The Republican Party - Selling Fear and Failure

steve-olson.com ^ | Steve

[cgbg]

Most Freepers are supportive of McCain, and I predict that come November, the vast majority will come to their senses. Most will not allow a Dim to waltz in and take the presidency despite their disagreements with McCain.

You don't see it coming, do you?

Republicans win the Presidency when their base is energized, not when they reluctantly drag themselves to the polls and grimly pull the party lever. Energized means the base give money and time, whatever it takes, to elect their candidate. Perhaps only five percent of the Republicans will sit home on election day or vote third party. The problem is that McCain will have less money than Obama, fewer volunteers than Obama, less excitement and smaller crowds than Obama, and (the usual) worse MSM treatment than Obama.

Obamas base turnout will be higher than normal, McCains base turnout will be lower than normal.

That is how to lose an election big time. I have a better chance of sitting in the oval office than McCain.

[samtheman]

You’re probably right. I was in a sour-puss mood myself when I wrote that. I let the same 30 or so posters who will never be happy with anything less than free marijuana for everyone get me down sometimes.

[samtheman]

I’m not going anywhere.

[End Times Crusader]

Understandable. Those types always seem to bring out the worst in people because they so often exhibit the worst behavior in themselves.

[Hardastarboard]

He believes the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual the right to own firearms

I believe this author better wake up fast.

[Jacquerie]

Its distressing to witness conservatives give praise to the practice of torture by US servicemen and the removal of habeus corpus rights for US citizens.

Spare me your tears. The CIA, not our military waterboarded a total of four islamic dirtbags. It wouldn't bother me if they did it to hundreds. IMHO, US citizens gave up their citizenship rights when they fought as irregulars, ie non-uniformed combatants for a foreign power.

[andy58-in-nh]

Anyone who does not understand that we are at war against Islamic fundamentalism and that our actions are not responsible for their hatred of us is not qualified to be President. When it comes to the Islamicist threat, there is no practical difference between “non-interventionism” and isolationism. Call it whatever you want: to refuse to fight against an enemy whose adherents preach hatred of, death to, and revenge against our country is beyond foolish - it is suicidal.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

I've worked with a lot of "L" Libertarians in California initiative campaigns. Conservatives and Libertarians align on a lot of issues. My one observation is that the only thing Libertarians really seem to want is legal dope. Everything else is just window dressing.

As far as the "War On Drugs" is concerned, during the 1960s the generation who had won WWII thought of "War" as something that ended in decisive victory and utterly destroyed the evil it was waged against.

- Got an insurgency in Indo China? Let's have a War In VietNam! (8 years, 56 kilobodies, trillions down the tubes and America lost.)

- Got poverty? Let's have a War On Poverty! (The society as a whole saw great increases in personal wealth but the poor lost.)

- Got Cancer? Let's have a War On Cancer! (Some cures but we are still taking a lot of casualties.)

- Got a problem with people using drugs? Let's have a War On Drugs! (We have more illegal drugs and more kins of illegal drugs than ever before. We've spent billions and criticisms of Libertarians aside our civil liberties HAVE suffered.)

The problem is, if you look at wars throughout history very few have ended the way WWII did - with Mussolini on a meat hook, the Red Army taking Berlin and killing Hitler and the A-Bomb convincing Hirohito that he may be next.

Wars usually DO NOT end decisively. They often sputter on for years after "Major Combat Operations" cease. Worse than that, they usually don't solve the issues that the parties going to war wanted to solve when they started the war in the first place. Take the War of 1812. When the war was settled there was nothing in the treaty about the rights of the Indians (Britain's issue) or the rights of immigrant seaman to be safe from impressment (the main US issue).

War is generally a bad idea if it can be avoided and it's time to end the use of the "War" paradigm for trying to solve social issues as well.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

You won’t get any flames from me on that ... what you copied and pasted is accurate. Sad, but accurate nonetheless.

[Rob112586]

Yep... I’ve never been a pot smoker, but to me the only reason it’s illegal is because they couldn’t easily tax it and no conglomeration could monopolize it. Wars against ideas/tactics have never worked, neither have prohibitions.

[ex-snook]

"there is no practical difference between “non-interventionism” and isolationism."

But there is a difference in the Constitutional position that if you want to bomb countries declare war on them. It's the way to unite the nation behind the war. Last time it worked was WWII.

[Mr. Ion]

The Republican Party is about to get annihilated this Fall. That's why a lot of Republican Congressmen aren't running for re-election. The writing's on the wall.

It will look better on their resumes as "Congressman - voluntarily resigned".

:o)

[Mr. Ion]

None of that justifies occupying Iraq as the right way to combat terrorism.

[andy58-in-nh]

Your premise is false: there is no “right way” to fight terrorism. There are only actionable options. The choice of option in Iraq was a result of military considerations, not simply political ones. The option preferred by Libertarians, to fight the terrorists only on our own soil was, and is, unacceptable to most Americans.

[SatinDoll]

The U.S. population has in general an attitude towards national defense that is literally just that - a half-dozen U.S. cities have to become smoking craters with millions of casualties before they become enraged enough to realize the nation is under attack.

Since 1993 there have been a number of terrorist attacks within the homeland but Presidents Clinton and Bush have played them down in importance. The attacks of 9/11 were too devastating to ignore, but people are forgetting even that horrorible day.

[Oberon]

pingferlater.

[KDD]

Perhaps you are too young to remember “duck and cover” and covering under your desk practices at your school during the Cold War in the 60’s and 70’s. That was a time when the threat of a nuclear weapon was a threat to every major city in the U.S. with just one Soviet strike. The danger of a nuclear suitcase coming over the border from Canada was a distinct possibility. These were real dangers but our politicians did not demagogue them or fear monger the population for political gain and increased State police power...Where are the missiles and planes to deploy them on us going to come from? The Navy that will transport this Islamic Army to our shores? The landing craft needed to storm Malibu Beach? The tanks and APC’s needed to subdue our population. There are none. China on the other hand...

We are fighting a war against a concept.

In relative terms of loss of life in war 911 was insignificant.

In terms of loss of American civil liberties the loss was significant indeed.

The GOP has become the party of all fear all the time.

You guys need to man up a little.

[KDD]

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

whaaaa? wtf are the democrats selling? I mean, before they changed the name of it into "hope and change?"

Democrats are selling dependence on government, covetousness and they're selling us down the river to radical Islam and socialism. They're selling us down the river to the environmentalist wackos who refuse to allow us to become energy independent and possile lower energy prices.

They're also selling our sovereignty for more votes from illegal immigrants. The Democrats are selling us on the idea that it is in our best interest to raise taxes and give all our money to them and let them take care of us. That's what Democrats are selling.

[a_different_conservative]

I am a life-long conservative (YAF member in high school) but also a Ron Paul supporter so take what I say for what you think it is worth.

I won’t support Obama or Clinton (obviously) but I cannot and will not vote for McCain. Those who champion McCain because he will pick better Supreme Court nominees, better support the war on terror, etc. make a good point and deserve a serious rebuttal.

My take on the matter is this:

If we support McCain he almost certainly won’t be elected president. The MSM is just waiting until McCain has been irrevocably selected as the Republican candidate to unload on him (and us) about his temper, the Keating 5, his tacky “bomb, bomb Iran” comments, etc. They may be able to goad McCain into melting down on national TV. This will no doubt be their goal. If we dutifully campaign for him and vote for him anyway, he will lose by a respectable margin. Then the MSM can declare that he could have been President if only he had been a little more “mainstream” by supporting (insert here whatever liberal positions we are supposed to be willing to sell out for power (gun control, abortion, etc.)). The Republican Party, whose main goal is to win elections, will probably concur. Why shouldn’t they? If you were willing to sell out on immigration etc. why shouldn’t you be willing to sell out on abortion or 2nd amendment rights? The party will lean more to the left to win future elections.

On the other hand, if we refuse to go along with this McCain will lose big time and the Republican Party (whose goal, remember, is to win elections) will crawl out of the wreckage and realize selling out conservatives is a losing proposition.

In either case we get Clinton or Obama as our next president, but with the second scenario we still have a party.

Comments?