Posted on 01/29/2008 8:27:34 PM PST by DoughtyOne
It's primary/caucus time again in the United States. Those who consider politics to be the most important sport to watch are certainly getting their figurative money’s worth this year.
Having observed what is taking place so far on the right side of the isle, I’d like to make a few comments. While I have harbored thoughts along these lines over the years, I have never felt more compelled to voice them.
Before I go any further, I would like to insert some definitions for the word “rogue”. Some of you will view my inclusion of all these definitions to verge on overkill. Those who do may be right, but many of these definitions fill out the true nature of a rogue. I wanted to include them all.
Here they are:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue
rogue
noun
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel
2. a playfully mischievous person: scamp
3. a tramp or vagabond
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal
verb (used without object)
6. to live or act as a rogue
verb (used with object)
7. to cheat
8. to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to a desired standard)
9. to perform this operation upon: to rogue a field
adjective
10. (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant
11. no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local.
synonyms
1. villain, trickster, swindler, cheat, mountebank, quack
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
rogue
noun
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.
adjective
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls: "How could a single rogue trader bring down an otherwise profitable and well-regarded institution?" (Saul Hansell).
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This rogue
And now back to my comments.
What we find is that a rogue is a fairly unsavory figure whether a plant, an animal, or a human. Even in the animal and plant kingdoms, there are norms.
If an animal starts acting out in ways that differ from the social norms, the other animals within the group will perceive a threat and single them out for destruction or ostracism. If not, that animal will become destructive to the group.
A plant that varies markedly from the norm is generally inferior. It can simply die off or it can threaten the health of the plant community it is a part of. If a plant becomes unhealthy, it may be susceptible to mutation or sterilization. It may decoy insects who fertilize its family members into fertilizing it rather than the healthy family members. It may also simply pass of the defect so the family weakens. A thinning of the crop or complete crop failure may result. As the numbers of rogue plant life increase within the family, the health and prevalence of the healthy community diminishes.
Okay I would like to ask some questions. Along the lines of what I have just related in the previous few paragraphs, do you think these same rules of nature apply to humans? Can a rogue individual threaten the groups of which they are members? Are families, communities, states and even nations subject to the acts of rogue members?
Of course they are. We’ve seen people act out on personal, family, community and national levels even extending to near global scopes of human destruction. This being the case, it would be absurd to think a person could not be destructive to a movement say a movement like conservatism for instance.
Most of us have our own definitions within a narrow parameter that define what conservatism is in our eyes. People on this forum have demonstrated to me that they for the most part share with me a common view of what conservatism is. We don’t always agree, but we’re in there kicking for the same goals a great majority of the time.
What happens when someone forgets what conservatism is, and goes off the reservation? What happens when people act as if they have never known great chunks of what it was/is to be conservative? It drives us to distraction when this happens. It does because there are a set of core values that we hold dear. When someone betrays those core values, we ask ourselves, what were they thinking? How could they do this? And this leads to the obvious question, why can’t we do better than this, when selecting a leader?
First, is it vital that we do better than this? Is it really all that important? I believe that it is. I believe that most of you think so too. We gather here to champion those who do right, and lament those who miss the mark. And where we differ, it is generally where we draw the line between right and wrong along ‘human’ lines.
“He did a great many things that were good. He is only human. Nobody is going to get it right on everything.” Some seem to buy into this rather heavily. Others are more leery of attributing away mile wide misses on the matters that affect our nation.
We’ve touched on the core values subject, how they differ to a degree for all of us. Sometimes there are conflicting (or seemingly) conflicting conservative concerns. Still all in all, I believe that our core concerns remain rather solid as it applies to protecting the existence of our nation and self-determination first, protecting the values that our founding fathers passed down second, and restricting the size and power of the federal government third.
I believe that other incredibly important things rise and fall on the conservative scale from here, but without our nation and self-determination in tact, the founding principles in effect, and the federal government in check, no other concern remains safe.
If our states are no longer physically joined, if we can no longer join together to determine our own best destiny, if the founding principles have been so watered down that they are meaningless, and if the federal government has the power to deny you what is rightfully yours, or yours to determine, the grand experiment is over.
Right to life is no longer safe. Nothing else is.
Borders define us. Un-entangled sovereignty and self-determination protects us. The founding principles and documents are our insurance policy. An internally neutered government remains our friend. It’s that simple.
Where we veer from this, we take the life of our nation in our hands, away from life support.
So is it important that we do better than this when selecting our leaders? Yes, if we wish to return to the nation our founding fathers envisioned for us. No if it doesn’t matter. Today we are so far down the road from that vision, that our nation is nearly lost. We actually flirt with multi-national governance over self-rule. And when challenged on that point, folks laugh.
Why is this so? Well, it's because they people they support agree with them and reside in our garden.
Folks we have allowed rogue weeds to enter our conservative garden. They are not grounded in conservatism, and when they are in our midst, they suck up all the moisture and nutrients that make it grow. They vie for attention and get it. They act in antisocial ways when you consider what our objectives/the norms of our conservative community are.
They are rogues. They are using every definition that makes a rogue what it is, to defeat what it is that we reverence, conservatism. And their supporters frequent conserative forums because the people they support claim to be one.
Those leaders are the rodent that has gone rabid. They are the lone wolf that seeks dominance over the pack. Where they gain dominance, their ideology replaces one that used to be but is no longer dominant, conservatism.
We have allowed a cardinal rule of nature to go unrecognized. We have allowed so many weeds to enter our garden that the flowers which used to be the only thing growing, are now choked off and dying.
When this is pointed out, long lists of good things about weeds are posted on the forum. “Did you know that weed has a milky substance. That can be a great thing. It has medicinal purposes.” Sure it may be good for other purposes, but for the purposes of a conservative garden, it is destructive. The 80/20 rule will kill you every time if you live by it.
If the record of deeds performed by each conservative president achieved 80% good things, that would really impress some people. “Why he did that, I can’t believe you are faulting him for this. You really are a friend of Hillary’s aren’t you?” Yep, it’s gotten that silly, what good conservatives have bought off on.
Folks I’m not sure how many of you realize this, but if Republicans passed only 20% of the liberal agenda each term starting in the first term at 100% of the ideal conservative goal, in 40 years or ten terms only 13% of conservatism would be left. This fall will usher in the sixth term without a conservative, and two terms were the Clinton years in which it would be safe to say far in excess of 20% was implemented.
Now, is it time to introduce more weeds to our garden, or do you think maybe we should start thinking about some 100% solid conservatives for a change?
“Well, I would have voted for a real conservative if there had been one this year.”
Here’s what we are facing folks. We have been the party of the big tent for far too long. We allow folks who are ideologically diametrically opposed to conservatism, or are squishy enough on the issues to do us serious harm when they hold office.
A John McCain term would do serous harm to our cause. The others would be just about as bad. It’s that simple. You know it and I know it. We DO NOT have a conservative, or anything remotely close to a conservative to vote for this November.
Now what?
Please, lets think of this outside of politics for a moment. How are we doing to get our garden to grow now that even the most healthy of our plants look pale in comparison to healthy ones? Well, what would you do if you had a garden in this condition.
Folks, it’s time to weed the garden, till the soil, provide some plant food and water, and watch the little suckers we’re wanting to grow, literally explode across the landscape.
Do many of you realize that what IS NOT taking place in the Democrat party is vitally important to unraveling what is killing conservatism? Let’s explore here for a moment. I’ll bet most of you would say that Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry and lets include Edwards were killing the conservative ideology. Oh heck, let’s throw in the MSM on top of that. There, that ought to just about account for what ails conservatism these days. Is that right? No.
Today, this very moment, it is by far more important what IS NOT taking place in the democrat party, than what is. And I will add that it’s is probably ten times more important.
We have established that our plants are being killed by weeds that suck up the life blood of our garden, leaving our flowers to wither. How do we remedy that? Remove them? Do ya think? Hell yes we remove them. We send those weeds packing off into the nether world never to return. And we do this by refusing to water them. We pull them out by the roots. We gather them together and send them packing off to the garden down the block where they value weeds. Hey, it’s the Democrat party where weeds can thrive and not endanger wholesome plants.
You see folks, if you remove the weeds from our garden, it doesn’t just affect our garden. It affects the Democrat garden down the street.
Tell me, would you rather see a Hillary or Obama weed on the left side of the isle, or a McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani or Paul running from over there?
Folks, I think you are quite narrow minded if you think that jettisoning our rejects into the political stratosphere would only be helpful to the Republican party. It would be incredibly invigorating for both parties. What if we had fifteen or twenty Joe Liebermans inside the Democrat party instead of one. What would that mean?
What it would mean is that for the first time in nearly fifty years two factions would be vying for the leadership of the Democrat Party. And what it would also mean is that one of those factions wouldn’t be defeating the healthy growth of conservatism inside the Republican party for the first time in almost that length of time.
Down the road we could expect to see a major realignment of the democrat party rather than our own. Yes! I’ll say it again.
If we as conservatives refuse to vote for RINOS, RINOs will no longer live in our garden. They will move on down the road to graze in the Democrat garden. In the process, they will provide an alternative Democrat ideology for the Democrat's voting pleasure.
Over time which direction would both parties move? Left? Right?
Conservatives would once again dominate the Republican party. Current RINOs would become 80/20 DINOs, and the whole political environment would move toward the right.
Any questions?
I happen to be one conservative who has sworn off thinking of politics like a game any longer. This is serious business, and we need to get down to it if we really do give a damn.
Folks haven’t you had enough of Big Tent Politics? Isn’t it time to force the Unraveling of Conservatism’s Yellow Brick Rogues.
I know it seems rather silly, but I chose to play on this little title twist for a purpose. In the current environment, conservatives are being shut out at the federal, state, county and local levels. That is happening because we have too many weeds in our garden at the top. All along the Yellow Brick Road, our flowers are losing out to rogue weeds.
RINO presidents don’t support conservative Senators, Congressmen, Governors and appointees. RINO Senators, Congressmen and Governors don’t support conservative state level conservatives or appointees. State level RINOs don’t support local level conservatives.
Big Tent Politics is DOA for me when it comes to the Republican party. And as for Conservatism’s Yellow Brick Rogues, it’s time to unravel the game they’ve been running on us.
From Munchkinland to the Emerald City, we’ve got to clean up this mess.
Rogues (RINOs), have I got a deal for you. I’m voting no until you move on down to the Democrat’s briar patch. The gig is up in Conservatismville.
Read those rogue definitions again. And when it dawns on you that you are looking at precisely the description of the men left running for the Republican nomination this year, please, I beg you, join me in telling them it's time to move on.
Have fun...
Hear! Hear!
Consider yourself highly commended, sirTM.
Cheers!
Let the democrats take this country to HELL!!!
You’ve preached to the choir. It simply went over the heads of those who think they can polish turds and put lipstick on pigs.
Christie Todd Whitman and the Republican Leadership Council (RLC) have been busy shoving the social conservatives out of the tent since the 1994 Republican Revolution.
They also changed many of the state primary rules so that ‘open primaries’ would allow for more RINO’s to be nominated.
It’s all been working.
One point you hit obliquely is that Conservatism has failed to establish itself as “the Center”... That is, CONSERVATISM is resistance to change. Whether resisting change to left or the right, conservatism is the centrist position...in a sane world. It maintains the focus on the individuals’ rights, resisting against attempts to control society one direction or the other.
That’s why the opposite of liberals’ judicial activism is not conservative judicial activism—because that, in and of itself, is not “conservative.”
Because conservatives have not established this, we find the ratchet-effect...that is, the libs moves the pendulum left, while the conservatives get corresponding movement back (reactionary movement).
Note, also, that FR itself is a “rogue” element in conservatism, which has a long-standing history of promoting non-interventionism, fiscal responsibility, Constitutionalism, etc.
True Constitutional conservatism is rare these days...and I fear the Republic’s days are numbered.
noun
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel
That is a vile calumny, sir!
2. a playfully mischievous person: scamp
Guilty as charged! (tee hee)
3. a tramp or vagabond
Mmmm...maybe.
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal
So says Mr. Hoity-toity.
Bookmarking to read later today. Thanks for the ping, DoughtyOne!!!!
Because conservatives have not established this, we find the ratchet-effect...that is, the libs moves the pendulum left, while the conservatives do not get corresponding movement back (reactionary movement).
Vote FOR Hillary. It's really that simple. Listen to me this time. Had we elected the true idiot (Gore) in 2001 as I requested, a real conservative party would be in place now rather than the fraud that currently exist. Not voting is not the route to take. We need to ENSURE that McCain is NOT elected. Screw the Republican party.
If Republicans passed only 20% of the liberal agenda each term starting in the first term at 100% of the ideal conservative goal, in 40 years or ten terms only 13% of conservatism would be left. This fall will usher in the sixth term without a conservative, and two terms were the Clinton years in which it would be safe to say far in excess of 20% was implemented.When we started our discourse you believed no matter what you said my opinion was set. And, yes, I still believe that it is imperitive that any potential SCOTUS vacancies be filled with strong Conservatives, but you Sir, have reminded me of why that ideal is so strong in my heart. You present a excellent argument and analogy of Conservatives, the state of the Republican party and politics in general.
Thanks for your comments Callisto. Whatever your ultimate decision this year, I am glad you read this and it meant something to you.
Basically my answer is I will not compromise. The country is going to hell with Hillary, Obama or McCain. I will not be a party to it.
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you have come to that conclusion like so many of us have.
You’re going to get a lot of kudos. Well said.
Related TAGLINES:
by epow (I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win, than win in a cause that will some day lose!)
by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world)
by ThePythonicCow (The Greens and Reds steal in fear of freedom and capitalism; Fear arising from a lack of Faith.)
If you are willing to make a final stand with your guns, as a defiant gesture when the battle is lost, why not make many gestures now, while the battle is still on, while we have a chance?
26 posted on 04/19/2005 12:24:25 PM PDT by strategofr (One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369841/posts?page=26#26
As you read this story, remember the WORLDVIEW of those manning the fire hose....
A number of years ago, animal psychologists performed an experiment that goes a long way toward understanding some of the more perverse and illogical aspects of human behavior. And while I’m NOT putting humans down there with the monkeys, recent political events certainly make it increasingly difficult to maintain that separation.
Here’s what they did:
They began with a cage containing 5 apes. In the cage, they dangled a banana on a string near the roof and placed a set of stairs beneath it. One of the psychologists stationed himself above the cage with a high-pressure water hose. When the first ape attempted to climb the stairs toward the banana, the man on the hose opened up and thoroughly sprayed ALL the apes with ice cold water. The moment another of the apes attempted to touch the stairs, they ALL got another ice water shower. When yet another ape attempted the climb, another freezing deluge ensued.
At some point in the process, when one of the apes touched the stairs, the other apes frantically PULLED HIM BACK - even though NO water was sprayed on them.
They then removed one of the original apes and replaced it with a new one not involved in the first part of the exercise. The new ape spied the banana and headed for the stairs. He was IMMEDIATELY attacked by the other 4. After a few more attempts - and attacks - the new ape soon understood that any further attempts would result in another assault.
They then removed ANOTHER of the original apes, again replacing it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was promptly attacked by the other 4, INCLUDING the first replacement ape who had NEVER received the cold water shower.
They then removed the third of the original apes and inserted a new one. The new ape made it to the stairs and, as with the others, was promptly attacked. Two of the 4 apes that assaulted this new member had no idea WHY climbing the stairs was a forbidden activity or WHY they were participating in the assaults on the transgressors.
The experimenters then replaced the 4th and 5th apes leaving none of the original apes. No apes subjected to the cold showers remained in the cage.
Nevertheless, NO APES AGAIN EVER APPROACHED THE STAIRS.
If you don’t get the point of this story, go sit in the back of a courtroom during one of the thousands of “victimless crime” trials each year and watch the jurors refuse to touch the stairs.
———— SOURCE UNKNOWN ———————
I think many, many of us have had this thought since Fred dropped out. Maybe before then.
Thanks for the response. I am glad you liked my comments and I found those tage lines or thoughts from the others to be interesting. Take care.
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.