The problem with Republicans

American Thinker ^ | April 25, 2009 | Howard Underwood

[downtownconservative]

I have to admit, I hate to send money to the Republican Party right now. Not being a politically connected person, I'm not sure of how to accomplish the return of conservatism to the GOP. I just feel it offers the greatest chance at success in the near term. 2010 has got to be a litmus test that the radicals fail.

[gitmo]

Here's the problem as I see it. We have felt a need to support the party feeling it was the only chance to advance conservatism in government. However, the party has not felt a need to advance conservatism, because where else were the conservatives going to go?

We showed a willingness to allow the party to fail if the party was not going to reciprocate. The cost: we got Obama. The gain: we don't have a GOP President who was going to further advance liberalism in the party and would convince the nation there is no difference in "conservatism" and liberalism.

But now is the time to offer the party backing from Conservatives if they will reciprocate. And now is the time to wrest control of the nation from the socialists.

[Theodore R.]

Reagan catered to liberal Republicans, had Bob Finch for lt. governor, campaigned for Edward Brooke in MA and Charles Percy in IL, named Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the high court, and of course resurrected the fallen career of GHWB. He also signed the King holiday bill.

[neverdem]

Obama, McCain campaign leaders talk politics at UD [Schmidt confesses to voting Democrat]

TARP Looking More Criminal by the Minute - The issue of TARP corruption may now extend from corporate CEOs and federal regulators to New York’s attorney general.

Putting MADD in Charge of America's Highways - President Obama's troubling nominee to head the...

Obama, Alinsky, and Scapegoats

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Question_Assumptions]

Ideally, they are not separate groups but individuals tend to stress one or two more than the others, even Levin and Limbaugh. And the problem occurs when (A) those who support all three try to toss those that don’t out of the tent because they are not pure enough or (B) those who support only one or two of the three things that the part they they don’t support is expendable (e.g. Meghan McCain and Kathleen Parker). The movement and politicians need to support all three and not purposely alienate those who vote conservative on only one or two of the three.

[HangnJudge]

The problem with Republicans is, it’s utterly impossible to even picture what Republicans stand for.

I Think the vision has been profoundly warped

To my mind, the fundamental thing to be protected
in the national debate is a defense of

LIBERTY

The Three protectorates of Liberty in America have been

Conservatism
Libertarianism, and
Capitalism

Capitalism is essentially Amoral
Libertarians see well the consequences of suppressing Capitalism
Conservatives see well the consequences of giving it free reign

Liberals, as best I can tell
are blind tho these truths

LIBERTY MUST BE PROTECTED

A system where each can, as much as practicable
walk their own path, and make their own decisions
With Natural Law constriction the limits

[HangnJudge]

This I believe is the message coming from the Tea Partys

What is being threatened is the fundamental ability of
each in these United States to stand in Liberty
and to act as a beacon of Liberty to all the World

The Moral actions and decisions become personal
or constrained by Natural Law

Moral actions are not compelled, and hence
One can WALK as a Child of God

or become enslaved in sin, with it's
associated consequences

This is something a Christian, Hebrew, Atheist, Hindu
can all understand, but not a Satanist or Islamist
these are beliefs that compel

Capitalism Flourishes
Socialism Poisons
Communism is sure death

Conservatives are free to embrace their own vision
Libertarians are also so freed

The Liberals become atrophic
Anarchy is averted

[gitmo]

OK, what about GWB? He was a defense conservative, but spent money like Clinton, ignored the laws about immigration, and bowed to democRat socialist plans on education, farm subsidies, and a list of other social issues.

That cost us the congress,the White House, and a boatload of liberty.

[Question_Assumptions]

Oh, we need to elect people that support all three. If they don’t, they’ll lose support just like GWB did. You don’t get a 23% approval rating without losing a sizable proportion of your base, too. GWB was about half a conservative, great with defense and OK and social conservativism but a disaster on spending. As a result, he lost the people who cared about fiscal conservativism and so did the Republican Party. He also handled Iraq the PR surrounding the War on Terror so badly that he didn’t even look all that good on defense, thus we have Obama. But don’t ignore the fact that he did win two terms as President, including a second term when he had a lot of liabilities, by appealing to more than just the base.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[WOSG]

“The only solution I see is to form a group outside the party that supports true Conservatives regardless of party. Not that any exist in the democRat party. But this group would need to analyze candidates, report their findings, and support Conservative candidates with advertising and funding.”

The group is called Club for Growth.

[WOSG]

The problem with Republicans is that they STILL - - even in this day of a thriving new media and a fast-dying newspaper industry - - run scared from the hectoring of the scumbag Democrat newsrooms.

And the problem with freepers is that when we see examples of Republicans bravely standing UP TO THE MEDIA and the libs, we dont praise them. We are too busy whining.

One example - RNC Chairman steels calls on Obama to withdraw Sebelius nomination. GOP Senators rally to defer the vote. They draw political blood.

And freepers, are they thanking the GOP for getting spine? .... no .... CRICKETS

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/04/man-of-steele-calls-on-obama-to.html

[Lancey Howard]

You’re not looking in the right places.
An example:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2237392/posts?page=26#26

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I used to think that the Republican Party was the party of principal and the Democrats had none. I now realize that it is the opposite The Dems have priciples albeit evil and all the Republicans have to offer is “we're not quite as bad(yet)”.
The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda. Yes, it sounds crazy and it is true. Republicans in Congress (and others) effectively, if unwittingly, advance the Democrat’s leftist agenda. No matter who is in power, the federal government, its power and expenditures, continue to grow with little chance of reversal.
The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.

I emboldened your last clause because it is similar to my tagline. It summarizes an essential understanding for anyone who truly wants to regain the ground we've lost. Whatever happens, once sustained, becomes part of the status quo. That affects how many conservatives, and not just Republicans, respond to it -- or not. All alone, that is one tough battle.

[all the best]

The only choice is to stand on principal. There are no Republicans out there who take an absolute stand against welfare. It is okay for the truly needy and faith-based is wonderful. No!! Once you take those stands all is lost. Government-funded welfare is either right or wrong. Once we take a relativist position all is lost. It’s just a matter of how fast we are headed toward the cliff.

[gitmo]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out CFG.