I'm not comfortable with both parties being as close as they are now. I don't think it's healthy for the nation as a whole. I believe our founders intended for dissent to be one of the vanguards to keeping any political party from becoming master of all. Thus the reason they mentioned no parties in forming our electoral process.
Political Parties are like any other group or organization they can become corrupt or so far removed from their intentional purpose they become useless or the very group they were organized to oppose. A good example away from political parties is the NRA. No doubt at it's beginnings it had an honorable purpose and for years stood tall against gun legislation.
It started gaining members who were more open to compromise using flawed logic like for the safety of the children or to prevent crime to actually support gun control laws. Right now I know quite a few gun owners who refuse to join the NRA for that very reason. I am among that group myself.
Next comes more flawed logic. The nations abortion laws and the old standard for the life of the mother. Unless a person is a devout Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic hospital any doctor will if the mothers life is in danger take the child. That is not abortion and medical protocols were established for this long before legalized abortion became law. In cases of rape or incest? Our nations laws and justice system is based on not punishing the innocents. The baby has the least representation. I can understand well a mother feeling she can not raise a child born of these conditions. We need to return to church ran orphanages.
Illegal Immigration? Ellis Island was opened as a controlled gateway into the United States. Only ones with communicable diseases or criminal histories were turned back in most cases.
We are on the verge of medical epidemics that took the lives of people back up until the early 1960's and these diseases are returning because nations like Mexico either do not vaccinate or improperly use antibiotics. We must for that reason and terrorism have the means to limit who enters this nation and where. The social cost as well is staggering on this issues.
Next is war. A touchy subject even amongst the Conservatives. War as our nation knew it up through 1945 was not what war is today. Had we fought WW2 and previous wars under todays congressional resolutions and rules of engagement we would be speaking German or more likely be under the crown.
War is a brutal act of punishment of an enemy. You don't fight them to turn around and reward them. There were many Germans who hated Hitler and many Japanese who hate the Emperor. They died by our hands. Had they not we would have lost. We fought brother against brother as a nation literally and not our own brothers were shown mercy if he was the enemy.
We have to give up nation building. On that one Bush when in the 2000 debates stated Gore was for it but w said he was not. Where are we today? Whatever reservations anyone has about the War In Iraq if we had went in and started taking out infrastructure destroying everything standing like Sherman's march to the sea does anyone not doubt Iran would have quite a different attitude?
The United Nations? From what I can see it outlived it's purpose in May 1948 when Biblical Prophecy was fulfilled in a day. We don't need it and we sure don't need the U.N. in NYC or any other American City. We must be our own guaranteer of our freedoms and not be required to be such to anyone else nor should we come before world courts. That goes against everything the founders dreamed of. We as a nation tossed Washingtons's warnings on treaties and entanglement out the window.
Either the GOP has to return to some Constitutional Basics or it is useless. It can despite what many think be replaces as it was a party formed by the division of several. Most of all no politician or party should ever be allowed to rule us or make us vote for them by intimidation or fear. That is something well in our control. /Rant Off
Why is it that the Democrats are going to nominate the most leftist candidate they can, but the Republican party is bound to find the most "electable" candidate? Their base dictates and our base has to take dictation.
And many of the most active freepers are pushing it that way.
(A)Note:.. Not any republic but a special unique republic unique in world history.. A republic with rights even INalienable rights.. Rights given and codified by GOD in a constitution.. With three branchs of government made to enforce those INalienable rights.. And a 2nd amendment given to ensure civil war was/is possible.. when those rights or branches of gov't are threatened.. This government can only be overthrown when the people become cowards to use the 2nd amendment..
So what do oyu suggest we do about it?
I'm with you. We have to slug it out through the early stages of the primaries.
But, if the GOP chooses to be Evil Party II, I'm gone, and I'll take as many with me as I can. Won't be hard. There are millions of Republicans who believe what I believe.
Unfortunately, that's how two-party systems work. On the classic left-to-right political spectrum, Americans fall along something pretty close to the classic bell curve. So both parties are scrambling for the middle, because that's where the votes are.
Every so often, a third party -- like the Progressives or the Perotistas -- rises to take on issues that people care about but the two parties have neglected. One party or the other usually absorbs those issues. In multi-party parliamentary democracies, governments are usually formed by coalitions of parties; in two-party democracies, each party is in itself a coalition.
If Conservatives are dissatisfied with the Republicans, the solution might be to mount a third-party challenge. Oh, have no delusions about winning any elections -- George Wallace came closer than anyone in recent history, and he didn't come close. But a third-party run can be a mechanism to get issues taken seriously by one major party or the other. But there's no instant gratification to be had.