Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party

vanity ^ | 12/17/03 | Destro

[WOSG]

Let me ask you the same question that none of the 'walk-awayers' seem to want to answer ...

What state are you in?

Who is the worst 3 elected officials in your state?
What party are they in?

Who are the best 3 elected officials in your state?
What party are they in?

[Destro]

The Democrats got America involved in teh Balkans helping al-Qaeda linked Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Has Bush reversed this Clintonian policy? Or has he allowed under the nose of thousands of US troops the destruction of Christianity in thos Muslim ruled areas?

Bush is just as ruinous as Clinton there IMHO.

[Destro]

I am walking away. I am not joining a third party. My votes in the Republican margain changed nothing. Bloomberg anyone?

[firebrand]

I have not read this whole thread yet, but let me say what I think is happening, even if it might have been said already.

The RINOs are fighting us tooth and nail. They are more afraid of us than they are of the Democrats. In NY they are using every dirty trick in the book to stymie the conservatives in the GOP at every turn. They have grasped control of the state party here, so it is very hard to maintain a conservative presence within the party.

If the RINOs are not in control in your state, don't let it happen. Once they grab the party apparatus it is all over. We are still fighting here but it is ten times harder.

[labard1]

Sad to see you go. Until you understand that no human institution is perfect, and political candidates (even ours) are all too human, perhaps you can't take the give and take of democratic (small "d") politics. Government inherently screws things up, and expecting something else of human government is sure to lead to disappointment. That does not mean that there is no difference between the parties, only that neither will be anywhere close to ideal, ever. Some are just worse than others.

[Destro]

I am still a party member for now.

[labard1]

What I've read lately is that local Muslim leaders (in Albania and elsewhere in the Balkans) have been rejecting the anti-western overtures by Wahhabi clerics and other al-Qaeda types. Is that not true?

Bigger picture, it is very much in our interest to avoid having all Muslims believe we're in a war against them, even at the cost of Bush occasionally saying things more favorable to Islam than justified by the facts. In fact most Muslims are like most Americans in that they are much more interested in their family's immediate needs than in religious matters or politics, much less violent jihad.
That doesn't make the Wahhabi (and other) terrorists less dangerous, but it would be foolish gratuituously to encourage other Muslims to side with them. Making enemies is not an activity to undertake voluntarily unless there's a good pay off and it's unavoidable.

[labard1]

Excellent home page.

Also, a cheer for your patience and gracious persistence.

[Destro]

That is not true-it is a damned lie that the Clinton supporters of the Muslims and their neo-con allies tell the increasingly ignorant American public to mufflify them.

[Destro]

And to do this Bush needs to have divisions in Kosovo that don't even leave their bases when churches are destroyed and Christians killed almost daily? To hell with that.

[looscnnn]

So those people should have been good little "sheeple" and followed lock step, kinda sounds like the Dems and blacks. Which is exactly what this discussion was originally about.

Your right that it's the voters, but you fail to see that no one has to vote for anyone. Those that choose not to vote or to vote another way realize the possiblities of the results of their actions and are willing to take that chance. You are expecting that all conservatives blindly follow orders (like Dems do with blacks) and vote the way you want. Campaigning is about earning the peoples votes, let me repeat...EARNING the peoples votes. The Dems and the GOP are expecting you to vote their party because you always have and always will. That is not earning the vote. Some conservatives are tired of being taken for granted and are voiceing that frustration, some are taken steps to change party affiliation to take their membership dues to a group that they feel will earn and respect their vote. They may still vote Republican, they may vote independant, they may even vote Democrat, it all depends on the which candidate EARNS their vote.

[looscnnn]

I just recently move to South Carolina, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with the way the elected officials rate. I can tell you this, Strom Thurmond was one of the best.

That brings up an interesting point, the south used to be a heavy Democrat area, Strom leaving the Dems and joing the GOP helped lead the way to the south becoming GOP territory (for the most part). It did not happen overnight, but it did happen. Same goes for conservatives moving to a third party. That party may be irrelevent at first, but gradually it can become a major player. It is like Christianity when it first started by bringing the word of the Lord to the people, gradually through spreading the word of the Lord the people became believers. Look at how wide spread Christianity is today.

[Consort]

Oooo Kaaay, it's time to break out the guidelines for frustrated mavericks, disgruntled individualists, rogue rebellers, etc:

• If he/she has an "R" after his/her name, vote for him/her.
• Yes, in politics, winning is everything.
• Republicans running against Democrats have earned your vote.
• If the choice is between two evils, vote for the lesser evil, even though they are both evil.
• No matter how big or small government gets, never allow Democrats to control any part of it.
• The GOP "base" is much broader than just Conservatives.
• Common sense trumps principles, morals, personal views, and conscience because even the bad guys have them — but they don't resemble yours in any way, shape or form.
• Don't confuse whining with ranting.

These guidelines will be significantly changed to address GOP problems once the Democrats are less of a threat.

[looscnnn]

Actually, do you think that conservative or moderate Dems have any influence over Dean, Gephart, Clinton, Sharpton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.? If you do, you need to reevaluate.

Do you think that blacks have any influence over Dean, Gephart, Clinton, Sharpton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.? If you do, you need to reevaluate. They did nothing major for blacks when they were in power. That is the reallity of it.

So if you think that conservatives have any influence over the GOP, then how do you explain all the liberal things that they have done and their trying to attract the moderates/center.

[looscnnn]

So what you are saying is vote for someone like Bloomberg (R) if he was going against Zell Miller (D), because of the R and because he is running against a D he earned my vote (even though Zell is more of a conservative)? But that contradicts what you state seeing as Miller is the lesser of the 2 "evils".

If the GOP base is MUCH broader than Conservatives, then why should they care about us and why would conservatives leaving the party affect the outcome of the election? Especially if Bush leads Dean (the most likely Dem challenger) by 27 points (assuming this holds nationwide).

By the way, last time I checked there was more to the government than the President. We are also pissed at the GOP members in Congress for allowing the crap to happen.

So if common sense trumps principles, morals, personal views, and conscience, that means that if someone is holding a gun to your head and tells you to have an orgy with a bunch of homosexuals with AIDS you do it right? I realize that it is different from politics, but the fact is the the GOP is pandering to the gay community and not stopping the destruction of the Constitution which are agaist our principals, morals, personal views and conscience. Are they using common sense? No. So when they start we will start.

[WOSG]

"Actually, do you think that conservative or moderate Dems have any influence over Dean, Gephart, Clinton, Sharpton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.? If you do, you need to reevaluate."

Correct.

"Do you think that blacks have any influence over Dean, Gephart, Clinton, Sharpton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.? If you do, you need to reevaluate. They did nothing major for blacks when they were in power. That is the reallity of it."

Conservative/moderate blacks have ZERO influence over the Democrat party. But the demagogue race-mongers like Sharpton? They surely do have a say. The Democrat party is locked into a pro-AA stance and locked into race-baiting. Didnt Gore endorse Dean in Harlem? Sharpton in 2004 is running for "top black guy", he's running to be the next Jesse Jackson. Though he is a dmegogue who's words were used to incite riots and defame honest cops, he is succeeding.

[labard1]

I'm not defending anything on this issue. I'm just ignorant, and open-minded as to what the facts are.

[WOSG]

"I just recently move to South Carolina, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with the way the elected officials rate. I can tell you this, Strom Thurmond was one of the best."

I liked Strom. Well keep watching and studying and seeing how each *individual* Republican and Democrat behaves. I welcome your answer to the Q anytime.

"That party may be irrelevent at first, but gradually it can become a major player." We'd be talking in circles if I dispute it yet again, but Socialists, Bull Moose, reform, Wallace 68, Progressive (LaFollette 1924), agrarian, Free Soil, etc. lots of third parties that never won office. Came and went. You dont "gradually" become a major player. that is the lie the libertarians told themselves in the 1970s. you stay an irrelevency that never wins office, and either (1) influence the major party to move your way or (2) become a 'spoiler' that loses elections for the side closest to you (ie actually hurting the cause).

If the entire Republican establishment abandoned conservatism and dissed us outright, you might have a point. But that is not the situation. Rather we have a mixed bag: on spending a 'guns and butter' spree. not good. They passed partial birth abortion ban last month, an energy bill that though with flaws is more conservative than any other energy bill passed, and in May of this year passed the largest tax cuts since the days of Reagan (along with the 2001 Bush tax cuts). Meanwhile we have a liberal activist judiciary that between socialist Clinton appointees and some RINOs, is damaging our nation. We cant afford to let that slip away.

This is on the national level. I can tell you that here in Texas I am quite happy with the Conservative nature of the Republican leadership - Perry, Dewhurst, and the leadership by Republicans in the statehouse has overall been very good. They had a $10 billion shortfall and they closed it without a tax increase! Then they went after litigation excesses with an amendment - passed in September. Then they got the Dems mad and went ahead with redistricting. They took on homeowners insurance and are about to fix our school financing system. Oh, not to mention 3 quite prolife bills and other bills that are friendly to conservative views and values.

And have you READ the Republican Party Platform of Texas? Stuff that would make a socialist one-worlder jump out of their skin. Very paleo-conservative one could say.

There are more moderate officials in Texas: Carole Strayhorn (on her third last name); Susan Combs; Kay Hutchison is okay, but not as conservative as say Tom DeLay. But then we also have some rockribbed conservatives like Delay, Barton, Brady, Culberson, Thornberry, and Pete Sessions. Not to mention Ron Paul, libertarian Republican. Most of the Republicans in Congress from Texas have ACU rating in the 90%-100% range. And the Democrats from Texas are in the 0%-15% range. Bad.

So to answer my own question for Texas. Top 3 good guys:
DeLay, Dewhurst, Perry. All Rs.
honorable mentions to Ron Paul and Pete Sessions.
Top 3 bad guys: Frost, Doggett, Eddie Bernice Johnson. All Dems.

So in my state Texas IMHO it is silly to run out of the
one party that is sending a host of strong conservatives who do indeed listen to US, and are standing up to the socialist Democrats.

I suspect that Lindsey Graham though not perfect is a great followup act to Strom Thurmond and worthy of support. Would it really be worth breaking from the republicans and trying to get someone better than him? if so who? and wont you risk getting another Democrat in there? like hollings?

and btw, who will win the US senate race in 2004? Who will you support? And dont you see that getting the *right* Republican, ie the most conservative Republican in there, you will be making a positive difference? Whereas splitting off will just make you irrelevent to the primary choice, and in the general election it will be down to the D or R choice.

Do you want a Strom Thurmond or a Liddy Dole to win that race??? Or, worse, a John Edwards? There is only one way to get a Strom type in there: Win the Republican primary for a conservative, then win the general election. 3rd party conservatives would just be spoilers that would help a Democrat win in South Carolina.

[Consort]

So what you are saying is vote for someone like Bloomberg (R...)

Bloomberg bothers me but his opponent, Mark Green, scares me.

...if he was going against Zell Miller (D), because of the R and because he is running against a D he earned my vote (even though Zell is more of a conservative)? But that contradicts what you state seeing as Miller is the lesser of the 2 "evils".

Conservative Democrats never get a chance to implement a conservative agenda — they are ignored, for the most part — but the "D" after their name helps the give the Liberals a majority and control of the Congressional agenda (including judicial appointments). We don't like RINOs, but right now, without them the Dems would probably control Congress.

...then why should they care about us and why would conservatives leaving the party affect the outcome of the election?

Every party wants all the votes they can get, whether conservative, moderate, liberal, or independent.

By the way, last time I checked there was more to the government than the President.

The guidelines cover all elected persons at all level of government.

Are they using common sense?

If a pro-life Democrat runs against a pro-choice Republican for congress, your conscience, morals, etc would dictate that you vote for the pro-life Democrat. But your common sense tells you that if the Democrat wins, the GOP could lose the majority and his/her fellow Democrats would get more power to implent their pro-choice/anti-life agenda and the rest of the socialist agenda. We know what they do when they are in control. Not good.

[tacticalogic]

So if common sense trumps principles, morals, personal views, and conscience,

Common sense says that who I vote for helps determine wheather on not the Democrats get elected (even if I didn't vote for them). It also says that who I say I'll vote for and why may help determine what the policies of the Republican party will be. Principles, morals, personal views and conscience are the only things that make one have anything to do with the other.