GOP is removing Conservatism from its party [Archive]

Republican_Legion

10-12-2005, 01:12 AM

laura bush being a RoeVwade supporter and an abortion rights supporter and the nomination of Miss Souter Miers shows Bush is trying to change the GOP to Pro-choice to prepare it for Rudy guiliani to win in 08 . bush must think by selling the conservative vote to independents and the social conservatives who are Fiscally moderate to switch to DNC that the GOP can still win he is gambling with the GOPs seat in the whitehouse . subtract the fiscal moderates who vote for bush because of social issues and subtract other conservatives who dont want a Weak conservative President and you get a minority party . even with the Gain from some independents , it will sell some votes to the DNC and alot of votes to the constitution party and/or Libertarian party . hispanic voters are more religious thus they will have little or no reason to vote GOP so they will vote Democrat . Bushes presidency will leave a nasty impact on how the GOP will nominate its 2008 candiate . the GOP of 1980 has come to its bitter end and i fear it will return with liberals . dont they remember Clinton wasnt a majority President (43% of vote in 1992) and he appointed ULTRA LIBERAL Scotus judges . Bush won 51% of the popular Vote in 04 and he thinks he can only apoint Souters or SouterLites .

theres really only 3 possible GOPers of being picked for 08 : Mccaine , Guiliani , Frist . why? Frist has waged enough money ahead of Mccaine and Guiliani but his scandle though its BS will cost his Support of the Think Tanks and he may very well lose a election due to his Scandals . THE LEFT has been attacking Frist since Day1 after november 5th 2004 , they know he's the most conservative compared to the RINO Twins mccaine and guiliani so they focus their attacks on him to defeat any 08 chance . Mccaine has been raising money also but he will most likely loose against Rino guiliani who's media support is endless . Guilianni wont get the GOP back in the WhiteHouse , It will be Giving hillary a Victory on a silver plate. a repeat of 1992 will happen i can feel it . hillary is already using Bill Clintons 1992 tactic of "look moderate" .

GWB is really making things worse by nominating Miers .
if the GOP does what i fear they will do , i hope the Dems win so the GOP will never try to Betray its Voters .

dPrasse

10-12-2005, 06:53 AM

Removing ?

Conservatism is something that was forced onto the R party ...
the "intellectual Party heads " have never truly embraced consevatism .... just tolerated us and took our votes

Lazarus

10-12-2005, 08:12 AM

dprasse is right... It was Reagan who brought conservatives into the GOP and the old guard always looked down on him as some unwahsed upstart - and us along with him... If the GOP wishes to push us out this will most likely be the catalyst that will force this nation's politics into a multi-party system where coalition governments must be formed in order to get anything done...

If that's what they want, I can play that game...

Beowulf

10-12-2005, 10:36 AM

Suits me just fine. If the party I have been supporting wants to abandon us, I can find elsewhere to place my allegiances. I've never been a true Republican but I do have predominantly Conservative values.

People say that there is no viable 3rd party. If we are abandoned, maybe it's time we do something about it. The Constitutionalists party more represents the values I hold and each day I find it easier to support it. They support Americans and why we founded this country, not pandering to the whims of other countries.

I fought to preserve the right to bear arms, practice whatever religion you choose to worship freely, the right to own property and so on. I think even the GOP is getting away from these values. Again, I have no problem taking my allegiance elsewhere if I feel that those I have been supporting choose to abandon me for their own special interests.

Teenager

10-12-2005, 10:51 AM

Republican Legion, your post is quite hard to read.

Frankly, I think you are over-reacting. You don't even know anything about Miers yet. Why jump the gun?

However, as with dPrasse and Beowulf, I'll be happy with a third party. I love the Constitutionalist. In fact, I consider myself one.

Rink

10-12-2005, 12:24 PM

I dunno why we havent had a 'Conservative Party' and all the True Conservatives join it?

Why isnt there one?

dPrasse

10-12-2005, 02:52 PM

Rink , there was an AmericanParty back in the 80's that I was a part of ...it was a "Pro-Life , anti-drug libertarian party "... they were based out of Utah and did run a Prez candidate ...

not sure if this is the same Ameican Party or not ...I need to find my old literature ...

http://www.theamericanparty.org/americanpartyplatform1200412008/

nene

10-12-2005, 02:58 PM

Naturalized-Texan

10-12-2005, 03:05 PM

GOP is removing Conservatism from its party: To anyone who has been a conservative in the Republican Party since the early 1960s, as I have, that claim is complete and utter nonsense. Nationwide, conservatives control the Republican Party as illustrated by conservative control of the House of Representatives. In the early 1960s, the Rockefeller liberals controlled the Republican Party lock, stock, and barrel.

Sure, there are enough Rockefeller-type RINOs still left in the U.S. Senate to keep conservative initiatives from being enacted, but most of them are old and and most of them will soon be replaced by conservatives if we don't do something stupid like voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all.

We are very close to the point that RINO Senators in the "red" states will be replaced by conservatives; that RINO Senators in the "blue" states will be replaced by Democrats; that liberal Democrat Senators in the "red" states will be replaced by conservatives; and that conservative Democrat Senators in the "red" states will be replaced by conservative Republicans. Since the vast majority of the states are "red" states, that will give us a solid conservative majority in the Senate to go along with the conservative majority in the House.

Again, all that will happen if we don't do something stupid like voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all.

Beowulf

10-12-2005, 03:06 PM

The only remedy is to fight to promote conservatism within the Republican Party. Only two parties have a realistic chance; Democrats and Republicans. The only people that are in play belong to one these.

This is the line of thinking that has gotten us to this point. We all hate Democrats/Liberals and all their "isms" and the current GOP isn't what we hold so dear. Reagan didn't pander to Mexico as W is now. He also didn't make outsourcing so easy to do and thus, sell out to the world.

I read alot of people in these forums, Nene, that are sick of much of what President Bush is doing. I am one of them. I'm all for the tax cuts(which we have enough set in place) and the war on terror but beyond that, I'm sick of the pandering to Mexico, the free spending and these hastily passed bills that need much work. (Prescription drugs, Patriot Act) I can't in good conscience support more of this. I will vote Constitutionalist if the next GOP candidate supports more of the same.

nene

10-12-2005, 03:19 PM

Beowulf, this does not change the reality of what NT and I are describing. If you vote to assuage your conscience, that is all you will accomplish. Republicans will suffer and by extension so will conservatives. Dems will recapture the White House. All other 3rd parties will fade into oblivion until the next election when they once again call asking for donations. This way of thinking has not gotten to this point. The game is politics and it's always a mess.

PatrioticAmerican

10-12-2005, 04:55 PM

I have no problem withholding my votes, money, and support from the Rep Party. If it doesn't act to protect this country, I will support a Constitutionalist Party candidate, even if he loses.

Naturalized-Texan

10-12-2005, 05:03 PM

The following is more perspective on the evolution of the Republican Party from a Me-Too liberal party to a mostly conservative party:

- From 1931 through 2002 we only had a Republican president and Republican control of both houses of Congress for 2 years and 4 months - 1953-54, when Eisenhower was president, and the first 4 months of 2001, when GW Bush was president. During the remaining 69 years and 8 months, liberal Democrats gradually imposed socialism on the American people.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of extremely impatient people here and across the nation who expect President Bush and the Republican Congress to reverse that nearly 70 years of creeping socialism in less than 3 years, an impossibility. Since that reversal hasn't happened immediately, they are so impatient that they are willing to give up the fight and surrender any chance of ever making the Republican Party strong enough and conservative enough to reverse that socialist trend. Instead, they talk about defecting to some 3rd party or not voting at all, thus abandoning any hope of winning the war against socialism.

- The years 1955, 1964, 1980, 1994, and 2000, were watershed years in the evolution of the Republican Party from being controlled by the liberal, Rockefeller, Me-Too (RINO) wing of the party into a majority conservative party. Let's look at those years:

1955: The Founding of National Review by William F. Buckley, Jr.:
Without Buckley and National Review, there would have been no conservative movement, no Goldwater candidacy, no Reagan presidency, and the RINOs would still be in control of a tiny-minority Republican Party.

1964: Goldwater Won the Republican Nomination for President:
Through the organizing skills of a handfull of conservatives activists influenced mainly by Buckley and National Review, a massive Draft Goldwater movement was organized and managed to narrowly win the Republican nomination for Barry Goldwater.

I attended the huge Draft Goldwater Rally in the DC National Guard Armory on July 4, 1963. That armory was huge and it was packed to the gills with conservative Republicans. BTW, my son, conservatour, attended the rally with me.

By 1964, I was transferred to Omaha, NB, and I rang hundreds of doorbells and knocked on many doors campaigning for Goldwater.

1980: Reagan Elected Predisent:
In that year the Republican Primaries featured a contest between a Rockefeller-type RINO, George H.W. Bush, and a mainstream Republican, Ronald Reagan. Of course, Reagan won the nomination and went on to be elected president in a landslide. That was the most decisive victory of the conservative majority of the Republican Party over the Rockefeller wing up to that point.

1994: The Contract with America:
Led by Newt Gingrich and other conservatives, including my congressman, Tom DeLay, the House Republicans created the Contract with America (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html) and won a Republican majority in the House of Representatives for the first time since the 1952 elections.

The Contract with America consisted of 13 clauses, 12 of which were passed by the House, 7 of which were passed by both houses of Congress, 3 of which were signed into law, and 4 were vetoed by BJ Clinton. One of those vetoes was overridden (Stockholder Rights Reform). See the link in the previous paragraph for details.

2000: George W. Bush Elected President:
Much like in 1980, the Republican Primaries featured a contest between a Rockefeller-type establishment RINO, John McCain, and a mainstream Republican, George W. Bush. McCain won the early primaries only because many Democrats were ordered to cross over to the Republican Primaries to vote for McCain because the DNC and Big Labor knew that with McCain as the Republican nominee, AlGore would win the election in a landslide. McCain ruined any chance he had for the nomination with a vicious attack on conservative Christians in the South Carolina primary campaign. The conservative wing of the party then rose up and voted overwhelmingly to nominate Bush.

Unfortunately, AlGore almost stole the 2000 presidential, but the Constitution and the Supreme Court overcame AlGore's attempted theft.

- It would be a terrible shame to ruin 50 years of effort to convert the Republican Party to a conservative party by being so impatient that nearly 70 years of creeping socialism hasn't been reversed after less than 3 years by doing something stupid like voting for a 3rd party or not voting.

Naturalized-Texan

10-12-2005, 05:07 PM

I have no problem withholding my votes, money, and support from the Rep Party. If it doesn't act to protect this country, I will support a Constitutionalist Party candidate, even if he loses.
Hillary will smother you with kisses of thanks for helping her get elected president.

tacitus

10-12-2005, 05:10 PM

:bdh:

Republican_Legion

10-12-2005, 05:16 PM

GHWB raised taxes and look what happend to him when he ran for re-election . a third party destroyed his chances . the next GOP president has not raised taxes but has gone RINO in other areas such as spending . well Kerry has pretty much announced his Run for 2008 (Ted did it for him) so i suspect the bastard Guilianni and Mccaine will do the same .

Kerry to Run:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172056,00.html
Mccaine to Run:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171757,00.html
its dead obvious they are gonna run .

PatrioticAmerican

10-12-2005, 05:17 PM

Well, I hope she doesn't expect me to say, "You're Welcome."

It's my vote, I will use it as I see fit. I donb't expect reversals in two terms. I expect the Party to have the balls to send clear messages about its intent and to stand up to the Dems. If it doesn't I will opt out of it and go for another party.

Whether or not it's alright with you.

Republican_Legion

10-12-2005, 05:18 PM

Hillary will smother you with kisses of thanks for helping her get elected president.

Guiliani is about as bad as Hitlery , both hate guns , both kill babies , both support gay marriage , both support stem cell and both support Tax increases .

ErikTheRed

10-12-2005, 05:25 PM

Oh, c'mon! I'm not the smartest guy on the planet but I know very well that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats.

Republican_Legion

10-12-2005, 06:08 PM

these 2 dont seem so different .

Taylor

10-12-2005, 10:01 PM

Eagle1

10-12-2005, 10:05 PM

rush had a great speil on this on tuesday

this is starting to look like 1980 all over again, not that i would know
a true conservative will be swept into power and limp wristers like mccain will be left in the dust

Eagle1

10-12-2005, 10:07 PM

It's the same with Contitutionalists.

i had heard some about the constitutionalists, i liked what i heard, so i checked out the site.

i read the platform on every issue, and they are out there. they do have good positions on a lot of issues, but on some important ones like iraq, they are nuts

Taylor

10-12-2005, 10:15 PM

Although there are some RINO's in the GOP, most of us are conservative. Unlike Liberaltarians and Constitutionalists who are more liberal than conservative.

Republican_Legion

10-13-2005, 12:10 AM

constitutionalists are more conservative then most of the GOP senators .
your probally only saying that to be Politicaly Correct and overfair to Liberaltarians . the GOP hasnt been conservative like the Constitution Party has . keep on backing up RINOS and you'll succed in being Bushes next Nominee . voting for a RINO is voting for a Democrat .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party#Presidential_and_vice_president ial_nominees
read facts . not that BS from CBS .
Constitutionalists rank 3rd in voter registration .

CzechPrince

10-13-2005, 12:39 AM

Voting third party is like voting for a Dummycrat. So is not voting at all. Besides, Liberaltarians claim they support small government when they really support no government or Anarchy. It's the same with Contitutionalists.

We certainly do not promote anarchy, and our views on limited government are a lot more conservative than the current Republican Party's will ever be.

CzechPrince

10-13-2005, 12:41 AM

Although there are some RINO's in the GOP, most of us are conservative. Unlike Liberaltarians and Constitutionalists who are more liberal than conservative.

It depends on your view of conservatism.

Republican_Legion

10-13-2005, 12:48 AM

We certainly do not promote anarchy, and our views on limited government are a lot more conservative than the current Republican Party's will ever be.

WRONG ! they are more capitalist/RIGHT WING then Republicans .
Libertarians are not conservatives . they are Liberals who believe in low taxes , limited spending , etc . heck the LP candiate in 2004 opposed the Iraq War and promissed a Imediate withdrawl if elected . and you FAR RIGHTERS do promote Anarchy as i have read posts of yours critising any form of taxes or spending .
even the Liberal biased http://politicalcompass.org/ agress the LP is more Right Wing .

Rink

10-13-2005, 02:47 AM

Sorry but I'm done with 'voting for the lesser of the two evils' I'm tired of any evil period, I'm voting for who I think is the BEST candidate, and if that means a third party then so be it, the Republican party has literally and completely abandoned its core principles and have abandoned the majority of the American people and have gone leftwards and are looking more and more like nicer mirrored versions of the Dems.

No thank you.

Bush is literally undoing EVERYTHING Reagan built up, he's unravelling everything from the reaganomics, the lesser govt and more.

Bush has spent worse than any democrat I've seen, he seems to feel that money is his to play with and throw around, not to mention his Internationalist attitude, his apparent ignoring of the vast majority of the American people who are hollering and screaming to the hilltops and everywhere to close the borders and get some control on the illegal immigration problem, he's turned his head over that and has acted Exactly like the democrats in like manner pandering to and sucking up to the illegals on every point.

Bush has given millions of American dollars to every tin-plated moron in the world including the Palestinians.

No bloody thank you, I'll vote my conscience next time, Third party or no, if the Republicans cant get a decent CONSERVATIVE candidate then FORGET IT!!!

Beowulf

10-13-2005, 06:47 AM

Voting third party is like voting for a Dummycrat. So is not voting at all. Besides, Liberaltarians claim they support small government when they really support no government or Anarchy. It's the same with Contitutionalists.

So what you're saying, Taylor, is that I should stick to voting the "lesser of two evils" even though I don't like either candidate or their views? That's just not right nor will I support that action. As I've said before, it's that mindset that has gotten us to this two-party system in America. I voted for Bush and look at what I've gotten that I didn't vote for:
-Illegal Immigration and Amnesty for them.
-More welfare for the above mentioned people.
-Giving money to resettle people (Palestinians) that don't like us.
-Corporate corruption.
-Run-a-way spending.

I voted for Bush for lower taxes and the war on terror. I'm not too happy otherwise.
Taylor, I agree with you on most issues but I don't on this. Voting Constitutionalists is NOT voting for a democrat. Read the platform. It defends our constitution as it was written, not for what it is interpreted.

If the next GOP candidate is more of the same, I will vote Constitutionalist before I support the GOP or the Democratic Party.

CzechPrince

10-13-2005, 07:13 AM

WRONG ! they are more capitalist/RIGHT WING then Republicans .

Damn straight we are more capitalistic. If you grew up in a communist country you probably would be to. Capitalism is the most successful economic system in the history of the world, why shouldn't we be more capitalist? The Republican Party supports corporate welfare just as much as the Democratic Party does.

Libertarians are not conservatives.

Our economic polocies will always be conservatively surperior to your Republican ones. Low taxes, no government programs, free trade, low tarrifs, free markets, no corporate welfare. Capitalism at it's best.

they are Liberals who believe in low taxes , limited spending , etc .

That is an interesting take on it, or you could just say Conservatives who beleive in limited government and personal freedom.

heck the LP candiate in 2004 opposed the Iraq War and promissed a Imediate withdrawl if elected .

Many republicans and military personal were against the War in Iraq as well, many conservative ones. Col. David Hackworth is a big one that comes to mind.

and you FAR RIGHTERS do promote Anarchy as i have read posts of yours critising any form of taxes or spending .

What we criticize is THE CURRENT SPENDING of the Bush Administration and both the Republicans and Democrats. Have you checked our defecit figures recently? If Bush is such a bastion of economic conservatism in the Republican Party, what business did he have passing a 300+ billion perscription drug plan for seniors? Hell, with this kind of spending, you may as well have voted a Democrat into office. By the way, Far righters are the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the Republican Party, certainly not Libertarians.

Yes, I did vote for Bush, I refused to vote for Kerry, but I have to say (and I am not the only one on here) who has been extremely dissapointed with Bush's second term decisions.

even the Liberal biased http://politicalcompass.org/ agress the LP is more Right Wing .

An online political test is no authority on our party. We are more right wing on ECONOMICS, and I'm damn proud of that. I think maybe the graphs and divided sections confused you.

tacitus

10-13-2005, 07:26 AM

Unlike Liberaltarians and Constitutionalists who are more liberal than conservative.

Care to support that statement with FACTS!

dPrasse

10-13-2005, 10:33 AM

volt

10-13-2005, 11:40 AM

Removing ?

Conservatism is something that was forced onto the R party ...
the "intellectual Party heads " have never truly embraced consevatism .... just tolerated us and took our votes

I agree, and Bush is not a Conservative.

nene

10-13-2005, 11:50 AM

Conservatives should fight for control of the Republican Party.

CzechPrince

10-13-2005, 12:35 PM

CP .. agreed ...

Repub Party leans towards Corporate Welfae and the Dems lean heavily on Social Welfare ... both are still robbing you , just depemds on which Peter they are paying ...

Exactly, but yeah, tell Republican Legion that.

Teenager

10-13-2005, 12:35 PM

Voting third party is like voting for a Dummycrat. So is not voting at all. Besides, Liberaltarians claim they support small government when they really support no government or Anarchy. It's the same with Contitutionalists. (highlights mine)

I don't know whether to call you a RINO, demoncreep, or plain stupid.:bdh:

Have you even read their platform for yourself before you posted that? Geez.

Teenager

10-13-2005, 12:39 PM

Although there are some RINO's in the GOP, most of us are conservative. Unlike Liberaltarians and Constitutionalists who are more liberal than conservative.
 :flushlib. :bdh::flushlib.

Naturalized-Texan

10-13-2005, 04:05 PM

Naturalized-Texan

10-13-2005, 04:08 PM

CP .. agreed ...

Repub Party leans towards Corporate Welfae and the Dems lean heavily on Social Welfare
Absolutely false! BJ Clinton and the Demonrat Party are the champions of BOTH corporate welfare and social welfare.

SmellyFed

10-13-2005, 04:12 PM

I'll never forget President Bush saying , "I earned [political] capital in the campaign and now I'm going to spend it." It's phenomenal how quickly and ineffectually he spent his capital.

He better get his Presidential ass in gear fast - or he'll finish as the biggest lame duck since Carter.

UnkHiram

10-13-2005, 04:20 PM

I see we are beating this dead horse again. I am not going to insult anyone by telling them that voting for a third party canidate that has absolutely NO CHANCE of winning is the same as voting for a Democrat, because they already know it and dont care.

The only REALISTIC and VIABLE solution is to take over one of the two major parties with Conservative canidates and conservative ideals. The Republican Party, in spite of the fact that it is at best moderate in my opionon, has a much better shot at becoming a "Conservative" party than the Democrat party does.

Instead of taking away your ball (Vote) and refusing to play nice why dont you work on the grass roots level to promote conservative ideals and conservative canidates. Attend your local precinct conventions and make yourself heard, it can be done. Volunteer to be a precinct chairman and use that platform to promote conservative philosphy. Attend the county convention and make yourself heard! Attend the State Convention and make yourself heard! I have been doing that for the last 10 years since moving to Celeste. The Result ---- I am the President of the Hunt County GOP club, we are encouraging, endorsing and donating to CONSERVATIVE canidates only. We dont encourage, endorse or donate money to RINO's. I have been a precint chair since 1998, attended 3 County Conventions and 2 state conventions. I have forced my way onto the Resolutions Committee and the Nominations Committee at the County Conventions. I will be on the Platform Committee at the Next State Convention.

It aint easy, it cant be done overnight ----------- BUT it can be done if you dont give up at every setback. Nothing in life is cheap, free or easy.

SmellyFed

10-13-2005, 04:37 PM

Using this "vote your conscience" justification, I voted for Ross "Chicken Feathers" Perot in 1991 and look where that got me.

It really doesn't prove anything by voting for someone who can't win. UnkHiram is right - conservatives need to make the Republican party our party and revoke the President's membership card.

Teenager

10-13-2005, 04:43 PM

While I agree that voting third party is a vote for democrats, I can also understand people when they say "I'm gonna vote my conscious."

But, wake up folks, there is a third option. One I have brought up several times before. Have the most conservative republicans switch their name to "Constitutionalist" after they've been elected. It's quite simple, and safe. Meanwhile, these Constitutionalist are allied with the Republicans, and it cleans the Republican party of the Rino's. It's a win-win situation for us.

ErikTheRed

10-13-2005, 04:59 PM

Unk nailed it again. Conservatives need to work hard to take the Republican Party back, it's the only feasible option. A true third party is an admirable quest but not effective in today's political climate. It's either Democrat or Republican, we can't wuss out and go to a third party right now because it simply won't work. The Democrats are praying (oops, sorry they don't do that,) HOPING that this "supposed" split will drive Conservatives to vote for any third party, thus taking votes away from the Republican Party and guaranteeing a Democrat victory. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but c'mon, a third party is NOT an option!

Beowulf

10-13-2005, 05:17 PM

:flame: Getting a little tired of hearing that voting my conscience is throwing my vote away. I'm not wussing out either. If I don't like something someone is doing then I'll find someone else I feel will do it better. If that means voting Constitutionalist, so be it.

I do agree, Unk, that we need to be involved. I think we do just that right here at FC. I've been to a Bush rally before so I've gone that route too. I even spread the truth to those who feel that the government has it's head in the sand on a certain issue. But will it be enough before 2008? I think 2006 will give us some sort of idea. I think the people will speak on issues of illegal immigration then and it won't be pretty as most Americans oppose it, even those of Hispanic origin.

I've said it before, I will say it again, I will NOT support a candidate who wants to continue looking the other way on illegal immigration and amnesty, continued free spending and abandoning Conservative routes. I can live with that decision too.

ErikTheRed

10-13-2005, 05:36 PM

BeoWulf, with all due respect, voting your conscience is great but let's face it, if your vote detracts from the Republican tally and the Democrats win the Presidency, will you still feel better? I never meant to be a prick to you but now is the wrong time to cast a protest vote. I understand how pissed you are but Unk is right. Get in touch with your local representatives and tell them how you feel and threaten to not cast a vote at all. That will get their attention.

aaron11

10-13-2005, 06:28 PM

Damn straight we are more capitalistic. If you grew up in a communist country you probably would be to. Capitalism is the most successful economic system in the history of the world, why shouldn't we be more capitalist? The Republican Party supports corporate welfare just as much as the Democratic Party does.

Our economic polocies will always be conservatively surperior to your Republican ones. Low taxes, no government programs, free trade, low tarrifs, free markets, no corporate welfare. Capitalism at it's best.

.

If the LP had more reasonable/responsible social policies, i would call myself one. But, i will never cast my vote for the LP until/unless they take a conservative approach on social issue. Being fiscally conservative while being socially liberal just don't cut it for me. I hate liberalism where ever it exists.

Kathy29

10-13-2005, 06:29 PM

I wouldn't be so quick to count a third party out. That's how the Republicans came to be in the first place. They were the third party that stole the election from the Whigs by the election of Abraham Lincoln. There are no more Whigs. It has been done and can be done again.

The democrats are failing, they thrash around in death throes. Why the republicans would want to duplicate failure is beyond imagining but continuing to do so will set them on the same path as the Whigs.

ErikTheRed

10-13-2005, 06:52 PM

Kathy29, with all due respect as well, the Dems are indeed thrashing about but their base is still desperate and they are grasping for anything that they can hold on to. Now is the time to knock them for a loop while they are weak and speak out with a strong voice and deliver the knockout punch. We Conservatives are in a very strong position to change the Republican Party right now.

Beowulf

10-13-2005, 09:00 PM

Get in touch with your local representatives and tell them how you feel and threaten to not cast a vote at all. That will get their attention.

Tried that. I wrote Senator Sununu and Senator Gregg about it. The reply I got from Sununu was more or less they were being careful about their guest worker program. Just more "illegals are here to stay" as far as I'm concerned.
I even went one step further on the not voting. I said that I would donate and support anyone who runs against him.

Since there is no real good time for a "protest vote," I'll just follow my conscience and do it. I mean, what's the difference. Democrats will do the same with illegals anyway.

Rink

10-13-2005, 09:01 PM

I'm with Beo and Kathy on this.

CzechPrince

10-13-2005, 10:40 PM

Who is anyone on here to tell people they should be slaves to a party that does not have their interests at hand? Screw that. Change has to start somewhere, the longer we put it off the worse the 2 major parties are going to get. They will keep getting away with crap like what we are seeing with the border or spending problems, becasue of slaves who say, "No, we must vote like this, it's the only way!" --and the 2 parties are playing off those fears brillantly.

Beowulf

10-14-2005, 07:07 AM

ErikTheRed

10-14-2005, 02:54 PM

Okay, fair enough. I'm not the type to tell people how they should vote, I was just voicing my thoughts on the matter. I'm none too happy about what's going on myself, I certainly wasn't trying to raise anyone's hackles.

Lazarus

10-14-2005, 03:01 PM

I have an idea... Lets take the Conservative vote and take over the Democratic Party and fill it with our people... That way we can shake the Pubs up and hear the gnashing of leftist teeth too... :D

tacitus

10-14-2005, 03:09 PM

Teenager

10-14-2005, 03:56 PM

Hmmm, it seems nobody like my idea. But...

I have an idea... Lets take the Conservative vote and take over the Democratic Party and fill it with our people... That way we can shake the Pubs up and hear the gnashing of leftist teeth too... :D

...that for sure is a DUM idea!!! :thumb:

MSGT

10-14-2005, 04:47 PM

This looks like a better place for this post
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=337849&postcount=8

A vote for 3rd party is a reform vote for the pubs. If we can't keep pubs conservative what good are they?

Beowulf

10-14-2005, 05:11 PM

A vote for 3rd party is a reform vote for the pubs. If we can't keep pubs conservative what good are they?

Too bad some others won't think the same way. Nice thought, MSGT.

UnkHiram

10-14-2005, 05:23 PM

Czech

I have reread my earlier comments, I dont believe I told you who to vote for. I did make it plain what I thought of voting third party but that is beside the point. I maintain that the only viable solution is to work within the system. There has not been a successfull third party launched in this country since the civil war. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that the moment a third party starts having some success the two major parties steal their thunder.

Beowulf

10-14-2005, 05:59 PM

There has not been a successfull third party launched in this country since the civil war. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that the moment a third party starts having some success the two major parties steal their thunder.

Both parties have a knack for doing some things in an election year to get people back to their sides. Little things but still, the last thing people see are the last thing they remember. So become forgotten will all the free spending, illegal immigration, the high-priced prescription drug bill and the other things that so many Conservatives here in FC and everywhere else are tired of.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if we wouldn't be so blind during those "final good deeds" passed by legislatures to make us forget the past, that third party wouldn't lose it's thunder and would therefore be successful. I won't waiver from what I believe nor will it change how I will vote if I don't like a GOP candidate.

ErikTheRed

10-14-2005, 07:24 PM

Republican_Legion

10-15-2005, 02:44 AM

what about if a couple of Repub Senators and congressmen got together and switched to Constitution Party or americas party(as seen in randy nations sig) and that would be a way the 3rd partys could gain power and the rest of the Repubs would be very Pissed off and they might be forced to Switch also or be left powerless .

btw more bad news , according to fox news: newt Gingrich (he wants to work with hitlery and establish a BIG Goverment health Care plan with tons of Pork!)
Pataki also seems to want to run . the Power Hungry RINOS just dont give up do they . Pataki article:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172244,00.html
newt gingrich article:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172183,00.html

Beowulf

10-15-2005, 04:07 AM

I'm not going to rip you apart, Erik. True, the GOP needs to be reformed but too many toe the party line. If W says this is the agenda they want, they do it. Only Tom Tancredo seems to take a true Conservative's route. Since Republicans do seem to toe that line, they are the sheep that are following there shepard. (W).

If I don't agree with something, I don't go along with it. Sorry but that's how I work.

ThomasMore

10-15-2005, 10:09 AM

I heard EVERY ONE of these arguments in 1990-92. "George (HW) Bush is no Ronald Reagan, he's a %&#! moderate." "The Republican Party isn't conservative, it is a bunch of Washington insiders." "I'm voting for Ross Perot. He is a businessman, and a no-nonsense one. He will represent the middle class." The result? The Republican party split. Those who voted for Perot helped elect Bill Clinton. Some people STILL held out faith in Perot in 1996. How well did the Reform Party do then?

No third party ever won a national election. The Republican Party did not just rise up and replace the Whig Party in the 19th century. The Whig Party had to collapse first, leaving the Democrat Party in uncontested control. You would have to let the Republican Party die and cede political control of this country to the Democrats before a third party could draw enough support to become relevant nationally.

Does that mean we should accept the garbage many Republicans are feeding us? Of course not. We must fight within the party for its soul. That means pushing for conservative candidates and ideas, pressing our elected officials and party officials, voting in the primaries, and keeping our voices principled, consistent, and ever-present. The RINOs and those who have gotten comfortable playing pork-barrel and inside politics will be fighting conservatives every inch of the way.

I live in Illinois, where RINOs and power-hungry Republicans have won the soul of the state party. In so doing, they destroyed it: Illinois used to be a swing-state, now it is firmly on the Dems' side.

If the RINOs take control nationally, this will be the fate of the party. Will the Republicans have deserved it? Yes, because they didn't stand for anything except their own power.

Will we all be subject to Democrat government? Yes. Will WE have deserved it? Yes, because we turned a blind eye to the lessons of history, and quit out of pique.

Naturalized-Texan

10-15-2005, 11:03 AM

ThomasMore, Well said! :claps: :thumb:

Naturalized-Texan

10-15-2005, 11:18 AM

Good post, Beowulf. I understand what you're saying but can the numbers add up? I'm on your side brutha but is it actually feasible that we can cut off our votes to the Repubs and successfully elect our own President in '08? No way, no how! Rip me apart if you will but I believe our greatest chance for success is to take over the Republican Party from the inside instead of voting for a third party which has very little chance for success.
I've been working to reform the Republican Party for 45 years now and I'm not about to give up, especially when I look at how far the party has come in those 45 years - from a party controlled by the Rockefeller/country club wing of the party, where conservatives were few and far between, to a party where we conservatives hold a large majority. Today, the RINOs are few and far between, but unfortunately there are still enough RINOs in the Senate to prevent the passage of conservative initiatives.

In 2000, the remnants of the Rockefeller/country club/establishment wing tried to get one of its own - McCain - nominated, but thankfully they were unsuccessful as the conservative majority rose up and overwhelmingly nominated the anti-establishment candidate - George W. Bush.

Rink

10-15-2005, 11:54 AM

After 45 years if the Republican party isnt reformed by now it never will be.

If Tancredo runs I'm votin for him, dont care what party he chooses I'll vote for him cuz he dont tow the party line like a good little sheeple.

Naturalized-Texan

10-15-2005, 12:52 PM

After 45 years if the Republican party isnt reformed by now it never will be.
As I pointed out above, the Republican Party HAS been reformed into a majority conservative party. Unfortunately, there are still a few RINOS in the Senate who are blocking nearly every conservative initiative. Fortunately, those RINOs are old and willl soon be gone.

Tancredo hasn't a snowball's chance in hell to be elected president. Don't waste your vote because it will just help elect Hitlery.

Republican_Legion

10-15-2005, 01:39 PM

Well what if the GOP candiate is as bad as John Kerry.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=699

Rink

10-15-2005, 01:43 PM

Hate to tell ya NT but you're going to get Hillary BECAUSE of the spinelessness of the GOP!!!

Beowulf

10-15-2005, 02:26 PM

Tancredo hasn't a snowball's chance in hell to be elected president. Don't waste your vote because it will just help elect Hitlery.

So what you're saying is that even if a RINO gets the GOP nomination and continues with the Bush Agenda of all the things we criticize him for that I'm supposed to vote for him anyway just to keep Hitlery out of office?
Sorry but it ain't happening on my account.

tacitus

10-15-2005, 02:43 PM

ErikTheRed

10-15-2005, 03:15 PM

Okay then, let's discuss this. We're all on the same side here but we are divided on how to take care of the problem. I'm all for taking control of the GOP from the inside. Call, write letters, do whatever you can do to beat them into submission. Be very clear to your elected officials that unless they stand up and show a pair, you will withhold your vote during the next election. That's my position. What is the strategy to promote a third party candidate and to get them elected to the Presidency? I'm asking because I don't know and I'm curious. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I'm just trying to advance the movement.

aaron11

10-15-2005, 03:20 PM

Pataki also seems to want to run . the Power Hungry RINOS just dont give up do they . Pataki article:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172244,00.html
newt gingrich article:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172183,00.html

Pataki is a Liberal putzzzzzzzzzz...

Dude is far worse than the mainstream Democreeps.

Sacrificing principals in order to win elections has gotten us no-where...

Being in New York my "national vote" hasn't counted for sh!t any-way, so i will vote for the best Candidate regardless of party...

aaron11

10-15-2005, 03:22 PM

Okay then, let's discuss this. We're all on the same side here but we are divided on how to take care of the problem. I'm all for taking control of the GOP from the inside. Call, write letters, do whatever you can do to beat them into submission. .
The "old guard" will never let this happen. With out a strictly Conservative party, Conservatism will never be more than a pipe dream...

ErikTheRed

10-15-2005, 03:28 PM

Okay, so how can we win with a Conservative third party?

Timberwolf

10-15-2005, 04:19 PM

ThomasMore

10-15-2005, 04:22 PM

Like good little sheep, vote the party line. Tex said so. :whistle:

It's a riot to hear this since we beat the crap out of democrats for not thinking and just pulling the lever for the D candidate. Now we have to be the same out of FEAR. Sorry but I don't live by fear. :uhh:

If you are referring to me (I don't know that you are), that's NOT what I said.

I said that there are those within the Rep. party who will fight the conservative agenda tooth and nail. Some of them never had a clue about conservative ideals, others figuratively sold out to mammon.

I am looking at history, and where I see the best chance of political success. That is continuing to fight for the soul of the Republican Party. That does not mean "following Republicans, wherever they lead", it means using what influence each of us has to grab the party by the nose and lead IT where it needs to go.

That is not living by fear. That is aiming my fire where it has the most effect.

If the national Republican Party trends left, or "to the center", or whatever...turns into Democrats Lite, it deserves to die, just as it has in Illinois. But until the battle is lost (like it is in Illinois), as long as there is something to fight for, I will fight for conservatives in the party, and fight for the party against the Dems.

Naturalized-Texan

10-15-2005, 04:30 PM

So what you're saying is that even if a RINO gets the GOP nomination and continues with the Bush Agenda of all the things we criticize him for that I'm supposed to vote for him anyway just to keep Hitlery out of office?
Sorry but it ain't happening on my account.
Today's Republican Party is too conservative to nominate a RINO. The last RINO who ran for the nomination - McCain - got trounced. The last RINO who got the nomination - Dole - also got trounced. The next RINO to run for the nomination will also get trounced.

Naturalized-Texan

10-15-2005, 04:35 PM

Timberwolf

10-15-2005, 04:47 PM

Today's Republican Party is too conservative to nominate a RINO. The last RINO who ran for the nomination - McCain - got trounced. The last RINO who got the nomination - Dole - also got trounced. The next RINO to run for the nomination will also get trounced.
Okay, how about a fiscally conservative liberal?

tacitus

10-15-2005, 04:50 PM

:finger:

Same to you Tex. It's apparent that you can't take members that do not support you party line 100% without the F U symbol. Is that how ytou went through life blindly following without question or thinking? If so, that a sad commentary.:rolleyes:

ErikTheRed

10-15-2005, 04:52 PM

"Might take a couple of election cycles for the people to become "fed up", but it would happen."

How confident are you? Are you willing to take that chance? That's a VERY long time to ask people to wait. I won't take that bet.

ThomasMore

10-15-2005, 05:06 PM

Once a true 3rd party comes to be, the democrats will rule the roost....temporarily....and then be swept out with the rest of the trash. Might take a couple of election cycles for the people to become "fed up", but it would happen. The Ds would become the microminority that they already truely are. The more moderate Ds would become "republicans" and we conservatives would have our own party which would rival the "new republicans".

TW, I understand your thinking on this and at various times I have shared it myself. (I didn't like what George the Elder did, and came within a gnats-@$$ of voting for Perot.)

The reasons I have come to doubt this strategy are two:

This assumes that a large percentage of the population will suddenly wake up when faced with the worst that the Democrats can offer. American populations with stronger traditions of liberty than ours today, better overall educations, and better work ethics elected Roosevelt four times, elected Kennedy and Johnson, elected Carter, and recently elected (and defended) Clinton. Today, many lionize Hillary.

I think the reason for this is because many people are political illiterates, especially when it comes to the meaning of liberty and our political traditions. They see government as the solution, not the problem, and they turn a blind eye to the corruption and power-hunger centered in Washington. This ignorance scares me, and I see it getting worse, not better. Washington's demagogues are fully supported by the media, academia and Hollywood, who will sell snake oil to the unlettered.

I do not have enough faith that the majority of the public will wake up and become sufficiently motivated conservatives to form a "pure" and electable conservative party if the Democrats get unfettered control of the government.

Those who haven't yet seen the light are not likely to, especially if conservative voices lose their best outlets. This brings me to my second concern: I think ceding complete control to the Democrats would be extraordinarily dangerous. Even if a new conservative party would be born, it would have much more to undo, with an even stronger Democrat opposition since the Dems had regained the levers of power. And if the Dems regain power after their years in the wilderness, we know that they will use that power with gusto and do ANYTHING it takes to be certain they don't lose it again.

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, after 9/11 he would have done little to address the terror threat, except to use that as a pretext to empower the federal government and curtail our freedoms radically. The press would have hailed his "decisive actions". 40% of the public would have backed him all the way -- at least 30% more wouldn't have given a rat's behind, and at least 10% of those who didn't like what he was doing would feel too intimidated to speak up. The remaining 20% or so who would have spoken up would have been dismissed as cranks or traitors and ignored.

Bear in mind that Bill Clinton demagogued against talk radio, calling it "hate radio" -- an interesting allusion since "hate crimes" had only recently become law in many places: for the first time criminalizing thought instead of actions. Clinton's allusion was a clear move to marginalize and criminalize conservative thought. His power was limited by the fact that Congress had recently and surprisingly gone Republican. His VP, Al Gore, wanted to set controls on the internet to control content.

Democrat Russ Feingold and RINO John McCain had no problem criminalizing political speech with their "Campaign Finance Reform" bill; Dems and the press pushed hard for it.

If we cede control to the Dems, especially those led by Hillary, I do fear for our nation: I fear what powers the State will assume. I fear for the safety of conservatives. I fear for any opportunity to spread conservative ideals. I fear for having any future voice in our government.

I do not have enough faith in the broad population to recognize and oppose what the Democrats will do. Too many will be too easily bought off, and others will see government as Uncle Sugar. I do not have enough faith that a new conservative party would be able to come to effective power at all, or if it does, that it would necessarily be superior to the current (deeply flawed) Republican Party.

By nature I am an optimist, but I am not optimistic enough to take THAT gamble.

Naturalized-Texan

10-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Same to you Tex. It's apparent that you can take members that do not support you party line 100% without the F U symbol. Is that how ytou went through life blindly following without question or thinking? If so, that a sad commently.
I would rather fight to make the Republican Party continue its trend to the right that began about 45 years ago rather than cowardly give up the fight and leave the party. I'm not a coward. I'd rather stay in the party and fight rather than take the coward's way out. If you would rather surrender than fight to make the Republican Party continue its move to the right, be my guest. If your surrender results in electing Hitlery to the presidency, don't come whining to me.

BTW, I realize that you have been intentionally and repeatedly attacking me personally to goad me into responding in kind. You haven't fooled me for one second.

aaron11

10-15-2005, 05:30 PM

ErikTheRed

10-15-2005, 05:40 PM

ThomasMore, I'm disappointed in your lack of faith. I will fight to take over the Republican Party. Your pessimistic statement is hurting the Conservative cause. Take it somewhere else.

ThomasMore

10-15-2005, 06:09 PM

ThomasMore, I'm disappointed in your lack of faith. I will fight to take over the Republican Party. Your pessimistic statement is hurting the Conservative cause. Take it somewhere else.

Huh? Where did you read that?

I am arguing for fighting within the Republican Party, against the RINOs.

TW's argument was for letting the Republican Party die, giving the Dem's sufficient rope to hang themselves, then coming in with a new party.

I understand his feelings, but I also don't have enough faith either in the public to form an effective "new, conservative" party, or to trust that the Dems won't do irreparable damage in the meantime.

I think we need to fight within the Party, unless and until the Party is beyond redemption. This has happened in Illinois. It has not happened nationally.

Check out my other posts on this thread, hopefully they will provide a coherent whole.

ErikTheRed

10-15-2005, 06:32 PM

I apologize if I insulted you, Thomas, I misunderstood what you stated. I agree with your sentiments, whoops! My bad, my friend. :grin:

ThomasMore

10-15-2005, 06:52 PM

I apologize if I insulted you, Thomas, I misunderstood what you stated. I agree with your sentiments, whoops! My bad, my friend. :grin:

No problem...I admire your spirit!

There are plenty of times I want to throw my hands up and give up on the Republican Party, so I do understand the thinking. Unfortunately, I think it would do more harm than good.

Incidentally, although my posts do not indicate it, I do hope for a conservative-driven revival of the Illinois party. The old RINO guard still holds the party's reins, but those reins are attached to a very sick horse. In the meantime, the corrupt party hacks in our state will get no support of any kind from me. I will support individual conservative candidates and groups, but that is all.

tacitus

10-16-2005, 07:20 AM

BTW, I realize that you have been intentionally and repeatedly attacking me personally to goad me into responding in kind. You haven't fooled me for one second.

You are wrong. I question your blind loyalty. If that isn't acceptable to you, just say so and I'll never respond to you again. :uhh:

CzechPrince

10-16-2005, 10:35 AM

Timberwolf

10-16-2005, 12:14 PM

Huh? Where did you read that?

I am arguing for fighting within the Republican Party, against the RINOs.

TW's argument was for letting the Republican Party die, giving the Dem's sufficient rope to hang themselves, then coming in with a new party.
Close enough...LOL...actually I was wanting the new party first, then letting the Ds hang themselves and letting the democrat party die. *grin*

I understand his feelings, but I also don't have enough faith either in the public to form an effective "new, conservative" party, or to trust that the Dems won't do irreparable damage in the meantime.
And I share your skepticism and will admit that I was speaking from an attitude of extreme frustration with the "conservatives" (i.e. - RINOs) within the R party.

I think we need to fight within the Party, unless and until the Party is beyond redemption. This has happened in Illinois. It has not happened nationally.

Check out my other posts on this thread, hopefully they will provide a coherent whole.
One thing that would help immensely would be the repeal of the 17th amendment and turn selection of the Senate back to the State Legislatures. This would get the people's "hand" out of the cookie jar (treasury) and start the process of reversing 70+ years of social engineering.

Thanks for the reality check Thomas, I needed it.

ThomasMore

10-16-2005, 01:57 PM

Close enough...LOL...actually I was wanting the new party first, then letting the Ds hang themselves and letting the democrat party die. *grin*

And I share your skepticism and will admit that I was speaking from an attitude of extreme frustration with the "conservatives" (i.e. - RINOs) within the R party.

One thing that would help immensely would be the repeal of the 17th amendment and turn selection of the Senate back to the State Legislatures. This would get the people's "hand" out of the cookie jar (treasury) and start the process of reversing 70+ years of social engineering.

What the Republicans in Washington are doing is flirting dangerously with doing nationally what they already did in Illinois: they became the new Democrats -- playing the pork-barrel and patronage game. Buy the constituents' votes.

From a political standpoint, then they are doing nothing that the Democrats don't do. Only the Democrats do it better.

From an ideological standpoint, the Republicans were elected by a motivated conservative base to PUT A STOP to that. When the Republicans get suckered in to playing the "inside" game, they cease to stand for what got them elected. And those who want the government to be a great teat will pass them by for the Democrats.

That is how the Illinois Republicans committed party suicide. Now, Illinois is effectively a Democrat monolith. I am fearful that the national Republicans are starting down that road.

That is why I think it is so important to fight to save the Republican party from the RINO elements. They will literally destroy us.

I will consider your recommendation to return the election of Senators to the state assemblies. It is an interesting idea.

HomeschoolrsRUs

10-16-2005, 02:36 PM

I think the reason for this is because many people are political illiterates, especially when it comes to the meaning of liberty and our political traditions. They see government as the solution, not the problem, and they turn a blind eye to the corruption and power-hunger centered in Washington. This ignorance scares me, and I see it getting worse, not better. Washington's demagogues are fully supported by the media, academia and Hollywood, who will sell snake oil to the unlettered.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head and driven it home. The Spirit of American Individualism, Freedom, and Liberty has been MORE than watered down. It's not just about "patriotism." It's about truly wanting a better America for our future generations, our neighbors, our friends, our relatives, ourselves. That rugged determination to stand up for what is honorable, right, good, moral, and principles that serve the best interests of those that desire to have, do and be better.

Blind government-endentured servants, THAT'S what we have now, all facing the gate with their hands out and their attitudes upon their shoulder screeching, "More, we should have more, you owe us more, you must give us more, we need you to take care of us." All the while "government officials" bloviate about the poor (who are mostly so of their own doing), the homeless (who are mostly so of their own doing), and the unemployed (who are mostly so of their own doing).

I do not have enough faith that the majority of the public will wake up and become sufficiently motivated conservatives to form a "pure" and electable conservative party if the Democrats get unfettered control of the government.

I do not have enough faith that ANY 'outsider' could walk up and become sufficiently able TO motivate conservatives to form a "pure" and electable conservative party, BECAUSE to do so they must capitulate to the "system," leaving them vulnerable to those devices and agendas which tear down the candidate. In other words, they must be able to "play the game." How can you build coalitions, when you don't play the "you-scratch-my-back,-I'll-scratch-yours game"? How do you succeed in a jungle of vipers with only "pure" intentions, and no weapon (a knowing people) with which to deal with them? Money, power, fame, and the desire to be liked are powerful, drug-like entities which can ruin even the purest of souls.

This brings me to my second concern: I think ceding complete control to the Democrats would be extraordinarily dangerous. Even if a new conservative party would be born, it would have much more to undo, with an even stronger Democrat opposition since the Dems had regained the levers of power. And if the Dems regain power after their years in the wilderness, we know that they will use that power with gusto and do ANYTHING it takes to be certain they don't lose it again.

Agreed. HOWEVER -- how much ground do we have to "give up" in order to regain our conservative stronghold within the Republican Party? What concessions are we going to be forced to live with (nothing done about immigration, nothing done about abortion, nothing done about taxation, INCREASED pork-barrel spending, nothing done about social security, etc.), until our knight-in-shining-armor arrives?

ThomasMore

10-16-2005, 06:02 PM

I do not have enough faith that ANY 'outsider' could walk up and become sufficiently able TO motivate conservatives to form a "pure" and electable conservative party, BECAUSE to do so they must capitulate to the "system," leaving them vulnerable to those devices and agendas which tear down the candidate. In other words, they must be able to "play the game." How can you build coalitions, when you don't play the "you-scratch-my-back,-I'll-scratch-yours game"? How do you succeed in a jungle of vipers with only "pure" intentions, and no weapon (a knowing people) with which to deal with them? Money, power, fame, and the desire to be liked are powerful, drug-like entities which can ruin even the purest of souls.

Agreed. HOWEVER -- how much ground do we have to "give up" in order to regain our conservative stronghold within the Republican Party? What concessions are we going to be forced to live with (nothing done about immigration, nothing done about abortion, nothing done about taxation, INCREASED pork-barrel spending, nothing done about social security, etc.), until our knight-in-shining-armor arrives?

I detest every inch that "our side" gives away, or walks the ball the wrong way itself.

The only answer I can give is that conservatives' voices need to be strong and consistent. This is one of the great values of people like Rush and Hannity: they are booming voices for our side. The pols know that they do speak for millions of us, and that many of us will vote with our ballots, money and support in a manner largely consistent with what they hear on talk radio and the internet.

We need to actively support those who support conservative ideals and policies. This with our voices, our time and our money. Those of us who are able should become directly involved locally or regionally.

When candidates or elected officials go off the reservation, we need to let them unequivocally hear from us. They need to know that they endanger their political futures.

The Bush administration is tone-deaf on many domestic issues: adding to the Federal Government hydra, our uncontrolled borders, and the Meirs nomination are all examples.

ChiliJ

10-16-2005, 06:10 PM

I don't think we will ever have a President or party that is "completely" liberal or conservative, because that is too polarizing for the American public. There are so many different ethnicities, religions, economic groups of voters, that it would be hard for a very conservative or very liberal candidate to win.

dPrasse

10-16-2005, 07:53 PM

That is how the Illinois Republicans committed party suicide. Now, Illinois is effectively a Democrat monolith. I am fearful that the national Republicans are starting down that road.

starting ? I'm afraid the National Repubs have been going that way for some time ... or is it that Reagan temporarily stopped the downhill slide of the R party ?

That is why I think it is so important to fight to save the Republican party from the RINO elements. They will literally destroy us.

but , giving "blind" allegiance to the R party as the W apologists want is just as wrong ... the "insiders" had already forced W to the top long before our IL Primary ...

I will consider your recommendation to return the election of Senators to the state assemblies. It is an interesting idea.

the Senate was oiginally set up as the "States Ambassadors" to the Fed goobermint ...

we also need all Primaries on the same day , no direspect to anyone , but I don't really give a ip who NH or IA thinks should represent me , in IL ... but that is what we get with primaries spread out all over ...

Naturalized-Texan

10-17-2005, 03:22 PM

You are wrong. I question your blind loyalty. If that isn't acceptable to you, just say so and I'll never respond to you again. :uhh:
What blind loyalty? Why do you have to resort to personal attacks and false claims?

The problem is that the younger generations - most of those born after World War II - have been conditioned by the media to expect instant gratification through the solving by the media of all the world's problems in a two-hour movie or a one-hour TV show. That instant gratification manifests itself in many and varied ways including the manifestation that triggered the title of this topic. Some conservatives expect to be instantly gratified by having nearly 70 years of creeping socialism reversed in the less than 3 years that we have had a Republican president and slim Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. That expectation of instant gratification is totally unrealistic. It can't happen. Unfortunately, it may very well take as many as 70 years to reverse that 70 years of creeping socialism - much longer, or never, if conservatives desert the Republican Party.

I was raised during the Great Depression when we were taught the virtue of patience and hard work over a period of many years to attain the goals to which we strived. I've been working and fighting for 45 years to help transform the Republican Party from a majority liberal party (controlled by Rockefeller and his fellow country-club Republicans) to the majority conservative party that we see today. I get POed when I see a handful of conservatives conditioned by the media to expect instant gratification threaten to undo the successes that I and millions of other conservatives have worked and fought for in the past 45 years. Without our efforts there would never have been a President Reagan.

Federal Farmer

10-17-2005, 07:26 PM

If conservatives today suffer from instant gratification syndrome brought on by the TV generation, then what was the Founders' excuse? They lived under the Articles of Confederation for only seven years before deciding it wasn't working.

Politically, it's not about reversing "seventy years of creeping socialism." FDR implemented his New Deal in less than three years, accounting for most of the entitlement mentality conservatives now fight. Socially, it may take some time to reverse the affects of the nanny-state with its seventy years of liberal propaganda and to re-educate the ignorant masses in self-reliance.

The problem for true conservatives now is we're fighting not only the ignorance of the masses and liberal ideology, but a Republican Party that enjoys the power it's attained so much it intends to keep it, even if that means being "all inclusive" and "compassionate." The Elephants learned their lessons well from the Donkeys.

ErikTheRed

10-17-2005, 08:35 PM

Also, this is the wrong time in history to abandon the Republican Party to form a third party. Islamic terrorists, N. Korea, China, H5N1, and every other nightmare we can think of is happening right now. Who do we trust? Democrats or Republicans? Our long term goals cannot happen right now. We have to put some faith (however unfounded and irritatingly so) into who you believe will handle the situation the best. That's a wide range of bullshit to deal with in the short term. Who do you trust?

Federal Farmer

10-17-2005, 09:08 PM

History is always happening, you can't let that keep you from the other goals you seek. The Founders had Indians, British, French, and Spanish all around them yet still undertook the endeavor of moving from the Articles to the Constitution all the while not knowing if their experiment in a Republican government of a type never conceived of before would better suit them for survival or not.

Conservatives should send a message to the Republican Party to attempt getting their attention. If it doesn't then at least conservatives as a whole will have learned where they really stand and can on an individual basis take the actions they wish. Personally, I have no tolerance for the Democratic Party, and my patience with the Republican Party has almost completely run out as well.

ErikTheRed

10-17-2005, 09:42 PM

Agreed Federal Farmer, we have to adjust to the times but we are not talking Indians, British, French and Spanish threats. We are looking at terrorist threats that include anything from a pipe bomb to a nuclear weapon. We have many other problems other than to debate the status of our party right now. I do not trust the Dems with protecting our country right now, I trust the Repubs to do that.

Rink

10-17-2005, 10:02 PM

Dont forget the Founding fathers had the scourge of Smallpox also to deal with.

ErikTheRed

10-17-2005, 10:17 PM

I'm just looking at the present threat, Rink. The new flu could very well be the new epidemic. Please don't add smallpox on top of that! We're all gonna die! :grin: OK, probably not but it scares me a bit. :rolleyes:

Beowulf

10-18-2005, 01:38 AM

I was raised during the Great Depression when we were taught the virtue of patience and hard work over a period of many years to attain the goals to which we strived.
I'm all for this too but I'm not about to wait 40 years for things to pan out. 5 or 6 years yes but not 40. One bad policy by any president only takes a few seconds to make via the whip of a pen but will take years to fix after the fact.

I get POed when I see a handful of conservatives conditioned by the media
It really has little to do with the media. I read it for myself. I see W developing a fast track record of ignoring the majority of those who voted for him to set forth his personal agenda and many within the GOP get right in line behind him. Those people need to be voted out but NOT by voting in a Democrat. I'd support a Constitutionalist before I'd do that. Let them stay and we will get more of the same. No thank you.

Republican_Legion

10-18-2005, 03:23 PM

Okay, how about a fiscally conservative liberal?

a fiscal conservative liberal is a liberaltarian . america doesnt need fiscally conservative liberal who will support abortion on demand , late term abortion , gun control , driver license for illegals .

Republican_Legion

10-18-2005, 03:40 PM

Rink

10-18-2005, 11:29 PM

McCain is a Liberal in Republican clothing, I cant stand the guy.

Republican_Legion

10-19-2005, 12:17 AM

at least he doesnt support gay marriage and abortion and Affirmitave action .
most conservative interest groups give him a better score then the other RINOS yet he is hated more then the other RINOS .

Beowulf

10-19-2005, 05:49 AM

heck even former senator of GA zell miller (D) is more conservative then :mccaine, chaffe , collins , snowe , specter , dewine and voidainch .

the ADA gave miller a more conservative rating then alot of republicans .

Zell Miller has guts!! I could vote for him. Who will ever forget his speech at the RNC. I never will.

Naturalized-Texan

10-19-2005, 09:50 AM

Politically, it's not about reversing "seventy years of creeping socialism." FDR implemented his New Deal in less than three years, accounting for most of the entitlement mentality conservatives now fight.
That's not at all true. FDR's "New Deal" was only the first step on the way to 70 years of creeping socialism. There were the "temporary" controls placed on the American people during WW II, including the 90% top marginal tax rate, some of which lasted for decades. The 90% tax rate was lowered to 70% by JFK.

And how can we ever forget LBJ's "Great Society", his "War on Poverty" which was really a war on the poor, his HUD, and his Dept. of Transportation; Carter's Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education (that shifted control of education to the federal government), and Dept. of Health and Human Services; G. H. W. Bush's and Clinton's huge tax increases (the 2 largest tax increases in the history of the world); Clinton's draconian new regulations and signing us up for the ICC and the Kyoto Protocols? And these are only a fraction of the socialist measures in the 70 years between 1931 and 2000.

There no way that anyone can argue that there hasn't been nearly 70 years of creeping socialism.

Socially, it may take some time to reverse the affects of the nanny-state with its seventy years of liberal propaganda and to re-educate the ignorant masses in self-reliance.
Agreed. And that is why it is impossible to expect the instant gratification of reversing 70 years of creeping socialism with the less than 3 years with a Republican president and slim Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

The problem for true conservatives now is we're fighting not only the ignorance of the masses and liberal ideology, but a Republican Party that enjoys the power it's attained so much it intends to keep it, even if that means being "all inclusive" and "compassionate." The Elephants learned their lessons well from the Donkeys.
But that is all the more reason for us conservatives to stay in the Republican Party and fight to continue the trend to the right that we have seen here in the past 45 years. If we stupidly desert the Republican Party after all these years of progress, we will delay, and maybe end, any possibility of reversing nearly 70 years of creeping socialism.

Federal Farmer

10-19-2005, 01:25 PM

That's not at all true. FDR's "New Deal" was only the first step on the way to 70 years of creeping socialism. There were the "temporary" controls placed on the American people during WW II, including the 90% top marginal tax rate, some of which lasted for decades. The 90% tax rate was lowered to 70% by JFK.

And how can we ever forget LBJ's "Great Society", his "War on Poverty" which was really a war on the poor, his HUD, and his Dept. of Transportation; Carter's Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education (that shifted control of education to the federal government), and Dept. of Health and Human Services; G. H. W. Bush's and Clinton's huge tax increases (the 2 largest tax increases in the history of the world); Clinton's draconian new regulations and signing us up for the ICC and the Kyoto Protocols? And these are only a fraction of the socialist measures in the 70 years between 1931 and 2000.

There no way that anyone can argue that there hasn't been nearly 70 years of creeping socialism.

Agreed. And that is why it is impossible to expect the instant gratification of reversing 70 years of creeping socialism with the less than 3 years with a Republican president and slim Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

But that is all the more reason for us conservatives to stay in the Republican Party and fight to continue the trend to the right that we have seen here in the past 45 years. If we stupidly desert the Republican Party after all these years of progress, we will delay, and maybe end, any possibility of reversing nearly 70 years of creeping socialism.
I was going to add in the Great Society but again we're speaking of a matter of a couple of years total to pass the legislation. If we want to cover socialism in its entirety we can go back at least to 1913 and the passing of the 16th amendment, which gave the federal government the resources that enabled all later socialist policies. But it's not a matter of counting the number of years from 1933 to now, rather it's the speed in which the legislation was passed. The greatest damage was done by FDR in a matter of months after his election to his first term; his virtual dictation of socialist policies only made it easier for the public to accept the later Great Society of LBJ. Between the two we're still left with only half a decade of actual legislative activity by Congress, which is my point. Legislation passed since has only fattened the Leviathan FDR spawned.

The New Deal was passed quickly because of the crisis of the Great Depression yes, but that government was the solution was the lie sold to the American people and one they still believe; therein is the crux of the matter and why I expect a conservative President to do much more from the Oval Office to explode that myth. Reagan used to speak to the lie. Unlike Roosevelt, Reagan when faced with "the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history...." said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?" (quotes from Reagan 1st Inaugural Address)

This is how a conservative President can greatly aid in re-educating the public. Contrast that with what Bush said concerning Katrina reconstruction "whatever it takes," meaning whatever the federal government must spend on the project. Former GOP Rep. Pat Toomey (now head of Club for Growth an antitax group) said, "It's not the role of the federal government to be rebuilding houses and strip malls...." That's the voice of conservatism, that's the message I want to hear a conservative President get across, however euphemistically spoken. Beyond getting out the conservative message, a conservative President should look to cut government in size and thus in spending. Bush does not enjoy the huge majorities Roosevelt had, no. But if Congress is still tilted toward the Democrats because of the McCains, that's what the Presidential veto is for. And that pen Bush has not pulled out of the drawer.

In his personal life I think Bush is a conservative. But politically he has taken the road many Republicans now trod in that once power is gained, it must be retained; to retain power, in a society that has come to see government as the solution to societal ills, means nursing the public with the nanny-state, not weaning the public off of it. This is why conservatives are at a crossroads with the GOP; this is why it is smart to send a message now, long before 2008, that we're not happy with the things we're seeing. Better now than in a Presidential election year. Buckley was unhappy with the Republican Party in the late 50s, and called the Republican platform "measured socialism." In 1960, his National Review did not endorse a candidate for President, there being nothing to choose between Nixon and Kennedy.

Who will conservatives have to choose in 2008 if the message isn't sent now?