Posted on 10/22/2007 6:40:16 PM PDT by dufekin
“If the GOP nominates a socon, then I think there will be a GOP liberal-RAT conservative “unity” ticket (think Bell-Everett), and there MAY be a right-wing Nader equivalent, as well (think Breckenridge). If the GOP nominates a liberal, there will be a conservative insurgency.”
While I agree that there may be a conservative insurgency if a socially liberal candidate is the GOP nominee, I respectfully disagree on the other predictions.
Those who would vote for Giuliani, either because they genuinely support him, or so that Hillary may be stopped, would NEVER field a third-party, or splinter, candidate - which would, of course, get Hillary elected.
Only the socons would split from the party if a Giuliani-type was the Republican nominee. Everyone else would rally ‘round the nominee no matter who it is, imho.
Such is my dread of a Hillary presidency that I consider myself a “dead-cat” Republican*, in that I’d rather vote for a dead cat than the 2008 Democrat nominee. Dead-cat Republicans have no more problem voting for Rudy than they do Huckabee, because their goals are clear: KEEP THE DEMS OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE IN 2008.
Most Republicans are dead-cats. Only the most passionate socons are not. So the party splits only with a Rudy nomination, as I see it.
*Apologies to yellow-dog Democrats.
BTTT
Pat Buchanan called it “a war for the soul of America” at the 1992 Republican convention. He was scolded by the elitist media.
The (elder) Bush circle was disgusted; but Pat was right.
Today, the Bush gang is still clueless.
Hey! That's my line. George Norry.
The latest from CoasttoCoastAM -- Bush black ops people will nuke a U.S. city (the regular guest said his sources indicate that it will be Las Vegas), Bush the Evil will blame Iran, Bush the Evil will then annihilate Iran completely. Pufff! Gone.
Ya remember the B-52, missiles hubbub? Hee hee. Black ops, USAF insider ruse to make off with at least one of the missiles, another expert guest said. Don't be surprised, there's a mushroom cloud acomin' some place.
Norry is not a MorOn.org, dailycuss type; he's basically conservative and links to right wing sites. The best I can figure -- given my age and all -- is he's a FDR Democrat. Proud American, patriotic but boy! how FDR Democrats hated Republicans.
It gave the election to IMO the winning candidate, Mr. Bush. Otherwise, Gore would surely have become the president.
You remember MSM employees reporting daily on the problems that blacks experienced and also the MSM employees constantly reported on "The will of the people"? At the time -- given my age and memory of the 1960s and the nature of the dispute -- I wondered, when will the rioting start?
"The will of people" with rioting of course meant that Bush must bow out else the rioting will continue, spreading to cities all across the nation.
Next time there will be no one willing to stop the rioting except of course us Americans of all colors.
Enter the ILLEGAL ALIENS. The Left will likely use as many of them as they can stir up next time there's a chance to "Bring it all down, man."
Anybody expressing eagerness for a new CW is a fool, I agree with that.
Excellent and profound post.
I used to think Bill Clinton was going to start a civil war, but I was mistaken. I think a major preventative factor in that was his scandals. He was too distracted to truly rule as the dictator he could have been.
That, and I don't necessarily think he was ultimately driven by power. I think he was a troubled kid who thought it would be cool to be the most powerful man in the world so he could get the chicks he couldn't get in high school (look at some of Hillary's pictures as a young woman).
I saw a poster on DU this morning calling out his fellow DU'ers for hating people he didn't know (in reference to some of them wishing for parts of California to burn to the ground because they hate the rich).
Everyone on the thread chimed in and said that no one who would do such a thing should call themselves a Democrat. I wanted to sign up, knowing I would be immediately banned, and say "I'm a Republican that you don't know - do you hate me?".
Their closed minded thinking and hypocrisy are incredible, and incredibly dangerous.
Most would look at your comments about the Jews in Nazi Germany, roll their eyes and move on, but you are absolutely correct in your analysis of that situation. I've had the same thoughts myself.
Look at my tag line, then go look at the website. If "progressives" held the reins of power tightly enough I am convinced they would systematically eliminate conservatives because we stand in the way of "progress". It's been the rationale of genocidal monsters throughout history.
When there was outright slavery, people understood the moral component of political issues. When people and their politics no longer care about moral issue, then freedom becomes lost.
Yet slavery is back in the US, big time. It is a form of indentured servitude. A very comfortable prideful form. It is being captured for life in debt. It is even in being a salaried employee, with withholding and medical plans and pensions. Those are sinecures -- yes, a very plush form of slavery, but still a form thereof. And if unionized the slaves vote the line the master lays out -- not in totality, but in much stronger measure then freemen would.
please add me to the cwii ping list.
Thanks for this great thread. The fissures of this political divide go deep.
It got me thinking - I found this thread from yesteryear:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453903/posts
From a 1950 preface to a book on Constitutional government:
“The National Education Association, theoretically representing the teachers of the country, had for years been passing resolutions favoring whatever was before the public of un-American import, especially for getting the imperial Government at Washington, through “Federal aid,” to take over the shaping in school of American ideas. Under the cloak of “academic freedom” men in the universities belittled those who wrote the Constitution and pronounced their work faulty and outmoded. The schools, while neglecting to give thorough courses in our history, and especially in constitutional history or the history of Liberty, admitted objectionable textbooks and periodicals.”
Those were the good old days, eh!
Great thread - bookmarking for later...
BTTT
Thanks for posting one of Mark’s best yet.
Many of us have been noting that we are in the Cold War Phase of Civil War II as Travis McGee noted.
Your comments below define as you note the chasm between us and the liberals:
“Unlikely. The separation between the conservative red states and the liberal blue cities is a profound chasm; the two sides increasingly operate off different perceptions of reality and different reasoning processes. The difference is as stark as night and day: capitalism versus socialism, Judeo-Christian morals versus atheistic moral relativism, American exceptionalism versus United Nations membership, victory as annihilation of terrorists versus victory as denial of terrorists.”
“I dont know that its even theoretically possible now to unify the two sides of this chasm. Heck, The New York Times today published an editorial declaring that high taxes yield economic competitiveness. I dont know any Oklahomans, now enjoying the lowest tax rate in the country, who could take such a contention seriously. But New Yorkers believe it. So we need to raise taxes to resuscitate the flailing economy, or we need to maintain or lower taxes (and drill for oil) to continue the prosperous economy.”
Not soon enough, unfortunately.
Chittum’s book is must reading. I don’t agree with many of his conclusions, but his “checklists” are brilliant.
Indeed, I've seen a lot on both sides looking for a fight - and I've posted as such for a long time. Worth repeating: each side has a language, lingo & banter which defines how they think about the opposition ... and which the opposition cannot comprehend as applicable, relevant, or even parse. Catchy phrases (of dubious accuracy, or even lexical meaning) spread rapidly, people revel in the demonization of their opponents, and reasonable discussion is rejected in favor of shouting matches. There is no sense of engaging others in debate, just a self-reinforcing desire to portray differing views as evil ... with the eventual conclusion that this evil must, of course, be physically eradicated.
Yes, it's happening on both sides. When, at the end of the carnage, someone asks "Why?", remind them that the answer was "because of largely trivial differences."
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.