SHOULD CONSERVATIVES FUMIGATE THE BIG TENT TO REMOVE LIBERALS?

US News and Views, www.USNewsAndViews.com ^ | May 17, 2009 | Jonathon Moseley

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Isnt that from the roundabout album?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Bullshit bob,Our side lost because of the piece of scat that the rinos put at the top of the ticket.The only reason it wasnt a landslide was the fact that Palin was also on the ticket.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

What an arrogant little poofter.

[calcowgirl]

Excellent piece until it started calling Tom Davis a liberal ... If we are going to label men like him “liberals” we will never win an election again.

The author referred to him as a "liberal Republican" which I interpreted as relative to the Republican platform.

Davis labels himself a "centrist," not a "centrist Republican," but falling in between the Republican and Democrat platform.

If the far left of the Republican Party (i.e. "centrist") is not "liberal," what would you call it?

[MadIsh32]

Mr. Davis and I once chatted about this

His philosphy in winning in Northern VA, (which has gone from a Republican strong hold in the 80s, to a very centrist district in the 90s when Mr. Davis was winning 60%+, to now very liberal this decade) was to avoid “pissing people in my district off” Those were his words, which is why you’ll find it impossible to find him saying, well, anything, on guns, gays or abortion

This coming from a man who never drank a sip of alcohol.

What Mr. Davis was about was a smart, fiscally conservative government, that got its job done and saved tax payers money. But because he never focused on social issues, ever, (unless you consider steroids in baseball a social issue) he was put in that neat label of “centrist,” which is used by the masses on both sides unable to differentiate that some people need to reflect their district on certain issues.

The liberals in the district always tried to paint him as a far right wacko due to his positions on taxes and spending. And yet he kicked their asses in 6 straight elections

[calcowgirl]

Davis may be a great guy. He and I may agree on a lot of things, but here is my problem with what you wrote.

• He may not want to talk about guns, gays or abortion, but as a representative of the people, he darn well will have to vote on it. Don’t they deserve to know where he stands?

• He heads a group, the Republican Main Street Partnership, that labels *itself* “centrist.”

• No matter what you call it “centrist” or “moderate” or “purple” or “liberal republican”, that philosopy is not a single view, it is a culmination of positions and thoughts about various issues. No one has ever been able to tell me what the “centrist” platform actually says (perhaps, “a little bit more socialism is great”?) Absent that, I can surmise based on reading that such a platform suggests liberal positions on things like global warming regulation, liberal immigration policies, and those social programs like “guns, gays or abortion” that Davis avoids so he won’t “piss people off.” The RMSP clearly touts more government in our lives, anathema to Reagan conservatives.

His approach may win elections, but there are other ways of doing that without capitulating to the liberals. In the case of Davis, he actually seems to agree with those liberals on many issues.

[j.simmons]

Where is your evidence for either of these assertions? Would you rather have had a Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul instead? Candidates who could not even win their own party’s primary? They would have lost by much more than John McCain did?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL,riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Avoiding_Sulla]

You have revived another dormant thought.

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.

What we have is suppression of voters who dislike the slates offered. That is met with concerted efforts to reform the slate selections: solve the intrinsic problem?

No. Poor turnout is treated as if it is only the numbers that count: an extrinsic problem.

So there are unbridled efforts to increase voters and voting at all costs -- even making it illegal to ask for proper voter identification.

And who exactly is currently in office? With outright statists ruling the agenda in one party, they field a slew of avante garde activists clamoring for more or better services.
Meanwhile we have statist lites in the other party who seek opportunities to reward backers who provide outsourcing to the growing state.

It is these party leaders who need to inspire and persuade the non-participating voter? BWAHAHAHAHA. They ARE!
The target has indeed been persuaded that his participation is a waste of time.

Mission accomplished!

--------------------------------------------------------
Oooh how we need a sea change!

[calcowgirl]

It is these party leaders who need to inspire and persuade the non-participating voter? BWAHAHAHAHA. They ARE!

Well, there are different types of leaders. I had in mind the Reagan or McClintock type. They do inspire.
Not the NRSC type that we see trying to choose our winners for us a full year and a half before elections.

[Free Vulcan]

bookmark

[Avoiding_Sulla]

yeah, I know. I just needed to let off steam and also inform the useful idiots that I’m in no mood for their rear action against principled candidates — and I know I am not alone.

[Moseley]

X WRITES: 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.

Yes, but this show of unity is SINCE the last election. It is encouraging that the GOP is showing signs of life. It is because the GOP DID NOT do that before that we got slaughered in the eleciton.

AND X WRITES: 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?

But that has nothing to do with it. A candidate needs to persuade the voters why his or her policies and ideas and qualifications are better for that district than the Democrat. And if you TRY, it is not that hard. If you DON'T try, it is impossible.

Furthermore, this sets up a false idea. If you run a pale, watered-down version of a liberal Democrat, you think anyone is going to vote for him? Why? Why not vote for the genuine article, the Democrat? If you run a pale echo of the Democrat, you have not given any incentive for anyone to vote for the Republian. PLUS you have repulsed the conservatives in the district. So you have lost your conservative base but you HAVE NOT gained liberal votes.

Notice, though, that persuasion is hard work and takes time. So you cannot get a quick and easy solution. There is no short-cut. THere is no way to FOOL the electorate. And that is the problem. Moderates and RINO's think they can FOOL the voters, instead of persuading them. As to Ollie North, so what? Liberals demand that conservatives support liberal nominees no matter how many stupid policies the liberal Republican has advocated, no matter how many times the liberal Republican has kicked conservatives in the teeth, no matter how bad a candidate the liberal is.

Conservatives are expected to overlook the "baggage" of liberal GOP nominees. The whole point is that it is a one-way street with the Vichy Republicans. NEVER would a liberal Republican accept the idea that conservatives are uncomfortable with the liberal nominee. But, on the other hand, liberals ALWAYS find some excuse to attack, sabotage, and betray conservative nominees.

[Moseley]

MadIsh, I am sorry but I am very, very familiar with the traitor known as Tom Davis. I have seen first-hand Tom Davis sabotaging conservative candidates in the primaries. If this were the old British Empire, Tom Davis would be ordered shot by the King. Tom Davis should not be getting involved in primaries. He should wait until the Party has chosen its nominee without interference. Tom Davis is a flaming socialist who has done more damage to the Republican Party than any Democrat ever has.

[Moseley]

CALCOOWGIRL WROTE: What Mr. Davis was about was a smart, fiscally conservative government, that got its job done and saved tax payers money.

No, unfortunately your impression is false. I worked on Northern Virginia campaigns that Tom Davis was atively sabotaging. Davis did NOT support smart, fiscally conservative government. He sabotaged candidates for whom low taxes and fiscal discipline was their primary issue. Tom Davis is a liberal. Oh, yes, he will lie. He will quote conservative ideals. But when the rubber meets the road, Tom Davis is busy twisting the knife in the back of ANY conservative.... including low-tax, fiscally-conservative candidates. The only person who has done more damage to the Virginia GOP than Tom Davis is Sen. John Warner.

[free_life]

Yes.

[j.simmons]

Are you actually suggesting that either of those individuals would have come closer to beating Obama than McCain?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You betcha.Btw what is the difference between mcnutts and obambi?Why vote lib lite when you can vote for the full blown lib marxist.

[j.simmons]

On what do you base such a dubious claim?

[dalereed]

“Some still think Bush, Cheney & McCain are ‘conservatives’.”

They belong in the extermination tent along with those three plus Romny, etc.

Steele needs to go, he was put there by liberals!