Posted on 06/27/2009 5:10:50 AM PDT by jay1949
Caution: political-party purists may be miffed by this article; but I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
Adolf Hitler was a poor student of mathematics, but he got the hang of it sufficiently to figure how to take over the German government. A “majority,” Hitler reasoned, consisted of 51 per cent of the votes necessary to control 51 per cent of the seats in the legislature – - 26 per cent of those voting, in other words. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans now find themselves victims of the same political calculation.
Polls indicate that the liberal Democrats now in charge of the Federal government have basically the same values as about 25 to 35 per cent of the population, depending on the issue, with about 30 per cent being a rough median. Looking at the flip side of the equation, almost 7 out of 10 Americans do not agree with many of the the principles of the Democrats who govern them.
(Excerpt) Read more at news-political.com ...
Very intersting information!!
Thanks. It keeps me wondering whether we’ll see a viable third party any time soon . . . there is certainly room for one.
Don’t look away very long, it is coming at you like an out of control steamroller.
Yea but do you really have a majority if members of your party vote with the minority and work to subvert your key goals? I don’t want purity, I just want selectivity.
Give me a hint - - from what quarter, and with which orientation?
Adolf Hitler was a poor student of mathematics, but he got the hang of it sufficiently to figure how to take over the German government. A “majority,” Hitler reasoned, consisted of 51 per cent of the votes necessary to control 51 per cent of the seats in the legislature.
Democrats have 51% of house and over 51% public approve of Obama looks like history is repeating itself.
Of course, that cuts both ways. But I think that there has to be some realistic appraisal of what goals are do-able first. One touchstone for the Republicans has been support for a Constitutional amendment to reverse Roe v. Wade; but even when the Republicans held Congress and the White House, no amendment was proposed because there was never enough support in the states to get such an amendment confirmed (3-4ths is required). Making this a litmus-test issue didn’t accomplish anything. I don’t suggest that the moral and ethical position against abortion on demand should have been abandoned; simply that Republicans should not have been picking candidates and allies on this issue.
A large fraction of politicians who take the label Republican don’t even agree with your goals so deciding which to pursue is putting the horse before the cart.
Party elites love to talk about branding. Well what would McDonalds’ brand be worth if one time you order a Big Mac and you get a fish sandwich and the next time you get a small cone? And if you object you are given a lecture and told how stupid you are.
” . . . you are given a lecture and told how stupid you are.”
I get that a lot.
I could be wrong, and I often am, but I think there are fundamentals where Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians (like me) can agree. Smaller government, for example. If enough can agree on such fundamental principals, positive things could be accomplished.
Conservatives and libertarians are compatible and share many goals. Can we at least kick the seven traitors who passed Cap and Tax out of the party?
The Constitutionally sound, proper way to deal with Roe v. Wade, etc., is for the GOVERNORS to refuse to apply it in their states, because such decisions have been assaults on the duties and prerogatives of the governors. It would also be Constitutionally sound for the President to send the appropriate forces into states which violate the 14th Amendment by denying equal protection of the law to some persons.
Kick away.
Now we’re talking. Limited Federal government, state prerogatives, strict federalism - - areas where conservatives and libertarians can agree. So there is a possible common ground on abortion: leave it to the states, where it belongs, by limiting Roe v. Wade to its literal application. States could then ban such practices as partial-birth abortion without Federal interference. Not a complete victory, but progress.
Another example: A possible common ground on “gay marriage”: Leave it up to the states; no need for Federal involvement. Most states are going to say “no.”
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.