Posted on 05/17/2009 11:48:59 AM PDT by Moseley
Fumigate it, set it on fire, bury it, and cover the ground with concrete.
Rather than "go on strike," this conservative merely quit the party during the primaries last year once McCain was inevitable. Perhaps this is what is meant - not entirely sure. Anyway, McCain's nomination was the last straw in a long line, which has since accelerated (e.g. Bush starting the bailout/socialist takeover ball rolling). If the R's ever re-establish their conservative credentials and grow a pair in terms of standing up for them to the Socialist Democrats, I'll go back. In the meantime it's nice being unaffiliated and not continually embarrassed by the ineptitude and liberal leanings of the Republican party, which currently stands for absolutely nothing other than wanting power again.
Ronald Reagan’s last run in 1984, is the last time the left in the United States was seriously confronted with the small government less intrusive doctrine.
That’s 25 years ago. Considering that most kids under 16 don’t really pay attention to politics in a meaningful way, hardly anyone under the age of 41 will remember Reagan’s platform.
I haven’t looked at the stats, but my guess is that this means that about half our populace has never seen the small government less intrusive doctrine presented by a presidential candidate. If we’re talking voting age people, that number rises, but the significance shouldn’t be underestimated.
And we wonder why our goals are not being attained.
The best product in the world, won’t be sold if it isn’t advertised and hawked to the largest possible audience.
• By contrast, if the GOP fields an awful candidate and runs an awful campaign, people will vote for the Democrat.I would contend that given the choice of only an awful GOP candidate, voters will 1) leave the ballot blank, 2) vote third party, 3) vote democrat, or 4) not show up to the polling place, at all. Voter turnout is dismal with some 40% of registered voters not participating. Instead of adopting the moderates' misguided strategy, of leaning leftward to gain votes, they need to "inspire and persuade" (as you said) the non-participating voters. Those non-participating voters are the ones, who given the choice between two bad TV shows, will choose to not watch TV. They will turn the TV on when they find something of interest.• Having a choice only between two bad shows on TV, people will watch the better show.
The key to that is to give up on nominating candidates upon the basis of "He can win" or "Electable Republican." It is to have no faith in our own principles.
In order to nominate our own candidates, we must first a.) close our primaries to non-Republican voters and b.) get rid of the "winner take all" rules that are inappropriate for primaries with more than two legitimate candidates.
Unfortunately, I don't detect any movement to correct either aspect of our primary system.
Liberal RINOs can then either leave the GOP to Conservatives, or the GOP can go the way of the Whigs.
Nope. Should I?
I do remember H.L. Richardson, and his article written in the last campaign. I posted it. There was very lively discussion.
McCain? No Way!He discusses some of the same points that are being discussed on this thread.
Okay — answered my own question. I should read it — and his other two books, as well!
http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Think-Read-Bills/dp/0916054780
Product Description
Have you ever wondered what really happens when your elected representatives get together to: spend your money; write laws making some things illegal, others illegal; and, try to “satisfy” all the lobbyists at the same time? You can stop wondering. Bill Richardson has let the cat out of the bag. You’ll be both amused and outraged at his tales of the day to day shenanigans in your state and national capitols. Does your legislator suddenly stop being your representative? He’s just suffered Peer-Group Shift (see Chapter 12). Does The Majority Elect? (answer in Chapter 18). Have you heard gossip about Sexy Solons? (read Chapter 21). There are wildly funny chapters — Ze Mooz (4) Burros and the Pill (9), Gangrene and the Board of Education (16) — as well as plenty of straight talk about how and why our legislators are no longer ours. Throughout GOA founder and retired State Senator Richardson’s breezy text is the underlying theme that “this can’t go on much longer, enough is enough!” He offers many thoughtful reflections on why our legislatures have gone off the tracks, and scores of helpful suggestions how to put things right. By the time you reach Chapter 15 — A Full-Time Legislature — Yuk! — you’ll agree.
About the Author
Senator H. L. Richardson (Ret.) is a twenty-two-year veteran of the California State Senate. Founder of Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America, Richardson has focused his extensive political career on the preservation and protection of our Second Amendment rights. An active hunter and outdoorsman, Senator Richardson continues to be actively involved in state and national politics. He served on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association for 10 years and remains an active NRA Life member. Sen. H. L. Richardson’s (Ret.) unique perspectives and use of humor keep him in demand as a speaker and writer. He regularly provides colorful media commentary on a host of issues. He has written for numerous national publications, and is the author of two successful humorous political books, Slightly to the Right and What Makes You Think We Read the Bills? The latter is used as a textbook in political science classes throughout California. In his controversial book, Confrontational Politics, Senator Richardson has written a game plan for playing to win. He clearly explains his core belief that politics should be a struggle of competing ideologies, not a game of compromise and accommodation.
The people defined at FR as “true conservatives” probably represent about 20% of the electorate. The definition keeps tightening, lowering the number.
Things will change when moderates are convinced to take more conservative positions. You can't grow the conservative movement by pushing people out, you must win moderates over. (Moderates are the only available source for new conservatives, liberals are goners, duh.)
And yet it is fashionable to bash moderates, who are politically closer to conservatives than any other group in America. (Libertarians and other fringers are too small to matter.) I understand the sentiment, but it won't lead to conservative power. I also understand that for some, purity is more important than power. That's fine with me, just dont’ expect purity to grow the conservative movement.
SHOULD CONSERVATIVES FUMIGATE THE BIG TENT TO REMOVE LIBERALS?
YES.. YES.. YES... YES...
ABSOULTEY POSITIVELY YES.................................
I don’t believe it will be possible to recover the GOP. It is like an old and occupied house, fallen to rot and disrepair. It is time to found an new party based upon genuine conservative Principlies.
Some districts won't elect someone you'd recognize as conservative. Would they be better off with a Democrat, who, by your own view, would likely be more liberal than any Republican would be?
Almost all of the old Rockefeller Republicans -- the East Coast liberals -- are gone. Except for those two women from Maine, there doesn't seem to be very much of a liberal (or what the press would call a "moderate") wing of the party left in Congress.
Rather than the old liberal ("moderate") bloc, you have Senators and Governors who are a little more corporate, a little more country club than the rest of us. They may be a problem, but they're not the main reason Republicans are in such bad shape right now.
For example, every Republican in the House voted against Stimulus-Porkulus. To me that's a sign that this RINO thing is getting to be a red herring. People love to talk about it, beyond whatever real importance it has in politics today.
I didn't have time to read through your whole article. Some of it looked interesting. Two comments, though.
1) Sometimes it's not a clear-cut case of liberals/moderates vs. conservatives. Oliver North was carrying a lot of baggage that would likely make many Republicans and Independents hesitant to vote for him.
Sometimes the problem is the baggage a candidate has, not an ideological split. Whether or not you or I would have been enthusiastic about North's candidacy, it's not a good test case.
2) My guess is that very, very few Republicans voted for John Anderson in 1980. Most of Anderson's support came from liberals and Democrats who were disillusioned with Carter, or from those who were already ex-Republicans. There weren't large scale defections from Reagan to Anderson. At least, I'm not aware of any Republican elected officials who endorsed him.
Reagan was able to hold on to even very liberal GOP Senators. That's because he knew what was important and was able to prioritize. He wasn't distracted by side issues.
It was revived for a couple years in 1994 with the Contract with America, but after that small government conservatism was not a major theme of the GOP.
Excellent piece until it started calling Tom Davis a liberal
I worked for Tom Davis. If we are going to label men like him “liberals” we will never win an election again.
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.