Posted on 06/07/2014 2:49:42 AM PDT by dignitasnews
*cough* LOL! *running*
I’ll make it reeeeel simple:
NO MORE RINOS!!
Rinos INSIDE the tent, but also pi$$ing inside—are MUCH WORSE than any outside trying to p in.
So—keep them outside the tent.
I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I guarantee you that the responses you’ll get to this article will illustrate the circular firing squad that forms between the Tea Party and the establishment GOP in this very thread.
Meanwhile, the allegedly demoralized Democratic party has a few months to figure out their message and try to get their people motivated.
Never underestimate the power of infighting.
No more RINOs or lesser evils. It’s Conservative or nothing, and to hell with the backstabbing GOP-E.
Bump what you said. I remember distinctly whispering to myself back circa 2004, "I don't have a party". I am suspicious of Tea Party candidates (Rubio anyone?) and downright distrustful of the rest. The Article V idea is great, but are we just being bamboozled?
Ping for later.
Because I cant respond to all individually, My retort is this. What you are saying is you are more than willing to let a HISTORIC opportunity to have the political numbers to call a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION pass us by because of your aversion to the RINO-wing of OUR party. A party that by the nature of the REALITY of American politics must have a coalition of support to have any leverage whatsoever.
What you are saying is that you dont have an objection to seeing this nation be left in the hands of the the Progressive-left. That you would rather see Marxism obtain complete control than caucus with, Ill admit, self-serving right-of center politicians. What you are saying is that it does not bother you that a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity is going to pass us by. An opportunity by the way, that would be driven first from the statehouse level, where we have more conservative sway...then passed on to a Senate and House where the most talented voices and only ones capable of leading the debate in a forum such as a Constitutional convention will be the likes of Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy and others. They would DOMINATE that forum.
Why are we involved in politics? I am involved in politics for one basic reason....I wish to destroy Progressive-liberalism and all forms of quasi-Marxism. We have an unprecedented opportunity to drive a stake in the heart of this wickedness. Once this is accomplished, we can deal with the self-serving elements in our party, because then it will truly be our party. Right now it is not, and dont ever allow yourself to believe otherwise. But it can be, because conservatives are the true talent in the GOP...they need only be unleashed.
I implore go back and read Article V. Then consider the political map again. A constitutional convention will be the ultimate “OJ trial” in the sense that eyes will be glued to the television. Eyes that normally dont watch politics closely and are easily swayed by the lies of the left-wing media and their cultural companions. Imagine what can be accomplished in the span of a few months with a constitutional directive at our disposal, and the conservative voices who will be on that television, DOMINATED the discussion. Those eyes will see Ted Cruz, for the first time direct and without commentary, appealing to the righteousness of our cause and direction. They will see Mike Lee, Tim Scott, Trey Gowdy, John Barrasso, Trent Franks, Cory Gardner, Tim Huelskamp, Jim DeMint and others speak about amnesty & immigration policy, abortion, the minimum wage, monetary policy, marriage, 2nd Amendment issues and we can once for all re-establish the path a the republic this nation was meant to be.
But what you are saying is you dont want this. You would rather see that witch Pelosi get the speakers gavel back, see Reid hand-picked successor control the Senate and Hillary Clinton get the White House. That is exactly what you are endorsing. You are apparently perfectly comfortable in seeing our children inherit a nation where they are told what to eat, what to say, what to think how much will they pay for things, who they must take contracts from and what they must pay their employees and before we know it...who they may or not worship. Because at its heart, Progressive-liberalism is a movement led by a forced stronger than Pelosi or Obama. It is a force led the adversary of man since the dawn of time. And if I have to hold my nose to caucus with those I disagree with on some things, or men and women that I know deep down are simply serving their own interests, if it will help achieve the goal of destroying Marxism, so be it.
We can deal with them after the fact. But Ill be damned if I will sit back, shake my fist in the wind and watch a once in a lifetime opportunity pass us by and spend my remaining years waxing poetically at how I “stayed true to my principles” while I wait in line at the DMV to file my paperwork to purchase my state-mandated Prius.
Call me all the names you wish, that’s exactly what the Progressive-left wants. The Progressives that you apparently are more than comfortable being ruled by.
In reference to Schwarzenegger, I have some serious problems with him, particularly his last term. But I will say this, he went out on a limb and he tried to take on the Unions, and I will respect him for that alone. Do you recall the slate of ballot initiatives he tried to get passed? That was California’s last chance to avoid the reality of what we see today.
Its interesting you mentioned him, because I see that in a similar light as the possible Article V implications I mentioned in the article. This is 2005 Im speaking of. Had those passed, the Unions would forever have been crippled in California and some sort of sanity could have been achieved in terms of pension reform and scaling back an out of control bureaucracy. And I joined in on that campaign. I knocked on doors, made phone calls, passed out flyers, etc. But our numbers were incredibly small. And many I tried to enlist came with the same objections as we see here, that “Arnolds a RINO, IM not lifting a finger for anything he is involved with.” Meanwhile, the Unions poured in millions upon millions and a force a ground troops that steamrolled us and EACH of those initiatives got defeated. And the Unions maintained their power. And California is in the shape it is in today.
And that is what bothers me about our ideological litmus tests. Because it only strengthens the power of the far-left. And after the spanking his initiatives in 2005 took, yes, he made a bee-line to the left to save his own skin, regrettably so. But if we are going to expect politicians to be pure of heart, ours will always get broken, because they are what they are.
I remember those initiatives. I also remember how when they failed he capitulated completely and never fought for anything conservative again. I remember how he vetoed gun control bills and gold dredging bans, only to turn around and sign them later with no justification for the change. I remember he supported spending billions on green energy scams, stem cell research and the crazy train, and called anyone who is skeptical global warming “Neanderthals”. Mostly he was dishonest and unreliable. I supported him early on, but he was one of the biggest political disappointments of my lifetime.
Jerry Brown is a liberal, but at least he’s honest and pragmatic. He tells you what he believes and doesn’t flip flop like a weather vane. And he’s actually accomplished more in balancing the state budget and reigning in the unions Ahnold ever did. I may not like most of his policies, but at least I respect him, unlike just about every other Democrat and RINO. Just my personal opinion, FWIW.
I concur 100% on your feelings about Arnold, dont get me wrong. But he is gone. And Jerry Brown will be gone, as will be the case with nearly every elected official in office today, in 30 years or so. But had we won the anti-Union initiatives, because they are not “Arnold’s” but the people of California. I put absolutely no faith in individual politicians, other than what they can do, in a given moment, to assist this country in chipping away and ultimately destroying Progressive-liberalism, which is without argument the most dominant force in our lives today.
You have not, so dont think this reproach is directed you, but others on this board are calling me a “RINO” for what....advocating a strategic policy to place us in a position to destroy liberalism? I challenge anyone on this board to read through anything I’ve written and find a policy in which we disagree. And if I were somehow able to hand-pick leaders in DC and the States, the Boehners and Arnolds would NOT be getting phone calls...but none of us has that luxury.
I supported Donnelly, and I am sorry he lost, I truly am. but a Kachkari win means so much more than the one man. Its about who fills those offices in Sacramento..and who gets moved out. It means an opportunity for some young 22 year old conservative somewhere in our state to get valuable experience who may parlay that into becoming the next Ted Cruz. It means more GOP lawyers running around with more clout, so that we see more cases like the City of Bell, Leland Yee, Ron Calderon, Rod Wright, etc get traction. If you ask me, the entire Democratic Party in California is one big RICO case waiting to happen.
And I concur with you, in terms of being genuine, I can respect Brown. Hell, on that same note, I respect Bernie Sanders more than many of them, because at least he is true to his beliefs and speaks them openly. But I revile what he wants to accomplish and will fight him tooth and nail to prevent the socialism he honestly espouses.
Yes. Next question.
President Obama and George Soros thanks you wholeheartedly for your support.
I totally sympathize and empathize with your passion for fighting liberalism and leftism. Your arguments are based on rationalizations I've subscribed to for decades.
But the function of voting operates on as mean a law as gravity. Gravity is cold, stubborn, hard; if you seek an easier way and defy the law of gravity by jumping off a building instead of taking the elevator, gravity cares squat about your intentions. Same with politics. When you vote for leftists (if Kashkari is at all like Romney, who endorsed him, he's a leftist), regardless of your intentions, you accomplish one thing: you advance leftism.
When is what you advise, voting for the likes of Kashkari, going to pay off? Because Heaven knows it's had it's chance over the past 25 years as most Republicans have adopted the familiar, conventional "wisdom" that you so freshly express in your piece. We've BEEN doing it your way. I voted for Meg Whitman, as leftist a liberal as Romney, registered as a Republican. I voted for her with my eyes wide open!! And it was unspeakably STOOOOOPID of me!
Sorry, JRandom FReeper, I'm getting to be a pest but I must give credit where due. Dignitas, regarding JRF's words, wash, rinse, and repeat until it sinks in: If you vote for liberals, you're a liberal. It is a fact, the same as a rectangle is a square. I had to FACE that truth in myself -- I voted for Whitman, for God's sake!
If you vote for liberal Republicans, you promote liberalism. It's like gravity. There whether you like it or not.
Seriously, the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is what you're voting for. You argue that by voting for leftist Republicans, we're voting for the chance, the hope, the strained-for outcome, of some folks to the right of them gaining access and power. In realty, you're voting for more leftism in the Republican party.
I had to face that. You do, too.
I was VERY skeptical when I first started reading this article. But I understand exactly what you are saying. Im not a big fan of Boehner but for anyone to think he is worse than Nancy Pelosi is ridiculous. And I had no idea the GOP had that many states, or had even considered the Article V thing. I’m sold!
I dont disagree with you, in the sense that voting for liberals like Whitman or Kashkari is a quasi-endorsement for. And I certainly appreciate your kind words.
But I did mean what I wrote about viewing politics as warfare. And no war has ever been won with purity. We teamed with absolute monster, Stalin, to take out Hitler, before we took him on. As I lamented, its a shame that the Cold War didnt end the same way WW2 did. But the fact remains, we teamed with him to take out the more immediate threat. And thats exactly how I view this. I am terrified about the country may 8 year old daughter may one day inherit. Having grown up “behind the lines” in El Monte, California, Ive seen first hand how progressive-liberalism seduces the individual into forfeiting their self-determination and dignity and how they played off of our own mistakes and infighting to dominate this state and spread even more misery than the California of my youth. I am terrified they will do this to the entire nation, as paints my particular perspective. The Boehners of the world are easy to deal with. If we seize the political pulse and conversation of the nation, they will fall in line quicker than you can blink. They are opportunists, and will gladly follow the Gowdy’s and Mike Lee’s so long as their bread gets buttered. But we need the numbers to hoist men like this to power. And its not going to come if we spend the fall re-fighting the battles of spring.
Im under no illusions that Kashkari will somehow evolve into a Reagan. And he wont be my primary focus of activism this fall by any means. But Im not going to do anything to sabotage him because he beat my guy Donnelly. I’m not advocating that we acquiesce the fight for the GOP’s soul...far from it. But there is a time for that...for 2014, that time is now over. We count our victories and come to grips with our defeats and now we deal with the more immediate threat, which is a Democratic Party who will utilize any tactic or exploit any advantage to crush us.
And thats really all Im saying.
Excuse me, but voting for Whitman, voting for Romney, was not a "quasi endorsement" in function, though those who cast such votes no doubt intended them to be. The "quasi-endorsement" is pretend, a tooth fairy.
A vote for Whitman, a vote for Romney as a vote for Kashkari (if he is on the same page as Romney), was and will be a vote FOR what they stand for, no "quasi" about it.
You speak of "immediate threats," and all I see are the same threats that have gradually grown larger and larger. They are as "immediate" now as they were in Reagan's time. I have learned, and by thinking in terms of what I am voting "for" instead of voting "against" (the crux of what you advocate, in that your regard these liberal faux Republicans as place-holders, pieces in a chess game, whose hold is primarily defensive "against" the opposition, the Democrats). Your "against" is imaginary; if they lose (which they most often do), the Democrat wins; if the liberal Republican wins (which they have to ill effect in CA and in Massachusetts), this "placeholder" uses his position to pull -- and push -- everything left.
The "purity" argument is one hundred percent false and destructive. Purists are pretty much imaginary; what are legion are people who accuse others of being purists.
I would have voted for Gingrich. Believe me, he is very, very far from "pure," but I'd have voted for him. I refused to vote for Romney. To consider my stand that of a "purist" is flat erroneous.
Romney -- and by extension anyone he supports or who supports him, his camp in the Republican party -- is so fundamentally collectivist leftist, so far off the mark in not understanding out the gate, for example, that nationalized health insurance is contrary to conservatism, that compromise is neither asked nor expected. One hundred percent capitulation is demanded. To that, I finally said and say, "Nuts."
And THAT, more than partnering with Stalin, is how we won World War 2.
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.