Skip to comments.Sarah Palin floats idea of leaving the Republican Party [VIDEO]
Posted on 06/29/2013 11:44:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
No, you were right to voice your opinion.
I can only speak for myself, but I would say that people like myself (fighting on this side of the issue) don’t want an apology. We know we are right because history shows us we are right. Religion / morality shows us we are right. Logic and reason show that we are right. The facts we see posted daily on FR of lesser evil Repub after lesser evil Repub going fullmetal Lib prove it.
None of us are looking to or want to be martyrs or go down in history as ‘Patron saints of the cause’. We want America back and we are damn sick of fighting about what are supposed to be our fellow conservatives on the basic tenets of conservative philosophy.
But on the same token, we are NOT backing down to FR’s Alynskites, no matter how many asinine pix they post, how often they scream “GFY” or how many times they dishonestly call us alcoholics.
I guess my position is that, on the moral issues (and believe me, I’m about as “conservative” and right wing as you can get), they were traditionally left to the states for the first several hundred years. The states “could” legislate morality,(to me, that’s really what laws are, you are legislating what that group of people believes are right and wrong) and did, but they gave the option of many little “mini-countries” with their own unique personalities, all united under the banner of THESE United STATES. I am very pro-life, and one place I would hedge that opinion is on abortion (as I believe the Declaration of Independence, as well as all moral law gives the right to life), but at the very least, ROE v. Wade should be thrown out and let it go back to the states to decide, as it was for 200 years.
This way, you can have more “liberal” minded people who would rather regulate business like crazy, can live in certain states if that’s what they want, to save the spotted tree toad or something, but trading their extreme environmental laws for seeing a lot of their business leave. If that’s what they want for their state, then fine. Let them legislate that at the state level. Then you can have conservative states in a more free, pro business environment, not dictated to by these oppressive federal agencies. As long as the free-er states don’t have to bail out the anti-business states when they get into debt.If a state votes and amendment to keep gay marriage illegal, the Federal Government has no business overturning that.
The states work together on the very few areas where the constitution gave the federal government limited authority, like protection of the entire country from outside invaders, and other than that, our country is more of a quilt of different little countries with very different personalities, some more maybe some very free market in business but with traditional moral values kept in state laws, some more libertarian, some more “liberal”, all knit together by the constitution, with each state only limited by the constititution. Rather than one big baggy one-size-fits-all suffocating tarp to strangle every difference between the states. It would allow people different options on where to live that best fits their personalities without imposing that on the entire country, and would also be a little test tube where people could look around and see on a smaller, more manageable level, the results of certain policies.
On an emotional level, I like the idea of a genuinely conservative third party.
But on a practical level, I say no. It has been tried before, and did not suceed. I worked for a time with one of these "third" parties.
There is a more practical alternative. That alternative is to take actual control of the Republican party away from the Gloalists who now run the party.
For many decades, the Repulican party has been in the hands of what I call Rockefeller republicans. These are globalists who are only marginally better than the socialists who now control the Democratic party.
The current Conservative tactic seems to be to nominate conservatives to office, and then vote for them. This has been successful in a few cases, but as long as the Rockefeller wing controls the party aparatus, coseratives will get only lukewarm lip service support. The last presidential candidate was a supporter of socialized medicine (at the state level) who speaks conservatism as a second language.
The strategy must be from the bottum up to succeed. Attend party conventions en masse and elect county officials, including chairmen, boards, and delegates to the district convention, who are actual conservatives. Follow this tactic up the chain, until conservatives control the RNC and can choose a conservative national chairman.
Not possible? If conservatives are not strong enouth to take on the Republican apparatus and win, then we are not strong enough to take on both the Republican and Democrat machines and win.
It is possible. If it is not done, then I see a bleak future for this country in general and for my grandchildren in particular.
Thank you for your post.
So many folks out there including myself have placed great faith in “sacred cows”. I was able to and others were able to in their own time and their own way to put that false faith to rest.
I listen to all the talk show hosts and I still respect and admire Rush Limbaugh greatly. His family tradition is the Republican Party and that shows in everything he says including his opposition to the third party notion.
I can’t speak for what Rush will do in the future, but I am ready and willing to support a third party option because of where the situation stands right now.
Maybe one day El Rushbo will see things the way I do.???? Maybe he won’t, but I am not going to make him into a sacred cow like I have in the past. I’ll keep my tagline for now.
Where do the 911 pics fit into this convo?
I certainly understand your perspective.
The issue I see here is that the system is largely broken in many respects. The politicians have long since stopped using the Constitution as a guideline. Part of the electorate WANTS them to ignore it, and they (particularly “they” on the liberal side) pander to that segment.
There is no holding of anyone to account by either other elected personnel or the electorate itself, and so, we are rudderless.
I admired Ronald Reagan greatly, and there have been more than a few posters on this thread who say Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO for his efforts at compromise.
I maintain that while Ronald Reagan did compromise on many things, there were some core values that he didn’t. Our problem as I see it today is that we are being asked to compromise on our core values.
There are many important aspects of liberalism now that I view as evil, and compromising on those is compromising with evil.
Liberals don’t see abortion as evil, but we do.
Liberals don’t see their attacks on the family as evil, but we do.
Liberals don’t see open and unalloyed advocacy of homosexuality as evil, but many of us do.
Liberals don’t see unimpeded and uncontrolled immigration as an evil, and we do.
Liberals don’t see their attempts to ban firearms as evil, but we do.
Liberals don’t see terrorists and their acts as evil, and we do.
Liberals don’t see redistribution of wealth and socialism as evil, but we do.
Liberals don’t see political correctness and restrictions on speech as evil, but we do.
Liberals don’t see the attempt to banish religion as evil, and we do.
And so on.
The point I am trying to make is, we are out of compromising room. Any compromise now on any of the above issues will be territory we will never recover, and those losses now, with so little reserve, will mean that compromising with evil is, at this point in our history, enabling evil. Liberals have our backs against the cliff, and they are fully intent on pushing us off.
We are viewed as an impediment to their utopia, the very President of these United States has said as much. This man and his Alinsky-toting acolytes, are fully in bed ideologically with people like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and we know how those two view the fates of tens of millions of Americans who would “be in the way” were THEY holding the reins of power. They openly said that 20 million Americans (back in the early Seventies) would have to be eliminated before real progress forward could be achieved. They are no different than the people who carried out Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
It may be that we are broken and on a downward spiral towards a hell, a ultra-violent civil war, or worse. I wish to God that I don’t live to see that. But we might be. Given that, is there still time to turn it around?
But it won’t be done as we move ahead holding hands with liberals, because that is not what they have in mind.
What they have in mind is achieving an un-achievable utopia, and they are going to have to utterly destroy what is in place now to try to move towards it. That thing that is in place now (that is in their way) is the USA and its citizens who aren’t in lockstep with what they want to do. And make no mistake. To those people, the ends completely justifies the means.
As you said in your last sentence of your post...I see a bleak future.
I admire Rush Limbaugh, as an entertainer and a commentator. I know how he feels on certain subjects and I disagree with him on some of them. I hope he comes around.
I dont know about you, said Reagan in 1975, but Im impatient with those Republicans who, after the last election, rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
Dont give up your ideals, dont compromise, dont turn to expediency and dont, for heavens sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch dont get cynical. Ronald Reagan, 1976
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.
Ronald Reagan 1975
By the way, I apologize if that last posting of mine was a downer. I wasn’t writing it towards that end, it just arrived there almost of its own volition.
Enough is enough!
Mark Levin will be following Sarah as well, he has had enough of the phony conservatives!
Yes, abortion is an evil and the nation that facilitates and generates it in its government is abandoning God. But Roe v Wade being overturned would be a major step in the right direction. It would be good enough for me.
It's why Romney was out -- that and Romney's wholesale embrace of foisting upon young people acceptance of open homosexuality. To be responsible for pointedly creating for kids and young adults, open avenues of temptation to grievous sin and misery of abortion and sexual perversion -- that's anti American. Using taxpayer moneys to feed it is insult on injury.
Santayana, you are referring to the punk that killed himself? The Mr. Unique Philosophy? I would like to meet you, Josh Painter. Feel free to mail, at this site.
You voters disappointed, your state. Don’t blame the politician. Don’t try to misplace the blame.
How did that work out, Politicalmom?
Jim do you remember way back when I kept emailing you about joining your free republic party? I didn’t know much about forums in 96 heh.
Whatever compromised wins, have been long outlasted, by the losses. Are you sure, your parent guardian, knows you are posting?
norm. you know what i like about libertarians. theyre equally repelled by both leftists and conservatives. we can work with that, eh?
Actually, libertarians are much more at home with leftists than with actual conservatives. That’s because they share the social leftists views with leftists. All of them.
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.