The GOP has left me.

Self | Juse 1, 2007 | Natural Law

[Natural Law]

I am really getting sick of the "Whiny Bitch" wing of the GOP blaming its conservative base for losing control of both houses and now undermining the party further by not continuing to fund or vote for a more slow descent into socialism. This shows a complete lack of integrity on their part.

I for one refuse to vote for a Democrat, even when they call themselves a Republican, no especially when they call themselves a Republican. In fact, I would vote for a Democrat before I would a RINO because they at least have the integrity to admit to what they are. I for damned sure refuse to give them any campaign contributions when they have demonstrated that they can't manage the tax dollars they collect in the trillions.

Ronald Reagan, who began as a Democrat, once said he didn't leave the Democrat party, it left him. Me withholding my votes and financial support for the Republican Party isn't because I have changed political philosophy or party affiliation. I am withholding my votes and supports because the Republican Party has morphed into the Democrat Party.

The Whiny Bitch wing will say that there is no alternative and that not voting means that the Democrat Party (the old one that has now morphed into the Socialist Party) will prevail. The Democrat Party, or at least its principles, is prevailing anyway. One only need look at the actual status of Secure borders, immigration reform, government spending, balance of trade, energy self-sufficiency, whacko environmentalism, and voter fraud to see this.

If the GOP doesn't right itself will fade to irrelevance and will be replaced by a conservative party. When either of these two options happen I will again break out the check book and resume voting. Until then I will refrain.

[HitmanLV]

That’s a fair evaluation of it.

[Oberon]

Simple integrity isn’t extremism. What made your mind dart in that strange direction?

Bear with me and I'll show you.

1. The Republican party is reputed to be the party of conservatives. It is supposed to represent those who want smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and genuine freedom. In fact, if you read the party platform, you find that the avowed purpose of the party is to pursue these goals.

2. Your post said, and I quote, "A hardcore conservative new party would do about as well as a hardcore liberal new party. Most people aren’t that extreme."

3. What we conservatives would really prefer is that the Republican party actually do some work toward the goals it says it stands for. That's integrity.

We don't want extremism per se, though Goldwater's famous speech certainly comes to mind: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice...and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Rather, we (I assume I speak for more than just myself, though I could be wrong there) would just as soon have integrity in our Republican elected officials.

So don't call it "extreme," please, when all we want is what the Republicans are supposed to stand for in the first place. It's not extreme to expect a Republican to act like a Republican.

Oh...and thank you for your patience. I normally am not quite that long-winded.

[NittanyLion]

It has to do with an overstatement of their policy positions, and a complete disregard for everyone else.

And suppose their policy positions are as they state? Since when is it a moral imperative to subjugate one's own beliefs in order to appease/support the majority?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I meant sixth year mid-term, but nevertheless it's still the same reasoning.

The party in power still loses seats.

[HitmanLV]

It’s the ‘hardcore’ that’s extreme, not the conservatism.

Strange your mind darted in that direction, though.

[HitmanLV]

Since when is it a moral imperative to subjugate one's own beliefs in order to appease/support the majority?

Since we're a democratically elected republic, and if you go overboard the majority will vote your dumbass out,

[do the dhue]

It's just that the nuttiest 3% has no moral right to jack things up for the other 97%. I would say you have the tail wagging the dog here.

Who has jacked things up around here? Conservatives have stood for Life for thirty years. Now, we got Rudy walking around jackin' things up. Conservative can not trust him regarding Life. Life is held near and dear to the breast of the Conservative.

Then we have McCain is tryin to pass a bill that gives amnesty. The extremist know that allowing demoratic voters into our country will tilt the elections in the demorats favor. Maybe if you let some Cubans in, we will got for it. Cubans vote Republican because they already lived under a commie regime.

So, call me extreme for holding up to my principle. Apparently, the only way you get attention in DC is by being a squeaky wheel. The far left gets theirs. I want people to fight for what I believe in too.

[philetus]

That’s nothing, the GOP clubbed me from behind and stole my wallet.

[NittanyLion]

It has to do with an overstatement of their policy positions, and a complete disregard for everyone else.

You would do well to understand that standing up for a principle is in no way "immoral". You might claim that it's politically inept, and you might even be right. But to claim that the only moral thing to do is support the majority - even if said majority is unprincipled - is preposterous.

[do the dhue]

It's not extreme to expect a Republican to act like a Republican.

HEAR HEAR

[HitmanLV]

Who has jacked things up around here? Conservatives have stood for Life for thirty years. Now, we got Rudy walking around jackin' things up. Conservative can not trust him regarding Life. Life is held near and dear to the breast of the Conservative.

I am pro life but can see how someone can not be. The 30-year legacy of the pro life conservatives effectiveness is dubious - over a million abortions a year during that period. The debate these days isn't whether abortion should be legal or not (that's been settled, much to the chargin of pro lifers), but now its about public funding, parental notification, or partial birth abortion.

Holding up your principles is fine. If you can't get a majority on your side, you lose, plain and simple. And sometimes, that's a good thing.

[HitmanLV]

No - I was saying the only way to get things done is to persuade a majority and branch out from just appealing to a nutty 2%. Just a thought.

[NittanyLion]

I agree with that. I just get a little sensitive to comments claiming that it’s inherently immoral to defend principles.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

It’s the ‘hardcore’ that’s extreme, not the conservatism.

Define hardcore.

All we want is for Republicans to start acting like Republicans instead of cowering in fear of the MSM and co-opting socialist ideas, that's all.

[HitmanLV]

I never intended to suggest that. It’s just that nutty minorities that are certain they are right, and with no respect for everyone else, have historically caused a lot of trouble.

[supercat]

But most of their loss was that they abandoned the winning conservative principles that have made them successful.

In poker, there are times (not uncommon, in fact) when it would be sensible to raise, or sensible to fold, but completely irrational to call. To call the bet might seem a "compromise" between raising and folding, and in some sense it is, but that doesn't mean that it isn't less sensible than either of the more "extreme" alternatives.

Likewise, Democrat-lite might seem a nice safe "compromise" position for a politician, but it is often the least defensible. As an example, suppose that the Democrats introduce a $100,000,000/year program that the Republicans know full well is a bad idea. Consider two scenarios:

1. The Democrats force through the program for $100,000,000/year despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans, who make abundantly clear that they believe it's a bad idea.
2. The Republicans offer to go along with the program for $50,000,000/year.

In the long run, which scenario will be better for the taxpayer?

In the former scenario, when the program fails, Republicans will be able to suggest that the program always was, and still remained, a bad idea and should be scrapped; the Democrats will shoulder all the blame.

In the latter scenario, Republicans will not be able to say the program had always been a bad idea since they had supported it. The Democrats will be able to argue that the program would have worked if the Republicans hadn't robbed it of the necessary funding. The Republicans will shoulder most of the blame for the program's funding, which will be increased to $100,000,000 for the next year. When that still fails, funding will be increased to $150,000,000 for the year after that, and even more for subsequent years.

I'm not saying it's necessary to take an absolute hard line on everything, but RINOs often undermine conservatives while simultaneously drawing blame to them.

[do the dhue]

You might claim that it's politically inept, and you might even be right. But to claim that the only moral thing to do is support the majority - even if said majority is unprincipled - is preposterous.

HEAR HEAR

Great post

Teddy was the ultimate extremist:

[HitmanLV]

Hardcore in this case is indulging in their fetish issues with no regard to what a majority thinks.

Like shoring up the border probably appeals to a majority.

Shooting illegals on sight at the border probably is hardcore.

[LasVegasMac]

Calling that pack of RINO's republicans doesn't make them Republicans when their actions clearly make them Democrats.

Completely agree with that!

They need to go.

[EternalVigilance]

“What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker—”At this point the break became final.” That’s not what’s happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.”

He and his people have always held us in contempt. Some of us have known it all along. It's just out in the open now.