Despite Blagojevich, Illinois Republican Party can't get it together

1)Politics of personal destruction would know no bounds

That is an Illinois trait. Barry was able to open sealed divorce records from his opponents during his state runs to completely tank the competition. Notice how well Team Obama scrubbed Barry's history to conveniently prevent "turnabout is fair play" - to Biblical proportions - starting with hs burf certificate, Selective Service records, college records, etc.

I get really tired of Don & Roma's butt-kissing session with Mark Kirk every time he's they're "special guest" for the day. It's like a two hour infomercial for Kirk since he can yap about whatever B.S. he wants and they applaud him and never question any of his B.S. Even when he's caught doing something inexcusable and they have to bring it up, they let Kirk launch into some straw man argument and then praise him for it.

No wonder Kirk is such a frequent "guest" on Don & Roma when it's free air time for him.

What passes for local "conservative" talk radio in Chicago sure ain't conservative by standards. WLS has some good national talk shows like Limbaugh and Levin but all their local "conservative" hosts are milquetoast combine enablers. Mancow is the only local guy I like.

“In Illinois, the GOP is merely a subsidiary of the Democratic Party, which is itself a subsidiary of the mafia.”

You said it. That disgusting rathole is a socialist dump. I remember writing similar words several years ago and some Freeper dweeb who thought the place was livable sent me a profanity laced private mail screaming insults like some liberal.

You can't drive five feet without a tool booth, and the freaking state took great pains to trace us through a rental car for my wife supposedly not paying at a toll booth that was closed. That place is Hell itself.

"Right now, it is the blue-dog democrats that have held the line, and if enough conservatives defect, that wing of the democrat party can be strengthened."

Um, what ? Dude, there IS no Conservative wing of the Democrats, certainly not at the federal level. Their most Conservative are more liberal than most of our most liberal RINOs. Joining the Democrats only empowers their Stalinist/Criminal/Anti-American leadership.

D.J., who thinks Parsy picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

It’s time to publicly organize a rump Reformist GOP faction in IL. Something has got to be done to drive out the criminal element undemocratically holding onto power in the IL GOP. I have never seen (short of MA, perhaps NY) a more unaccountable state party in the nation. A handful of thugs in this crooked Combiner clique should not be holding hostage a party of one of the largest states in the nation.

No conservative wing of the democrat party???

Sure there is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Democrat

Conservative Democrats today

[edit] The Blue Dog Coalition and the DLC

See main articles: Blue Dog Democrats, New Democrats.

In 1994, moderate and conservative Democrats within the U.S. House of Representatives organized themselves into the Blue Dog Democrats, in response to the Republican victories at the polls that November. The explanation was that the Blue Dogs felt the party had moved so far left that it had “choked them blue.” The name is a reference to an earlier term, Yellow dog Democrat (typically, a southerner who would vote for a Democrat even if a “yellow dog” were the Democratic candidate) and also to the “blue dog” paintings of a Louisiana artist.

Neither the Blue Dog Coalition, nor the Democratic Leadership Council, are considered as conservative as the earlier Dixiecrat and Boll Weevil incarnations of conservative Democrats.

[edit] Single-issue caucuses

The Democratic Party has a number of single-issue caucuses within the party which promote a conservative position on the issues in question although they support a liberal view on other issues compatible with the Democratic platform. These include Democrats for Life of America (pro-life), the Democratic Freedom Caucus (libertarianism), and Amendment II Democrats (pro-gun rights) [1].

[edit] Zell Miller

U.S. Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, became increasingly critical of his party after September 11, 2001, citing, among other things, disagreement with the proponents of anti-war views within the party. His voting record had a decided rightward lean, especially during the period after September 11, 2001, when Senator Miller voted consistently with the Republicans in the Senate. This culminated in Miller giving a speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention endorsing George W. Bush and denouncing his own party. Zell Miller is the author of the book A National Party No More which outlines his views.[13] Many Democrats have criticized his actions.[14]

[edit] Differing views of conservative Democrats

Some see conservative Democrats as usually centrist, moderate, and considered a bit more reasonable than the die-hard partisan politicians who often enter into the legislative fray. Some Conservative Democrats believe in social programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). Some want all Americans to have health care coverage and guaranteed pensions, and are vehemently opposed to the idea of privatizing any of these institutions. Their ideas about marriage, abortion, and, to an extent, the death penalty, and Gun Control are sometimes more compatible with the Republican way of thinking. This viewpoint is supported by the Pew Research Center and their study “Beyond Red Vs. Blue” [2]. This study identifies Conservative Democrats as one of three core Democratic Party constituencies (the other two being Liberals and Disadvantaged Democrats). Conservative Democrats are distinguishable by staunch liberal views on economic issues (a populist orientation setting them apart from conservative Republicans and explaining their continued allegiance to the Democratic Party), with their moderate to conservative views on other issues:

“Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net...Less extreme on moral beliefs than core Republican groups, but most oppose gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality, and support a more active role for government in protecting morality. No more conservative than the national average on other social issues such as abortion and stem-cell research. They overwhelmingly oppose The War in Iraq, and are vehemently opposed to President Bush’s foreign policy as a whole. But views of America’s overall foreign policy are mixed...”

According to the Pew Research Center study, Conservative Democrats are 15% of registered voters in the U.S., voted for Kerry over Bush by a 65%-14% margin in 2004, and were identified in past Pew Research Center studies as New Dealers rather than Conservative Democrats, making this group of voters the ideological heirs to FDR’s New Deal coalition and the “Vital Center” ideology of the 1950s.

The term Democrats In Name Only has been applied to conservative Democrats by some on the left wing of the party.

[edit] Conservative endorsements of Democratic candidates

During the 2004 election, several high-profile conservative writers endorsed the Presidential campaign of John Kerry, arguing that the Bush Administration was pursuing policies which were anything but conservative. Among the most notable of these endorsements came from Andrew Sullivan and Paul Craig Roberts, while a series of editorials in Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative magazine made a conservative case for several candidates, with Scott McConnell formally endorsing Kerry,[15] and Justin Raimondo giving the nod to independent Ralph Nader.[16]

In 2006, Democratic Nebraska senator Ben Nelson received the endorsements of groups such as the National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association, respectively a pro-life group and pro-gun group, that both typically endorse Republicans.

In South Carolina in 2008, the Democratic candidate for United States Senator was Bob Conley, a traditional Catholic, and a former activist for the Presidential candidacy of Ron Paul. Conley failed in his bid to defeat Republican Lindsey Graham, receiving 42.4 percent of the vote.[17]

Here’s our theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CogtZ4EUwww

parsy, who says more of you republicans should come on over and join the true conservatives today. (Don’t forget: the democrat dead still get to vote!)

Let’s take 3 names mentioned...

Zell Miller. Miller was, for lack of a better word, an opportunist. As Governor, he didn’t hesistate to appoint liberals to the bench and endorsed Bubba Clinton (for whom he professed a friendship with). After Roy Barnes appointed him to the Senate he clearly moved rightward and started endorsing Republicans. He would now be considered a DINO. He is also no longer in elective office.

Sen. Ben Nelson, who has often misrepresented himself as a Conservative, scored a VERY liberal 16% ACU rating in 2008. His former seatmate, the backstabbing Zero-endorsing RINO weasel Chuck Hagel scored a 73 in ‘08. Nelson had an opportunity to break with the moonbat left, but has voted with them in lockstep.

Bob Conley, who I endorsed, btw, merely because Graham was so odious and has given too much cover to Zero and his lunacy. However, we don’t know how Conley might’ve voted, so that’s speculation. I endorsed him on the basis of protest, so if he voted like a leftist as nearly all the Dem Senators do, he’d be out on his ass before long and replaced with someone better than Graham.

But let’s make this perfectly clear, the Blue Dog is a joke. Not a one voted against the Marxist Pelosi for Speaker, most have liberal voting records (both fiscally and socially), and most occupy districts that should be electing Conservative Republicans. In 2008, not a single Democrat voted more Conservatively than Mike McIntyre of NC, who scored a low 32% (68% liberal) rating. Most of the Dem caucus voted in the Stalinist 0-10% range.

These are not the Democrats of the early ‘80s or pre-Watergate era. A 32 was liberal in 2008, it was liberal in 1988, and was liberal in 1968. You had some Democrats into the ‘70s that voted upwards of 90% (or one, Larry McDonald of GA, voting 100%). McDonald would have little choice but to serve as a Republican today, because no Democrat can much hope to even win a primary who votes Conservatively. It just doesn’t happen. Even those few handful of Dems that voted above 50% were pulled hard to the left after Pelosi took over, and even worse now with Zero in charge. If any break away now, it is solely due to fear of reelection. In Zell Miller’s case when he was nearing the end of his tenure, he didn’t give a damn about appealing to liberals, he wasn’t up for reelection.

But make no mistake, Parsy, there IS no Conservative wing of the Democrat party at the federal level (and it isn’t much at the state level, because even locals are forced to get in line with the national party, especially if they want to get ahead). My local Congressman, who claimed to be a “Blue Dog”, especially when he served in an adjacent rural district from 1983-95, since he moved into my district in 2003, he’s been either the most or secondmost liberal member from the TN delegation. Calling any of these people “Conservative” is an insult to anyone’s intelligence, and only serves to demonstrate just how far to the moonbat extreme left the Democrat party has gone.

I can not rejoin the republican party. They are just too darn stupid. I have to believe there are conservative democrats because there is no where else to go. The GOP has been taken over by anarcho-capitalists. The face of the GOP nowadays is Sean Hannity clones.

Like you said, “Not a one voted against the Marxist Pelosi for Speaker, most have liberal voting records (both fiscally and socially), and most occupy districts that should be electing Conservative Republicans.”

But conservatives will have to leave the GOP sooner or later. The libertarians are taking the party down. Even if Obama screws up, and GOP gets back in, they can’t run squat. Too many anarchos who don’t believe gov’t can or should do anything.

One really good articulate intelligent democrat, and the GOP is complete toast.

So I am,

parsy, who has no choice but the democrats

Then don’t rejoin it, become an Independent. But if it’s a choice between the Stupid Party, and the America-hating Stalinist Criminal Party, it’s a no-brainer.

BTW, I don’t care for Hannity, he’s a Slick Willard disciple, and I have zero tolerance for those trollbots.

I believe in some level of libertarianism (with respect to restoring the Founding Fathers original Constitutional intent). The government has grown so grotesquely and obscenely out of proportion that it simply cannot, as a result of its size, do much of anything efficiently. You ever seen a 1200 pound human try to do something, anything, like getting off their bed ? I’m not an extreme Libertarian, however, and some of them are too close to anarchistic and removing some laws and measures that I personally believe fall within Constitutional guidelines. But those people are a VERY fringe element within the GOP, and many of those can go back and forth between the extreme left of the Democrat (the Kucinich types), especially some of the radicals in the anti-WOD coterie.

But the Democrat party is simply too far gone, and really needs to be blasted into a million pieces. The GOP should’ve dismantled it and outlawed it at the end of the Civil War as the vehicle for slavery and racial supremacy, but it STILL remains that today. It’s a party that has inflicted ghastly damage to this country to its deepest levels. What it has done to our cities is criminal, serving as a vehicle for the worst aspects of anti-American hatred is pure evil, fanning of ignorance and deliberately keeping people down, and the racial animosity it whips up and plays upon is just as equally evil. To join such a party that is the embodiment of the very worst of America, standing on the wrong side of every moral and ethical position, is simply unimaginable.

I did not want to become an independent because I don’t the GOP ever thinking I might vote for them. Now, would I? Yes, if the circumstances dictated. I did not vote this last year. If I had I would have voted for BO because I think the GOP has got to go. So, rather than go and vote for a flaming liberal, I just stayed home.

As far as the Libertarians being a “fringe” I truly deeply wish you were right. But the more I read, the more I think they are what is wrong with the GOP. First, the attitude of gross selfishness as a political virtue originates with them. The “no regulation” crowd is just pure libertarian. And I mean to the point of no minwages, no child labor law,no wage and hour laws, no workers comp, no FDA, etc etc.

I am really not a class warfare advocate, and for me to think that the GOP has engaged in it in spades, took a lot. But that is just how I have seen it. The GOP really seems to have not one whit of concern about the poor, and not much more for the middle class. They are firmly in the grip of the rich and big business.

The best nexus for these values seems to be the libertarians. IMHO.

I think you are right that the democrats, thru the liberal wing of their party, did a horrible thing to this country. They passed welfare laws and then ignored the results. When the illegitimate birth rate went up, the Dems, liberals, GOP, everybody should have been all over it. But the Dems thought it better to play to one of their core support groups.

Then the GOP comes in and darn if they don’t do the same thing. Tax cuts were a good idea under Ragan, but when the rich began to gain as a class, so much faster than the poor and middle class, the GOP should have been all over it. When bib business began moving jobs offshore and mfg jobs left the US, the GOP should have been all over it. But the GOP thought it better to play to their core support groups of the rich and big business. So now we head into a depression and several decades at least of slow growth due in large measure to Bush tax cuts, and failure of both parties to deal with unfunded liabilities.

The Dems at least got onto the welfare class to try to change it into workfare. The GOP, otoh, has done squat to the rich or big business. Except to bail them out.

So at least with the Dems I see some chance of reforming the party. With the GOP, I see little or no hope. That is sad because IMHO, the GOP will take conservatism down with it.

So I feel like one of them Irish monks preserving culture thru the dark ages.

parsy, who hates this situation

Parsy, I believe you and I have been over some of those points before, but really, I don’t know whether you’re yanking my chain repeating some of that stuff or what. The party of the rich stuff is a load of garbage. I’m not rich. Yes, there are rich Republicans, but take a look at the Democrats holding office, the mega-rich are Democrats, and most of the wealthiest districts in the nation are Democrat districts. They often have the extremes of the spectrum, the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor. The Republicans represent the broad economic middle. If Republicans were exclusively the wealthy party, there wouldn’t be enough of them to elect majorities or win very many offices, that’s the class-welfare Democrat talking point that’s been used for almost 80 years, and thoroughly debunked.

Some of those other things you cited are good ideas. The federal government should have no business involving itself in the minimum wage issue, that should be exclusively set by market forces. Too much of what you advocate economically is pure Socialism, and it’s been tried, and it has summarily failed. The federal government CANNOT ensure fairness with respect to income (and almost everything else for that matter). All you end up doing is stealing money from those that work and giving it to those that won’t. It just isn’t the government’s business, period. Hell, the reason why so many of our cities became disaster areas is exactly because of the policy you’re espousing.

As for jobs going overseas, that’s unfortunate, but a good reason why many have is because of the unions and the disastrous conditions they created. Unions may have been a good idea 130 years ago, but they certainly aren’t now. My grandfather was an immigrant, a skilled worker, and he fought like hell to keep unions out of his workplace. He knew they’d ultimately cause corruption, incite trouble where there was none, and ultimately lead to a lowering of quality and standards while driving up costs, and ultimately putting his workplace out of business. It’s amazing how similar unions are to the government, and I’ll tell you something else, most unions are often in bed with big business and big government, and they try to pretend they’re opposed to one another or claiming they want “what’s best for all.” It’s a great big joke, and their leaders all collectively fleece their members and the country, laughing all the way to the bank.

No, it’s time to get the government back to its pre-FDR size. Get out of the business of business, get out of health care, get out of entitlements that are bankrupting us, just get out. This country was better off pre-1932, and FDR’s plans were far more malevolent than anything else, one was to get as many people voting Democrat as possible and to encourage that to happen by making people dependent upon the state. If Whites ended up as slaves to the state as FDR through to LBJ managed to make Blacks, this country would be little better than a complete and total 3rd World hellhole. Prior to the mid ‘30s, Blacks were by and large in the political mainstream, had intact families, low out-of-wedlock births, thrived despite the obstacles thrown in their paths (most of which were done by, yup, Democrats). When government took a “special interest” in them, that’s precisely when everything began to unravel for them. The last Black Republican Congressman from a Black area, Oscar De Priest of Chicago, was viscerally opposed to FDR’s “plans”, knowing full well what it would ultimately do to his constituents. But the lure of “free money” and “free stuff” from the government turned them from voting Republican upwards or exceeding 75% in the early ‘30s to below 10% by 1964.

As for the Democrats getting the “welfare class” to “workfare”, that too is simply false. Bubba Clinton had to have a proverbial gun pointed at his head to sign off on that. Dems opposed that because they were hitting their biggest slave vote where they live. Dems simply do not care about anything other than getting elected and making government larger, even if it means destroying the economy (as we are witnessing on a daily basis — $9 trillion in the hole and getting larger by the minute). Dems want to implement a massive fascist state where the gov’t makes all the decisions and the people are afraid to challenge the state, and that is terrifying. They believe in the Communist mantra of tearing the system down (and the American system of freedom is anathema to true-believing Stalinists) and imposing a new matrix. Getting rid of the old right and wrong in favor of whatever is “right” in the eyes of the elites on a given day. They wish to purge religion as well, since God gets in the way of their goals. Government as the new God, ready to give and take away on a whim, depending upon the elites.

To even call liberals today “liberals” is wrong. They’re totalitarian fascists. What they do is “right”, and if anyone questions them, they are “dangerous” and “brainwashed” or “paid operatives of the insurance companies.” No, they are the ones that are dangerous, a threat to our freedom and liberty. They are the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists, and the like. And once they get complete control, that’s when the real fun begins. Because in a one-party totalitarian state, we Conservatives are enemies of their vision that must be eliminated for the good of the state and their power. Read Orwell. 1984 is here now. Animal Farm is here now.

So, Parsy, when you talk about how bad the Republican party is, consider what your Democrat party has become. That should scare you straight.

I’m not yanking your chain. If I am repetitive, I blame my memory. I do not always remember what I said to who. Trust me, I have no incentive to make long replies when I am at home since I use a laptop there and typing is a b*tch. My apologies though, if I repeat myself.

As far as the parties, yes, they both suck. The democrats more thru the sins of commission, and the republicans more thru the sins of omission. I assure you I am not happy as a democrat, and even less so when someone about a month or so ago provided me a voting chart which showed how few blue dogs there were and how conservative they weren’t. (Was that you?)

As far as being the party of the rich, I still believe the GOP caters to the wealthy. But that is irrelevant. Who do the people in the country (voters) perceive as the party of the rich? I posted a link here once to a gallup poll and it is the GOP by far by a majority of Americans. I can find it if you want. This is where the GOP loses its credibility.

As far as the unions being the reason jobs went overseas I can’t agree. Maybe “profit” is why the jobs left. And might some portion of the underlying costs be unions, yes. But mightn’t the bigger portion of the equation be the drive for profit, no matter how it affects one’s fellow citizens? IMHO, h*ll yes, and that’s the upper classes again.

As conservatives we realize that human nature doesn’t change. So lets look at human nature. 300 years ago some Americans thought it perfectly ok to grab slaves up out of Africa and bring them here because they would get free labor. And the breeding stock for more free labor. Did they give a hoot about human rights, or love for their fellow man or anything? Again, h*ll no. They were more than willing to exploit their workers, or other human beings.

So, we fight a war and we put an end to slavery. Now here’s the $64,000 question: Where did the underlying belief that it was OK to exploit another human being go? Did it just disappear from the human race? I think not. I think it never will. So how might that underlying desire present itself in 20th and 21st century America? I will leave that question open for the time being.

Now, lets look at some other similarities. Most Southerners did not own slaves. Most Southerners were not rich. Yet they went to war chiefly to protect the right of the rich to own slaves. (Yes, I know about secession, but like CSA General Gordon(?) said in his book, lightning was going to strike and slavery was the highest pine in the forest, or something like that.)

So when you mention most GOP’ers are middle class people, not rich, you’re right. But just like the Southerners, they seem to rally around the people with whom they have little in common, and rally around the people who are wreaking havoc on the American system.

So boiling it all down, yeah I think both parties stink. I just think the republicans have no hope of ever bringing America to some sort of national sanity. H*ll, most of the GOP officeholders are closet anarcho-capitalists or fellow travelers. They don’t believe gov’t can fix anything.

So will a lack of gov’t fix things? If we end the horrible welfare system tomorrow, how will these people survive? It ain’t like you got a lot of job openings right now. Want to move them to work over time? Great. What happens when they find out they can’t live on the minimum wage or close type jobs they are suited for? Kinda takes gov’t and kinda takes reasonable minimum wages doesn’t it? But that requires gov’t.

Don’t want to do anything? Knock yourself out. Crime will skyrocket and don’t forget, a lot of these people have guns, too. And, a lot of them have been bulking up during their prison stays. Whereas we can probably outshoot them, we probably ain’t going to be the targets. It will be the old folks. It will be women. Our society will look like one of those third world countries.

So, IMHO, the problems we have, have to be addressed by gov’t. That takes democrats. End of story. Do I like it? No.

parsy, who thinks he is a realist.

Wow... I have to tackle some of these points (my responses are in bold)...

"I’m not yanking your chain. If I am repetitive, I blame my memory. I do not always remember what I said to who. Trust me, I have no incentive to make long replies when I am at home since I use a laptop there and typing is a b*tch. My apologies though, if I repeat myself."

I forget myself, especially when I write a lot of replies in a given day.

"As far as the parties, yes, they both suck. The democrats more thru the sins of commission, and the republicans more thru the sins of omission. I assure you I am not happy as a democrat, and even less so when someone about a month or so ago provided me a voting chart which showed how few blue dogs there were and how conservative they weren’t. (Was that you?)"

No, I didn't provide a chart, that was someone else, but I'm always happy to refute the point there is such a thing as a "Conservative Democrat" at the federal level. One point being, however, that once you cast your vote for Pelosi for Speaker, you can't call yourself a Conservative anything. That includes that phony in MS, Gene Taylor, who refused to on several occasions vote for the Dem nominee for Speaker, until 2007 when he cast it for Pelosi (who was more liberal than Gephardt), and got a standing ovation from his colleagues. He represents one of the most Conservative GOP districts in the country, and it's outrageous he sits in it.

Parsy, I'm going to inject here as an aside, that when it comes to economic matters, you pretty much sound like a leftist Democrat. You believe in big government intervention and sound fairly anti-capitalist. I don't know what your position on social issues are, but if those are Conservative in nature (say, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc), you're not going to be happy in either party, because an Economic Socialist and a Social Conservative won't fit with either today (although you had plenty before the Culture Wars of the 1960s). If you are a SoCon, you'd have been more comfortable with the William Jennings Bryan wing of the Democrats of a century ago. Bryan would've had a real problem today with the parties, he'd not like the pro-capitalism of the GOP (as he didn't at the time), but he'd find the moral rot and degradation the Democrats champion today as viscerally repugnant. After all, he was the attorney at the Scopes Trial here in my state of TN, siding with the prosecution. His lamentations of what would happen to our society sadly proved true (and, of course, he has been mocked and ridiculed by Hollywood interpretations of the trial). He'd probably be a reluctant Republican today, since moral issues would be a more overriding concern to him.

"As far as being the party of the rich, I still believe the GOP caters to the wealthy. But that is irrelevant. Who do the people in the country (voters) perceive as the party of the rich? I posted a link here once to a gallup poll and it is the GOP by far by a majority of Americans. I can find it if you want. This is where the GOP loses its credibility."

Perception and reality aren't always one in the same. Still doesn't change the fact that many wealthy precincts vote for far-left Democrats (the wealthiest Congressional districts in the country have a majority of Dem representation). All of New England, NYC and the like have 100% Democrat House representation. Not a single, solitary Republican in this Congress on the House side for the first time since the founding of the party in 1855. I look at another example, if you were to poll Blacks on which party Lincoln belonged to, a majority would say Democrat. If you asked them which party more overwhelmingly favored the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they would also say Democrat, and both points are wrong. The media, the educational system, and the culture lie and misrepresent the public on who stands for what and who did what. The Democrats have benefitted from that enormously, since they are overwhelmingly overrepresented in the media, education, and in the popular culture. In other words, they benefit from lies. That's why I became a Republican when I was in school, because Democrat teachers were lying to my face about the facts of what was right and what was wrong and who stood for what and whom was responsible for what.

"As far as the unions being the reason jobs went overseas I can’t agree. Maybe “profit” is why the jobs left. And might some portion of the underlying costs be unions, yes. But mightn’t the bigger portion of the equation be the drive for profit, no matter how it affects one’s fellow citizens? IMHO, h*ll yes, and that’s the upper classes again."

See, this is where you're basically anti-Capitalist. Profit is what drives a capitalist system, without it, you have no "drive." There's no reason to get ahead, invent, create, or anything. Total lethargy. Unions are lethargy, they discourage the best and brightest, they discourage excellence, because it makes the least of their members look like incompetents or leeches. Unions made demands upon businesses (auto industry, steel industry, manufacturing, et al) that grew beyond anything remotely reasonable. The products suffered and if the businesses attempted to reform, revitalize (i.e. lay off people, cut benefits), the unions would promptly balk and agitate. Profit, the very reason businesses were in business, dried up, and it left businesses with little other option than drastically raising costs (which wouldn't work) or shutting down or relocating to areas where unions had little influence. But where you have big business and big unions working hand in hand, that's the very definition of statism. Something will have to give, and unions don't give. My grandfather didn't own a business, he was just a worker, and that's why he fought to keep out these union cancers. He believed in individual accountability, and that's another problem with unions, they're anti-individual, all about the collective (unless you're in the union leadership, and you do quite well).

But basically this is where Republicans, yes, defend rich people's right to operate businesses and make profit. They damn well should, because this is America, and not the old Soviet Union where everyone shared in the collective misery (aside from the Politburo elites, the Union Boss counterparts). Even if a lot of rich folks vote Democrat, we still protect Capitalism. We do it because it's the right thing. After all, how many poor people own businesses ? Has a poor person ever given you a job ?

"As conservatives we realize that human nature doesn’t change. So lets look at human nature. 300 years ago some Americans thought it perfectly ok to grab slaves up out of Africa and bring them here because they would get free labor. And the breeding stock for more free labor. Did they give a hoot about human rights, or love for their fellow man or anything? Again, h*ll no. They were more than willing to exploit their workers, or other human beings."

Something a bit wrong here. First off, we started with indentured servitude, because most poor folks in Europe couldn't afford the expensive journey to America. So you had White people in bondage for a time until they paid off (via work or trade) their expenses. It was a workable solution. Americans didn't just go "charging in" to Africa to take Black people. Firstly, Africans were trading Africans. You had the slave trade going on well before the establishment of our country. Africans were being taken to both North and South America. If Africans had stood unified, not a one of them would've ever been taken away. I remember seeing that movie "Amistad" about the slave revolt on a ship, and after all the sturm und drang of the trial of Cinqué preaching on the subject of freedom, what does Cinqué do when he returns to Africa ? He opens a slave-dealing stand. They left that out of the movie. I think Africans are far more guilty of exploitation than Americans. Americans firmly ended the slave trade and fought a war with ending slavery as a result. You still have slavery in Africa today.

"So, we fight a war and we put an end to slavery. Now here’s the $64,000 question: Where did the underlying belief that it was OK to exploit another human being go? Did it just disappear from the human race? I think not. I think it never will. So how might that underlying desire present itself in 20th and 21st century America? I will leave that question open for the time being."

Exploitation takes a lot of forms. I was subjected to it personally in school via brainwashing and indoctrination. Exploiting children to carry on with an evil agenda antithetical to truth and fact. It still goes on today. More grist for the mill.

"Now, lets look at some other similarities. Most Southerners did not own slaves. Most Southerners were not rich. Yet they went to war chiefly to protect the right of the rich to own slaves. (Yes, I know about secession, but like CSA General Gordon(?) said in his book, lightning was going to strike and slavery was the highest pine in the forest, or something like that.)"

That's not quite the case. What people don't comprehend today, and how the Civil War changed America and how it views itself, is that when most people thought of their country pre-1860, they didn't think of themselves as Americans, but as natives of whatever state they resided in. South Carolinians, for example, were about the fiercest in defense of themselves as independent. They'd have cut loose from the union way early on. When you defended your "country", you were defending your state. When a Northern invasion force came in, they were invading your home, and slavery or defending rich people was of secondary importance. Lincoln gravely miscalculated on that point, thinking he could make common cause with the poor, non-slaveholders who would want to stay true to the union. But with little exception, the refrain was the same, Northerners were invaders arriving at the point of a bayonet and rifle. Another problem with Lincoln was that (and it was mentioned) that if he could return the seceding states while keeping the institution of slavery, he'd have endeavored to do so. Lincoln didn't belong to the militant Radical faction, he was a middle-of-the-roader, ex-Whig. Had he lived, it would've been interesting to see how he'd have dealt with the Southern states after Appomattox. My guess being he would've wanted them to come back into the fold as swiftly as possible, so you might never have had GOP Reconstruction governments as we saw.

"So when you mention most GOP’ers are middle class people, not rich, you’re right. But just like the Southerners, they seem to rally around the people with whom they have little in common, and rally around the people who are wreaking havoc on the American system."

I stated the above flaw in your argument, but in this instance, thank heavens most middle class and poor people believe in and defend the capitalist system. We've already seen countries where that doesn't exist, and most wouldn't want to live in them.

"So boiling it all down, yeah I think both parties stink. I just think the republicans have no hope of ever bringing America to some sort of national sanity. H*ll, most of the GOP officeholders are closet anarcho-capitalists or fellow travelers. They don’t believe gov’t can fix anything."

Namely because it can't. We've seen that demonstrated throughout the 20th century. It makes things worse. And basically, it's not supposed to "fix" anything (at least not at the federal level). If you want to do tinkering, that's what individual states and localities are for. The federal gov't is only supposed to do what is spelled out in the Constitution, those limited things which concern the entirety of the republic. It isn't supposed to be in the business of bailouts, Porkulus, and health care. The Founding Fathers would be horrified and disgusted (Benjamin Franklin probably the least surprised, though no less sickened, but he warned us early about that).

"So will a lack of gov’t fix things? If we end the horrible welfare system tomorrow, how will these people survive? It ain’t like you got a lot of job openings right now. Want to move them to work over time? Great. What happens when they find out they can’t live on the minimum wage or close type jobs they are suited for? Kinda takes gov’t and kinda takes reasonable minimum wages doesn’t it? But that requires gov’t."

The welfare system should not be under the aegis of the federal government (nor minimum wage). That should be the business of localities and the private sector, charities, churches, etc. Welfare is only supposed to be a temporary measure for folks down on their luck, but for too many, it is a way of life, and we've seen the example of women with multiple children by different men, and no man around. But those that defend welfare say, "But what about the children ?" As long as you keep the system in place, there's no incentive for women (or men) to stop behaving in such an irresponsible way. What happens when you end the system ? It forces people to do what their ancestors did, take care of themselves. As for setting wages, that's up for market forces to determine. There should be no government-mandated system. All it does is wreak havoc with the economy and causes inflation. A lot of things wouldn't cost what they do today if the government stopped meddling where it doesn't belong.

"Don’t want to do anything? Knock yourself out. Crime will skyrocket and don’t forget, a lot of these people have guns, too. And, a lot of them have been bulking up during their prison stays. Whereas we can probably outshoot them, we probably ain’t going to be the targets. It will be the old folks. It will be women. Our society will look like one of those third world countries."

That's scare tactics, right from the Socialist playbook. Fact is, during the Great Depression, you'd have thought by that reckoning, there'd have been skyrocketing crime and the like, and it just didn't happen. That blackmail to keep a corrupted system that has harmed untold millions of Americans is just plain wrong. If welfare was so productive and so wonderful, why isn't Detroit a utopia ? That's the third world country your economic & welfare philosophy is responsible for. When the brilliant (sarcasm) leftist Mayor of NYC, John Lindsay, told all poor people to go on welfare in the late '60s/early '70s, the crime rate exploded beyond all comprehension and a million people fled the city. That included my family. These types of misguided social policies have had devastating effects, for which we have never recovered.

"So, IMHO, the problems we have, have to be addressed by gov’t. That takes democrats. End of story. Do I like it? No."

And as I've stated, Democrat/Socialist policy has been the greatest epic fail we've witnessed on our shores. Until we dismantle it completely and restore individuality and personal accountability, we will never be as great as we can be. Government doesn't have to be the problem as long as it is small, well-confined, and accountable, but as long as it is bloated, gargantuan, and well-beyond its confines, it is the single greatest threat to freedom and personal liberty, bar none. Government should fear the people, people should not fear the government. Right now, I am TERRIFIED by my government. If this doesn't change, we will have to have another revolution by people that understand right and wrong and a restoration of our Constitutional government. The current tyranny must end. Sic semper tyrannis.

I will have to answer later. In the middle of two mega-battles on tort reform.

parsy, who is hacking and jabbing at them as fast as he can

Perfection is profound. I’m happy rhat Wade & Roma are there. The Wade & Roma show has never laid claim to carrying conservativwe cudgels like Hannity does, then wanders all over the place particularly when Hannity responds to “seminar” callers which has me screaming at my radio to the point I tune out.

I do have the feeling Wade does not agree with Kirk’s positions but views the Kirk race as a half a loaf is better than none. If another conservative GOP candidate does pop up and Wade gives that candidate the “shorts” then you have a beef.

Robert Enriquez is bad news. This is the guy who made a complete mockery of the aurora mayoral election by lying about weisner’s so-called attendance at a hastily assembled “forum” and passing out mis-information (LIES) at churches.
Enriquez supports democrats, donates to democrats and just ask him how he feels about successful women

You may be a 'realist', but you're no conservative.

Lurker, who can spot a Liberal at a thousand yards.

>> The Wade & Roma show has never laid claim to carrying conservative cudgels <<

I've heard the opposite, that Don Wade has always claimed to be a staunch conservative, not a center-right type or "moderate Republican" or anything else. From what I've been told, Don Wade became a Chicago radio institution precisely BECAUSE he was known for "hard-edged conservative commentary". Wade has spent much of his twenty years as morning drive boss at WLS taking shots at liberal icons like Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton.

Now, I don't think the same is true of his co-host, Roma, but I don't see what she contributes to that show besides being his wife and doing commercials for "healthy trinity" or whatever between breaks.

Bottom line is that Wade only seems to take pot shots at liberal Democrats while giving equally liberal Republicans a free pass. Again, quite a contrast to nationally syndicated talk show hosts like Limbaugh. Rush would never allow the likes of Kirk to go on his show and spew B.S. about what he's done for soccer mommies while Rush gushes with praise the whole time about how thoroughly intelligent and caring the Congressman is.

>> If another conservative GOP candidate does pop up and Wade gives that candidate the “shorts” then you have a beef. <<

There are currently FIVE candidates "more conservative" than Kirk that have announced their candidacy for the U.S. Senate, all trying to get their message before voters. $50 says Don Wade doesn't give them the time of day, while Kirk is (and remains) practically a weekly guest on the show.

>> I do have the feeling Wade does not agree with Kirk’s positions but views the Kirk race as a half a loaf is better than none. <<

I have the feeling what passes for "Conservative" in local radio are people who are owned by the liberal media and only go after liberals when they're "safe" for staying in power no matter what happens. Any liberal that could actually be defeated in Illinois gets a pass. The media here have decided Kirk is the second coming, so the local "conservatives" go along with it.

At the very least, any conservative talk show host who disagrees with Kirk but feels he's "better than the Dem" would do their best to nudge him in the right direction, especially during a primary. Don Wade doesn't do that, he just heaps praise on whatever liberal touchy-feely crap Kirk is yapping about.

Ron Conn is another local WLS guy (they could combine his show with Don Wade's and call it Roe v. Wade) is another one who people have told me is "conservative" but every time I tune in he's boring me to death with some irrelevant topic or apologizing for Obama, like the one day he spent half the show whining about "we're America, we must not torture" and gosh darn Obama has good reason to close down Gitmo.

We could really use a local version of Rush that holds leftists accountable. Aside from Mancow, I don't think we have any.

In Illinois, the socialist beast walks with a limp. Why?

Because of its Republican short leg.

What about Cisco Cotto? Isn’t he okay?

Same 10 years ago on the way to school I used to listen to Don and Roma. She was annoying.

I rarely listen to talk radio.

Anyway. Obviously the proverbial fix was in for Pat Brady.

The mob is an apt comparison, Brady is a made man.

You story of the last chairmanship election the one choice given and voice vote disgusts me. I didn’t realize they could just do that.

I think that Brady must step down as RNC committeeman. No one currently holds both positions so I assume it is not permitted.

Rauschenberger was my first choice for Governor last time. I was as I think everyone was perplexed when he decided to become the LT guv running mate’ of ‘moderate’ Ron Gidwiz. I assumed Gidwidz was clean but not conservative I wondered if there were any non-combine ‘moderate’ Republicans. I just found out he’s Kirk Dillard’s campaign manager. So, yeah, I guess there aren’t any.