Posted on 08/26/2008 12:17:37 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Translation....The racist wing of the Dem party will not vote for Barry.
“When we have reached the point where jilted Hillary supporters are voting for the liberal Republican candidate instead of the uberliberal, it is time for Conservatives to pick themsleves up off the road, wave goodbye to the bus they were thrown under, and form a new party.”
Joe, your point is well-taken, but what’s happening this election is more a harbinger of the changing nature of the American electorate than anything else.
We’re reaching a point where the country is becoming so “polarized” that it will soon be difficult, perhaps impossible, to elect a “solid conservative” candidate to the presidency. Not because there isn’t a sizable portion of the electorate that remains “conservative”, but because there is an ever-growing cohort of the electorate that is overly liberal, while conservatism remains stagnant or waning.
Just take a look at the “red vs. blue state” comparison charts from the 2004 election. One can see “the divide” taking form, in the same way that the divide between the North and the South took shape before the War Between the States.
And the “conservative cohort” is slowly - but inevitably - shrinking, as the “liberal cohort” is growing. Why is that?
The answer is simple, but near-unspeakable: look at the _complexion_ of the cohort that is growing, vis-a-vis the one that is shrinking. The “color of America” is literally changing, right before our eyes, and with it, America’s political complexion will be inexhorably changed, as well.
The “color of conservatism” is by-and-large a pale one, representing the core beliefs of the Europeans who founded the nation, and built the country to where it stood at the close of World War II. Up until that time, the official immigration policies of the United States were restrictive (essentially keeping nonwhites out) and designed to preserve and maintain our ethnic and political heritage. But - beginning with the 1965 immigration reform act, and coupled with the EuroAmericans’ reluctance to recognize that truth, and unwillingness to protect the borders - the Euro-core of America has begun to fade away. Within forty years, the EuroAmericans will have lost their majority status, and those who replace them demographically do not appear to embrace the conservative principles that made America what it is (at least up until today).
I’m reminded of the line from the film “Little Big Man” in which the old chief (played by Chief Dan George) comments to Jack Crabb (Dustin Hoffman) after the Battle of The Little Bighorn: “We won today; we won’t win tomorrow”. He saw the future, and [at least from his perspective as an Indian] it wasn’t a good one.
To conclude, for conservatives to create their own “new party” would not prevent their demise - it would serve to ACCELERATE that demise. It would consign us to a fringe-party status from which there would be no pathway to winning, and only guarantee that the liberals and ‘rats would then seize every election on the national scale. It makes no more sense for conservatives to do this to themselves, than it would for blacks to create “a black party”: a sure track to a dead end.
- John
I will drive them to the poll — I am one of them !
Once stubborn, mad women say they’re going to do something there’s no turning them back ... they will never vote for the obamamessiah. The presidency of the USA is not a beauty contest. Only the most qualified should be elected.
McCain, now, is the most qualified and it’s a simple and as logical as that.
"They're working on it. Nothing new for the Dems, just requires a bit of scaling this time."
Common Tator, on this forum, has predicted something most interesting. He says there is enough covert racism within the rank and file of the democratic party that some (who knows how many?) white precinct workers will be a lot less willing to go the extra mile to manufacture votes for Obama as they would ordinarily do for a white candidate. Whether this happens in a significant way would have to be inferred from urban vote totals, I suppose, not something that could be known with absolute certainty even after the fact. Intriguing possibility.
The democrats in the urban areas will say the fraud is to steal back the votes mccain is stealing.
actually I think just the opposit.
If he picks a woman to pick a woman then he is out and obama is in.
This is not the time to be a trail blazer. He need to pick the person who will bring the most battleground state electoral votes AND NOT BE A RINO OR RISK OF RINO.
I would suggest the whine and cheese conservaties get off their collective buts and look at the local elections.
For example the marriage amenmdnt in california would be a GOOD place to start for victory.
The opposition if funding to defeat it and there is no organized support to pass it.
focus on victories where we can and work our way up.
A conservative majority congress from LOCAL elections will trump a moderate (wimp) president.
Not the "free to choose which of the three Homeowners' Association approved colors to paint your house" freedom of today, but the once 'free to add on to your house as you saw fit, sans permit or supervision by the State--in any way, shape, or form.
Not the 'you are free to go' freedom of a DUI checkpoint, but travel uninhibited, as fast as you could go, where you would, (with the permission of private property owners, of course).
Not the freedom to have a 'tailgate party', but the freedom to kill, dress, and skin dinner, to build a fire and cook it, without having to do it in a tin bucket.
Although these and other examples may be considered archaic by some more modern terms, they were considered fundamental well beyond the understanding of most modern Americans, and their obscurity is further heightened by an education system which ensures that its students will never ponder the irony of a landowner who has to get nine permits to cut down a single tree, a tree planted by an ancestor 150 years before on land that had been in the family nearly 400 years--land stewarded since before any of the current governments was in existence.
No, instead people are lost in a system of subtle tyrannies, comfortable in the 'protection' they provide, and believe they are 'free' because they can buy one of eight colors of car which look alike (so long as they will pass the emissions check), or three colors of house, or can (sometimes) homeschool (with state supervision, of course).
They conveniently ignore that their day-to-day lives are (or can be) monitored in minute detail, from purchases, to where they travel, whom they communicate with and what they say, consumption of energy, water, where they eat, and what they do, especially if they are living a 'cashless' lifestyle.
Why, in some jurisdictions, they are even 'free' to carry a weapon to defend themselves, (with a State issued permit, of course).
Will Americans ever realize what they have lost?
Do they even want to be free, as the founders intended?
Of course there is a divide.
Break it down county by county and the cause becomes even more apparent. That cause is not one of color, although this might seem to be the case, but one of urban versus rural, the latter populations more self-reliant and not wanting the government, (or anyone else for that matter) poking in their business or telling them what to do in the guise of nattering nannyism.
There is the rift, between those who prefer self-reliance and those who prefer the comfort of their chains, regardless of creed, skin color, gender, or culture of origin.
To those from even more repressive parts of the world, our system seems (and is) incredibly free, even as it morphs toward the totalitarianism they often fled.
If the new wave of legitimate immigrants are permitted to become Americans, business owners, generally self-reliant, and not dependant on the government (read: the rest of us) for their sustenence, then they will generally become conservative, too, so long as they are led to understand that it is Conservatives and libertarians (who get a bad name over drug laws) who support their efforts to carve a niche for themselves better than the liberals who would obstruct real achievement, strip them of their self-respect, and tax them into submission.
Unfortunately, as the area between Conservative and Liberal is muddied in the public mind by equating "Conservative" with "Republican", people will understand the differences between the liberal Socialist philosophies and the Capitalistic, laisez faire of Conservatism less and less, and without an evident difference, their choices will be based not on what they can individually achieve, but on what they can get in gimmies, grants and set-asides which mask true accomplishment and provide ready cover for the lazy and incompetent so long as they qualify and sing the party line.
You mention fringe element status, but the Conservatives, the strict Constitutionists have already been relegated to fringe or even lower (as in beneath the bus) status within the Republican Party, and as the wheels of that political machine grind toward a gentler, freer (Global) Socialism and beyond, it would behoove us to make sure we do not get run over.
Unless we can reverse the trend within the Republican Party, and frankly, I'm not seeing any signs of that, we just might be better stepping away from the bus as it goes off the cliff into the Socialistic abyss, and getting a more reliable means of transportation.
Otherwise, we had better exert our influence or be relegated into obscurity.
Recall, if you will, why Mc Cain is called "McAmnesty", and you will see, even by your reasoning there is little hope within the Party.
McCain-Feingold offers even less hope.
Both fly in the face of the Constitutional obligations of McCain's oath of office as a Senator.
I would contend, as well, that if you look at earlier primaries, McCain did not win a majority, merely a plurality, but those primaries were often barely reported. North Dakota, for instance, was really a five-way split (iirc, 16% up to 23% for individual candidates, but the MSM only reported the "winner", who got less than one fourth of the vote).
It took every effort of the mainstream media to cut the other candidates (those who were not the MSM annointed "front-runners") out of the shot, reduce/eliminate their time at the mike, and we have no idea what was being piped into their earpieces while they were trying to talk.
Duncan Hunter had a delegate, committed, in the primaries, and the media ignored that talking about other candidates maybe picking up their first delegate.
So Republicans let the likes of Chrissy Matthews pick their candidate, whether they know it or not.
Despite being branded as the minority, I think there are more disgruntled Conservatives in the Party than the polls might indicate, and only the spectre of a Hillary or Obama in the White House keeps them voting for the candidates whom they have been convinced (often by the enemedia) are "electable", rather than those whom they would give wholehearted support. We saw it here, on this website, in discussion after discussion during the Primaries, when, in reality, any candidate whom the RNC got behind had a solid chance of being elected--especially with the spectre of Hillary or Edwards or Obama as the alternative.
The Socialist media has convinced Republicans that the mere media brand of "fringe" or "extreme" is the kiss of death in a campaign, and as long as that media remains the primary source of sound-byte news, replete with video and commentator voice-over telling us what was said and what to believe, Americans will continue to be swayed by the opinion makers and their talking heads, rather than their own common sense and reasoning.
As long as the RNC is following that lead, Conservatives don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being heard.
YMMV
Conservatives should be thinnking locally not nationally at this point.
The hall is paid for, the catering is complete, the band stands ready, now is not the time to change the tune.
>McCain is the only thing standing between Obama bin Biden and the White House, so you’d better warm up to the “Old Geezer” fast.<
Well, he’s a RINO and the truest lesser of the 2 evils. Good for him that voting for Obama is not even an option for me.
100 years ago I might have agreed with you. Sarah Palin would pull in far more votes than Romney or someone unknown outside his home state. Sarah Palin wouldn't cost him any votes and she could help rally the conservative base. She would also help attract some of the disaffected Hillary supporters as well as the independents. McCain needs all the help he can get she's the one who can do it.
she brings alaska.
nothing for the western states or northeast.
it has nothing with her status as a female.
We have an opportunity here and the numbers are the numbers.
DO NOT believe for a nano second hillary supporters would be impressed. Those that will go to mccain don’t need a bribe of panderment.
Talking heads, spin, Americans' intellectual sloth - everything you wrote is spot-on, but esp. your understanding of freedom vs. what passes for freedom today.
No one is watching the DNC except for marxist die hards at our universities and political junkies like you and me
No one is watching the DNC except for marxist die hards at our universities and political junkies like you and me
Pundits keep saying demographics is destiny and that the demographics work against conservatives. Perhaps in order to spread the conservativism in America, the Right may need to encourage more Americans to be Mormons. After all, if Catholics and even Evangelicals voted like Mormons, Marxists such Hillary and Obama would be laughable Presidential candidates.
“Brilliant... and tragic. We had good candidates, and Duncan Hunter was the best of the best, no different from Ronaldus Magnus in his positions and conviction”
Great. I liked Mr. Hunter, but if he was _that_ good, why did he do as poorly as he DID, even amongst Republicans?
He wouldn’t have stood a chance against Obama.
Whether one likes or loathes Mr. McCain, at least HE seems to be “standing a chance” against Obama, for better or worse.
I’m hopin’ for the better....
- John
He was eminently electable, BTW, and would have crushed Obama in the general.
FWIW I did my part, forking over $1000 to his campaign. Hopefully his son can benefit from it.
Clearly there is something wrong with the country’s common sense when weighing what the Democrats offer in this Presidential race when those who vote for Barak Obama love neither candidate nor country. When you vote party lines in the face of those who disppoint the overall trust of the American people, it is evident that the vote is cast for everything but ‘the greater good’ of the country. What is it that would vote for sheer national incompetence, if not but for the sole lack of intelligence?
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.