Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise

More discussion on the topic of pragmatism and politics is critical. If conservatives decide to take their marbles and go home rather than fight to the bitter end because they feel their principles have been compromised, they will needlessly subject future generations to untold misery.

Voting for someone who agrees with you 90 percent of the time is far superior to voting for someone who disagrees with you 100 percent of the time. This is exactly what will happen if people refuse to exercise their civic duty and boycott elections because they feel betrayed. Personally, I am not supportive of abortion at all, but I can support people who feel differently if, in the gigantic scheme of things, they can help put an end to the murder of innocent babies. This is especially true of those who are personally inclined to save and protect life.

Perhaps an illustration is in order: Two armies are engaged in a war. Let's call the good army that is trying to defend an entire society the red army and the bad army that is trying to invade and pillage society the blue army. The blue army occupies a superior strategic position and is composed of slightly more troops, putting the red army at a distinct disadvantage. Some in the red army feel that they are right and, therefore, should simply march directly into battle with the blue army because right always wins.

Fortunately, some members of the red army are wise and have a better plan. They send a battalion of troops to the base of the mountain occupied by the blue army to distract them while the vast majority of red troops approach the mountain from the backside. They descend upon the blue army by surprise, completely vanquishing them and winning the war. The decoy red battalion may have sustained some casualties, but in the long run, the war was won, and the entire society was saved.

I hope this illustration is useful in helping some to understand that achieving a critical mass of conservatives and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only, as some call them) in office will ensure that we can get non-activist Supreme Court and federal judges in place who respect the U.S. Constitution. It is essential to achieve a critical mass of individuals in the U.S. House and Senate who can join with a president in upholding the Constitution. These representatives must believe in personal responsibility and creating a business-friendly environment, understand the balance between abundant fossil-fuel development and environmental safety, and yearn to elevate the government-dependent 47 percent rather than make them more dependent. They also must be totally pro-life and believe that the rule of law can undo a host of damaging regulations and restore the value system that made this nation great.

In the long run, with the help of God, we will be in a position to save millions of babies who otherwise would be slaughtered. With this kind of responsible empowerment, energizing a sluggish economy, bringing stability to a leaderless planet and facilitating innovation will not be that difficult. To sit helplessly by and pray for deliverance when the tools to achieve victory are in our hands is not useful. God helps those who help themselves.

Conservatives and those who share their values are the last bastion between freedom and tyranny. If the secular liberals, who are very clever, succeed in dividing us during the next two national elections, America as we know it will be gone. We can stop this, but we must work together. I disagree with those who think it is going to take decades to undo the damage that already has been done. Americans are exceptional and extremely resilient. We cannot allow ourselves to be defined by those who wish to fundamentally change our society.

I am convinced that Americans with common sense will soon regain power. It is essential that we not use the opportunity to exact revenge upon the liberals. Rather, we must govern by the Constitution in a way that is fair for all. It is not reasonable to have favorites and to enforce laws selectively. Most importantly, it is not the place of our government to rule the people; the government must always remember that it is in place to serve the people.

I believe that when people who were being manipulated by the secular liberals, including the media, have an opportunity to see how much better off they are when the proper relationship between the people and the government is restored, they will adopt a different attitude. This will empower them and the entire nation.

Now is the time to rise above partisan politics and recognize the incredible blessings God has bestowed upon our nation. It is time to elevate common sense, decency, honesty and compassion to their proper positions. Rather than simply repeating the words, we must actually achieve "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

What a DISAPPOINTMENT!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO ~~CONSERVATIVES~~ "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising. This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing. Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them. It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement. But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected. That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush, which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party. It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party. And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party in the event that the GOP continues business as usual. If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise, they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections. First, they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate. Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party, they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats. Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous. At any rate, they are easily answerable. Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming. No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate. Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist. This, after all, is what makes them ideal. This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit. But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it. A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse. In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing; “I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely. As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions, it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first. Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth. Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail, those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.” Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory, he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics. My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist. But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term. For example, as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric, had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis, the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama. McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift, but because this movement would have been slower, and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain. It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win. If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics. Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

Kenny: The question that you are understandably avoiding is: "Who are included within the word 'WE'?"

I believe in: getting rid of Obozocare, protecting the babies in utero, reserving "marriage" to one man and one woman per marriage, recognizing the practice of homosexuality as an abomination (see Genesis), supporting 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, freedom of worship, a kickass foreign policy featuring a military second to none and far superior to whatever nation's military comes next, and other priorities like tax cuts and spending cuts as well.

The creature from Michigan by way of Taxachusetts nominated by the Establishment ruling class Wall Street greedheads failed on each and every count as did Obozo. What was that insanity about 90% agreement? Surely you are not suggesting any such level of agreement with John McCain, Mitt Romney, and the trash that are being nominated by the zillions of $$$$ paid out by the Chamber of Crony "Capitalism" to protect Muffie's trust fund and their "right" to screw the rest of the country in the endless quest to squeeze the last nickel out of those peasants lacking their power and influence.

If there is a WE and if WE have a fight to win it is a fight against the globalizing elitist money grubbers whose obscene levels of campaign spending do no more good than their ally George Soros.

Mitch McConnell, Weepy John (hic) Boehner (gives alcoholism a bad name), Sleazy Liar Eric Cantor, LAMAR!!! Alexander, Bob Corker, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thad Cochran, Light in the Loafers Lindsay Graham, Mark Nancyboy Kirk, and many, many more in each house of Congress are not part of "WE," at least not in my house and not in an increasing number of other actually conservative households. If any of those named here are necessary to "our" efforts, "we" are NOT ready to govern.

The last POTUS election was lost on the day that Mittens Romney obtained a majority of delegates at the 2012 GOP-E convention. Wanna keep on nominating elitist trash and see whether the results are any different? They won't be. You will just elect the Medusa as POTUS.

Eight years of the Medusa and we will be ready to elect the USA's first Demonrat, openly gay, abortion mill owning, gun grabber and then the Churches will be closed and the concentration camps open and flourish.

Terrific strategy you have there!

Just lumping one Reply together since both of you Posted your opinions to me.

Here it is. Any strategy that eliminates the Democrat, ANY Democrat Candidate from serving Elected Office is OK by me.

If refusing to Vote for the Republican (last man standing) in the General Election accomplishes that goal, go for it.

I wish every future Election was a replay of the 2010 General Election.

McCain sucked, Romney sucked and the Bush’s squandered their positions because they were squishy RINO’s.

I doubt I will live long enough to see another Republican, especially a Conservative Republican President Elected.

If abandoning today’s Republican Party in the General Election will somehow accomplish the goal of getting a Conservative Republican Elected, I’m all for it.

That pretty well wraps it up for me. I have been accused by others here of Posting “nonsensical drivel”, which I think is Libspeak for “having a different Opinion”, so I’ll close with something a Retired Navy Chief that used to work for me always said.

“Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first”.

Have fun, I’m done.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.