Skip to comments.Disenfranchised conservatives, stolen elections
Posted on 01/24/2008 9:47:43 PM PST by Graybeard58
The 2008 primary election process has clearly been unfair to conservative candidates, and here's why. Several liberal and moderate/independent states chose to hold their primary elections and caucuses early, all wanting to be first so they said. But look at what has happened as a result. Conservative candidates like Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have been drummed out of the race by breaking their bank accounts in non conservative states before the rest of the country ever had a chance to vote for them. Is this what we call "fair and democratic elections"?
These are supposed to be national elections, not independent state elections. By allowing some states to hold primaries before others gives those states the advantage to propel or retard the individual campaigns depending on the political landscape of those few states. As we are now seeing, when liberal and moderate states hold early elections, conservative candidates have no chance of ever making it into the general election or winning the presidency.
If we are ever again to have fair elections in this country, then primary elections are going to have to be standardized and held on the same day in all states, if everyone is to have a chance to participate in the election process. Either that or there is going to have to be a media blackout until everyone has had a chance to vote. Election returns are not allowed to air until the polls are closed. Does it make any sense that we should be seeing election returns from other states before we even have a chance to go to the polls? I don't want a few small states deciding who we can vote for in the party primary elections.
We hear so much about voter disenfranchisement these days but nobody is talking about the disenfranchisement of conservatives to vote for candidates who share their views. If your favorite candidate is purged from the race early, then where is your right to vote for the candidate of your choice? "Write ins?" In most voting methods today there is no provision to write in a candidate's name, and even if there were, what chance would he have of winning? Most voters are going to vote for a name printed on the ballot. This year we have seen the largest disenfranchisement of voters in history, and they are all conservatives.
Did this occur by chance, or was it planned from the start? Considering the ambitions of George Soros and Billary Clinton to gain and hold power over the country by any means necessary, by hook or by crook, I can't dismiss the possibility that this was no accident. Yet the Republican leadership will never challenge the legitimacy of elections or the likelihood of voter fraud on the part of the Democrats. It's almost as though they are willing parties to election corruption.
Now the media wants us to think that John McCain is the frontrunner for the Republicans in spite of fact that he is the most liberal Republican in the race. McCain will never be elected president, the conservative base simply will not vote for him. Most of them would rather vote for Ron Paul who may be a conservative alternative on a 3rd party ticket in November, or they will simply not vote at all, just as they did in 2006. Why go to the polls to vote if no one you like is running?
The purpose of voting is having your voice heard and counted for the candidate of your choice; not about electing a political party that no longer represents your views. We are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils in America. What's the point when it's simply six of one, and a half dozen of the other, both choices bad? Voters who feel disenfranchised will simply throw up their hands and say "why bother?" McCain would be preferable to the Clintons or Obama only on the issue of national security. On most other issues, there is virtually little difference.
Liberal economic policies have dominated Washington ever since George W. Bush was elected. The government continues to pump worthless money into the economy just like they did this week with the cut in interest rates, which only makes the problem worse. The economy should be controlled by the free market, not the government. This is just another example of the Communism that has been taking over America.
Every time the government does something to influence the economy, it just gets worse. That is the same thing that destroyed the Soviet Union. Eventually it just went bankrupt trying to control the Russian economy and "take care of its people," just like the Democrats are campaigning on right now. Problems only get worse when government gets involved. The government is the problem, not the solution.
The economy has to be allowed to flow freely and seek its own level, influenced only by the marketplace. Anytime the government interferes with that using what they call "stimulus," it causes more inflation and our money declines in value, resulting in only an artificial and temporary fix. The real fix is to let the economy seek its own market level, not pump it up with artificial stimulus just to make the numbers look good on paper.
Yet, the American voters are still too ignorant to see it and continue voting for these liberals in both parties who are driving the country straight into Communism. The Democrat plan of dumbing down America over the past couple of generations has been successful. It's too late now to re-educate the people, because it has become too widespread. I'm afraid we have already lost the country. We have tried to warn them for decades but they wouldn't listen. They insist on asking what their country can do for them, rather than what they can do for their country.
With our money becoming worth less and less, and our products dependent mostly on foreign trade, even Washington spending more money to keep 'the people' alive won't help; it will all just be worthless. Bush and the Congress should have seen this coming years ago but ignored it. They all invested in their own survival by giving our money to special interests and pork vendors who they expect will pay them back personally after the crash of our economy.
With Fred Thompson now out of the race, I'm almost ready to switch my support to Ron Paul and throw them a real turkey. His foreign policy is a disaster but he's a strict constitutionalist and will veto every bill the Congress tries to pass that includes unconstitutional spending, which is just about all of them.
Of course, Paul won't win the elections no way, no how. He will likely run as a 3rd party candidate, splitting the Republican Party in two because the Republican Party no longer seems to represent real conservatives. I don't think Paul is the right man for the job but I would like to see some of his policies regarding constitutional government established in Washington.
I'm starting to think now that this may be the time for a mass exodus from the Republican party and the right time to form a 3rd party of conservatives, but without the antiwar, anti-defense, blame America first attitude of the Paul Libertarians.
It doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the Republican Party, they had their chance. Every real conservative who speaks out seems to get thrown under the bus just like moderates do in the Democrat party. Remember George Allen, Rick Santorum, and Tom Delay? Many of us hoped that Republicans would have learned their lesson from the 2006 elections. That being that "you can't beat the Democrats by trying to be like them." Instead, the Republicans have become the Socialist party, while the Democrats have become the Communist party. I've had enough of it.
There is a chance that Romney can hold Republicans together but not McCain or Huckabee. Nor can Giuliani, but he will probably be next to drop out if Huckabee doesn't beat him to it. Romney is going to have problems with some Evangelicals who won't support him on religious grounds, and conservatives will not support or vote for McCain. There is little chance we can win in November. The Republican Party has destroyed itself by trying to be like Democrats.
There is the possibility that the Republican party has been corrupted by Democrats crossing over to vote for Republicans in the primary in order to accomplish just what we see happening. It could all be part of a plot hatched by George Soros and the Clintons to do just that. It's something to consider. Otherwise, I just can't make any sense out of the way the Republicans are voting today. Where have all of the conservatives gone? To their graves? Or were they all waiting to vote for a conservative in the states that now will not have that opportunity?
A mass exodus from the Republican Party, now on the heels of Thompson's departure, would send a clear message to the party leadership that they have gone astray and are on the verge of collapse if they don't come back to the conservative base. In the meantime, even registered as independent voters without party affiliation, we can still vote against the democrats and for the Republican candidate or anyone else we choose.
Conservatives are loyal to their values and beliefs, not to a political party. The Republican Party no longer shares those values and beliefs and no longer deserves the support of conservatives. I will reregister as an independent voter until I see a third party emerge that represents my beliefs. In the meantime, I consider myself just another disenfranchised conservative voter.
I have no idea why they're not done this way, since we can certainly manage to hold a presidential election on the same day across the country.
Disenfranchised Conservative Voter. A DCV—pretty much sums it up.
For God’s sake, will you Republicans LISTEN????????
Good article! Exactly my sentiments! I cannot, for the life of me, figure out who to vote for in FL primary! I’d tend to go with Ann’s choice, but I don’t agree with her on her choice and I cannot understand what she didn’t like with Fred or Duncan. I was shocked when she picked Romney!
The reason they are not standardized is that the federal government does not have control over the primary elections - and the states have no incentive to standardize them. They benefit from the exaggerated and brief attention generated by the primary frenzy within their borders. The increase in room tax revenues alone in New Hampshire is probably a huge boost to a place that would disappear from everyone’s attention span if we went to a national primary.
In this election cycle, the process was taken one step further. Poll results are generated by the MSM, and the MSM demonstrates a huge liberal bias and they obviously tilted the polls to show anticonservative results. Those polls were used to exclude the most conservative candidate from the debates in the EARLIEST PRIMARIES. So, we had biased media conducting biased polls and using that biased data to exclude the candidate they didnt like, even though he had won a delegate and some of those jerks who had higher poll results hadnt a single delegate to their name.
On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
Good Grief! This author has put to words exactly the discussions in this house. Every word is identical. Every thought is identical.
Good article by the way.
I understand, I mean "why" in the larger sense. The answer of course is that the earlier states like the money that flows into them--thus, the states that care more about getting a few more bucks for themselves are in the position of choosing the nominee for ALL of us. Wow, how's that for patriotism?
My primary isn’t until May 20th. By then, the real process will be over. I’m being disenfranchised.
Forget the message, there is no conservative gonna get elected in November. I'd love for a candidate to step forward and pull 25% of Republicans away from the party trappings and tell the elitists, adios amigos.
Primaries and caucuses are purely internal party affairs used to choose a candidate, which involved the States ONLY because the two major parties were successful in using the State general election machinery, money and polling place for FREE. This has allowed the State Legislatures to meddle in internal party matters.
The National Republican Party at the 2008 Convention could choose to CHANGE to way that the Republican Primaries are funded, when they are conducted and WHO can vote in said same primaries or caucases.
The States do not need to do anything, the Republican Party at the 2008 Convention needs to do something about 2012, in addition to selecting a 2008 Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket.
Quit whining. You very well may get to decide this thing.
Somehow, it’s gotten to the point where candidates are expected to campaign for 2 years before the first primary or caucus day even occurs. Then everything’s over and decided 2 weeks later!
Plus, early open primaries screw us really good!
These are word for word the comments of the Keyes, Bauer and Forbes supporters in 2000.
You go to war with the Army you have. It was Bush in 2000 and that victory got us John Roberts, Samuel Alito, sharp tax cuts and a permanent military presence on the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.
If Gore had been elected we would have NONE of that. None. Not a single item.
You go to war with the Army you have. Romney is going to be the Army this year.
Prepare for battle.
Now that could be interesting.
Alas, they've melded with the Democrats so far and for so long that they would now regard the departure of conservatives as that irritating burr known as ethics and conscious removed from their saddle. Free at last to romp with the donkeys in the fields of big government socialism and free to bite the constituents who fed them!
But how do we establish and sustain a Conservative Party in an environment where the ruling two have jiggered the rules to insure no third party has a chance? The "winner take all" delegate system is the largest hurdle to overcome.
First, Fred Thompson was the guy who shot Fred Thompson. I liked Fred's positions, but he made a bunch of miscalculations. There was a lot of support for him, but everyone else was running for a year before he laced up his shoes. He campaigned like he was disinterested in the whole process.
Duncan Hunter never got out of single digits. Heck, he barely got to single digits. I know the MSM wouldn't cover him, but if he was really electable, he would have figured out a way to make his name better known than the guy who played Squiggy on Laverne and Shirley.
Okay, here's the news flash: There are not enough conservatives to swing an election without forming a coalition with other people.
We've been running a circular firing squad since 1992. Pat Buchanan started it. Bush wasn't good enough for Buchanan, so he threw a tantrum and broke up the Republican party. Good for him. He blasted Bush and weakened him enough that Perot could finish him off. After doing his best to destroy the Republican party, he picked up his dolly and dishes and went to Perot's Reform party, helping to break it up.
Everybody CLAIMS they want Reagan to come back. Well, how about bringing back this part of Reagan's philosophy: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." Let's debate issues, stand for principles, and seek the best candidate we can. When that is done, let's put aside animosity and work to elect our candidate.
The RNC rakes in much more money when the Democrats are in office. When their liberal RINOs are in office, they get mostly Nada Pesos .
From Wikipedia's article on South Carolina:
In 1964, Barry Goldwater became the first Republican to win the state since Reconstruction. Since then, South Carolina has voted for a Republican in every presidential election from 1964 to 2004, with the exception of 1976 when Jimmy Carter, from neighboring Georgia, won the state over Gerald Ford. George W. Bush won the state in 2004 with 58% of the statewide vote over Senator John Kerry. Republicans now control the governorate, eight of nine statewide offices, both houses of legislature, both U.S. Senators, and four of six members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
SC should have been conservative enough to give Fred more than 15.7% of the vote, if Fred had a chance nationally. Hunter trailed Fred badly, and he now supports Huckabee, which should say all that needs saying about his candidacy.
Rather than complain about the primary schedule, we need better candidates. Where are the young, smart, dedicated, charismatic conservative candidates? Who, for example, is the conservative Republican version of Obama? By that I don't necessarily mean black, but young, smart, and able to appeal to college students?
The bottom line to me from this election is that Fred had a perfectly reasonable chance to get it done and just didn't run the sort of campaign he needed to. I say this as a Fredhead from the start who has not boosted any other candidate and is now only very reluctantly trying to warm up to the Mittster.
I would add a couple of observations to it.
1) There is the possibility that the Republican party has been corrupted by Democrats crossing over to vote for Republicans in the primary in order to accomplish just what we see happening.
True, but there is more going on. There is also the reality that, the socialists having taken over the democrat party, the JFK type democrats ( pro America, support the military, lower taxes but big government programs types) have fled to the republican party. They are not small government, constitutionalists. The result is that the republican party, at present, is really the democrat party of the 1950's and early 1960's repackaged.
Excluding the libertarian, who is not a republican either, the four remaining candidates are all either 1960's democrats or old liberal republicans. They are not conservatives.
2) The delegate procedure needs to be changed to closed party member or registered republican only voting (registered well in advance not the last minute) with no cross over. it also needs to be set up so as to favor no specific group or region.
The only solution is either a renewal of the Republican party on principles or a third party. What the republican party really needs is a leader who is committed to conservatism and who is young and vibrant and who can also overcome the MSN. The latter element is no small battle. Hunter and Thompson fit some of these criteria, but neither could get any traction.
When even some of the alternative media (radio, print, Internet, and blogs) are willing to compromise principle to "beat Hillary," we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Hillary lite, which is what the top four remaining candidates approach, + a democrat controlled congress = a virtual Hillary. We need a candidate who will stand up to the MSN + the democrat socialists. Otherwise the net result will be the functional equivalent to electing her. It is one of the reasons Rush Limbaugh, who has not compromised principle, has said that with some of the candidates (not all) he might not be able to support the nominee.
I have no idea what I will do in the primary or in November, living in a blue state my vote hardly counts, though I always vote. Since my representative in the House, a republican who campaigned as a conservative, twice voted to override the president's veto and voted for the socialist - Hillary care - version of SCHIP, I also have no one to vote for on more than one level.
I do know one thing, my real influence is with my wallet. It is shut, since Thompson dropped out, and it is staying that way.
MaCain Finegold made the DNC and RNC useless.
The gradual erosion of the two-party system into a "compromise" de facto one-party system is upon us. The Republican Party that believed in small government is gone because TRUE Republicans would be out there saying "We shouldn't be involved in this--vote for me, and I'll cut things, vote for them, they'll give you things."
When the debate is no longer about "SHOULD the government be so involved in people's lives?" but "HOW MUCH should the government be spending for you?" then conservatism is done.
I would say we need to reconstitute the party and return to basics but that is just silly, and a denial of reality.
Reality is that the average American believes that big government is there, so we might as well get OUR share. And that spells the death of conservative government.
I'll await the stupid attack posts from those who want to live in fantasy land.
Basically, they have none. All the RINOs are old men now. No young blood. J.C. Watts might have been a good choice, but he quit on us. He left Congress. His choice, but, he could have been a good one. But, they have no good, solid, young ones that would interest anyone nationally. Look at the Republican field in this election. There is NOT one candidate that everyone can rally too. They are basically all the same, liberal, socialist, RINOs. They differ a bit here and there, but are mainly the same. Just change the face. The words and actions are basically the same. No, the republican party has pretty much put its self back to the 1960s again. It is going to take another 20-30 years for them to crawl back up. Then, they will repeat their stupidity again, and down they will go. Republicans are republicans own worse enemy. I only have to offer RINOcrat Socialist Party member, liberal president Jorge Bush as an example.
The trouble with getting OUR share is that someone has to pay for it. There is one potential bright spot, though it may be a long time coming. It is rooted in the weight of reality. The present approach to big government is unsustainable on both programs and taxes. The refusal to do our own drilling for oil and build refineries etc. adds to the problem and makes it less sustainable. Social security, which only Thompson addressed, is going to hit a wall.
Less government control (getting the government out of the way), lower taxes, etc. are the only solution. The Europeans, who are in denial, are being made to face this reality in some areas. Just as they are being made to face the war with Islamofascism.
The trouble with building a house of cards is that eventually, being unsustainable, you have to return to reality. The house of cards crashes. Constitutional principles, which limit the federal government, and are in the USA constitution are the answer.
The problem is like surgery, the pain of getting through it and the recovery can be long.
Notice how no one is talking about drilling for oil anymore? Because we don't WANT to face up to that--oil drilling is eeeeevil, so let's just NOT talk about it.
Similarly, people are trying so hard to talk about illegal immigration in a NICE way, and won't it be just COOL when we all have FREE healthcare?
The center cannot hold, but denial will go on until it just can't anymore, long after the damage has been done.
When was the last time you got a call from the Republican Party asking for money, and they didn’t hit you with the “We have to beat Hillary” speech? Beating Hillary has become the primary, if not the only, cause of the Republican Party. The Clintons set out to ruin us, and in a round about way, they have. Conservative ideals, towards family, community, the Constitution our nation and the economy are what we need to beat Hillary and all the Hillarys to follow. Instead, we champion candidates who pay grudging homage to conservatism to sucker in the gullible, party faithful. They are semi pro life for as long as they have to be. They believe in the right to bear arms to shoot ducks until they can take those arms away. They love the invasion of illegals and amnesty, so long as it doesn’t cost them votes. They all promise to nominate strict, constructionist judges, all evidence to the contrary. They all promise to give us tax breaks, but can’t say how they are going to cut down the size of government They all, with the exception of Paul, promise to protect us from our enemies, but none of them can come to grips with the idea that Islam is our enemy or the simple concept of protecting our borders. They are all a bunch of liars, something that would have hurt a Republican in the past, but these days Republicans turn their heads, wink, and say that’s what Republican politicians have to do to get people with values to vote for them. Folks, these people are going to lose for us, and we won’t even have the satisfaction of saying we supported a worthy candidate. We are just doing what we’ve done for so long, supporting the lesser of two evils, and going with our best chance to beat Hillary. She is going to kick our butts. ...If the Republican Party is continue going in the direction it is right now, conservatives should consider getting out of its way.
Someone who understanding Sob
Very bad idea. This benefits the candidates that have unlimited amounts of cash. The advantage would go to the extremely wealthy. They could generate public interest and buy endorsements without any popular support.
“Conservatives are loyal to their values and beliefs, not to a political party. The Republican Party no longer shares those values and beliefs and no longer deserves the support of conservatives......... I consider myself just another disenfranchised conservative voter.”
There is the core of the betrayal.....
My sentiments exactly...
TN used to be about then too
This is the first time we have had Super Tuesday...
Our early voting started Jan 16 so I was able to vote for Duncan before he dropped out...
Romney couldnt lead a paper parade...
They do that now.
Anorexia is not dieting and conservation so-called is not an energy policy.
If the Republican Party is continue going in the direction it is right now, conservatives should consider getting out of its way.”
As a conservative, I have already...
I voted for Duncan before he dropped out and now I’m doing nothing till Nov...
I just resigned my position in the Republican party and I havent paid my dues for this year to the 2 Republican womens Clubs or 2 Pachyderm Clubs I belong to because I’m not going to attend any meetings this year...give money,...help raise money or do their “good works”
They can potter along without me...
I guess I should of added a sarcasm tag.
No, I just need to not post when I’m sick!
This is the nut of the thing. The way you state it is one side of the coin, and the "coalition" you refer to has to do with the identification of the word "conservative" when it comes to distinct social-moral issues as differentiated from fiscal issues. There is another side of the coin -- that is that limited government that best serves the interest of social-moral issues as it does fiscal issues.
The Federal government thinks it is immoral for an employer to fire an employee for being gay. So you own a shop, you hire a 23-year-old kid who seems okay, but after awhile starts wearing his sexuality on his sleeve, swishing and sashing (he thinks it's so cute). You know he's a confused mixed-up kid who needs to learn the hard realities of moral life, and you're hoping and betting that left to his own, in ten years the kid will regard this bizarre rebellious "walk on the wild side" as an embarassing phase. You'd love to fire the kid, and it would probably be the best thing for him. But the Federal Government thinks that's immoral, and you can't. That's one small work-a-day example of how evil Federal-moral meddling can be. Further, the Federal Government thinks it's immoral for poor women to have to go without abortions, so across this nation, taxpayers are forced to abet abortion. Federal moralism has deprived us of the right to discriminate against those we'd rather not deal with for whatever reasons, usually moral. Morality or lack of it did not cause this supression of our freedom -- abandonment of Limited Government did.
Long way of saying that this is a battle about the coalition and the confusion in the minds of some "conservatives" as to which comes first, the cart or the horse. The heavy hand of Federal moralism will fail every time, whether "liberal" or "conservative," because it abandons Limited Government. We need to make it plain to "social" conservatives that Limited Government, not pick-n-choose-your-government-program, is in their interst.
More important, we must recognize and admit that cowing to pick'-n-choose-your-government-program "compassionate" conservatism is against the interest of the Republican party, hence a false premise for a coalition.
That’s OK, it’s late. About time to hang it up for the night. Even though your tag line says you don’t think it will help, I’ll say a prayer for you.
God help us, but you may be right.
If we could only get people to realize the government as a money dispenser is like a change machine that gives you 50 cents back for every dollar you put in.
Stance on the Second Amendment has been a non-topic, also.
The scary part of that is if the coming SCOTUS decision does not fall squarely on the founders' intent of an individual right to militarily capable small arms, that leaves the field wide open for a gun-grabbing field day which only the POTUS could stop with the veto.
The current field of candidates gives me no cause for confidence in the event that ruling is incorrect.
Yep, pick one: 1) Socialist "Light"TM 2) Marxist Socialist 2) Clueless Socialist
Lovely. I'll take some gubbamint cheese to go with that whine, may as well enjoy myself.
Careful, that Gubmint cheese is far more binding than a Contract for America...
That’s very kind, thank you. Good night.
Thank you for posting this article. This is exactly how my whole family out here in CA feels. We keep asking each other “Who are we going to vote for now”??????? It makes me sick sick sick sick.
For sure NOT McCain! The others, ah jeez and I don’t want to be a Paulbot!
My candidate didn't win so the system must be rigged. The voters are just too stupid to vote for Duncan Hunter. George Soros and the Clintons control the Republican nomination. Vote fraud done us in. The poor guy's been disenfrenchfried. OK, let's switch the first primary to his state so that he can vote for his choice. California is going to give us some REAL conservatives.
The current setup is the perfect opportunity for a conservative with broadbased appeal and little money. If he can convince Republicans in just two small states to support him, the road is open. If he can't, he is roadkill.
Politics is no yellow brick road. Conservatives should have the wind at our back. There is a formula for winning, we just have to be willing to look for it and know what it is when we find it. Sniveling isn't it, leave that to the Democrats.
Ha Ha, I got a phone call from RNC asking me “Do you want to see Hillary elected”, Hillary blah, blah, blah. Boo! I told them I wasn’t impressed at all with Republicans and I don’t identify with them much anymore. She hung up on me. :)