[John Leland 1789]

We argue quite a bit on these pages about thrd party stuff. Gingrich, I'm sure is voicing what he is actually hearing and sensing.

Those who are diehard Republican and want to preserve the GOP will have to do more than chat and post to FR and other such sites. They are going to have to ivolve themselves in extensive letter-writing, door-knocking, and organizing to bring the Party back to its roots.

I, for one among many, believe that the upper crust of the GOP needs a scare. They need to be forced to feel that they and the whole party can be replaced.

[John Leland 1789]

Obviously to myself, but allow me to add . . .

Right now in the Indiana 9th CongDist there are two young men planning runs to throw Baron Hill out, and obviously he needs being thrown out!

One is Todd Young, the other Travis Hankins. The GOP will probably back Todd Young (I’m guessing at this point), but I smell compromise all over him.

The GOP will probably shun Travis Hankins even though here is the true old-fashioned conservative. He’s just too clear about what he is, what he believes, and how he became a conservative. Hankins is the much more clear heir of Ronald Reagan.

It appears that Todd Young has worked for and is working for the power elite in Orange County and the 9th CongDist. But we need no more of that. We need people of a much simpler nature with truest of ideals.

Some here have mentioned their work in the GOP in their CongDists. That is what is needed, as well as simply knocking on doors in our own neighborhoods (before ACORN does!).

But when we see candidates backed in our districts just because they are beloved of the power-elite, we’ve got to jump on the box and tell them that we see what is happening. We’ve got to quit sending to Washington the people who are just going to get along and so compromise.

[nathanbedford]

Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

Gingrich syndrome is causing many Freepers to misunderstand what Newt is saying. It is not fair to criticize him for attempting to break up the Republican Party so he can lead a third-party into the presidency. That is not what he is saying here. He's pointing the way to a potential Republican victory: abandon moderation for fiscal discipline. In other words, opose Obama. He warns, and quite rightly so, that if this warning is not heeded the likely result is the breakup of the party. One need only read through these posts to understand that there is a significant block of Republicans who are ready to bolt the party on this issue. Even though I have often posted that it is only prudent to exploit the party resources rather than to junk it, there comes a time when principle must prevail over pragmatism. Many, many conservatives crossed that line somewhere around 2006.

I have often posted that the only lesson we learned from the election disaster of 2008 is that we learn nothing from the election of 2006. Gingrich is telling us what the lesson is. If we fail to heed this manifestly true analysis, the breakup of the party is inevitable.

I am not going to criticize Gingrich for what he is not reported to have said in this article. But mere fiscal discipline alone is only one leg of the party stool. Social conservatives and defense minded conservatives make up the other two legs without which the stool crashes. I do not know from this article where Gingrich stands on supporting social conservatism. From his other remarks in which he has identified many issues which he has polled to be socially conservative "winners," I have confidence that it will be satisfactory to that wing of the party, of which I count myself a member.

Gingrich has been implicitly criticized by posters on this thread for ambition. They ask, for what purpose does Gingrich seek to lead a third-party into the White House? That is a question every national candidate must answer and the true answer is that it is because he thinks his ideas are better. Ask yourself, for what reason did George W. Bush seek the presidency? I have often posted on this subject and the most charitable that I can be toward Bush is that he sought the office out of a sense of noblisse oblige and Christian service. He did not seek it to advance conservative principles. Those of us who thought otherwise were harshly disillusioned. Many disillusionments came with the appointment of Harriet Miers. Knowing what I know of Gingrich's bona fides as a conservative, I would rather have him in power than any other plausible Republican I can think of, including Sarah Palin whom I adore.

I have been touting Gingrich to become the chairman of the Republican National Committee since before the election of Michael Steele who, as I predicted, has become a walking disaster. I have often said that Newt Gingrich, because of problems in his biography which have been greatly overblown, is probably personally disqualified to be the candidate of the Republican Party for president. That would not be the case in the Democrat party and might not be the case in a third-party. But he would make a great chairman of the Republican Party.

Consider the way he has put his finger on the beating heart of American politics right now. Consider how he has articulated the matter:“It is just literally irrational.” Obama's spending is "irrational." You won't forget that, it says it all. Gingrich is the only man in the Republican Party today who can identify issues and articulate a convincing conservative message. I say again, the only man publicly known who can do those two functions without which we fail again in 2010 and in 2012.

If conservatism fails, it means more than that Obama wins, it means the nation is bankrupted, our democracy is compromised and perhaps even destroyed, it means that your children will inherit a shabby, dreary existence with nothing to feed upon spiritually or intellectually but a diet of political correctness, and an utter forfeiture of their American Birthright.

Those who object to Gingrich have an obligation to put forward the name of a better candidate either for chairman of the party or for president. I think those names should be advanced only if the supporter can show that in a time of acute national and party crisis their candidate can seize the moment at a time of utter peril, akin to Churchill in 1940, re-organize a party, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, identify the message, and "hurl the English language into battle" against Obama.

[Penny]

The frank truth is that Mr. Gingrich is NOT a likeable fellow and long ago lost the authoritative voice of a leader. Is he a thinker? Of course.

But when he declared on BO's show this week that he was for offering a path to citizenship (what euphemistic tomfoolery!), I vowed never to listen to another idea of his.

Regards . . . Penny

[uncitizen]

The GOP is dead. It’s grown into the RAT party thru osmosis. We need a third party. I will never ever vote Republican again. Ever!

[Wilhelm Tell]

On the left, the Maoists and Stalinists get along when it comes to taking away everyone's freedom. The feminists and gays even pretend to be great friends with the Islamists. Militant secularists even support it when the Islamists try and impose religious censorship! Advocates of "nonviolence" champion the cause of violent criminals and terrorists! All of these people on the far left usually work effectively together.

On our side, libertarians and religious conservatives often are not even on speaking terms. Some fiscal conservatives are focused on taxes and little else. We are fragmented - everyone is in his little corner, thankful that he is too "pure" to talk to "those people" over there. Oh, we can fight, all right, as long as it is among ourselves. We can fight about medical marajuana, or about a flag burning amendment, or about teaching creationism in public schools. But when the Marxists want to enslave our children, we complain and eventually go back to our corner. When the Islamists tell us they want to kill our children, we complain louder from our little corner. The barbarians have stormed the gates and they are almost at the door, meanwhile we are busy arguing amongst ourselves about the finer points of interior decorating.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The way for a third party to both succeed, and *not* act as a spoiler to the Republican party is very plain:

1) DO NOT run a presidential candidate. They almost can’t win. They consume all your resources. They provide a target for unfair criticism.

2) Put all emphasis on defeating weak Democrat congressmen in “soft seats”, where the Republican candidate is either weak or a RINO. This also forces the Democrats to commit more resources by increasing the number of their “at risk” seats.

3) Create a Contract With America 2. And how this is done is crucial.

To start with, the third party must develop a simple, straightforward platform of objectives, in a “bullet” format. Say, 30 things that everyone in the party wants.

Then, poll the public about that list, and select *their* top 10 favorite items, out of the 30, that both you and they support.

This list of 10 things is your platform. This is done to Keep Things Simple and Clear for the Public. And importantly, they may not entirely agree with your message, but the public truly admires clarity and honesty. This gets you a LOT of votes.

No double speak. No voting against something before you vote for it. No being mealy mouthed.

And ALL candidates for the third party agree in writing for this platform of 10 items, or they DO NOT RUN as candidates from your party.

The realistic objective here is to win a small number of seats each election, until the third party becomes a swing vote. This gives it far more power than its size, and gets its agenda items passed with the sponsorship of the big parties.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[annalex]

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year"

Salient point.

In addition, there is an itch in the GOP to scrap the pro-life plank, when what they should be doing is removing the rape and incest exception.

The GOP was lost to conservatives for much longer time than 2008.

[brydic1]

I’m willing to join a bonafide conservative party but do not want Gingrich in it. He bobs and weaves, politically, way too much. I would not call him a bonafide conservative.

[gitmo]

What does the GOP need to do to keep conservatives?

I have a few starter ideas:
(1) Close the party primaries to outsiders.
(2) Change the order of the state primaries. Move the Southern states to the front of the list. Screw Iowa’s first-in-line attitude.
(3) Come up with some freakin serious opposition to the communists in DC. Propose true cuts, not reductions in spending. Propose closing a bunch of Washington bureaucracies.