Posted on 07/05/2005 2:51:32 PM PDT by TBP
As usual, the Republican Party surrendered the moral and political high ground to the losers when Sen. Bill Frist cravenly accepted Mr. Durbin's phony apology.
Republicans talk tough about the war, radical judges, illegal aliens, affirmative action and term limits. Once elected, though, they thumb their noses at the voters and hide behind liberal power grabs. The American people have completely lost control of their government.
It is time for a counterliberal revolution, but this latest Republican capitulation shows that the feckless Republican Party is incompetent to lead it. Timid and submissive, the Republican Party remains viable only as the nominal home of the conservative movement. Conservatives must lead the revolution from a new party (New Federalist or Originalist?) unfettered by the baggage of existing parties, as the Republicans once did: Several years after its founding, the old firebrand, idea-driven Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln for the presidency.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt demagogued that Republicans caused the Great Depression, and the abuse has continued unabated ever since. As a result, the Republican Party assumed a permanent loser mentality, mealy mouthed, falsely objective, content to win elections for their own sakes while deferentially tugging its forelock to Democrats. Republicans routinely cave in to the likes of Mr. Durbin while destroying their own leaders' conservative agendas. The new party must ignore the vicious liberal media and calls for "compassion." Its candidates and leaders should never have served in any state or national capacity in government or another party. Devolution into a big-government pork factory would be arrested by internal term limits, the conservative agenda protected by harsh penalties for McCain-esque mavericks who sup with the enemy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Conservatives must lead the revolution from a new party (New Federalist or Originalist?) unfettered by the baggage of existing parties, as the Republicans once did: Several years after its founding, the old firebrand, idea-driven Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln for the presidency.
The man need to read the history of his own party before making ignorant comment like that.It was because of Lincoln, that we have the country we do now. He was a Big Government guy as were most Republicans who were former Whigs.
Are you talking about all libertarians or the national party? If you are talking about all libertarians, I'll be happy to destroy your opinion.
Doesn't New York have a Conservative Party that holds its own convention but 99% of the time backs the Republican nominee?
"If we continue to vote Republican, at least there is hope."
Oh man do I feel sorry for you. Look at the history of that party, and you tell me when (except for Goldwater and Reagan) where that party was for small government. Saying you are for small government and governing the opposite way does not constitute being for small government.
These are solid, conservative principles.
Ah. But my plan only needs 3 million conservatives to stay home. A credible number which is attainable and may convince our representatives to do what they promised to do.
Oh man do I feel sorry for you...
-------
Thanks for the thought. And I do deserve your pitty. But not about this. Maybe if we would be more intent on advancing our cause, and vote the platform and not the individual, maybe we could advance. When we continue to vote for an individual, we get the result that we have been getting.
I don't prescribe to the theory that if we don't get the result we want out of the current personell, we must jump ship. We will never get the chance if liberals run our country again.
Ain't it the truth! I offer as prima facie evidence the lack of any Republican appearing on the talks shows the last three days and countering the Dems arguments for a 'moderate' or 'liberal' or 'consensus conservative' nominee to SCOTUS. This is not an election! This is a judicial appointment and the only thing that matters is if the nominee can interpret and uphold the Constitution. I have yet to hear a single Republican Senator make a statement along these lines.
Wow nearly everyone on here is talking like a borderline raving lunatic! No, you cannot vote for a third party candidate. That is THROWING your vote away. You would be wasting the gas going to the polling place. I've said it once and I'll say it again: if you want change, try to change the Republican party (ala Mike Pence), don't make your own party.
That aside, look at the big picture. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE for a candidate to please everyone. Even Reagan wasn't hardline conservative on every single issue, which is what you people seem to be demanding. Be happy of what we have in Bush. He is not a RINO. Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine aren't RINOs. Not everyone who doesn't toe the party line on every single issue is a RINO. Lincoln Chafee is a RINO, ok? And if you have real problems with other Republicans, then beat them in a primary if you must, or else march your greedy butt over to DU and start voting for the Michael Moores of the world.
Anybody who thinks fallen men (that's everyone) can turn this mess around are living in a delusion. Only Christ returning to take the reigns of government will stop man's headlong dive into the pit of destruction. The good news is God has a better cliffhanger ending than any Star Wars or Indiana Jones movie.
O, and by the way, Frist accepting Durbin's apology is not a capitulation. Could he have done more? Yes. But it is not like he came out and said Durbin was right or anything. Frist is constantly crapped on by Freepers and I don't understand it. You must realize that the politically wise thing for Frist to do after the teary apology (however fake we know it was) was to accept it. This is cetainly true since he is running for POTUS. If Coburn or McConnell or whoever wants to move for Censure, all the power to them. But with the media spin that would result, Frist knows that for him personally, it was better to let it go.
Here's a little tip...this is a political web site. We don't need to be preached at or lectured. Most of us know the Bible backwards and forwards. If you have no wish to debate or brawl over politics...go away.
Not that sad if diversity equals Garza and Brown.
You know Bush is going to nominate Gonzales, just for him to say "Look what I did, I nominated a Latino as Supreme Court Justice. Look how diverse the GOP and me can be!" I do hope I am wrong though.
Well, I don't know how it works out exactly if you subtract it from the rest, but much of what Bush has grown is the military, which is also nearly all of what Clinton cut or limited.
Other than Medicare, Homeland Security, and never vetoing a single spending bill on anything.
Sorry friend, liberalism is a mental disorder, Michael Savage is right. Find a wonderful, Conservative God-fearing woman that THINKS or it will be a constant battle of competing ideologies and when children come, oh lordy.
Actually, I was talking about domestic discretionary spending -- non-defense, non-entitlement spending. That has grown faster under the Bush Administration than Komrade Herr Klintoon's regime.
As someone once said, unfortunately, the Conservitive Party (which my parents wre active in helping to start) "places too little emphasis on conservative and too much emphasis on party."
They need to get tougher about giving out their line, IMO. They've become an endorsement club for Republicans.
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.