The End of the Republican Party?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ^ | September 23, 2005 | The Liberty Crew

[jmaroneps37]

Nice try Jewish Dudes but you are a bit off. We are stronger now then ever, so slowly put down the New York Times and step away from your computer.
We will pick up seats in the next two cycles. We will keep the WH and we will have the Supreme Court. "End of the Republican Party"? My ass.

[Lancey Howard]

....it's also true that when the base has not strongly supported the Republican nominee the results have been Presidents like Carter and Clinton - and the base understands that.

And obviously the base can live with that (as evidenced by the election of those two) and this is why McCain apparently believes that he can win without the Republican base. It would be far preferable for a Democrat to win the Presidency over any Republican who dismisses the conservative base, because anytime a Republican wins without the conservative base, it emboldens other cowards in the GOP to try to do the same thing. Eventually you will end up with a conservative base without a perty.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[freepatriot32]

Nice try Jewish Dudes but you are a bit off. We are stronger now then ever, so slowly put down the New York Times and step away from your computer. We will pick up seats in the next two cycles. We will keep the WH and we will have the Supreme Court. "End of the Republican Party"? My ass.

Ok lets say you are right and the republicans keep a majority in o6 and 08 when we had the house but bill clinton was president he tryed to get a massive helath care bill through and was shot down when georgie boy tryedto get a 1 TRILLION dollar prescription drug bill through it passed becasue no republican wantedto be told to never darken the doors ofthe white house for going against georgie boy like tancredo did.for the first 5 years of georgie boys administration federal spendding has gone up 30 percent and under the first 5 years of clinton i think it went up 15p ercent and thats with a dem majority in the congress and white house and senate. the best thing that could happen to this nation is if we lose the white house to hillary but keep amajority in congress and the senate that way the men in congress and senate will discover that the vagina they had between there legs since 2000 was actually testicles and a penis after all and they will stand up to the president for a change. If there is no difference between the spending policys of the demicans and republicrats its time to start voting Libertarian in mass.

[bazbo]

Maybe we need a new political party that searches for truth and believes in the Constitution of the United States as a standard for discerning what the truth may be. The "Free Republic" party has a nice ring to it. How about it Jim Robinson?

[bazbo]

Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.

Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.

May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.

Jim Robinson

[freepatriot32]

I got this off another thread but it applys here

"President Bush has pledged to do whatever it takes to rebuild the lives and communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This pledge comes with a price tag. To deliver this kind of aid, Congress and the President must set priorities and make sacrifices and trade-offs to pay for it. Offsetting the cost of rebuilding is all the more important because the rebuilding effort follows a 33 percent expansion of the federal government since 2001, a period that saw:

* The 2001 No Child Behind Act, the most expensive education bill in American history, which led to a 100 percent increase in education spending;

* The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, the most expensive farm bill in American history;

* The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, the most expensive Great Society expansion in history;

* A war in and the rebuilding of Iraq that, while justified, could cost between $300 and $600 billion, in total;

* International spending leap 94 percent;

* Housing and Commerce spending surge 86 percent;

* Community and regional development spending jump 71 percent;

* Health research spending increase 61 percent;

* Veterans’ spending increase 51 percent; and

* The number of annual pork projects leap from 6,000 to 14,000. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm844.cfm

[bazbo]

Well, that is certainly food for thought but unless you have a solution, (which I do not)are we not still stuck with the "lesser of two evils" dilema?

[freepatriot32]

Well, that is certainly food for thought but unless you have a solution, (which I do not)are we not still stuck with the "lesser of two evils" dilema?

I do have a solution.The same solution that I have been using since the 2002 election voting straight Libertarian ticket.

They arent the lesser of two evils they are the good guys that will bring the federal government under control and limit them to only the 26 specific things spelled out in the constitution anything else will be eliminated or reassigned to the state level.

Holding you head high and voting Libertarian is a hell of a lot better then holding your nose and voting republican any day of the week.

[softwarecreator]

Although I can understand, in principal, your wishes for an alternative party, it's a situation that plays squarely into the hands of the democrats.  GWB didn't win by a HUGE majority and every vote we don't give to the Republican Party is basically giving the demmies a vote.  I can't do that, future generations are depending upon us not to give America back to the left.

I voted for Bush in 2000 ONLY because I refused to give my vote to that idiot Gore, had there been another viable choice I may have gone that way.

2004 was a no-brainer.  After 9-11 I knew I could never return to an unbiased voting strategy.  I voted for GWB in pure confidence that this was the person needed at that time.

I wish there was another solution. but I don't know one.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

face reality..the 1950's will never be back...

Were you also one of those people in the late 70s who kept saying that America's best days were behind her?

[ladyinred]

President Bush is not a socialist. Good grief.

[Tom Thumbs]

Yep, looks like republicans are in DEEP trouble.

---

Yup, they are.

Now, the PARTY, though... the Republican PARTY is sittin' pretty. But the traditional Republicans -- the "limited government, conservative" folks... yup, "DEEP trouble" pretty much sizes it up alright.

The Grand Old Party of today is drifting to the left at an increasing pace. Today's Republicans are to the left of yesteryear's Democrats. Compare GWB with HHH -- check out their respective positions on the RKBA and it'll curl your hair. Then compare GWB with LBJ on "social programs" and ol' MacByrd will come off looking like a conservative by comparison!

Is the price of obtaining power the need to embrace compromise to the point that the GOP becomes that which it competes against?

If so, I'd call it a lousy bargain.

[Tom Thumbs]

Some of the people here are mainly into politics as a sport. All they care about is there side winning, without regard to the kind of gvt they end up with.

Others seem to care mainly about particular social issues (abortion, gay amrriage), but don't otherwise care about the size or scope of gvt.

---

You've struck gold with those observations whether you realize it or not.

You've accurately painted a picture of the two 800-lb gorrilla political parties, and, what differentiates them.

The Democrats excel at "coalition-building". They are damn good at it. They target disparate "disenfranchised" groups (ever so discretely ENSURING that the groups OBSESS on their "disenfrancisemen", and, reinforcing it so that it becomes a steady-state condition).

And, they DELIVER for their coaltion.

The Republicans, on the other hand, go after the "football fan" part of the brain. They stir up THEIR "followers" using the same "Yay, team!" groupthink that consistently delivers billions of dollars to the sports industry.

Any "promises" THEY make are vague, with the only REAL "promise" being "victory" -- IF "the team" will "hold together" NO MATTER WHAT.

Thus, for the Democrats, it's a quid pro quo in terms of "you vote us into power, and we'll deliver you the goods". And for the Republicans, the quid pro quo is "if you remain LOYAL to the TEAM, we will march ahead to VICTORY!"

Two entirely different mindsets. Both are disgusting, base, vile, and dehumanizing. Only ONE of them has any REAL payoff, though -- despicable as it may be.

Because the GOP is VERY weak in the coalition-building department, it will never go beyond offering vague, halfhearted "promises" (generally "promises" to TRY, rather than to DELIVER), and, when there is dissention among the ranks (over the FAILURE to deliver), the "ranks" are demonized, ridiculed, attacked, and accused of infidelity, in that the ONE thing that DOES "matter" (in the GOP brand of groupthink) -- "team loyalty" -- is challenged BY any efforts to "hold their feet to the fire."

Sorry, I don't see any happy ending to this story.

[Tom Thumbs]

They also know about the phony polls, studies, etc., conducted by the Violence Policy Center, but use them anyway to justify their silence on whatever gun law changes the gun-grabbing left wants to push.

---

11 odd years ago, Dole's office was getting several THOUSAND calls a day, urging him to vote against the AWB.

He voted for it.

Explain to me again why it's important to back Team GOP at all costs?

[Tom Thumbs]

We clearly need to work harder, I am unsure how many sponsors are needed to get this bill out of committee for passage, but 55 is apparently not enough! ('')

---

Seems to me that the real question is "will it pass IF it comes out of committee?"

If not, then there's no rush at all to push it out of committee.

[Tom Thumbs]

The sooner those who have wrongly imprisoned are released the better! This is outrageous!

---

The correct Newthink posture is that it doesn't matter HOW many innocents are wrongly incarcerated, "if it only saves one life" (ideally, of the hypothetical (and ubiquitous) "child").

So, you point out that many innocent people ("men", I'd wager, so there's already one giant strike against 'em) wrongly imprisoned.

You're countered with logic that asserts that "even if they ARE 'innocent' of THIS crime, at least there are GUNS kept off the streets" (and so, overall, it is a beneficial situation -- beneficial to the collective).

You can't fight an agenda simply by using facts -- especially of the agenda already has EMOTION on its side (as well as the media, et al).

You can only fight such a foe by applying STRENGTH -- and that can only come via politics, and as we've seen even when there is sufficient constituency for a "strength in numbers" scenario, the PARTY will hang 'em out to dry, because it (the party) is ONLY interested in power in the GENERAL sense, with NO interest in delivering the goods for any part of its constituency.

Now, for giggles, wait, and watch, and see how long it'll take for Party RAT to start wooing the "gun nut" faction.

Fact: H. Rodham has recently taken a stand AGAINST the vile display planned for the "Ground Zero" site. This is something that you'd expect the RATs to stand FOR -- and, the GOP to vociferously oppose.

The apparent role-reversal is striking -- but, it's consistent with the big picture; the Democrats go after disaffected splinter groups, and build coalitions, and the GOP shuns "promise-making", OTHER than the "promise" of "winning", "if we all hang together".

To the GOP, "loyalty" (to the party) stands over all. The PARTY, though, does NOT reciprocate. "Loyalty" is a one-way street, with the "promise" being one of sharing in the vicarious benefits of being on "the winning team" IF the loyalty TO the team is absolute.

I will NOT be surprised to see the RATs go after the RKBAers in earnest. It's a sizable contingent, and it's CLEARLY a DISAFFECTED group -- and the ONLY thing the Republicans have to "offer" the group is more of the same, i.e., "stick with us and we'll WIN -- but if you try to hold OUR feet to the fire, we'll attack you for your treason to the cause!"

[Tom Thumbs]

Nice try Jewish Dudes but you are a bit off. We are stronger now then ever, so slowly put down the New York Times and step away from your computer.
We will pick up seats in the next two cycles. We will keep the WH and we will have the Supreme Court. "End of the Republican Party"? My ass.

---

LOL!

And this benefits the RKBA exactly HOW?

Remind me, I seem to have forgotten that detail.

Sorry, Goy Dude, but "Yay, TEAM!" won't cut it.

Comes a time to DELIVER -- and by that I mean to deliver the GOODS.

Simply delivering "we WON!" won't cut it for anything other than jocksports.

[Tom Thumbs]

It's scary, isn't it -- a "party of principle" that's gradually morphed into a different type of party -- a TAILGATE party. The only thing that matters is "winning".

But WHAT is it that's "won", when PRINCIPLE is cast aside?

[Tom Thumbs]

And obviously the base can live with that (as evidenced by the election of those two) and this is why McCain apparently believes that he can win without the Republican base. It would be far preferable for a Democrat to win the Presidency over any Republican who dismisses the conservative base, because anytime a Republican wins without the conservative base, it emboldens other cowards in the GOP to try to do the same thing. Eventually you will end up with a conservative base without a perty.

---

I'm convinced that if somehow Clinton had won a third term, the Republican Congress would have withstood him tooth and nail if he'd tried to hammer through an agenda even HALF as radical as the one GWB has pursued.

God Bless Gridlock. Oh, how I miss it...