Posted on 05/23/2006 10:28:53 PM PDT by Reagan Man
Unfortunately, for conservatives, the solution doesn't seem to be more Republicans either.
Citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of controlling the border in a manner consistent with having a country in the first place. The best they are beginning to hope for is that the Congress do nothing. I think a lot of conservatives are in shock at this point.
Maybe the British would sack D.C. again, if we asked them nicely...
Never again...Never give the GOP a blank check. The GOP has taken conservatives for granted and they will stop doing this only if conservatives clearly doemnstrate that there are consequences.
"Bush, who, in his second term, has shown about the same level of political competence as a fourth grader running for hall monitor."
Good line.
Yep, and FR has recently been loaded full with these vocal emotional "liberal acting" conservatives.
Damned if I'm sitting out the primary! I get to vote FOR a conservative and AGAINST that freaky Ralph Reed with one vote!
Sorry about the D-word there Moderator, but an opportunity like this only comes along so often in a man's life.
I guess if Ralph wins the primary, I'll have to vote FOR a Democrat in the general election for the first time in twenty years.
Sadly, that seems to be the case.
willwright
Since May 2, 2006
Welcome to FR and tell your friends at DU that im not buying it.
And why would they listen?
Saxxon, it's not that simple. I'm probably just a simplistic, emotional extremist. And I don't have the sophistication of the wise folks who always understand why the R's shouldn't stand for anything. But here's a crack at why the 'punishment' approach comes from more than just a bunch of emotional cranks, however warm that notion may make you feel. Hint, you have to read all the way to the end.
The problem is not just that we have a bunch of RINOs running the country. The problem is WHY we have a bunch of RINOs in office instead of conservatives, who generally (not always) represent the interests of the R base better than RINOS.
Don't you ever wonder how it is the party regularly and consistently puts up folks who are far to the left of the people that elect them in primaries.
It's not just chance. It's the "wise people" in the RNC and the state parties. They also happen to be the folks who control the money spigots in the party.
The principal qualification for support from the National and State parties is a willingness to 'go along' with the party establishment. Anyone will to buck the party establishment--eg Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer in Colorado--get slapped down hard (the party hasn't been successful with Tancredo as he has a safe seat and noone can win a primary agains him). But W won't appear on the same stage as Tancredo and two years ago, the RNC tried to find someone to primary Tancredo. Schaffer was destroyed by the party establishment when he ran for Senate two years ago.
So the issue is not just voting for the most conservative person around. It is how do we start making the party establishment behave itself and let us have actual conservatives to vote for in the general election. Because if they keep running the same faux-conservative scam every two years and we keep sending our money and votes, they will never change because, well, it works so well.
I understand all the arguments about how disastrous it would be to let the dems have the wheel and I agree. But how do we change the R establishment without any leverage? It's like blacks trying to change the D's. Won't ever happen because the D's correctly assess the black vote as safe.
Why is this a big problem? Because the failure of the 'conservative' party to advance conservative interests will have devastating effects on our nation in the long term. When the D's get power, they have no hesitation swinging government hard to the left. But when we get power, we keep things about where we got them. So there's a long-term leftward ratchet in effect as long as the 'conservative' party does not aggressively advance conservative principles when it has power.
So don't dismiss those who want to punish the party establishment. It deserves punishment. And the argument about whether punishment is the correct strategy is a pretty difficult tradeoff between: (a) short term losses (HRC for president); and (b) accepting that, in the long term, America's steady, downward drift into decadence and socialism (lead enthusiastically by the left) is not something we expect to halt--only to slow the ratchet down a little.
Assessing that tradeoff is messy and it is not clear to me where the balance lies at any given time. I tend to tilt to not punishing right now as we are at war. But the wise folks always seem to find that, no matter what, the balance is in favor of continuing the current R establishment in power. And as a result of that, we find ourselves in a right proper mess.
The article is correct. More Democrats won't help the GOP, but more conservatives certainly will, assuming a true conservative would accept a nomination to public office from today's GOP. The question in my mind is, "If the GOP is not being operated by a 50 year old cabal of socialist twerps (formed when they all attended the same private elementary school in Upstate New York, met at a family reunion, the SAE rush..., etc. ), how come they NEVER support or nominate a true conservative for any office?".
There are no conservatives in the Bush family. They only look that way compared to their second cousins, the Kerrys.
Conservatives saying they are going to vote for Democrats because Republicans aren't conservative enough is like adding salt to your coffee because it is not sweet enough.
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.