Posted on 12/05/2009 3:41:40 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
That's not what Rush says. He is making it very clear that we should take back the party by getting conservatives elected. Why is this so difficult to understand?
No, he doesn't. That's why I think the title of this thread is deceiving. Rush is not for third parties, but rather he is making fun of the liberals and suggesting that it would be good (for conservatives) if there is a liberal third party running, so the dems would lose. This is not about Conservatives having a third party.
If Rush ever really did endorse 3rd parties, the Fairness Doctrine would definitely come back. The Rs and Ds would make it happen. The Rs now do what they can to protect talk radio because it largely scratches the back of Rs.
That sounds like an endorsement to me.
It seems you and I are in 100% agreement.
No, I heard. And I agree. I’ve posted in the past on FR about how third parties for conservatives are a bad move.
The point of posting this was to show that a third party is beneficial for us. For liberals to do.
What I posted doesn’t say a thing about a third party for conservatives.
I see no evidence that is possible without the threat of losing conservative votes. Heck, we might as well "take back the Democrat party" while we're at it, as long as we're just fantasizing.
-————That’s why I think the title of this thread is deceiving.——————
Brevity is the soul of wit.
It most certainly does. Otherwise, what else is Rush referring to when he says "As for our side, the focus must be to take back the Republican Party... You can draw attention to yourself by denouncing both parties... but you do a grave disservice in doing so because you're never going to win anything. You're going to guarantee Democrat victory in perpetuity."
“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.
“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.
“I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’
“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.” - Ronald Reagan
Between your quote and this one, I’d think more conservatives would “get it”. You work to move the party, and it may take 2 or 3 election cycles, but it will move right. You have to be involved, not sit out if you don’t get your way... Reagan was right.
Yes
Personally, I think that few conservative Republicans who say they want to “fix” their party could actually give you a clear, detailed, cogent, description of what it is that needs to be “fixed.”
How could you lose conservative votes by voting for and electing conservatives?
For instance, let's say JD Hayworth challenges McCain in the primary. We should make sure JD wins, because he is a big improvement over McCain and a more reliably conservative.
Brevity for the sake of brevity ain't that witty, and sometimes a bit troublesome and confusing.
Any idea of “taking back the Republican party” died a long time ago. The RINOs are entrenched. So now what? The answer to that has become obvious: take the Republican party in the direction of federalism.
But not just the Republican party. This is because federalism actually transcends the ordinary left and right issues. It become an issue of restoring the balance of power between the national government and the individual States.
For the Republicans, federalism means the reduction of 50% of the federal government, returning most of the western lands to the States, ending entitle programs for good, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, reforming the federal judiciary so that they quit pestering the States and the people. And possibly renouncing the national debt.
For the Democrats, federalism means an end to the US military on every corner of the planet, along with perpetual wars, keeping foreigners from killing each other, and just paying attention to the few, critical parts of foreign policy that truly matter to the US. For them, federalism also means a massive reduction in the national police authorities, intelligence agencies, government and private databases of personal information, and mountains of bureaucratic regulations.
The trouble is, that there are a lot of Republicans and Democrats who *like* having an overreaching and omnipresent national government. So *these* are the people the federalists are running against.
Abraham Lincoln was a Whig. He left and joined a third party called the Republicans when the Whigs were supporting candidates so bad that President Millard Filmore (W) couldn’t even win the nomination of his own party for a second term. I understand Mr. Limbaugh’s position, however it doesn’t offer the beltway Republicans much incentive to change.
Well said! Thanks.
I totally agree, thanks.
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.