Posted on 05/17/2007 7:31:54 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
I, and many others have been attempting to make significant changes for years. If only it were possible to do this in one year!
The problem, see, is that quite a few folks still think playing politics is where it's at. Dems vs. 'Pubbies, ad infinitum. Getting nowhere fast. That "quiz thread" is but one example. Them vs. us, and where does it get us? As long as you still believe that is all there is, you will be stuck playing their game. You can't win their game.
Hello, that was my point. Did you not see that or not appreciate the implications of this fact?
If the base, at this point, is not even beginning to unify behind a candidate, what instruction, pray tell, is the RNC supposedly not "listening" to (in your view)?
You say they haven't "swatted" down any of the liberals. First, is it the party's job to vet candidates, or is it ours?
Secondly, do you think it would be wise to knock out candidates who, on their own, are gaining traction with voters when the base has offered NO ONE to replace them?
Do you honestly believe it is the job of the RNC to "voice an opinion against" candidates, rather than the job of the voters to support or not support those candidates?
It's pure paranoia to claim that "the RNC is doing everything they possibly can to alienate the conservatives in this country." Your only evidence for this is some supposed acts of *omission.*
The GOP wants to win, just like every other political party wants to win. If they can win with a conservative candidate, they would be glad to do it. But since conservatives have thus far been unable to unify behind a candidate and support him to the extent that he moves into the top tier, the party has to go with what it's got. That's life.
It's not that the party doesn't need conservatives. It's that conservatives place too much responsibility on the party, rather than on themselves for the outcome of the primaries.
No. As long as you realize that, at this point in history, the two-party system is entrenched in American politics, you won't be stuck doing politically futile acts.
The fact of the two-party system---the fact that, on Election Day, one of the major political party candidates WILL win whether you vote or not---is not "their game." It is reality. Deal with it.
Sure, we should always be trying to move the ball in terms of our ideals for society. We should always try to be making "significant changes." But that doesn't mean casting a protest vote is worthwhile or wise.
I asked you why is it okay to facilitate handing the country over the Rats. Ever.
Would you kindly address that?
"Then there's our Party leadership.
Although George Bush deserves credit for hanging tough in Iraq even though it would be easier to just pull out, he has become isolated from his base, is pushing a wildly unpopular amnesty bill, and he has allowed himself to be a hapless punching bag for the Democrats.
Since 2006, watching the Democrats take on George Bush has been about like watching a pack of lions closing in on a herd full of lame antelope. They're going for the kill, the Bushies are desperately running for their lives, and you want to turn your head away rather than look at the slaughter.
Meanwhile, in the House, John Boehner is pushing a Republican with corruption problems, Ken Calvert, onto the Appropriations Committee over the protests of the Rightroots.
In the Senate, Mitch McConnell is preparing the way for Ted Kennedy's amnesty bill. At the Republican National Committee, the RNC Chair, Mel Martinez, has been so invisible compared to his talented predecessor, Ken Mehlman, that I wonder if they've been hiding him in some of the "undisclosed locations" that Dick Cheney spent so much time in during 2004.
Additionally, earlier this month over at the NRCC, Tom Cole, the guy who is supposed to be leading the charge to help us take back Congress, had this to say about why we got creamed in 2006, "Oh, I don't think the problem was spending. People who argue that we lost because we weren't true to our base, that's just wrong."
I don't make this stuff up!
I know as of now you see my lask of enthusiasm for the status quo as "facilitating handing the country over to the Rats", but I would never do anything to help the 'Rats. Ever.
I only wish the Republicans and more specifically, the RNC leadership, would denounce their new-found liberalism and return to the traditionally Republican values of yesteryear.
(cue the music) Lower taxes, less government, higher morality, and more personal responsibility.
tagline remnant of posting on another thread
Why is the Politicians, that are suppose to be protecting our country, and economy, selling the United States out? Why would they choose to hand over our American rights, to 12 million illegal immigrants, that are doing nothing but committing crimes, ruining neighborhoods, taking jobs, and stealing government and American benefits. It makes no sense, but what does make sense is that the people who are in office were put there by us. These same people that are suppose to be listening to us, the American People. The only way for them to understand that we do not want the illegal immigrants in this country, is for all of them to be replaced, lose their jobs now, and replaced by real Americans, that have the best interest of the country at hand!
This is an actual quote from another thread. Different poster.
Who is the "base" if it is not us?
Sorry, I’m not following how this relates to what we’ve been discussing.
I am quite sure you would never do anything intentionally to help the Rats gain power. However, you have stated that there are certain circumstances in which you would NOT vote for the Republican nominee.
I say that helps the Rats. In fact, it helps them so much, it may in fact be the deciding factor in them gaining the presidency.
Do you dispute that?
P.S. Please understand it is not your “lack of enthusiasm for the status quo” that I am talking about.
I share your lack of enthusiasm for the status quo.
What I don’t share is the willingness to help the Rats gain power in this country because the Republican primaries did not go the way I wished they did.
We can talk all day about the definition and function of a political “base.”
But none of that matters in the end. A political party is a voluntary association of people who (supposedly) commit to help each other elect individuals to office, with the idea that, so far as possible, those individuals will reflect a commonly agreed-upon platform.
In that sense, it’s like a voluntary union. Except some people agree to abide by the majority’s decisions and some people think it’s okay to bail if they don’t agree with the majority’s decisions.
How does that work? How do some people think they can associate with a party, but then cut and run on it if they are unable to persuade the majority to see things their way?
A party’s political base has NEVER been able to determine the direction of the party, any more than the swing voters have been. It’s a constantly changing mix depending on the historical circumstances, the particular individuals who emerge as candidates, and so on.
The base is the base because, unlike the swing voters, they have NO WHERE ELSE to go. They would never vote for the other party (in the short-term), yet if they are honest, voting third party or sitting out is just plain dumb, a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing.
When people don’t like the candidates, they blame . . . the party, the MSM, the blah blah blah. But if there is a locus of responsibility for the candidates, it’s the base and the base alone. It’s the base that has to grow candidates and get them traction. Sometimes, despite the base’s best efforts, that’s impossible-—history will not allow it. (We may be in one of those times right now.) However, most of the time the base sits around moaning that they are helpless and powerless in the face of the ominpotent [fill in the blank-—RNC, whatever].
But again: all that is water under the bridge on Election Day. At that point, the primary process has produced who it has produced and it’s time to step up to the plate and do what’s best for the country.
And what’s best for the country at this point in history is not taking our marbles and going home, but doing whatever we can to stop the greater evil from taking power in our country.
By voting for a liberal, we send the message that we don't mind liberals. I mind very much.
BTW; I have always voted for Republicans, except for one time way back. George Wallace.
Would I now vote third party? Yes, and I have stated so in several posts.
If that "helps the dems", then so be it.
Also, my state went to the dems last general, so my one vote was already countered by someone else.
The way I see it, the problem is not with me, but is with the RNC, and the typical RINO candidates that are promoted and financed by the party.
No, I'm not disputing your premise that it could, in theory, "help the 'rats", but at least I will have a clear consious, and can sleep at night knowing I voted my principles.
The Republican primaries have not gone the way I have wanted for many years.
Roger that!
I already am doing what I can to stop the greater evil.
The difference between us, however, is that I know the evil is larger than the political scene. And there is no fundamental difference between the two parties in what they are doing, namely; subverting our Constitution, and selling our national sovreignty, or freedom, and our future down the globalist river.
Rest in peace, dear friend.
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.