abortion Party bigot. I have nothing against religion, your assertion is utterly false.
***That’s what bigots always say. And since VVs, Socons, and antiabortionists are a large chunk of this party coalition, it makes you a RINO.
You want to dominate the Conservative political conversation,
***No, we just want our place in it.
yet you also want to hide from criticism under the veil of religion.
***Wrong, way wrong. So wrong, that it makes you look, once again, like an antireligious bigot.
When that fails, you claim you are being attacked by “bigots”.
***You admit to being a bigot. You admit to being part of the problem when that’s what you’ve been accused of. You ARE a bigot.
This is the worst kind of hypocrisy. But it is part and parcel of the identity politics you’re playing, and is to be expected. Your ethos drives you inevitably into that corner.
***Interesting “corner” to be in. I’m a conservative posting on a conservative site that was started by socons and I’m defending my socon beliefs to someone who pretends to be a conservative and admits he’s an anti-socon bigot. That makes you the pretender, you’re the RINO, you have admitted you’re part of the problem. You and people like you caused this problem, and now you RINOs are looking to deflect blame.
It’s also why your charges of “bigotry” are laughable but pathetic.
***and yet, you acknowledge you’re a bigot.
>>>>>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.
The elusive Fiscon doesn’t have a political party, an office on K Street, a bevy of DC lobbyists, or an IRS tax exemption.
***Then let them do that stuff. If we criticise them for it, then we are hypocrites.
“Values Voters” have all of those things and more, as do “Social Conservatives” and the monomaniacal anti-Abortion Party, in the guise of several other DC lobbying organizations.
***Good.
Kevmo>>>>>Socons didn’t start this fight — antireligious bigots who have infiltrated the GOP did.
Angkor: One of my close contacts was Chair of the RP in a large Eastern city in the 60’s, and active in it onward through today.
***That doesn’t address the point at hand. I’m glad you have a close contact. You’re still a RINO.
“Social Conservatives” and “Values Voters” and monomaniacal anti-Abortion Party members were not a part of the Republican Party or the Conservative movement 30+ years ago.
Republicans and Conservatives were.
***Well, lucky for you, it appears that such conservatives are being shown the door of the republican party. It’s just like the Whigs/Republican splitoff in Lincoln’s day. You’ve heard of the Whigs, haven’t you? The same faction split off from them and formed the Republican party. Whigs dried up. Learn the lesson.
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?
Angkor: Take the answer from Tony Perkins who runs the Family Research Council. Back in September or so he was threatening to create a third party and to take Elmer Gantry of Arkanses with him. I thought that was a great idea then, and I still do today. Unfortunately Perkins is just as aware as anyone that the coalition of “Values Voters” and “Social Conservatives” cannot stand on its own two feet, and needs the blood of Conservatism and the 150 year history of the Republican Party to survive.
***Your post does not address the question of why I should support something antithetical to my beliefs. It addresses what would happen if some guy you don’t like goes & forms a 3rd party. The reason you don’t answer why is you don’t have an answer, and if you did, it would involve socons betraying their socon beliefs. It’s better for those who don’t have strong beliefs to betray those beliefs than to ask those who have strong beliefs to betray them, on a political plane. On the spiritual plane, the socon beliefs are simply right, and what socons are being asked to do is simply wrong.
Thanks for the post. I think your approach is in line with reality. The energy that socons bring to the table is valuable. It’s unfortunate that the R party now thinks it can do without that energy.
>>>>>Thanks for the admission that Conservatives and Republicans are not one and the same.
You’re welcome. Although I’ve been grouping them together for simplicity and convenience, I don’t see them as remotely being the same from another perspective.
It’s difficult to believe you didn’t get flamed for that post. Weird, almost like the Fred Heads don’t have a problem with it. If I saw such a post that tried to blame Hunter for the current problems in conservatism, I’d be all over it. Well, again I say, “thanks for nuthin’, Fred”.
You should post this garbage to JimRob and see how he feels. This website was started by those very types of voters that you so quickly denigrate and now attempt to place blame upon. You RINOs are sickening to deal with, like watching vultures do their best work.
>>>>I see you must have missed my post stating my position, so I’ll repost it.
Nope. Saw it. Read it (twice). Considered it. Don’t see its relevance.
Those are the values of Conservatives. They existed long before the first Values Voter
***Cue spooky music and put on your tin foil hat. VV’s and socons uphold these values and you make them out to be the traitors to this party. Round & Round in nonsensical circles, that’s how you go. Thanks for being honest. The sooner you wake up to the fact that you are the problem in this party, and those who think like you, the sooner we can dig ourselves out of this hole.
>>>>>>Someone who claims to be a BigC conservative and is “proud to be the problem” of some smallC conservative, is a hypocrite.
This is quite astonishing.
You continue to be intentionally blind to the fact that the Values Voters and Social Conservatives run a variety of PACs, lobbying organizations, election support efforts, published outreach, etc.
I believe ValuesVoter.org is actually a registered IRS 527.
These are activist political entities, not “smallC conservatives”.
When you get that, you’ll get the whole point of my position.
>>>>>***No, it’s because I’ve identified you as a hypocrite, a pretender, an antireligious bigot, and basically a RINO.
Then stop responding to me.
>>>>***No, it’s because I’ve identified you as a hypocrite, a pretender, an antireligious bigot, and basically a RINO.
Remember I asked “What makes you the Social Conservative different from a Conservative?”
I told you this is where you’d end up. Cornered, sputtering, fuming, unable to articulate a response, cussing, and frothing with ad hominems.
You have yet to provide an answer.
And you can’t without facing the ugly truth.
Looks like we’ve come to a point where we can agree what the situation is, using our analogies. It’s a gamble for the guys on the team who want to bail. The thing to keep in mind is that we got here because the coach put in the limpwristers on the front line. It’s not the frontliners’ fault.
You should check out the Monopoly analogy as well. The trick is to find a way to get the trading going, to break the logjam somehow, but everyone has to their separate gopher holes.
>>>>>You’ve heard of the Whigs, haven’t you? The same faction split off from them and formed the Republican party. Whigs dried up. Learn the lesson.
I encourage you and Tony Perkins and your cohorts to give that lesson a real best effort test. I’ll even contribute to your new party if you will simply leave us Conservatives and Republicans alone.
>>>>>Your post does not address the question of why I should support something antithetical to my beliefs. It addresses what would happen if some guy you don’t like goes & forms a 3rd party.
Implicit in my answer is that your shouldn’t.
>>>>>You should post this garbage to JimRob and see how he feels.
That’s an extremely childish challenge.
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.
***I do see how. It was a combination of factors: An early election cycle that favors MSM drumbeating on Name Recognition, a bunch of Name Recognition worshippers in the R party who haven’t learned the aRINOld lesson, long term infiltration of the party by FRiberals and RINOs, centrists drafting a candidate who’s “conservative enough” because they were afraid of the guy who was “too conservative” (risking such a split in the first place), bad luck, anti-socon bigotry within and without the R party along with MSM collusion, and an electorate that’s getting dumber by the day. But, basically, conservatives who supported the most conservative candidate on this conservative forum were doing the right thing all the way through. I have been floating suggestions, simple ways to correct the problems. The biggest resistance to such suggestions comes from RINOs.
It doesn’t matter how justified the players the are in quitting. They could be quitting the worst team in history.
***I think it does. If the justification isn’t strong enough, the maneuver will fail. When the Republicans formed out of the Whig party, the justification was strong, focusing on slavery.
>>>>VV’s and socons uphold these values and you make them out to be the traitors to this party.
How is the Social Conservative different from the Conservative? How is the Values Voter different from other voters? How is the pro-lifer different from those who are opposed to abortion?
Tough questions which I’ve now asked nearly 10 times and which you refuse to answer in simple and clear English sentences.
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 agree with your analysis. The current situation is more like the Whigs/Republicans than Reagan’s time. But the main point of contention in that fight was slavery; the main point of contention today is ... maybe Right to Life? I’m not quite sure what fuels this internal dispute other than antichristian bigotry. What do you think causes this strife?
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.