Free Republic losing its impact

"I am sure that you never countered with "BushBot", "party over principle", "sheeple" or any of the other dozen or so labels that are reserved for those that dare question the validity of your statements...have you?"

Of course I have, but give me one reason to refute them if an issue and policy obviously reflects "party over principle".

"The GOP supporters are only one of about 5 different factions on this site...There will be no coming together of those factions..."

Hogwash. How do you think Dubya beat Gore in '02?

Of course I have, but give me one reason to refute them if an issue and policy obviously reflects "party over principle".

So your name calling and vitriol is righteous huh?

Hogwash. How do you think Dubya beat Gore in '02?

How did those that voted for Browne, Phillips, and Buchanan help Bush defeat Gore?

I agree that while no party is perfect, we must "support" the "team," the GOP -- but ONLY TO A POINT.

If that "point" is reached, then who do you support? Any elected position at any level of government and countless unelected positions across the nation that are not held by republicans will most likely be held by Democrats. That's bad, real bad.

The Constitution MUST supercede ANY party's political agenda.

How can that be possible in our form of government? The party in power and the people it appoints control the interpretation of that Constitution through the laws that are passed.

The GOP is not immune to putting politics ahead of principle.

Same answer. The principles of the party in power are reflected in the laws that are passed and all other aspects affected by government. If any of this is true, then politics trumps everything else and politics has no rules.

"If that "point" is reached, then who do you support? Any elected position at any level of government and countless unelected positions across the nation that are not held by republicans will most likely be held by Democrats. That's bad, real bad."

The "point" where even holding one's nose can't repress the stench of rewarding an extreme RINO who policies replicate that of an actual Democrat. Case and point: Mayor Bloomberg of NYC.

The party in power and the people it appoints control the interpretation of that Constitution through the laws that are passed."

Therein lies the problem -- the semantics of "interpretation" and the fallacy of a so-called "living, breathing document" -- the Constitution.

"The principles of the party in power are reflected in the laws that are passed and all other aspects affected by government. If any of this is true, then politics trumps everything else and politics has no rules."

If policies are based on true Constitutional Law, who then can question it's validity? It's utmost enforcement is paramount by both parties. Again -- the Constitution is not supposed to be a "living" document, subject to the whims of the political winds -- or do you believe otherwise?

"So your name calling and vitriol is righteous huh?"

If one "baaas" mindlessly it's "sheeple"; If one believes Dubya can do absolutely NO wrong, they're "Bush-bots"; If one concurs with the current GOP postion of supporting with impunity the ILLEGAL INVASION of sovereign U.S. borders, you all indeed are putting "politics over principle."

Now a question for you -- Would you consider me a Conservative, or merely Anarchist?

Now a question for you -- Would you consider me a Conservative, or merely Anarchist?

I don't know enough about you to say just as you don't know enough about me to assign a label. Here is the point, the GOP is a political party of which about 25-20% are conservatives. The remaining members are "moderate". The Democrats have the liberals sewn up. For the GOP to be a viable party then it cannot do so without a certain number of 'RINOS". There is NO conservative majority in this country but the GOP has conservatives in all the key leadership positions on Capitol Hill, Trent Lott excepted. When you play the numbers game the conservative influence in the GOP is larger than is reflected in the percentage of conservative membership. That may be, in your definition, party before principle, but in the political reality of today, 100% principle before party is a sure recipe for irrelevance. If you want a truly conservative government then you must have a truly conservative electorate.

It's utmost enforcement is paramount by both parties. Again -- the Constitution is not supposed to be a "living" document, subject to the whims of the political winds -- or do you believe otherwise?

That's a worthy ideal, but not necessarily today's reality. What you and I suppose it to be and what those in power suppose are not necessarily the same — and they get to make the decisions. We must never let our principles and beliefs work against us.

"Here is the point, the GOP is a political party of which about 25-20% are conservatives. The remaining members are 'moderate'."

I would dispute those numbers. Catagorically speaking, there are "fiscal" and "social" Conservatives respectively; Then some of us are both. Your numbers depend on the criteria for "Conservative" and "Moderate" -- care to loosely define either?

" For the GOP to be a viable party then it cannot do so without a certain number of 'RINOS"."

Agreed. But should RINOs (my definition: non-social/nationalistic conservatives) dominate party policy? You've got to pick your issues and policies carefully or else the line of demarcation appears blurred between Democrat and GOP. When that occurs, conservative GOPers 'principle clause' kicks in and we either don't vote OR vote 3rd or 4th Party.

"When you play the numbers game the conservative influence in the GOP is larger than is reflected in the percentage of conservative membership."

Again, I dispute your claim. 'GOP-light'/RINO is essentially Democratic policy, but in slo-mo.

"100% principle before party is a sure recipe for irrelevance.

"Irrelevance" for whom?? The GOP? The Democrats? Or are you inferring "doing the right thing" for the people of America may be the "wrong" thing?

We the people are who matters most. If the GOP can't convey the benefit, righteousness, and constitutional basis of a particular issue or policy to it's citizenry, then we need to elect better informed representatives.

"That's [enforcement of the constitution] a worthy ideal, but not necessarily today's reality."

If it's not "today's reality," then we shall surely fast-track the way of the Roman Empire. As it is we're closer than you think to becoming a runaway freight train.

"We must never let our principles and beliefs work against us."

Our "principles" is what sets us apart from the rest of the world and makes us a "great" nation. D@mn those who think otherwise -- we then wind up with Bill Clinton who is THE poster-boy for compromising with "principle.

Bill Clinton was elected by Democrats with and without principles who voted for him AND BY STAUNCH CONSERVATIVES WITH PRINCIPLES WHO DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE H W BUSH. The Conservatives who "punished" Bush because of "Read my lips," etc. were the ones who put Clinton over the top and you may be one of those who help to put Hillary Clinton over the top if you let your principles work against you (and me). In other words, you can screw it up for all the rest of us.

The Conservatives who "punished" Bush because of "Read my lips," etc. were the ones who put Clinton over the top and you may be one of those who help to put Hillary Clinton over the top if you let your principles work against you (and me). In other words, you can screw it up for all the rest of us.

Hardly. I could make the case that Clinton's ascension to power (and what he tried to do with it) led directly to the overwhelming Republican "takeover" in 1994, and to G.W. Bush's election in 2000.

A liberal Republican in power is worse than a liberal Democrat in power. At least most Republicans would oppose the Democrat promoting his liberal agenda, whereas they'll lie down for the Republican promoting a liberal agenda.

"Bill Clinton was elected by Democrats with and without principles who voted for him AND BY STAUNCH CONSERVATIVES WITH PRINCIPLES WHO DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE H W BUSH. The Conservatives who "punished" Bush because of "Read my lips," etc. were the ones who put Clinton over the top and you may be one of those who help to put Hillary Clinton over the top if you let your principles work against you (and me). In other words, you can screw it up for all the rest of us."

Look -- anyone who voted for Bill Clinton can't be accused of putting principle over politics.

Let's not pretend Bush the Elder wanted to remain President in '92. He didn't. You bring up a point -- see what happened when he compromised on principle?: ("read my lips...") He got his clock cleaned. Moreover, he ran an arrogantly lazy, and uninspired campaign. And wasn't it HE who first uttered something about a "New World Order"? Senior was also an avid Internationist.

I say good riddence to the definitive RINO President, George H. Bush and all other GOP Presidents and politicians dumb and arrogant enough to compromise on principle just enough to be RINO. It is THEY who "screw" us.

Let's not pretend Bush the Elder wanted to remain President in '92. He didn't. You bring up a point -- see what happened when he compromised on principle?: ("read my lips...") He got his clock cleaned. Moreover, he ran an arrogantly lazy, and uninspired campaign. And wasn't it HE who first uttered something about a "New World Order"? Senior was also an avid Internationist.

Nice try, but you can not rationalize away the misuse of your so-called principles. You and the Democrats were the coalition responsible for 8 years of Clinton.

I say good riddence to the definitive RINO President, George H. Bush and all other GOP Presidents and politicians dumb and arrogant enough to compromise on principle just enough to be RINO. It is THEY who "screw" us.

If you really are a Republican, then we have found our problem — and it is us.

Hardly. I could make the case that Clinton's ascension to power (and what he tried to do with it) led directly to the overwhelming Republican "takeover" in 1994, and to G.W. Bush's election in 2000.

It will take decades to undo much of what Clinton did to our country but we will never undo the results of his not taking out Bin Laden when he had the chance. And his lifetime appointments of Liberal judges, his numerous Executive Orders, filling all levels of the bureacuracy with Liberal moles, etc, etc..... There is never any good from a Clinton ascention.

"You can not rationalize away the misuse of your so-called principles. You and the Democrats were the coalition responsible for 8 years of Clinton."

Dream on. The fact is Bush the Elder ran a campaign NOT to win. It had all the passion and dynamics of a wilting stalk of celery. He could have pounded the unknown lying Democratic sleaze-bag from Arkansas on any number of issues. BUT he wouldn't and didn't. LOL -- His campaign was so horsesh*t, even the little gremlin, Ross Perot got his 20% or so. And you think it was our fault he didn't win?

"If you really are a Republican, then we have found our problem — and it is us."

I am a Constitutionalist and Conservative, voting GOP if and when they can manage to avoid the temptation of becoming "Centrist-Moderates."

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.