Posted on 11/04/2008 10:20:52 PM PST by paudio
I do agree that the primary system needs to be fixed so only party members can vote for their candidates.
What is going to stop these same people from taking control of any new political party we start? That is in addition to the technical difficulty of establishing a third party across the country. There are a number of states where the law barely allows two full parties to exist, e. g. states that define a fully established party as one whose candidates for state legislature get at least 40% of the vote statewide.
The question as to who can vote in a party primary is generally decided by state law, not by party rule.
Palin was for Steve Forbes in 1996 (a fact exposed when the Donks tried to claim she supported Pat Buchanan).
If you go for the big tent, you get the second best tent. As John McCain found yesterday.
What you must do is pitch the correct tent, without compromise! And then convince enough people it's the place to be, so that it turns out to be the Big Tent on Election Day.
It takes a lot of convincing. RWR had the necessary talent. JSM did not. Hell, he didn't even know enough to want the tent, much less possess the skill to convince the electorate of its value!
Maybe, in 2012, Sarah will.
He never reached out to any conservative faction that I’m aware of, he was too busy repeating “moderate” talking points. And look who those moderates voted for.
McCain started out as being the big tent nominee, this is true. But picking Palin - and the tone of the campaign since this summer - has been designed only to appeal to the hard-core base.
You are speaking of Fusion-ism created by WFB. This is the idea that launched and maintained National Review. These were the thoughts and writings that influenced RR. It is well known that RR would carefully read each issue and call writers with questions and clarifications. We need a party to analyze the totality of National Review along with the writings of Kirk, Burke, AEI, Heritage and CATO. There are also very good writings at ISI.
Big tent?? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
The “Big Tent” attracts those who are likely looking for handouts. And we know how they’ll vote.
Reagan was successful, IMO, because the man held a powerful IDEAL, and held fast to what HE believed in.
The GOP has suffered, because they have let the IDEAL die, and they have played bi-partisan footsies, and bent over far too often to “reach across the aisle”.
Big mistake.
Abandoning the core principles of small government, Christian faith, and the most powerful military on earth has cost the Republican party its soul as well as the election.
It’s time to stop trying to appease the socialists, the illegal immigrants, the abortionists, the welfare queens, the white flag peaceniks, labor unionists, Darwinists, perverts, Islamists, environmentalists, liberals and RINOs.
The Republican party needs to get tight, get disciplined, and get rid of the elements that are tearing it apart from the inside, or it will end up in disarray, like the Democrats did to themselves all these years.
If the Republicans become “Democrat Lite,” many true conservatives will find a new home.
I think you’ve got the sequence wrong. Proclaiming a “big tent” will not result in a revival of conservativism.
Rather, the GOP needs to articulate and solidify its conservative position on things like spending, defense and limited government. Once you do that, you’ll have a big tent again as people come back to the GOP.
However, simply proclaiming the GOP as a “big-tent” party is meaningless, if there is no ideological basis to attract voters.
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.