Posted on 02/06/2012 9:02:50 AM PST by JoanVarga
The GOP has made it very, very clear that they don’t actually need the Conservative vote. They merely trade on our dislike for the Democrat label and thus rightly discern that we will go along with the GOP label. And we go along with it because it’s easier to maintain our expectations of the GOP than to face its realities: it IS the Left. . . in drag.
So, why should I vote? The GOP has all the votes their ideology needs, regardless of who wins.
****
A heretical question: Is actively withholding one's vote in protest a sign of apathy, or can it be an apothecary for the patient in question?
Will the GOP get better if I keep feeding its fever for more power?
I reached this exact point in the LAST election. The GOP doesn’t need me. From now on, I vote my conscience only and will not play the GOP’s perennial “lesser of two socialist evils” game. I will sit out. Folks like Ann Coulter are trying to change that game by voting for Obama if Romney is nominated. She’s not crazy; she’s just disgusted and mad and not going to take it anymore.
I think we’ve reached the end of the line for the GOP. With the exception of Reagan, they’ve done little or nothing to roll back any of the moves toward bigger spending, higher taxes, and moral breakdown.
And even Reagan gave up after a while on trying to cut spending and bureaucracy. He could only do so much, and decided that that aspect was hopeless.
We’ve gone past the point of no return. Romney would be as bad as Obama, if not worse, since he would do much the same, but would step in to take the blame for the economic disaster and prepare the way for the next Obama.
We need a new Second Party. The Republican Establishment not only is hopelessly corrupt in DC, but pretty much everywhere else. Not a new third party, but a new second party. There is a conservative majority out there, longing for change, but they need to get behind some really strong candidate of their own.
Sarah Palin was my earlier hope—she has proved that she can do this sort of thing, and clean out her GOP “allies” as well as the Democrats. But I don’t know if that’s in the cards any longer.
If you look at reform in history, it needs new institutions after things have gotten bad enough. That’s how monastic reform recurrently happened in the middle ages, as the old religious orders sank into irrelevancy and new ones took their places. And that’s how parties have changed—not be reforming them, but by replacing them, after they have sunk too far to be saved.
Some of the best Whig politicians moved over to the new Republican Party, and helped out. But there was no way that the Whigs were ever going to change. That party had to die, and take most of its corrupt leaders with it.
Well, because:
1) this is exactly how 0bama got into office last time, and because
2) in spite of all of the hyperventilating, hyperbole, and righteous anger, even a moderate or RINO will be less harmful than the big 0.
It’s ugly, but there it is.
I don’t think the Gipper would ultimately surrender in the fight for smaller government; rather, he had an even greater mission, the defeat of the USSR. He needed the cooperation of the Democrat congress to achieve the higher goal.
Point 1) is not how Obama got elected. He did not get elected because people sat it out in protest in any sort of numbers. And 2) is where I need convincing on the terms of endearment from Romney. Obamacare is HUGE in scope and reach and treachery.
1. Don't expect change from someone who gets your approval regardless of his actions.
2. Our Founding Fathers had no problem creating new political parties that reflected their values.
3. God will not reward doing what is expedient rather than doing what is right.
I understand; that's been the conventional thinking for decades. It's how we got saddled with Bailout Bush and how we got where we are today-- GOP candidates with Big Gov't principles cloaking themselves in the "conservative" mantle only for election purposes. If you like where we're going, then keep doing the same things. Whether we run with an avowed Dem liberal or jog there with a GOP leftist, we'll end up in the same place. And we're getting very close to it. Only a radical u-turn will make any difference for our kids.
Less harmful is still harmful.
Less harmful also means more time before the breaking point is reached. That means more pain overall.
We need to reach that point sooner rather than later so we can fix what is really broken.
Last I saw she is completely sold out to Romney. Has something changed?
Then why is she shilling for Romney? Please clarify.
Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs. . .
How could they ignore the 2010 elections?
I feel like I gave the Republican party one last chance to save themselves, and they were too stupid to take it.
My take on the next election is:
R 33, D 33, a conservative candidate as Tea Party, Independent, Constitution Party, whatever 34%.
It’s time to use the numbers against the status quo.
Ross Perot was crazy, and he still got lots of votes.
This year, we’ve got the internet and youtube, and can SEE them laughing at us.
If Mitt is the nominee, then I say it’s time for revolution!!
Prezactly.
Yep. Time for the bad tooth to be pulled.
I care about my kids and grandkids to sit home in a snit.
” If Mitt is the nominee,then I say it’s time for revolution!!”
Agreed
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.