Yeah, go ahead and form a 3rd party. Combine these two images and you'll have your Martyr party's symbol:
Posted on 10/03/2005 7:57:40 AM PDT by for-q-clinton
The Conservative movement may benefit by losing the House and Senate in 2006. I’m not advocating that we campaign to lose; however, if you look at the ramifications of losing in 2006 the Conservatives have a better chance of winning in 2008. Note: I didn’t say the Republicans I said Conservatives.
First, look at the current political landscape. The sitting Republican President is floundering and struggling to get his message out or even finding a message. His 2nd term started off bold; however, the Democrats have stymied any meaningful action for his 2nd term. It’s easy to be an opposition party when all you have to do is stick together to stop anything from happening. This is precisely what led to out of control spending. The Republicans can’t pass any meaningful legislation to appeal to their base because the Democrats are there to stop it by a filibuster. The only thing they can agree on is spending money, so they all spend money hoping to buy votes for the 2006 election. Conservatives although winning in elections are still losing where the rubber meets the road.
If Republicans hold on by a thread in 2006 there isn’t any precipice for real change, so it will be more of the same. Of course if the Republicans won a super-majority in the Senate and even a few more seats in the House, then that would be the best case scenario; however, that has a snowball’s chance in Hell of happening based on the current political scene, I’m not going to go in a race-by-race analysis here; however, most pundits are thinking a couple seats either way and for the sake-of-argument I’ll accept that analysis.
So if the Republicans continue on this path their base will not be motivated in 2008. The only motivation they’ll have is to vote against Hillary (or whoever the Democrats nominate). We all know you don’t win elections by voting against the other team (remember Dole in 1996 or the Democrats voting against Bush in 2004?). Something must be done to slap the Republicans out of their political haze—losing in 2006 will do just that.
By losing in 2006 they will realize they screwed up and they can’t govern playing softball with the opposition and even acting like the opposition. Losing has several benefits. One is that ideally the Republicans that lose will be the ones that haven’t been living up to their Conservative roots. By shedding the fat the Republicans can become a leaner, meaner conservative political party.
Another benefit of losing is that the Democrats will no longer be the opposition party. They will have to propose bills and take a stand on issues and not just stand opposed to the President. This in turn may wake up the President to actually veto a spending bill, since he won’t be buying votes for fellow Republicans he will be vetoing out-of-control Democrat spending. By losing we may actually be able to refrain from over spending.
Also there are quite a few Democrat Senators that want to be President. They’ll try to pass extreme liberal bills to motivate their base. In the past this was the formula for success--run hard to the left (or right) then run to the center after you get the nomination. This is no longer a winning strategy due to the Internet with bloggers and sites like the FreeRepublic—the new media will not ignore previous votes and history like the old media does.
If the Democrats remain completely out of power for another election cycle they will be desperate for a win in 2008 and will allow their politicians to campaign in the center, just so they can get a win. By giving them some power in 2006 they will go ravenous with their new found power and think their ideology has won. This will scare the Electorate away from the Democrat nominee.
Finally, this will validate the War in Iraq and take it off the table as a political issue in 2008. The Congress controls the purse strings and can stop funding the war effort at anytime. How can they attack Bush on the war if they were the ones funding the war? If they do vote to cut spending (which most likely won’t pass) they’ll be on record as part of the Left fringe not suitable for the highest office. One of two things will happen, either their extreme left base will lose enthusiasm because their party didn’t stop the war or mainstream America will be scared off of the Democrat party.
But what about Supreme Court nominees? Won’t this allow the Democrats to vote against all his nominees? Not necessarily. The first pick of John Roberts was a gem and the Democrats would have voted for him whether or not they controlled the Senate. The current pick is a bit too early to know which way it will go, but Bush has proven he won’t send up a true Conservative with a Conservative record (like Scalia or Thomas). He’s already picking nominees based on what the Democrats will say, so nothing is really lost when in regards to the Supreme Court.
I’m not trying to say it will all be roses. We don’t know what the future holds and what happens if we have another terrorist attack? Who knows what impact that will have on the President and Party in power. Typically you want your party in power during a crisis. There’s a good chance each party will blame the other just like 9/11.
The biggest downside that I see is that the President won’t be able to pass his agenda in his current term. But is that really a down-side? As mentioned earlier the opposition has already stymied his 2nd term agenda. A worst case scenario is that he’d agree to Democrat spending to get some of his initiatives passed and that’s a better situation than we are in today of out-of-control spending and no real reform.
Third party types express this hope every election cycle.
What will you have to promise to the myraid special interest groups in order to make up the difference?
Exactly! The Bush/Republican bashers are out in force today I see. Let's see we will be hearing a lot of "I am never voting Republican again, I am not donating one red cent to the Republicans ever again, Losing will help in 2008, Republicans have sold us out in Congress" just to name a few.
I love it when some of the original Bush bashers that never were Republican say they are never voting Republican again because (fill in the blank)!
You nailed it IMHO!
You won't win without limited government conservatives behind you. If they stay home at the mid-terms and next national elections then don't be surprised if the republicans lose their majorities as well as the White House.
You are being perceptive and rationale which are two traits not allowed by the doom and gloomer 3rd party folks pretending to be lifelong Republicans! You would think they would get a clue one of these that changing screen names and still bashing doesn't pass the smell test!
IMHO, the Republican Party has been infiltrated by the left.
Posing as 'moderates', they have slowly pushed the Party to the left.
Look at who is being talked about for 2008. McCain and Guilliani. Democrats in RINO skins!
The mere fact that they are being considered makes me ill!
Win or lose in '06 and '08, "my Republican Party" appears headed for extinction.
Oh, so your party chose to die rather than survive? My condolences.
You can't lose credibility in politics faster than suggesting its best we lose power short term to maybe gain power long term.
I also think that you grossly underestimate the amount of time it would take the new "Conservative" Republican Party to a. recognize its mistakes, and b. to "turn things around" with the American people. After the 1964 election debacle with the Goldwater Conservatives, it took 16 years for a Conservative Rennaissance (under President Reagan). After Mr. Reagan's former Vice President abandoned, and was abandoned by, conservatives, it took eight years of Bill Clinton to set things right. Once the Democrats regain control of Congress, the entire "mainstream" news and entertainment community will invest all their energy into convincing the Sheeple of America that they never had it so good. It would be criminally naive to think that you could turn that situation around in two years (even if two years were a "lifetime in politics).
Toomey would have lost in the general election. Which probably would have suited the "win by losing" crowd just fine.
LOL!
Yeah, go ahead and form a 3rd party. Combine these two images and you'll have your Martyr party's symbol:
In case you haven't noticed, "my" party is the one electing people to national office.
I read the whole thing. I disagree with the thought process.
I'm sick to death of being blackmailed by you people; sick of it.
Stay the hell home; then we'll know exactly who to blam when the next Clinton is elected.
Hell, you'd probably LOVE it if she was.
What do you call advocating "sending a message" by voting third party? (your #5).
No, it's you who doesn't "get it."
They ate their own. DUH.
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.