Wisconsin Recall Election: Thread 2

[betty boop]

... to be honest with you, the Republican Party is not a conservative party. It is another liberal party....

I agree with you here, dear brother in Christ. But may I offer the observation that, even now, conservatives are in the process of bringing the establishment GOP to heel? To make it more responsive to, and representative of conservative concerns?

I cite as evidence the loss in GOP primaries of long-serving "establishment" senators (Luger and Bennett) to Tea Party-backed challengers. And the Ted Cruz — another Tea Party-backed candidate — vs. the "establisment" GOP-er in Texas, who face a primary run-off vote soon. (Go Ted!!!)

There's definitely push-back to the GOP establishment in Washington. It may not happen as soon as you and I would like, but I believe the Tea Party is making a huge difference in terms of the political debate on the right. The GOP increasingly faces the stark choice of either accommodating its traditional base — or losing it entirely.

Meanwhile. it is incumbent on all of us conservatives (regardless of party affiliation) to elect as many Tea Party candidates to Congress as possible. Give them all your support, and your vote.

If Romney is as bad as you say he is, then conservative control of Congress (or as close to it as we can get) would ensure that whatever liberal proclivities he may have — and BTW, once again I do not see him as a "liberal" at all, though I know we disagree about this — would very likely be held in check.

Just keep on supporting Tea Party candidates for House and Senate to the max.

For the rest of it, vote Obama out of office before he destroys this country. He is operating a criminal conspiracy out of the White House; he is dividing this nation into political interest groups and pitting them against one another; he lies through his teeth; he is trying to create a "second reality" of America on the strength of baseless rhetoric alone. His foreign policy is making us increasingly vulnerable to the actions of our enemies, emboldening them because under Obama's leadership, the nation appears weak and directionless. He has thrown Israel under the bus, betraying their (and our) state secrets (e.g., the Stuxnet operation against Iran's nuclear facilities) for political gain in an election year. Four more years of Obama, and our productive private sector will likely be a total wreck, and "government" will have thoroughly crowded it out. Our national debt will explode: There isn't enough money in the world to deliver on Obama's promises. Our kids and grandkids will be paying the tab for his total fiscal irresponsibility, and from thence for generations yet to be born. If he isn't removed from office, the greatest nation in the world will be reduced to the status of feckless Greece....

Obama doesn't have a clue that there is a difference between politics and governance. He is a world-class politician, no doubt. But he has absolutely zero qualifications for any other job (outside of "community organizing"), let alone President of the United States.

Please see the "big picture" here! If your house is burning down, it is URGENT to put out the fire! Then you can salvage it, and put it to rights again.

But if it burns down to the ground, there's nothing left to salvage.... And with Obama, no means to rebuild it.

At least, that is how I see things at this critical juncture.... FWIW

[Agamemnon]

And, to be honest with you, the Republican Party is not a conservative party. It is another liberal party. In fact, I consider it to be a descendant of Mussolini's fascist tendencies toward social corporatism

The concept of Socialist Party "A" and Socialist Party "B" -- Fascist vs. Marxist -- as you can see, is not really an original thought.

Just as meaningless a concept though, engenderong only ineffective posturing and chest thumping from well-meaning though substantially misguided conservatives.

Ineffective solution to perceived electoral problem -- i.e., 3rd party, crops up today even as it did 40 years ago.

Too-clever-by-half "conservative" Perot voters in 1992 and 1996 assured both of Clinton's elections.

If conservatives want a voice in government they should eschew 3rd party distractions and instead focus their energies on taking out Obama.

FReegards!

[xzins]

Hi Betty, it’s good to hear from you again. Hope you’ve had a God-filled weekend.

While I would like to believe the Republican Party could be turned, I don’t think it will happen, Sister. I’ve read a couple of articles recently that deal with the entrenched power brokers, the manipulation of rules, and more importantly, about the nature of the rules and how they’ve been written to protect the status quo within that party. The status quo is liberal and spendthrift and power-seeking. It will continue in that direction.

I was enlightened last week, and I wish I could recall the poster’s name here on FR, but I can’t, about the actual nature of the electoral process. I should have known it since I’ve read it dozens of times, but I suppose I hadn’t really thought about it when I read it.

In short, without a solid representation in House of Representatives by a particular party, it is a toss-up whether even a 3rd party candidate who wins a plurality of the national vote will become president. Unless the EC gives one candidate a majority of the vote, then the decision passes to the House of Reps. In a close 3 way election, a plurality candidate would probably not earn a majority of the EC votes. So, unless there were a deal with one of the other parties (who would more likely deal with each other), then the 3rd party candidate will be out. If no candidate gets a majority EC vote, then the House of reps with one vote per state will decide the presidency.

So, a 3rd party must win not just the vote but must also have a solid supply of congressmen in the House. I’m just guessing, but my sense is that there are more Red than Blue states and that a republican candidate would be more likely to control the majority of state congressional delegations.

Would the republicans permit the democrats to deal with a 3rd party conservative to gain a majority of EC votes? I doubt it, but prior to that, one would wonder what a principled conservative party would be doing cutting a deal with a socialist party.

So, all of this is a nightmare for principled conservatives. There is little likelihood of a 3rd party presidency even if they were to catch fire and win a plurality of the electorate.

So, my reasons for voting 3rd party must not be based on victory in this election. Neither the CP or any other party has nearly the standing in the House of Reps that gives them a fighting chance. The reason for voting 3rd party must be to build for the future, and that really must be focused at the congressional level. A 3rd party presidential vote would be for protest purposes only...so that the votes could be counted and the republicans might grit their teeth if there were a close loss.

I don’t fear Obama, so the doomsday scenarios proposed by the “US won’t exist in 4 years” crowd are a little too apocalyptic for me. I don’t buy them.

I continue to believe Romney to be every bit as bad as Obama but for different reasons.

I am surprised, however, at how controlled is the media by either the right or the left. It is hard to find anti-Obama articles from the left, and it’s equally as hard to find anti-Romney articles from the right.

That in itself is eye-opening.

Also eye-opening is the inability of the alternative parties to get any kind of publicity at all, even from their own media teams (assuming they have them.)

I think I’ve discovered some niche for some writer to fill, but who?

This sounds like resignation. Maybe it is.

The bottom line is that I believe God would be displeased if I were to support a pro-gay, anti-life candidate. Therefore, Goode still has my vote. I do believe, though, that it will take direct intervention from God for him to be elevated beyond candidate. A principled vote, however, remains better than an unprincipled one.

[xzins]

You’ve posted that to me before, so it’s old material.

See my #903 to betty. I should have pinged both you and Jeff.

[Yashcheritsiy]

The concept of Socialist Party "A" and Socialist Party "B" -- Fascist vs. Marxist -- as you can see, is not really an original thought.

Neither is "you have to vote for our somewhat less evil Republican to block the more evil Democrat."

In fact, that's a very unoriginal idea. It's retread once every four years, which is why nothing ever changes. Instead of thinking outside the box, "conservatives" simply go along with the game like sheep.

Which is why your argument...

If conservatives want a voice in government they should eschew 3rd party distractions and instead focus their energies on taking out Obama.

...is wrong, and empirically so. Indeed, that approach has already been tried...about once every four years. And it seems to be working less and less well every time. Even when conservatives supposedly "win," like in 2010, we see that it ends up being inconsequential. And that's, ultimately, because while they may have gotten numbers in Congress, they don't have any clout, because the leadership is already made up of people like, well, Romney and the rest of the GOP-E.

Or would you care to show us how there have been significant changes in the rate of growth of the debt and deficit or in spending since the GOP took over in 2010?

Sure, rally behind the "R" all you want. You may win a few elections, but you're not seeing this country changed for the better. When you start figuring out that the two are not synonymous, that's when you'll start making sense. Until then, you're just a mouthpiece spouting a pre-recorded message.

What's going to kill us is this tired, used up Cold War-era approach to conservative activism. It may have worked then, but it doesn't seem to be working so well now.

[Yashcheritsiy]

You’ve posted that to me before, so it’s old material.

What's also interesting is that, while Agamemnon cut-and-pastes the same old response to try to naysay you, he nevertheless has been incapable of actually answering the point.

Poisoning the well is not the same thing as providing a rational answer.

Simply pointing out that others before have found the choice between the Republicans and Democrats to be a choice between two statist, socialist, big-government Parties nevertheless does not address the content of the argument being made. It's merely pointing his finger and sticking his tongue out while waving his privy parts over the cotton gin.

[Yashcheritsiy]

For your interest.

The Fourth Revolution (a realignment, really).

Interesting stuff from Brit Hume about a coming realignment that could occur in our political system. It looks like my intuition that we're heading for a massive shakeup that the conventional Cold War holdovers like Agamemnon simply aren't expecting and will probably not understand until after it happens is brewing. I don't even have to apply chaos theory (which isn't really about chaos, but about dynamics in complex systems) to politics - it looks like it's already happening. If the GOP keeps pulling shenanigans like running as conservatives to get elected, but then busting the budget like Democrats, or nominating imbeciles like Mitt Romney, then they will find their Party swept away.

[xzins]

Exceptional article, Yash. Thanks.

Basically, the government and economy will crash due to their own excesses that they have the will or power to reverse.

There’s some real insight in that.

We are on an inexorable dash toward crash.

I highly recommend the article, The 4th Revolution, that Yash links to at:

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Future-tense—X—The-fourth-revolution-7395

[Agamemnon]

You’ve posted that to me before, so it’s old material.

The picture hasn't changed in 40 years. Neither has the fact that 3rd parties are only spoilers at best.

That picture is a timeless example of the kind of thinking that leads to electoral irrelevance.

Fact is, while Yashcheritsiy wasn't even born in 1972, and is without any living memory of the 1972 election, you on the other hand did vote for Nixon.

Thank you ...

1. for voting for the guy that had the wisdom to appoint William Rhenquist to the Supreme Court,

2. for voting for the guy that had the foresight to play the China card against the VC,

3. for voting for the guy that had the resolve to bomb the crap out Hanoi in Dec, 1972,

4. for voting for the guy that brought the Cong to the peace table,

5. for voting for the guy that had the first POWs home in January, 1973,

6 for voting for the guy that began the draw down of US military involvement in Viet Nam, after securing the borders of South Vietnam and the funding to support the SVA.

7. and for not wasting your vote on a 3rd party loser back then.

Your vote saved lives and freed John McCain, Jeremiah Denton and other POWs. If McGovern had won, Pol Pot's "Killing Fields" would have happened 2 years earlier than they did, and the POWs would likely have just been used by the VC as political footballs to extract more concessions.

Don't waste your vote on another certain 3rd party loser this year either.

The life you save this time may even be your own.

FReegards!

[Agamemnon]

Neither is "you have to vote for our somewhat less evil Republican to block the more evil Democrat."

You're hyperventilating, Yash. Romney is not "evil." Your cartoonish characterization may be, but Romney, himself, is not "evil."

In fact, that's a very unoriginal idea. It's retread once every four years, which is why nothing ever changes. Instead of thinking outside the box, "conservatives" simply go along with the game like sheep.

You are making my point. The concept of Socialist Party "A" and Socialist Party "B" -- Fascist vs. Marxist -- is not really an original idea.

Gotta grow up there, Yash. Either you're in the game or your not. Real conservatives realize this is a game that has to be won and we must play the game to win. It's not merely a solo effort -- it's a team effort. A leader builds a relevant consensus.

3rd party lone rangers on the other hand, aren't "outside the box thinkers" at all, but more often find themselves boxing themselves into their self-important little worlds, where it's all about them and their own "perfect world" visions.

What amplifies their message in own their minds isn't its ability to grip the attention of a larger voting audience, but it is the fact that their message is only meaningful to themselves and their acolytes in a shared, vanishingly small echo chamber.

Even when conservatives supposedly "win," like in 2010, we see that it ends up being inconsequential. And that's, ultimately, because while they may have gotten numbers in Congress, they don't have any clout, because the leadership is already made up of people like, well, Romney and the rest of the GOP-E.

Yes, and that is all going to work so much better with a re-election of Obama.

Or would you care to show us how there have been significant changes in the rate of growth of the debt and deficit or in spending since the GOP took over in 2010?

Seems you've forgotten that you need a Senate that actually votes on budgets. But you are still enjoying your depression spiral, so don't let me stop you.

Sure, rally behind the "R" all you want. You may win a few elections,

Unlike you, who are guaranteed to win NO elections with your "strategy."

... but you're not seeing this country changed for the better.

You don't remember the Carter years. You were what -- 2 or 3 maybe? The sackcloth and ashes types said the same thing back then too. The left and whiners on the right never anticipated Reagan -- both were convinced he wouldn't win all the way up and until the last polls were made in last week of the 1980 election cycle, in fact.

When you start figuring out that the two are not synonymous, that's when you'll start making sense. Until then, you're just a mouthpiece spouting a pre-recorded message.

The message Romney has is unapologetic-ally the same as was Reagan's in 1980. The message has a growing number of listeners.

By contrast no one is listening to the messages of what are certain to be 3rd party electoral failures. No surprise.

What's going to kill us is this tired, used up Cold War-era approach to conservative activism. It may have worked then, but it doesn't seem to be working so well now.

Spoken like a guy who obviously wasn't old enough to vote in his first presidential election until some time long after the Cold War was won. What was that any way for you, like 1996? Bottom line -- insufficient life-perspective to be able to comment cogently.

It seems that the self-righteousness aren't happy unless they're miserable, and they choose to believe that their their only hope lies in electoral impossibilities.

Misery thus perpetuates itself and in that, they find their "happy" fulfillment.

FReegards!

[unkus]

3rd party lone rangers on the other hand, aren’t “outside the box thinkers” at all, but more often find themselves boxing themselves into their self-important little worlds, where it’s all about them and their own “perfect world” visions.

---

That’s exactly right. And when fighting REAL evil like

0bama, they prove themselves to be foolish and useless in

the fight against that evil.

They are a waste.