Posted on 02/06/2012 9:02:50 AM PST by JoanVarga
The GOP has made it very, very clear that they dont 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 its 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?
Milt Rominy still supports mandates. Newt can argue against them because he no longer supports mandates since he realized they are unconstitutional and not conducive to a free market. That you would try to hide those facts says a lot about your agenda.
If you find something decent in your search, kindly ping me, good things are often hard to find.
The answer to that is simple.
A more conservative congress will oppose and attempt to neuter a president who is diametrically opposed to their political/ideological position. Not so with a president who has the 'color' of a team leader.
If Romney becomes president, the RINO establishment immediately rallies to his side, and will work overtime to thwart any honest reform measures put forth by real conservatives in the fold.
The same effect will happen if Gingrich somehow wins the primary and the general, but it will be the conservative right rallying to his side, and helping to push through his reform agenda.
That is how real war works, and that is precisely what this is.
You post says you have an agenda and my posts say I don’t.
That is all I can see that is clear.
I am not hiding anything, it is Newt’s job to induce people to vote for him.
Not mine. I haven’t endorsed anyone yet. Apparently I have a lot of company.
The local influence is the only viable option, and that will take at least another 40 years of hard work, activism, school boards, local influence, education and job creation.
After all, we've only been asleep at the wheel for 100 years of the incremental rot of Progressivism. Now we have awakened in a coffin and the dirt is being kicked in. I like the idea of crafting a shovel, but am unsure how much air is left to breathe.
Various circumstances kept Clinton in check. I couldn’t have known that when I voted for Perot. But, I was damned-sure not gonna vote for Bush again! Obama is far more dangerous than Clinton. Clinton, really, had no guiding ideology!
Hands down, the best post of the thread, and perhaps the best of the day. Hear hear!
It should be painfully obvious to everyone reading here, that both national parties are compromised beyond all redemption, and that the federal bureaucracy is thoroughly infested and infiltrated with Socialists, Communists, Globalists, and criminal thugs of every type. It cannot be cleaned out over time. It needs to be flushed in one great purge, or it will never happen. It's simply too far gone.
In my estimation, something like this is coming, no matter what the fools on the hill do, or do not do. The current order is unsustainable, and will eventually collapse under its own weight, unless sudden and radical reform is implemented.
Given the horribly degraded state of our government culture, I don't see that happening, ergo, a reckoning is coming. When it does, let us hope and pray that it's the patriots who pick up the pieces and reconstitute the Framers' America.
George H. W. Bush gave us bill clinton. Actually, all Ross Perot probably did was deprive clinton of a majority win.
Lots of studies have looked at the 1992 race to try and figure out what would have happened if Perot had not been in the race. Most Perot voters were more anti-Bush than anti-clinton and most would have stayed home if the Perot option weren't available. However, the majority of those Perot voters who would have gotten out and voted would have likely gone clinton rather than Bush.
I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between shooting your mouth off, pontificating about government programs, and actually implementing them as a chief executive.
Romney worked hand in hand with the Communist, Ted Kennedy, to get Romneycare designed and implemented in the state of Massachusetts. His plan was adopted by the congressional Democrats as a working blueprint for what became Obamacare.
Obama is already taking the floor out from under Romney's feet on the national health care debate, by stating that his administration got advice from Romney's former advisors when they were crafting Obamacare. He's given Romney 'credit' for creating the framework for his statist health care law, several times.
He could try that with Newt, but it won't hold much water.
Well, we will see how Newt does on Super Tuesday. If he wants a chance he will have to do something different other than tit for tat with the guy with the money.
That did nothing but hurt him more.
I'm not so sure that's coming as quickly as our need for relief requires. The propping-up of Europe lasted a lot longer than I'd imagined. If Obama has been smart enough to throw in our lot with China, we may survive the coming economic collapse relatively intact. If Iran doesn't bomb us first. Heh.
Ain't that the truth? Clinton knew how to play Newt like a fiddle. He's taught Mittens well. But I'd be okay with Newt being our Joe Biden.
Maybe not even the "next" Obama - could very well be Obama himself! Remember, he only served one term, so he could run again in 2016 after Romney has totally demoralized the GOP. His message: "See, I TOLD you what would happen!"
“If Romney becomes president, the RINO establishment immediately rallies to his side, and will work overtime to thwart any honest reform measures put forth by real conservatives in the fold.
The same effect will happen if Gingrich somehow wins the primary and the general, but it will be the conservative right rallying to his side, and helping to push through his reform agenda.”
I happen to agree with your assessment, quoted above, which is why I am for Gingrich rather than Romney. However, in the case of a Romney nomination and victory in the General, it will be especially critical that conservative voters do what we can to put enough conservatives in Congress in order to fight the RINO establishment who would, as you say, rally behind Romney in an attempt to marginalize the conservatives.
My whole point is that we would have a better chance fighting the RINO establishment (by a more conservative Congress) than we would with a Progressive administration. At least, that’s the way I see it.
I agree with your post. The danger we are in right now is that Obama feels no need to mess with Congress at all. He is ruling by fiat. He and his czars operate outside the system of checks and balances imposing regulations.
We need to take the WH and both houses in Congress to turn around so much of this. So far, I don’t think anybody on our side would ever do the lawless governing Obama does.
I would hope Newt would act as a conservative, but I am not convinced he would do that. For good reason, he has been known to be unreliable over the past years. It is a personality thing. Newt lacks self discipline.
I can think of people that could have run I would feel so good about. The problem isn’t with conservatives straying, they can only deal with what is offered, the problem is with the candidates failing conservatism.
It has to be very hard to gain power and cut government. The power probably makes them seek to use it. ugh
No, George Bush did.
Had Perot been a true conservative and had he stayed in the race, he would have won. When he dropped out the first time, he was leading, and Clinton was in 3rd. When he came back, yes, he did cost Bush more than Clinton, and so he helped Clinton win. But the reason Perot was successful was that people wanted an alternative. It took them a while to figure out that Perot was a nut, but had he not been one, and had he stayed in, he would have had a good shot at a win.
A better shot than Mittens does, that's for sure. And if Mittens wins, do we really win? Or do we get eventual destruction, versus immediate destruction? If the left wants a civil war, better it be now than before another 20 years of indoctrination, when there are still a plurality of Americans left in the country.
I don’t think that the GOP does not want the conservative vote. I think they feel that conservatives are a done deal and they do not have to earn our votes. We are to the GOP what the African-American vote is to the Dems. They know we aren’t going anywhere else and at the end of the day we’ll hold our noses. That’s why I keep saying we have to support conservatives only and write in where there is not a conservative on the ballot.
Ditto that. Obama is not your average democrat. He's a dangerous radical.
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.