Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party

vanity ^ | 12/17/03 | Destro

[Destro]

In a discussion on this thread Tom Ridge's Immigration Remarks Draw Fire a post regarding the conservative angst about the recent campaign finance reform that Bush signed into law and that the Supreme Court approved (and the approval was praised by the White House), on the heals of the Medicare entitlement enacted under a Republican controlled government the following was posted:

I'm hearing Rush now. He claims the republicans have ONLY one party to go to. He has put this issue squarely on the problem. We need to vote outside of this corrupt party apparatus.

12 posted on 12/11/2003 12:39:52 PM EST by Digger

I also heard this on Rush and my blood boiled. Rush said conservatives have no place else to go and thus will continue to vote as a block to the Republicans.....and then it hit me. That is exactly what we conservatives lament about Blacks and the Democratic party. Black Democrats who vote straight Democratic and are rewarded by being ignored.

In other words, Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party!!!

I urge the same solution to Republican conservatives that Black conservatives offer to Black Democrats. QUIT! Become independents and let the parties fight for our votes. If we can't take the GOP back we should leave the GOP.

I did not change. My party did. I thank God Ronald Reagan is unable to comprehend what is happening to the party he saved.

[Dunedain]

It IS interesting that Ayn Randers can find intrinsic value in humans, yet see religion as a crutch.

It may sound funny, but I believe Star Trek is exactly what the humanists strive for. The Next Generation series is about mankind "evolving" beyond the profit motive, and prisons, and crime.

[exmarine]

The Clinton years was really a dark time however. The worse of all was that Nazi who sent US troops against Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian Gonzales. I forget her name for the moment.

The manly Janet Reno. I agree with you. Just wait until an evil DemoRAT takes charge again - and really puts that Patriot Act to use - against Americans!

[Dunedain]

"Most of the mainline churches who are against the war are apostate or false churches." It may have been mostly Church leadership who were expressing these views. Leadership should do their congregations and service and keep quiet.

It is scary how conformist the thinking is. No one thinks for themself in Canada. So someone who is against homosexuality is labelled a homophobe and kicked out of the political party. I don't hate gays - I just think anal sex is disgusting.

A court in Saskatchewan has actually ruled the Bible as hate literature. So we are getting close.

When the Ayn Rand institute did a paper about Israel's right to self-existence it was stopped at the Canadian border as it was suspected as hate literature.

This is the nation I live in. Yet everyone is happy because their tech stocks are doing well again. Complacency.

[exmarine]

It IS interesting that Ayn Randers can find intrinsic value in humans, yet see religion as a crutch.

I have debated Ayn Randites and thrashed them. They are moral relativists. Ayn Rand was a moral relativist. They call her philosophy objectivism, but there is nothing objective about it - it's subjective. It's total personal autonomy in its extreme narcissistic form - the polar opposite of communism I suppose (Rand hated communism). Rand's motto might have been, "Me first in all things," whereas Jesus Christ taught "Deny yourself and the golden rule." Gosh, who is more credible - Jesus or Ayn? That's a tough one!

In the final analysis, they deny morals come from God, therefore, the only other possibility is that they come from Ayn. Universal morality can only exist if it comes from God. If man (or Ayn) invents moral rules, those rules can be no more authoritative than the moral rules any other person invents. They are all subjective.

[labard1]

But most RINOs are not fiscal conservatives (even though they usually are quite socially liberal).

[Destro]

bump

[WOSG]

"At least Dean is a fiscal conservative, even if he is a social liberal."

Howgash. That is Dean-powered cr*P. Vermont is a socialist state, one of the worse, and Dean did nothing to change that. he ran a state smaller than most *cities* and half-run by greens and socialists - he'll look conservative in comparison to such kooks but that is not a basis of comparison. Vermont taxes and spending and regulation are far from benign ,dispite the fact that it is a lily-white state with not a single large city - very *un*diverse.

Fact is, Dean is wholly and totally unqualified to even run for President as his experience is less useful to the Presidency that dozens of other Governors, hundreds of people who have been in washington, or for that matter generals (like Clark) and business leaders who have had to tackle larger and more difficult issues.

Dean is all mouth no cattle.

[WOSG]

If conservatives leave the GOP, how is the right weakened? "

United we stand, divided we fall Dividing the center-right coalition that is running America today will lead to a leftist coalition that will run America. HillaryCare is just an election away.

If the exodus is done with enough people, the nation will stay to the right. It will just have a third party made up of conservatives to vote for. ... and then the leftist Democrat wins because the right-wing votes are split from other conservative and moderate votes... we lost plenty of Senate races that way (example: Slade Gorton losing to Cantwell due to split by libertarian voters), and won a few races when the Green party and the Democrats split the left. (This happened in a famous race in New Mexico).

That party then gradually replaces the GOP as the majority and we get what we want. This drivel is at various with American history. Dozens of 3rd parties have come and gone, and their overall success in winning major election is between ziltch and nil.

Oh, like caving to the Chinese over Tiawan is not a foreign policy disaster? Actually it's not a problem. China is 'placated' and meantime Taiwan will do what it will do anyway. Just watch.

[WOSG]

"I am a conservative in all ways except politically."

Well, what a pointless and useless position to hold in a forum that is about Conservative POLITICS.

I am conservative politically, but far from 'conservative' in other ways. ... that aint the FREEPER WAY!!!

PS. you get no debating points for calling others 'imbeciles' just for catching your flaws.

[Dunedain]

I will concede that vote splitting is a problem. Why is it the damn socialists rarely vote split.

Maybe it shows conservatives have more diverse thinking.

[WOSG]

If your vote was the DECIDING VOTE in Florida between Bush and Gore in 2000, and you could have vote Bush in for the win, or 3rd party and let Gore win --- WHAT WAY WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED?

[labard1]

I remember when Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention, after losing the nomination to Richard Nixon, gave a speech with the punch line, "Conservatives, grow up," with the assurance that if we worked hard enough we could take over the Republican Party. Having succeeded in that long slog, we should be disheartened to see other conservatives willing to throw that away.

Unfortunately the media is largely hostile, as are most university professors and clergy of mainstream old line churches. Nevertheless, we win more than we lose. It's painful to see dumb things done by elected Republicans, but I can assure you, the Dims do even worse. The fantasy of a Libertarian or Constitution Party win is laughable.

The way we win is to persuade a majority of voters of the merits of our views. But if we can't get a majority by adherence to all our principles, we need to pick up additional votes by appealing to other groups that can add the critical votes to provide a majority. Ronald Reagan understood that, and eventually produced landslides for us, and provided some of the best government in the last century. I can't see throwing away his legacy because some of our leaders fall short (even far short) of our aspirations.

[looscnnn]

Just got home from work and taking the kids to see Santa, so I am just catching up. Well said. Don't expect him to do either.

[looscnnn]

And if you need to use the loo by all means go, but be sure to wash your hands afterword.

Ha ha ha, stop...your killing me. Not. There are all kinda comics out of work and you try to be one. Try getting a real job.

[looscnnn]

Go free, go free. : )

[WOSG]

freedumb, you are engaging in pointless semantics and bad logic with af vet.

The pointless semantics is the 'constitution doesnt grant any rights TO anything' stuff, when in fact that is *exactly* how the courts write it. Are they wrong to speak of "fundamental rights and liberties" protected by the Constitution? Most freepers understand that a Constitution is a grant of government powers and all things not included are up to the people and the states themselves. That is a fundamental concept of limited govt, and it is useful to remind liberals of that since our PC schools fail to teach it.
Amendment X clearly gives states the right to run themselves without interference from the Federal Govt.
unless there is a SPECIFIC reason otherwise.

And YET, that is not where 99% of court decisions restricting laws on the states come down from. When is the last time the court said "this is not valid under the interstate commerce clause, overturned" ? That went out in 1943. sadly.

The Federal court rulings however DONT use the language you insist af vet uses, they talk of 'fundamental rights' and 'liberties' as positive things that the BoR protects.
They DO explicitly say that there is a 'right' to abortion.

"Your desire to see the Constitution as something that has to grant rights TO do things is frightening and has no place in a free society. " What a horrible thing to say. You should apologize to the previous poster for that outburst!
He merely is useing the common language that everyone from Justices to law profs to FR posters uses for these concepts.

So at least debate his intentions - he intends to say that the Federal courts erred in overurning state law wrt abortion; they erred in ruling that there was a 'fundamental right' to abortion that allowed them the power to overturn such laws.

I agree and most cogent readers of the Constitution agree: Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, there is NO REASON for Federal courts to stop states from protecting unborn life by regulating abortion. Show us where in the Constitution it says that Federal courts have the power to overturn the will of the people of states on this matter?
THERE IS NO SUCH POWER IN THE COURTS - IT IS A USURPATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES RECOGNIZED IN AMENDMENT X.

What is really frightening is your arrogant outburst that even contemplating that has no place in a 'free society'.
Let this be part of the debate please; we dont need leftist style moralizing on this.

Likewise with porno:
The Federal government, judicial branch, has no right to totally limit the state rights and actions wrt pornography/obscenity actions that state Governments.
Previous court ruling back in the day when the court was more sane understood the rights for 'community standards' and understood limits on time,place and manner were appropriate. The understood that porno/obscenity was a part of the sex business. Yet you say:
"If you think the Constitution should protect you from porno or other offenses, go to France or Canada or join the Taliban. The Constitution specifically ALLOWS porno in Amendment I." Completely obliterating the real contentious and subtle issues and the grey lines in this area is wrong. Obscene porn is not "speech" per se, its just a part of the sex business, designed not to inform but to arouse. It was for most of our history not even considered subject to the 1st amendment; censorship of pornography was universal for 150 years of our republic.
Frankly, some WANT to legalize all sex businesses and use the 1st as an excuse, a wedge, to get their way.
A loophole if you will that was certainly never intended
by the authors of the amendment; and only since the 1960s has it been opened up.

Perhaps we could tolerate an 'absolutist' vision that extended to porn and obscenity if at least the Supreme Court was consistent in protecting all of our 1st amenment rights. Alas, they are not.
One of the sickening things of our current activist USSC is their destruction of rights to political speech while they "protect" simulated child porn. the Constitution does NOT protect the sex trade, and yet the USSC gives greater protection to Larry Flynt than to a group of people who want to get together and protest the powers in washington vocally. It is depressing that we see greater wieght given by our leftist/socialist judicial elites to protecting the sex trade than to protecting the political freedom of speech. We deserve better.

And af vet deserves better debate behavior from you.

[WOSG]

Kyoto treaty is NOT a small thing -- if we went along, it would be like a $1 trillion tax hike.

Think: What would President Gore have done?

[looscnnn]

Again the GOP is not the right, conservatives are. The GOP is a party of lefties, moderates and conservatives. So if you were open minded, you would realize that to leave the GOP is not to weaken the right. If you leave conservative values, then you weaken the right.

About the loosing seats, that can happen even if there is no 3rd party. People staying home and not voting (there has been a decline in voter registration if you recall), this is happening in all parties. I don't see you spouting your screed about the decline in voters. Ever think that that could be the reason for loss of seats and not the split in vote.

If you think that now that Bush's nose is brown that they are content and will do nothing, you are severely dillusional and should see help.

[WOSG]

Indeed.

RINOs are really moderates.

They are in the mushy middle.

Does anyone remember Rockefellar republicans?
Dewey? The Ripon society? We almost got them out of the party in the post-nixon reagan era, but they were always there.

The real danger of RINOs is that anyone in the 'middle' gets pulled left by our activist media and the institutions (like the legal academy, courts) etc.

Think of OConnor on the USSC. She gave some good rulings over the years, and is not reliably horrible like the leftists Breyer and Ginsberg, but in the CFR, Michigan AA case and others, she was the key *swing* vote for evil!

Today in the Congress was have somthing like 40% Republicans (mostly okay) 15% RINO 45% Democrat (most of them socialist)

When the RINOs join the Democrats, bad stuff happens.

Of course a 'strategy' by stupid conservatives to abandon the country's majority party will only make the GOP a RINO party. Then we may get a rump Dem party and RINO ruling class, and powerless conservatives. (As for the foolish strategy of taing the conservative marbles and goin' home - how dumb can you BE? Bush does all this work making the GOP a majority party, the least we can do is TAKE IT OVER SO CONSERVATIVES RUN THINGS! Why abandon a ship that is in good working order put going in the wrong direction? Take the helm and START STEERING!)

Libertarian? Look at Ron Paul - hardly a RINO!

[WOSG]

Good points all.

The way we win is to persuade a majority of voters of the merits of our views. But if we can't get a majority by adherence to all our principles, we need to pick up additional votes by appealing to other groups that can add the critical votes to provide a majority. Ronald Reagan understood that, and eventually produced landslides for us, and provided some of the best government in the last century. I can't see throwing away his legacy because some of our leaders fall short (even far short) of our aspirations.

Let's not forget ... he who gets the most votes wins!