Posted on 01/24/2008 9:47:43 PM PST by Graybeard58
The 2008 primary election process has clearly been unfair to conservative candidates, and here's why. Several liberal and moderate/independent states chose to hold their primary elections and caucuses early, all wanting to be first — so they said. But look at what has happened as a result. Conservative candidates like Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have been drummed out of the race by breaking their bank accounts in non conservative states before the rest of the country ever had a chance to vote for them. Is this what we call "fair and democratic elections"?
These are supposed to be national elections, not independent state elections. By allowing some states to hold primaries before others gives those states the advantage to propel or retard the individual campaigns depending on the political landscape of those few states. As we are now seeing, when liberal and moderate states hold early elections, conservative candidates have no chance of ever making it into the general election or winning the presidency.
If we are ever again to have fair elections in this country, then primary elections are going to have to be standardized and held on the same day in all states, if everyone is to have a chance to participate in the election process. Either that or there is going to have to be a media blackout until everyone has had a chance to vote. Election returns are not allowed to air until the polls are closed. Does it make any sense that we should be seeing election returns from other states before we even have a chance to go to the polls? I don't want a few small states deciding who we can vote for in the party primary elections.
We hear so much about voter disenfranchisement these days but nobody is talking about the disenfranchisement of conservatives to vote for candidates who share their views. If your favorite candidate is purged from the race early, then where is your right to vote for the candidate of your choice? "Write ins?" In most voting methods today there is no provision to write in a candidate's name, and even if there were, what chance would he have of winning? Most voters are going to vote for a name printed on the ballot. This year we have seen the largest disenfranchisement of voters in history, and they are all conservatives.
Did this occur by chance, or was it planned from the start? Considering the ambitions of George Soros and Billary Clinton to gain and hold power over the country by any means necessary, by hook or by crook, I can't dismiss the possibility that this was no accident. Yet the Republican leadership will never challenge the legitimacy of elections or the likelihood of voter fraud on the part of the Democrats. It's almost as though they are willing parties to election corruption.
Now the media wants us to think that John McCain is the frontrunner for the Republicans in spite of fact that he is the most liberal Republican in the race. McCain will never be elected president, the conservative base simply will not vote for him. Most of them would rather vote for Ron Paul who may be a conservative alternative on a 3rd party ticket in November, or they will simply not vote at all, just as they did in 2006. Why go to the polls to vote if no one you like is running?
The purpose of voting is having your voice heard and counted for the candidate of your choice; not about electing a political party that no longer represents your views. We are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils in America. What's the point when it's simply six of one, and a half dozen of the other, both choices bad? Voters who feel disenfranchised will simply throw up their hands and say "why bother?" McCain would be preferable to the Clintons or Obama only on the issue of national security. On most other issues, there is virtually little difference.
Liberal economic policies have dominated Washington ever since George W. Bush was elected. The government continues to pump worthless money into the economy just like they did this week with the cut in interest rates, which only makes the problem worse. The economy should be controlled by the free market, not the government. This is just another example of the Communism that has been taking over America.
Every time the government does something to influence the economy, it just gets worse. That is the same thing that destroyed the Soviet Union. Eventually it just went bankrupt trying to control the Russian economy and "take care of its people," just like the Democrats are campaigning on right now. Problems only get worse when government gets involved. The government is the problem, not the solution.
The economy has to be allowed to flow freely and seek its own level, influenced only by the marketplace. Anytime the government interferes with that using what they call "stimulus," it causes more inflation and our money declines in value, resulting in only an artificial and temporary fix. The real fix is to let the economy seek its own market level, not pump it up with artificial stimulus just to make the numbers look good on paper.
Yet, the American voters are still too ignorant to see it and continue voting for these liberals in both parties who are driving the country straight into Communism. The Democrat plan of dumbing down America over the past couple of generations has been successful. It's too late now to re-educate the people, because it has become too widespread. I'm afraid we have already lost the country. We have tried to warn them for decades but they wouldn't listen. They insist on asking what their country can do for them, rather than what they can do for their country.
With our money becoming worth less and less, and our products dependent mostly on foreign trade, even Washington spending more money to keep 'the people' alive won't help; it will all just be worthless. Bush and the Congress should have seen this coming years ago but ignored it. They all invested in their own survival by giving our money to special interests and pork vendors who they expect will pay them back personally after the crash of our economy.
With Fred Thompson now out of the race, I'm almost ready to switch my support to Ron Paul and throw them a real turkey. His foreign policy is a disaster but he's a strict constitutionalist and will veto every bill the Congress tries to pass that includes unconstitutional spending, which is just about all of them.
Of course, Paul won't win the elections — no way, no how. He will likely run as a 3rd party candidate, splitting the Republican Party in two because the Republican Party no longer seems to represent real conservatives. I don't think Paul is the right man for the job but I would like to see some of his policies regarding constitutional government established in Washington.
I'm starting to think now that this may be the time for a mass exodus from the Republican party and the right time to form a 3rd party of conservatives, but without the antiwar, anti-defense, blame America first attitude of the Paul Libertarians.
It doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the Republican Party, they had their chance. Every real conservative who speaks out seems to get thrown under the bus just like moderates do in the Democrat party. Remember George Allen, Rick Santorum, and Tom Delay? Many of us hoped that Republicans would have learned their lesson from the 2006 elections. That being that "you can't beat the Democrats by trying to be like them." Instead, the Republicans have become the Socialist party, while the Democrats have become the Communist party. I've had enough of it.
There is a chance that Romney can hold Republicans together but not McCain or Huckabee. Nor can Giuliani, but he will probably be next to drop out if Huckabee doesn't beat him to it. Romney is going to have problems with some Evangelicals who won't support him on religious grounds, and conservatives will not support or vote for McCain. There is little chance we can win in November. The Republican Party has destroyed itself by trying to be like Democrats.
There is the possibility that the Republican party has been corrupted by Democrats crossing over to vote for Republicans in the primary in order to accomplish just what we see happening. It could all be part of a plot hatched by George Soros and the Clintons to do just that. It's something to consider. Otherwise, I just can't make any sense out of the way the Republicans are voting today. Where have all of the conservatives gone? To their graves? Or were they all waiting to vote for a conservative in the states that now will not have that opportunity?
A mass exodus from the Republican Party, now on the heels of Thompson's departure, would send a clear message to the party leadership that they have gone astray and are on the verge of collapse if they don't come back to the conservative base. In the meantime, even registered as independent voters without party affiliation, we can still vote against the democrats and for the Republican candidate or anyone else we choose.
Conservatives are loyal to their values and beliefs, not to a political party. The Republican Party no longer shares those values and beliefs and no longer deserves the support of conservatives. I will reregister as an independent voter until I see a third party emerge that represents my beliefs. In the meantime, I consider myself just another disenfranchised conservative voter.
This is the nut of the thing. The way you state it is one side of the coin, and the "coalition" you refer to has to do with the identification of the word "conservative" when it comes to distinct social-moral issues as differentiated from fiscal issues. There is another side of the coin -- that is that limited government that best serves the interest of social-moral issues as it does fiscal issues.
The Federal government thinks it is immoral for an employer to fire an employee for being gay. So you own a shop, you hire a 23-year-old kid who seems okay, but after awhile starts wearing his sexuality on his sleeve, swishing and sashing (he thinks it's so cute). You know he's a confused mixed-up kid who needs to learn the hard realities of moral life, and you're hoping and betting that left to his own, in ten years the kid will regard this bizarre rebellious "walk on the wild side" as an embarassing phase. You'd love to fire the kid, and it would probably be the best thing for him. But the Federal Government thinks that's immoral, and you can't. That's one small work-a-day example of how evil Federal-moral meddling can be. Further, the Federal Government thinks it's immoral for poor women to have to go without abortions, so across this nation, taxpayers are forced to abet abortion. Federal moralism has deprived us of the right to discriminate against those we'd rather not deal with for whatever reasons, usually moral. Morality or lack of it did not cause this supression of our freedom -- abandonment of Limited Government did.
Long way of saying that this is a battle about the coalition and the confusion in the minds of some "conservatives" as to which comes first, the cart or the horse. The heavy hand of Federal moralism will fail every time, whether "liberal" or "conservative," because it abandons Limited Government. We need to make it plain to "social" conservatives that Limited Government, not pick-n-choose-your-government-program, is in their interst.
More important, we must recognize and admit that cowing to pick'-n-choose-your-government-program "compassionate" conservatism is against the interest of the Republican party, hence a false premise for a coalition.
That’s OK, it’s late. About time to hang it up for the night. Even though your tag line says you don’t think it will help, I’ll say a prayer for you.
God help us, but you may be right.
If we could only get people to realize the government as a money dispenser is like a change machine that gives you 50 cents back for every dollar you put in.
Stance on the Second Amendment has been a non-topic, also.
The scary part of that is if the coming SCOTUS decision does not fall squarely on the founders' intent of an individual right to militarily capable small arms, that leaves the field wide open for a gun-grabbing field day which only the POTUS could stop with the veto.
The current field of candidates gives me no cause for confidence in the event that ruling is incorrect.
Yep, pick one: 1) Socialist "Light"TM 2) Marxist Socialist 2) Clueless Socialist
Lovely. I'll take some gubbamint cheese to go with that whine, may as well enjoy myself.
Careful, that Gubmint cheese is far more binding than a Contract for America...
That’s very kind, thank you. Good night.
Thank you for posting this article. This is exactly how my whole family out here in CA feels. We keep asking each other “Who are we going to vote for now”??????? It makes me sick sick sick sick.
For sure NOT McCain! The others, ah jeez and I don’t want to be a Paulbot!
My candidate didn't win so the system must be rigged. The voters are just too stupid to vote for Duncan Hunter. George Soros and the Clintons control the Republican nomination. Vote fraud done us in. The poor guy's been disenfrenchfried. OK, let's switch the first primary to his state so that he can vote for his choice. California is going to give us some REAL conservatives.
The current setup is the perfect opportunity for a conservative with broadbased appeal and little money. If he can convince Republicans in just two small states to support him, the road is open. If he can't, he is roadkill.
Politics is no yellow brick road. Conservatives should have the wind at our back. There is a formula for winning, we just have to be willing to look for it and know what it is when we find it. Sniveling isn't it, leave that to the Democrats.
Ha Ha, I got a phone call from RNC asking me “Do you want to see Hillary elected”, Hillary blah, blah, blah. Boo! I told them I wasn’t impressed at all with Republicans and I don’t identify with them much anymore. She hung up on me. :)
You are closest to the solution to the primary process and the fragmentation of the RepParty.
April 15 is a good start but let it run until Jun 15.
Then have the conventions between Jul 1 and Aug 15.
By bracketing the start dates and curtailing the lack of party discipline (my state first) the issue of disenfranchisement ceases.
Most of these posts miss the point that Rockefellar republicans are in the party at all and thereby making
RINO an incorrect term, it should be CINO.
Recall that the RockefellarWing is as liberal as the KennedyWing.
By not having any party discipline and purge the party of ALL LIBERAL factions (socialist/neocons by other names spells Commie/fellow traveler)is the cause of the current matters in force.
If that purge could occur then RINO would have come accuratcy.
I’m with you. I am pissed that the people of Iowa, NH and SC basically made the choices for the rest of us. Come on three states out of 50? That leaves an awful lot of us out of the process.
If the primaries are purely internal then they should all be closed. After the parties elect it’s nominee then let them duke it out for the crossovers and independants.
I too was shocked at AC’s choice. And then it occured to me that “there’s been a whole lot of faking going on”.
As I watch who the various pundits/ex-candidates select as their man, it is clear that these folks are doin’ some serious deceits. How can there be so much disconnect between espoused positions and their candidate choice.
If one thing is of value from all this confusion is the shakeout of who is a true conservative and who is/has been only faking it. For when the nut-cuttin time came who stood ground and stayed put and who ducked and ran and flip-floped.
As one pundit stated, Ron Paul is more conservative than ANY of the remaining candidates and he has NOT run away or ducked out.
Thanks AC, FT and DH - FOR NOTHING. Now we know.
The RNC hacks in DC don’t have a clue. They will allow this to continue unabated. It is asinine.
That is not exactly true. In Ann Coulter's defense, she always said she was FOR Duncan Hunter- He was her favorite. But she also predicted that Romney would eventually get the nod. Her analysis of who would get to the end, and who was the best of that lot has been pretty accurate.
These are supposed to be national elections, not independent state elections.
The author should brush up on his Constitution and try to gain some insight into Federalism and the Electoral College. The truth is that we have fifty seperate state elections on the same day in November.
“on the same day”.. end of lesson.
Romney's a two faced phony; flip-flopper....
I DON'T TRUST HIM!
We're screwed.
I don’t agree with everything this guy says, but a lot of it makes a helluva lot of sense. And he’s from Los Angeles???
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.