Posted on 10/03/2005 7:57:40 AM PDT by for-q-clinton
Uh oh, the "my party before my beliefs" crowd will now be assailing you. Better get your asbestos suit on.
Not if it fails to build consensus, or builds a consensus for the other side.
Also, you have to understand that the american public isn't nearly as conservative as we on FR. I think they just don't pay much attention to this type of stuff, and when something catches their attention, I think a consensus leans conservative but not overwhelmingly so.
There isn't a strong conservative mandate in the usa just as there isn't a strong liberal mandate in the usa. Our goal is to build consensus and move things closer to where we want them to be.
Republicans for all their problems move things closer to where we want them to be. Even if it's not exactly where most Freepers want things to be, they must never forget that if most Freepers ran for office and were completely honest, forthright, and blunt in their campaign, they would have a hard time winning.
I agree. I'll be blaming those that put party before principle and allowed the party to slide into that kind of disaster.
Sounds to me, then, that you don't have the votes to get your candidates through the primaries.
Who is this woman Ms. Miers?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495772/posts
Really, I thought one of the biggest conservative points was less spending smaller gov't. Where do we compromise to get one of our biggest points enacted?
Or by compromise do you mean sell out and become a moderate democrat.
We can win just like the democrats are "winning". If we ran hard to the right, sure we may not win all elections, but those that were elected could tie up gov't and force less spending and get no new garbage laws passed (like federalizing disaster response). So our principles will actually win, not our politicians.
Gosh, I can choose between a big-tent party which controls both houses of congress, or a True Conservative minority which can't pass their legislative initiatives and gets steamrolled by the majority leftists. At least with the latter, I can console myself that my True Conservative candidate beat the RINO in the primary. (rolls eyes)
The 3rd party need not win to send a message. They only need enough votes to have allowed the losing party to have won.
For example, take Libertarian party. If they have 3% of the vote and the republicans lose by 1%, then they'd realize they need to do some things in the Libertarian platform to win next time.
So I suggest considering a party that more closely matches your beliefs. BTW: My beliefs change from state level to federal. At the federal level I'm more Libertarian (or federalist). But at the state level I'm a conservative.
I am not denying that. That is exactly why I am frustrated. We are angry because so many so-called conservatives vote for moderates in the primaries.
What drives me crazy is the fact that so much of the population is going to oppose us whether we put a moderate or a conservative. I truly believe a conservative could win the general election, just not the GOP primary.
Hallelujah! Can I get an Amen?
Exactly. The Democrats achieved what they did by advancing their agenda incrementally over decades. We likewise need to be willing to accept small victories and gradually steer things in the right direction.
Actually that's not the case. There are many true conservatives in Congress. Enough to stop any steam rolling and enough to pretty much stop most congressional garbage.
I believe conservatives may be better off just stopping the slide into liberalism/socialism than by helping move it along at a slower than normal pace. Take back the Minority! (sounds funny but it has advantages).
It is strange to me that so many republicans are so afraid to lose that they take zero risks. I don't understand. It is NOT good politics if you waste political capital. Good politics is getting 51 votes on your conservative justice. If you get 49, try again. Don't go for 80 - that is just weak. It reminds me of when Bush begged Kofi and Co. for a year to wage war in Iraq. He legitimized the UN, as well as Foreign and domestic dissent to US policies. In the end, Paris and Moscow voted the same as they ever would.
Margaret Thatcher once stated that Consensus was the abdication of leadership.
WE DO NOT NEED "MOST" of congress on a given bill, or nomination. We need a slim majority.
But some are so afraid to lose that they will conceede everything. Meanwhile, most dems will vote dem anyway, we just let them draw us left.
I challenge anyone who thinks that the GOP has not moved left in the time of their control of congress.
This is not a long term plan. This is a slow death.
Back in 1994 a flood of Republicans were elected to office with a mandate to stop the Clinton's drive to socialize medicine, raise taxes and ruin the country. They forced Billy BJ to reform welfare, keep government spending in line and we saw some good returns from their efforts.
In today's day and age I can choose between two big spending parties who are out buying votes. One party just looks a little more PC for some people on this board.
The only problem is that if we offer 10 million, the democrats offer 20 and call us stingy and racist. I don't think even moderate republicans will survive long term with such compromised positions.
We might as well stand for something.
So long as the Democrats are kept in the minority, they are unable to deliver on their promises. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
That is exactly where we differ. In the above example, you think if we win we saved 10 million. I think we lost 10 million.
I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. If you are in power, but allow yourself to get pulled by the opposition, you are potentially worse than a self-serving democrat. Case in point: Clinton would NEVER have gotten through the spending increases that Bush has.
I believe that if we got a conservative to the general election, we could win. Perhaps not a member of the most conservative portion of the party, but certainly far more conservative than we have seen. If we would just put a relatively principled person up there, and put the strength of the GOP behind them, I think we would lose some fence sitters, but gain some real socially conservative democrats. I am talking about the working class, churchgoing, taxpayer who does not seem to realize they are throwing their vote away on a party that fails to represent their beliefs. We could redefine the lines of battle. But instead we compromise with the left and spend billions on the weak-minded sheep who can be persuaded either way every single election.
I agree with maconservative on his point. With Clinton we got welfare reform and less spending than we currently have.
The opposition has more power than most realize. Sure they can't "get" their way all the time, but they can stop the party in power from doing just about anything. With that tool they can get parts of their agenda passed with minimal compromising (if they play their part right). If they overplay their hand then they're hosed.
BTW: The democrats got their education bill passed. But one may not realize it because after getting it they immediately said it wasn't enough. I'm still waiting for us to get our reduced gov't.
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.