Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What would a conservative Republican Party look like?
Townhall.com ^ | 5/5/2006 | Mark M. Alexander

Posted on 05/06/2006 4:15:33 AM PDT by Born Conservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: BW2221

I meant "Republicans who support illegal immigration." I need another cup of coffee.


41 posted on 05/06/2006 5:48:22 AM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
It won't work because the big-business Republicans are too entrenched in the controlling apparatus of the Party, just as the wacko lib wing has control of the Democrats.


Unless and until conservatives of both parties unite in a 3rd party, they will continue to battle the opposition within their own respective parties. There are conservative Democrats, just as there are conservative Republicans. They are closer, in many instances, to the each other than to the opposition wing of their own parties.

Why should conservatives try to maintain? They will end up losing by doing so. In 08, the Dem wacko libs will choose their nominee and lib Hillary Clinton is the probable nominee, as she morphs into a 'conservative' CINO. The Pubs will choose a big-business, status quo candidate. Conservatives lose with either party -- unless a drastic revolution occurs in each of the major parties.
42 posted on 05/06/2006 5:49:49 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
"Conservatives lose with either party -- unless a drastic revolution occurs in each of the major parties."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>............
that huge sucking sound you hear is the vacuum of leadership in Washington..The opportunity for fresh ideas and a new party has never been stronger..on just immigration alone the numbers are there for a Change in the Party leadership in both GOP and Demorats.
43 posted on 05/06/2006 5:54:52 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
"The party is in far better shape than the Dems because the changes we make as indicated by this piece will appeal to our base."

I agree in principle and in theory, but just what makes you think any real change is going to happen? In which direction have we been going for the last 6 years?

The "Republican" party has succumbed to the culture of RINOism and "moderation". Even the best of them have prostituted themselves to big government and big spending and pork.

I see no motivation for them to change. By their very actions they have demonstrated that they have had nothing but contempt for conservative values and ideals. We're all a bunch of "fringers" and "extremists" who they KNOW they can sucker into voting for them simply because we have convinced ourselves that 'Rats in power will be the end of the world.

But I'm no sucker. And I'm not afraid of "the end of the world".

44 posted on 05/06/2006 6:06:48 AM PDT by manwiththehands (No, usted no puede!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

Having any type of intelligent exchange with an individual who suffers the notion that there actually is a Democrat Party is a fools errand.

No intelligent discussion of the Republican plurality can even commence without the reality that there simply is no Democrat Party.

What remains is a goofy "Gumbo" of random action, hatred and puposelessness...blindness and Tourette syndrome obscenities.

Only fools will consider actually voting for any part of that insanity.


45 posted on 05/06/2006 6:09:00 AM PDT by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

What would a conservative republican party look like? Thre would be more men like Duncan Hunter and fewer pansies like Adam Schiff and Chris Shays. Next Question.


46 posted on 05/06/2006 6:10:55 AM PDT by Reagan 76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

People who steadfastly assert that they are "not afraid" are almost always lying.


47 posted on 05/06/2006 6:12:15 AM PDT by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CBart95
"People who steadfastly assert that they are "not afraid" are almost always lying. ""
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>............
perhaps you have hit a point but the point is not the one you want.
We are afraid of RINO's and socialists claiming to be compassionate conservatives ..they are doing as much if not more damage than the wacko left of the Demorat party..the fear is of traitors in the GOP with mr BUSH we have a big gov big spending derelict of duty on the borders RINO..there is plenty to fear.
48 posted on 05/06/2006 6:17:40 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

No "Holy Grail" theory of conservatism, if one exists, would ever describe a specific platform.

Part of the problem of presenting ourselves is just that: we are not so pretentious, vain, and conceited as to push our own principles on others. That in itself is noble, but also exploitable by our enemies.


49 posted on 05/06/2006 6:20:40 AM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXBSAFH

That is a dumb comment, I say.


50 posted on 05/06/2006 6:24:16 AM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands; Darkwolf377
Ditto to your reply.

What "changes" are there for the foreseeable future? The battle over illegals hasn't even begun at the legislative level. Where is the GOP's platform describing how they are going to fight to make the tax cuts permanent, reduce spending, fight to appoint as many conservative judges as possible, etc.? I would like it to be so but I don't see any evidence of what you suggest.

51 posted on 05/06/2006 6:28:07 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies get to vote!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

Is it time we threw the baby out with the bath water? And started clean.


52 posted on 05/06/2006 6:32:34 AM PDT by abseaman (I stand befor the alter of almighty God and swear to fight tyranny in allits forms. TJefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CBart95
People who steadfastly assert that they are "not afraid" are almost always lying.

Why do you say that?... When Clinton was in office - for 8 years!! - we (Reps) survived and I would even say we kept him in check pretty good. The party recharged its batteries, reformulated their main beliefs and went for it, the rest of history. How else can we expect any changes from those Reps we consider gone off the main path, unless we are willing to vote them out - in principle? How else?

53 posted on 05/06/2006 6:35:04 AM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: All

So where has the Bush Administration "won" conservative victories?

First and foremost, it gets high marks for setting the example in "striking first BEFORE the threat is mobilized" in the WOT. Let's not kid ourselves - one of the reasons America has not been hit with waves of suicide bombers or other attacks is the threat of military retaliation.

Secondly, two Supreme Court additions insure the high court will lean conservative for the next 25-30 years.

I give Dubya high marks just for openly taking on the Social Security issue. Sure, his solution was rejected BUT the important thing is he DID take it on. The plan was logical. What it does is set the framework for another President to try to solve it. To keep ignoring that issue is to avoid reality. But the 2008 winner can deal with it.

He didn't allow Kyoto to be shoved down America's throats and its pocketbook.

The economy is humming despite the gloom & doomers pointing at the housing bubble, the cost of gas, etc. However, I have always contended government can only damage the economy, so the LESS involvement, the BETTER. So I give the Bush Administration credit for the tax cuts and basically staying away from it.

The Katrina fallout has been unfairly perpetuated by the malcontent extremists/opportunists, and aided by the media. But it DID show how stunningly unprepared the USA is for a major diaster (I'm thinking of the NEXT major terrorist attack).

Okay, now the negatives.

The Bush Administration has totally failed to reign in spending in the budgets. I fully understand the WOT costs. Why can't other departments be reduced to help defray that required expenditure? The unbridled pork that galls me to no end. Bush has the veto power. Why has he not used it?

The Mexico border issue and his cozying up to President Fox of Mexico absolutely flummoxes me. The immigration / border control issue must be vigorously addressed. That should have been handled during the days of 85% approval in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

The failure to revamp the existing tax code is a thorn in the sides of most Americans. The same energy and spirit used in the SS argument must be used. The IRS is a bloated bureacracy that needs a total overhaul. Creating a new tax system that is truly fair would truly unleash the economy and promote personal savings to record highs.

CAFTA will be another NAFTA. The trade issue is a bit of a concern for me. America should go with a "mirror" trade policy with foreign countries. Simply put, it means whatever controls you put on American goods entering your country will be reciprocated to the letter by the USA for your products. Also, if your country uses child/slave labor to produce goods, then the duty rate will be very high for those imports (assuming they are alowed entry at all).

His refusal to use the bully pulpit of his Office is curious as well. Too many times he has allowed just bizarre counter attacks/criticisms to pass. That bully pulpit could have been used much more effectively the past 6 years.

My main point is all Administrations are a convoluted mixed bag of results.

There are two vital keys to me. The FIRST key is to vote for CONSERVATIVE VALUES and not necessarily the party affiliation. Would you rather see Democrat (former senator)Sam Nunn or Joe Lieberman in the White House OR Republican John McCain or Lincoln Chaffee? Do NOT dump all Dems in the "liberal" bucket. And for damn sure don't dump all Repubs in the "conservative" bucket. Know your hot buttons and choose accordingly.

The SECOND key is to NOT donate money to a given party. Support the causes that are near and dear to you personally. Examples are the border fence, disaster relief charities, or specific CANDIDATES.


54 posted on 05/06/2006 6:42:47 AM PDT by boss man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

The moderates - you - have no principles and can, thus, be pursuaded anything. Open minds allow brains to fall out. Tagline...


55 posted on 05/06/2006 7:00:59 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Stentor

"Can you name the top 20 elected officials of the Constitution party."

Can you name the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?


56 posted on 05/06/2006 7:09:23 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: liberty2004
Those who cherish Liberty should go on record as stating that they would never vote for McCain.

A good rule is that any candidate the mainstream media endorses as a maverick should not be trusted. McCain proves that rule every day.
57 posted on 05/06/2006 7:46:53 AM PDT by MaxFlint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Muleteam1

58 posted on 05/06/2006 7:50:44 AM PDT by Muleteam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

In France a Republican is a socialist.


59 posted on 05/06/2006 7:53:59 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Can you name the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?

My question was sarcastic. Yours is just stupid.

The Honorable John Conyers. vs. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

If you can't see the difference it must require heavy deodorant where you're breathing.

60 posted on 05/06/2006 7:58:06 AM PDT by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson