It's a good point, but there are cases where conservatives can pick a third-party candidate if that candidate has a chance in the general election.
Jim Gilchrest, who's running for Congress in a California special election, is a good example.
That's the gag isn't it? Republicans know that they just have to be a little better [conservative] than Democrats and they LOCK UP the vote of the conservatives.
The Republicans should change their motto to "The Republican Party, We Suck Less".
Because they do really suck.
Agree but we have to try to be heard by the party. The beast must be stopped.
I hate liberal thought more than I love the Republican party.
Involvement is the key. Hold your representatives accountable. Let them know they have to please you and the other constituents, not the press or the Inside-the-Beltway crowd.
My major complaint is that Bush won't fight back or take credit when credit is due.
Speaking of which, there really is a "none of the above" vote in some countries. If a certain percentage of the population votes that way, then the candidates are given the heave-ho and the election starts all over again.
Sounds a little cumbersome, but better than not voting, I think.
Parliamentary system.
"What Is The Alternative?"
A party of Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and other small government conservatives. I see from the pork vs hurricane relief conversation that there is a voter constituency for what the Republicans used to be.
Pres. Bush also has an MBA and may know more about what he's doing than we do. Unlike Pres. Clinton - Bush is not a poll driven politician. He is a meticulous planner and usually makes excellent personnel choices when it comes to selecting people who will be loyal to him and carry out his policy.
We also have to understand that President Bush is not an ultra conservative. The President believes in conservative methodology, which emphasizes accountability. He is not a micro manager, so sometimes his personnel choices might fail to live up to his expectations, but this rarely happens.
The President is also not ego driven, which means that he is trying to pave the way for the next Republican candidate for the Presidency. We need to control the Oval Office if we're to achieve the long term goals of reducing the size of government. The President shares this goal, but his plans put the implementation far into the future. The first steps to arriving at that goal are not to upset the status quo, but to massage it and move it in the right direction by way of reforms.
Instant small government would backfire on Republicans and cost us control of Congress and the Presidency. We have to remain in the game by playing the system that has been handed down to us. Anything more would crazy when we're faced constantly with a hostile press.
Prepare, lock and load.
The president does not pass laws, congress does. Blaming Bush is unproductive. The answer you are looking for is electing house conservatives such as Tancredo or Pence or others who will hold the line on spending bills. And, senators who will support conservatives. We can fault Bush for not pushing more but he's not the problem.
Third party principled losers or Hillary...take your pick.
Time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk!
My major complaint with W is that he thinks that government should play a major role in the ordering of a just society - that thought, unfortunately, is the foundation of socialism.
Other than that, I admire him personally as a straight shooter and a man determined (I think) to save the world from Islamic terror.
I'll continue to vote Republican, with misgivings, since the alternative is unthinkable.
Put the democrats in charge and overthrow the government right before they try to implement collective farming.
My major complaints with the GOP are Bush's spending, and the stonewalling RINOs in Congress. And yet, what is the alternative?
Kill off the Lifers in the primary.
Force the change at the local level.