Posted on 10/30/2006 5:52:36 AM PST by ajolympian2004
Based on this most recent poll here at FR a pathetic 4.7% of FReepers are planning to stay home during this election. You cut'n'run conservatives (intentionally undermining the outstanding men and women of the USA military with your no-show) are in desperate need of this review, a column written by Mike Rosen every few years during the election season:
"Why Party Trumps Person". (from 2004)
With just 80 days to go before the election, it's time for my quadrennial column on party vs. person. I've been offering and updating this polemic for more than 20 years. For veteran voters, this may be review; for rookies, perhaps, a new concept.
A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all. But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.
For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.
Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.
In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.
The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.
The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.
I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.
A Democratic president, whether a liberal or a moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can't survive the nominating process), can operate only within the political boundaries of his party and its coalition. The party that wins the presidency gets to staff all the discretionary positions in the executive and judicial branches of government. Members of its coalition are awarded vital policy-making government jobs, judgeships, ambassadorships and appointments to boards and commissions, as well as a host of plum jobs handed out to thosewho have political IOUs to cash in.
A vote for Bush is a vote for the Republican agenda and conservative players in key posts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the influence of the National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the likes of Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.
The legislative branch is no different. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.
Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him.
As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.
Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.
That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.
If we had 280 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.
But that's not practical.
You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives.
Your vote, your choice.
That's why it is important that every conservative must hold his nose and be a "broken glass Republican" in every election. The fickle and clueless vote will cancel out our informed vote if we allow it. Our vote must be double theirs in order for our vote to even count.
But in _reality_ that's exactly what you'll be doing. See #17.
See #17.
Amen brother, that's why I plan to vote early and often :>)!!!
What a simplistic pile of pablum.
Your argument seems to be that Republicans, after having lost the majority to a large extent because they left conservatives behind in their lust for power and money, and knowing that, will turn into Dimocrat floor mats, letting them pass ALL their fave anti-conservative legislation. And that President Bush will continue to holster his veto pen, signing crap bill after crap bill.
I call BS.
By following your acript, the pubbies will prove that they have been earning their minority status, probably for the forseeable future.
For the most of my life I have been against unconditional solidarity.
Times have changed. We live in a different world.
Look at the big issues....like Freedom vs melting ice bergs.
Keep control, vote Republican.
My guess is, they are trolls, NOT conservatives!
We've got to be the loudest. We've got to bitch the hardest. We've got to make it so miserable for them when they buck us that they'll thing twice, three times before they attempt it.
I agree. About 14% of those polled plan to sit out, or vote for democrats, third party lunatics. These trolls start talking about how many seats the republicans will lose, try their best to tick us off. But momentum is on our side. If you look at all the recent polling data, most of the Senate races, contested House races are all within the margin of error. With the based fired up as I think it is due to all the left-wing dirty tricks, I think victory will be achieved.
Then you become, by default, a "Bend Over and Take It" Democrat.
It's one or the other - there is not a third option.
Reality is often "truly sad" - sad but true.
Anything else is not "reality" - just pipe dreams.
Pipe dreams will not defend this country against another terrorist attack.
Neither will the democrats.
Does Rush give credit to the guy who came up with "CUT AND RUN REPUBLICANS." I remember the call vividly. Then, all of a sudden, Rush was using the term ad nauseum.
I agree with this to a certain extent. I've worked in politics and I understand the need for practicalities. To that extent I agree with the article - I voted for Bush twice despite grave reservations in 2000, and have never regretted it. I have voted all but straight Republican for the last several years, and have never regretted it.
But there is a point beyond which I will not go. I will not support or vote for a pro-choice Republican for President or Vice President. This includes Rudy Guiliani, for whom it seems some Republicans are already "measuring the drapes" for his nomination.
And yes, I am prepared to allow the election to swing to pro-abortion Democrats in order to maintain the Republican party as a pro-life party, which for now is where I hang my hat. If this appears unreasonable and stupid to some, so be it. I am in politics for principled reasons, not for reasons of power. I am not interested in being placated, bought off, or co-opted with a few symbolic photo-ops or comforting words in speeches, which is how a lot of Republicans prefer to deal with their Christian base. Ultimately I want to see concrete advancement on a specific agenda for government spending, abortion, judicial nominees, defense, taxes, etc. But if the Republican Party refuses to honor its stated committment to the unborn, I will not honor it with my vote.
Maybe you are one of those candidates. I'm planning on running in a few years. And one of my brothers is in 2010 or 2012 depending on how quick the young ones at home grow up.
For now each election cycle we get out there and put our money where our mouths are. We spent many extra hours each week registering new conservative voters since the beginning of this year, just as we did in 2004, 2002 and way back in 2000.
The last thing I want to hear from any conservative who didn't vote in this election is whining and complaining afterwards.
Not voting is against your long term interests. Tom Kean Jr. is certainly not the perfect candidate for a true Reagan conservative, but in the end he counts for the Republicans and on balance for the conservative coalition when the Senate establishes who will chair each committee. That does matter.
So the "cut'n'run stay at home" conservatives can punish the excellent conservatives we have in Congress or they can throw a hissy fit and suffer the consequences of a democrat controlled House and/or Senate.
And worst of all, what about the outstanding men and women of our US military??? IS there any doubt in your mind that democrats will pull the carpet out from under them??? coward dean, traitor kerry, cut'n'run murtha, etc.
But if the Republican Party refuses to honor its stated committment to the unborn, I will not honor it with my vote.
And the result will be a democratic win, no committment to the unborn, no committment to national security, appeasement, accommodation to the radicals in the world, a weakened military, gay marriage, tax increases, anti-business and a socialist agenda. There is more involved than one issue. I'd hope you'd reconsider just what's at stake here.
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.