Posted on 12/06/2005 5:19:59 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
But with the Republican Party's hold on the Senate looking tenuous, the party of Wall Street and the religious right is suddenly chummy with its most prominent environmentalist. With a tough race looming, and a solid conservative challenging Chafee in the primary, Republican elites are sending checks to Rhode Island -- to help Chafee.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I am not in Pa. but I did read a fair amount about the election. I don't understand the administration backing Specter other than fear of losing a seat. I also don't understand them not backing Katheryn Harris in Florida. However, I still say we are better off with a Republican than with a Democrat even if their voting records are the same.
The idea that we can punish them by staying home or voting for some other party is to fail to understand the nature of the opposition. Think of what happened under LBJ, Carter, and Clinton and keep in mind they are getting more traitorous each time. Think about the nature of al quaeda. I am not sure we could survive Hillary as a free country.
Now is not a good time to go into a snit.
Now is not a good time to go into a snit.
TOO LATE!!!! LOL. We begged Ricky Santorum not to support Arlen. He KNEW it would deeply offend his pro-life base......but he did it anyway...in pursuit of Frist's seat....he put party above principle, political expedience above principle.....screwed those who worked for his re-election. He abandoned us, why in God's name should we support him now? He can't be trusted. He merely wears the "R" jersey....Nope...no can do. I won't simply give him my vote because he's a pubbie. He's got to earn it. And short of him doing a full prostrate mea culpa, that ain't about to happen.
Game over.
Turn the scissors on the GOP!
I have no illusions about the Democrats. Many of them deserve to be hung for treason and I wouldn't afford them the luxury of a trial. Summary execution will do just fine, thank you.
But there are two dynamics at work. First, as the Dems have gone left over the last 50 years, the GOP has tagged along, albeit at a slower rate. You know the cliche. The train is heading towards socialism with both parties with the only difference being the speed not the direction.
Second, and every bit as important, is that liberals in GOP clothing are the enemy inside the gate. Not only do they keep the train heading toward socialism, they give political cover to their Democrat brethern.
When these so called 'moderates' agree with the Dems in that left leaning agenda it gives credence to the claim that conservatives are the extremists. Since the 'reasonable' and 'moderate' Republicans are willing to work with the Dems, it must be the conservatives that are out of touch.
Allowing the GOP to be co-opted by the liberals is what has the GOP led train heading in the same direction as the Dems. Continuing to allow liberals to run for office under the GOP banner and represent the party will not slow the train let alone reverse course.
As it is, the liberals have two party labels to run under to win office and wield power because we have bought the 'big tent' lie and allowed them into the GOP.
You can't strengthen the party by diluting the philosophy and that is what we have done. For the GOP to grow stronger -- AND, to the surprise of many, LARGER -- we need to take back the GOP from the liberals. We need to hold to much higher standards and the solid principles of a smaller and limited government agenda. Our ideas are better than theirs. We know it. We just need to have the courage to put them to the test and defend them. Being bold will win the day. Being cowardly, acting embarrassed of our ideals, and playing nice will only lead to defeat and loss of liberty.
...You surprise me sometimes with the level of disdain you have for politicians....
It comes from having known too many, personally.
Out of all the high level pols that I've known, the only one I would have saved from hanging was the late Senator Paul Tsongas.
He was a good and honest man to the core.
I disagreed with him on at least half the issues, but he was a good man. Would have been a decent president, since he was smart enough to see what was right and strong enough to do it, even if his party howled at the moon over his actions.
The Republican Party was led my Nelson Rockefeller from New York and other Northern Republicans. Earlier, the Democrat Party was also led by northern liberals such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt who were really Socialists-on-the-way-to-Communism. All Southern Democrats were strong conservatives and Southern Republicans were liberals, although by todays standards they would be called moderate.
The real political influence at the time was the result of the rise of Marxism in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote the famous Communists Manifesto in 1848. All of this was a reaction to the Royals of Europe and the way they ruled. That is also what gave rise to discontent in the colonies of England here on this continent just a few years earlier. The revolution in this country concentrated on freedom for freedom's sake but in Russia it centered on economics based on Communism.
For whatever reason, Communism caught on with the "intelligentsia." My own opinion is Communism's daring to replace God with Party (Man) was exhilarating to them, as long as they were the Party.
To fast forward, the Communists had greatly infiltrated the Democrat Party in the early 20th century and were key elements in the Roosevelt administration. What you describe as happening to the Republican Party today, and you are probably right, happened to the Democrats 100 years ago. Even with that, the Democrats were still primarily conservative because of the strength of the party in the South. That was the result of the treatment of the South by the Northern Republicans after the Civil War.
Both Parties are presently populated by liberals and conservatives with most liberals in their historical home, the North, regardless of party. Of course the wacky west coast rapidly grew during the last 100 years and have their share of both. Also, most liberals are in the densely populated urban areas. Those Republican moderates, what are called rinos, are simply a product of their area and its historical background.
The conservative/liberal comparison of today goes back to the original differences in philosophies between the founders of the USA and the founders of the USSR. We originally concentrated on individual freedom, religion and morals, and free enterprise. They, then and now, concentrate on the collective and minimize the individual. They also are hostile to God and any religion other than Communism. That is the battle we are fighting in this country today, the individual versus the collective.
Since Communism is contrary to human nature in the whole and hostile to God and morality, they must use deception to gain power and force to keep power. They consider lying to be a virtue to achieve their goals. They say a traitor to the USA will be a hero in the coming revolution. Historically, they have not hesitated to slaughter millions to secure their power. I see nothing that indicates they would be any different once they gained power here.
To summarize, although there are liberals and conservatives in both parties, the Democrats have been taken over by the Communists and are pushing Communists goals. A moderate Democrat and a liberal Republican are about the same politically. The biggest threat to the freedom of the country is Communism and that means Democrats.
Good or bad, this country consist of two effective political parties. The rules are such as to perpetuate that. If we are going to be effective ourselves we must operate within that system. That system means that which ever party has the majority controls the rules of procedure. Those determine what is brought up for consideration and what isn't, in other words, the agenda.
The real fight is for Communism or something else. That something else may not be conservative enough for many of us but it ain't Communism. Communism means the end to all other alternatives. That is the fight.
Wow, you're another firebrand, aren't you. Wouldn't it be better to demonstrate a bit of willingness to work with the other Americans?
Wow, you're another firebrand, aren't you. Wouldn't it be better to demonstrate a bit of willingness to work with the other Americans?
Who's running against Chafee? I will gladly donate to his challenger.
Tsongas was a democrat from Lowell Ma.
He was a self made millionare who had a big heart.
He was fairly conservative, fiscally restrained, and open minded.
He beat Clinton in New Hampshire in 92 and might have won the presidency, saving us from 8 years of treason, but he became ill and had to drop out. He died of cancer a while later.
Tsongas has had his character assasinated by being compared to Bill thedamnedhypocritecommie Bradley, who I would have loved to strangle with my own hands.
Now Lieberman and Miller are dinosaurs and completely marginalized. Besides Lieberman, there are no humans left in the dim party.(Miller is retired)
Besides Lieberman, there are no humans left in the dim party.(Miller is retired).
Regarding Zell Miller, stranger things have happened than someone coming back out of retirement to take another shot at high political office.
I can't see him run as a dem after having spoken the truth about them in public.
The media Harpies would be all over him.
Are you serious? Have you actually listened to these people mouthing off while we are at war? Do you know what 'aid and comfort to the enemy' means when we are at war?
You sound like the Dems that think that we can be nice to the terrorists and they will be nice in return.
You can't work with, negotiate with, or compromise with an enemy that wants you dead. (Look at Israel and their war with the so called Palestinians. The Palestinians want Israel destroyed and the Jews dead. Where is the compromise position?)
The Dems just don't want to defeat us, they want to destroy us, our freedoms, and the country. What deal do we work out with them, that we let them kill half of us or take half our freedoms?
These people are intent on taking our freedom, make no mistake about it. That changes them from being a political opponent to being an enemy. Our government is charged with guarding our freedom. When they turn to usurping it instead, they are no longer a legitimate government and we have a right and a duty to change the form and makeup of that goverenment.
I refer you to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for more details on the legitimate role and powers of government and the rights of we the people.
Though i like Laffey MUCH more than Chafee it looks like we need to keep any seat we can. RI is about as Blue as it gets so statewide the best shot at retaining the seat would be a RINO
Thanks for the history lesson, but what relevence does it have to what I proposed? Forget Europe. Forget America 140 and 225 years ago. It's interesting, but has nothing at all to do with our present situation.
The only thing that I found to be pertinent was that the Dems are totally left wing. If anything, that makes my point that we need to differentiate ourselves from them and repudiate them, not emulate them or welcome their excess politicians into our party to corrupt it or to dilute the philosphy and weaken the party.
Regardless of party label, if one side takes the big government nanny state, anti freedom stand, what does it do to advance liberty if the remaining major party adopts those positions too or elects to office a candidate who believes the same thing.
I recommend giving the voters a clear choice. Not a mirror image, not a 'lite' version, but a distinct choice. We can't regain our liberty by compromising our principles.
We have believed for so long that a conservative can't win this race or that because it's (fill in the blank) . Didn't Reagan win Rhode Island? He won 49 of the 50 states running as a conservative. Doesn't that tell you anything?
Let's run a conservative and support him. We really don't have anything to lose but there is a whole lot to gain.
"Didn't Reagan win Rhode Island? He won 49 of the 50 states running as a conservative. Doesn't that tell you anything? "
Ah President Reagan was awesome! ok now that i got that out of my system - unfortunately the nation has changed since then. How else could Kerry have gotten 48% of the vote. Dont get me wrong i would take Laffey over Chafee any day (i would take a rock over Chafee anyday) i was just attempting to explain the rational as to why the GOP is rallying around Chafee. I in no way meant that there should not be a primary or that everyone should back Chafee. And yes Chafee said he voted for Bush's father - what a putz.
Another Specter/Toomey situation. With the choice between a liberal and a conservative, rather than backing the conservative, rather even than just staying out of it, the party establishment will back Chafee.
The Republican party apparatus is not conservative. It has some conservatives in it.
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.