Posted on 03/08/2008 7:56:08 PM PST by The_Republican
A longtime Republican district fell to the Democrats Saturday when a wealthy businessman and scientist snatched former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a closely watched special election. Democrat Bill Foster won 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Republican Jim Oberweis. With 565 of 568 precincts reporting, Foster had 51,140 votes to Oberweis' 46,270.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
“what we need to do is push McCain to the right.”
I’m all for TRYING to push McCain rightward, and hoping and praying he picks a decent VP, and I’m encouragedd that he’s got conservatives like Gramm on his inner circle, but bluntly, the way to move the party rightward is to pick rightward nominees, and that window has closed. I was for the guys running to McCain’s right and one - Romney - would have the economic and fiscal ceredentials to get us moving economically, and could IMHO have been a better Obama opponent. I recall you werent for that (And lets not restart that debate; the primary’s over).
At this point, you cant teach 73-year-old politician new positions, you can only hope that events will keep McCain focussed on his tax cut proposals and budget cutting conservative views and off his nanny-state inclinations, and that he will serve us well on the GWOT. We cant unmake the omelette - we get the RINO War Hero and yes, we did the best we can, let’s just accept him for what he is, and get over it because Obama is far worse. I mean - that’s the bottom-line truth.
Fine. Reagan is idolized, while those who espouse the same policies are trashed as unfit to shine Reagan’s shoes.
Reagan espoused free trade principles and policies and it was his ideas that was the genesis of NAFTA.
BTW, most conservatives are Republican and most if not all conservatives in elected office in America are Republican.
No. Because it is a fact that there is NO conservative running.
Let this be a warning to those who blithely assume that a Democrat elected president automatically will screw things up bad enough that they will lose re-election. More likely, they screws things up bad enough that more are dependent on the Government dole and vote to continue Govt handouts in 2012!!
This is what you see in Michigan today and its what happened under FDR in the New Deal - the economic pain and distress led to big Democrat wins in elections, even if their policies are the *cause* of the economic pain and distress.
frankiep: Thank you for this great post. I can't tell you just how sick and disgusted I am at some of the people here who absolutely refuse to see that while McCain might not be the most desireable candidate, that he is light years better than Hillary or Obama and wouldn't cause nearly as much damage to this country as either of those two. It's also amazing that they don't realize that their guys have already lost, they didn't get the support needed to get to this point and that continuing to support any of them in this election is an exercise in futility and naivety.
Dittos to both your comments. Its time for us recollect our thoughts and consider what effective positive action we can take to help the conservative cause. One thing I know is NOT working: Fragging the GOP in the general. That gave us Pelosi and Reid, who are incompetent and leftwing. Has it discredited them? Has it helped cosnervatives? So far ... not. Its only added to the tailspin.
To get out of the tailspin we are goign to have to rebuild conservative credibility, ideas and agendas and get them supported by 51% of the people. So the way to go is to support your favorite Congressional candidates in the House and SEnate.
I hear this all the time, and it has merit, yet the true meaning of it is misconstrued by many conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh.
As long as we don't stray from basic conservative values as illustrated so well by our best mentors on the fiscal economic side, we do well but better in times of economic stress.
When Conservatives get too comfy they begin to tinker with social conservatism, a political trap, and therein lies a big part of the self immolation factor. The other part being isolationist populism, which we ditched many years ago. Like Ron Paul.....Buchanan, and others before them.
Add the two political fault lines together and you have exactly what happened to the GOP in my State of Arkansas, and your example in California.
You lose the independents first and then the moderates. When you look closely, you have nothing left but irritated conservatives preaching to each other, and the rest have deaf ears.
So yes, you are correct about drifting away from conservative ideals being damaging, but I disagree with your definition of what is or is not a conservative ideal or mantra. The fact is, that socially we have always adhered to a belief in freedom to choose our own way, given the fact that we have all the information we need to do the right thing. We belief in the individual. We did not however, attempt to dictate what that choices were permitted.
We have, in modern times, believed strongly in free trade, yet when we attempt to dictate who we trade with, as in the ports debacle, we contradict ourselves. This is related solely to anti-arab fear, not a policy argument, and on the social side, the fear derived from actions on the left which caused a knee jerk reaction. None of this was smart politics and it added up to major defeat and a total rollback of everything we worked so hard for, in the thirty years that I participated.
That's it in a nutshell, as they say. Political hubris is not a good policy to maintain a broad coalition, and that's what they tried to do.
So now, there is no coalition, and there will not be one in November unless something very major in political terms, occurs before the election.
No question about it, but just how do you get turnout.
If Obama wins the Dem nod, we will have the same problems that Hillary is having. Everything said about him goes through a racist screen and nothing every gets through the screen.
Our side is demoralized and flat. We have so much division within that we can't organize a response to snot.
McCain sure ain't helping with that, and I see a disaster looming and coming fast like a tornado with twenty cousins.
Losing this election may be the cure, I don't know, but I don't know what else would do it. Nobody is on the same page anymore, and it's difficult to say what page they will all settle on to reform a coalition.
The genesis of NAFTA is not to be compared with what it has grown to be, and I am quite certain that Reagan would *not* approve of current 'free trade' policy, NAFTA, or the NAU/SPP, which is the final fruit of NAFTA.
Reagan also offered broad amnesty, conditional upon the securing of our borders. That has also born bad fruit because of those who have bastardized it's intent.
No. It is most certainly *not* the same. Reagan was all about the exponential potential of the United States, but while operating within the traditional boundaries of the American moral sense, and within the American sense of fair play- Those two regulators are what made his positions so very successful, and are what is missing today..
McCain *can't* help that, because McCain is *not* a Reagan Conservative. Disaster is a foregone conclusion. Conservatives will crater the party, because it is the only thing they can do.
Losing this election may be the cure, I don't know, but I don't know what else would do it.
The only way forward, or at least the only way to prevent the disaster you and I know is on the horizon, is to lift up a Reagan Conservative, either by rebelling so forcefully that the Pubbies block McCain at the convention, or by lifting one up via a 3rd party candidacy.
But that cannot win without the moderates, who are not likely to assist, because McCain is their player... So doom is nearly certain.
Nobody is on the same page anymore, and it's difficult to say what page they will all settle on to reform a coalition.
Predictably, it will be a return to Reagan, and a defaming of Baker, or the Republicans will die as a party. The Conservatives will bolt otherwise, and may anyway in the attempt at a third party candidate.
I am still reminded, however, that if conservatives cannot nominate a conservative in the GOP primary how can they win with a third-party route? Not enough strength in either case
Our ANCESTORS CAME HERE for religious/cultural freedom...to escape the Islamic terror that infested their lands for so long. And now we are importing Islam here. And we see Islam's handmaiden - the evil of secularism/cultural relativity - taking hold firmly here. We will bear up under a Hildebeast or a McCain...or even an Obama-—but I cannot see how America will survive two terms of any of them...at least not the America I know. The immigration doors are wide open..and every Mohamed and Osama who can get there is staying and having ten kids. Yes, I am fearful. We are vastly disappointed in Bush and the GOP.
We are inquiring into the Constitution Party...do not know much about them yet.
In a general election, Conservatives will not be hamstrung like they are in the primary. I believe, as Reagan did, that the conservatives are the majority in this country.
If a third party is not successful, it will still serve the purpose of blocking the GOP, which is fine with me. It suits me to actively participate in a 3rd party rather than simply writing in a protest vote.
“Reagan espoused free trade principles and policies and it was his ideas that was the genesis of NAFTA.”
“The genesis of NAFTA is not to be compared with what it has grown to be, and I am quite certain that Reagan would *not* approve of current ‘free trade’ policy, NAFTA, or the NAU/SPP, which is the final fruit of NAFTA.”
First of all NAU/SPP is NOT the final fruit of NAFTA. NAFTA is the final fruit of NAFTA, and was originally envisioned by Ronald Reagan.
http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
During his term, he *signed* the FTA with Canada. Mexico took a longer time, and it wasnt until 1994, under Clinton that NAFTA was signed.
See also:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/EM371.cfm
You nor I cannot know with certainty what Reagan would think followons like SPP, but the fact is that Reagan emphatically did approve of free trade policies for North America and would have approved his own brainchild. BTW there is no need to put ‘free trade’ in scare quotes, its a real concept.
“I am still reminded, however, that if conservatives cannot nominate a conservative in the GOP primary how can they win with a third-party route? Not enough strength in either case”
Theodore R., a guy with that handle would surely know what happens when the GOP splits in two in the general election (and funny, they had a ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ wing even then). :-)
(For the rest of you, just look up the 1912 election results.)
“In a general election, Conservatives will not be hamstrung like they are in the primary.”
No we werent. there were conservatives on my primary ballot and I voted for one.
” I believe, as Reagan did, that the conservatives are the majority in this country”
You have great confidence in belief in things that arent true.
Self identified Conservatives in polls are usually 30-33% of the electorate. The good news is that is more than the liberal self-identification (21% or so). The bad news is that it is still below a majority.
“If a third party is not successful, it will still serve the purpose of blocking the GOP, which is fine with me.”
Demcorats are the ones in power who threaten to take it all in November. For most conservatives, it seems more prudent to try to block a left-wing Obama administration.
Third partys are anti-successful - they help the other side enormously, by making it easier for an extremist leftist to win.
You might remember that during Reagan’s presidency, there was a major fear that the Japanese were going to buy up all of America, and we’d lose our sovereign status. Didn’t happen.
“You might remember that during Reagan’s presidency, there was a major fear that the Japanese were going to buy up all of America, and we’d lose our sovereign status. Didn’t happen.”
Yup. Fear Of Japan became fear of Mexico w/ Perot.
Then it was fear of China and India.
We have a trade deficit not due to a nefarious plot but due to the fact that other countries tax consumption while we tax production.
We have more to fear from our own bad policies than any other countries that ‘inflict’ goods on us which American consumers are willing to buy freely.
McCain is old enough as it is, but he isn’t 73. I believe he’s 71 and would be 72 if he took office on inauguration day.
Your point is well made, though.
Notice how McCain - who’s supposed to be unpredictable - has become rote in his reaction every time a Republican says something that the media and dems demand he disavow and apologize for.
It is a formulaic approach.
He told his staff months ago that he would run a campaign that was always “respectful” toward his opponents while being focused on the issues. So he negatively interprets a truth uttered by Congressman Steve King of Iowa that the world’s Islamists will dance in the streets and consider it their victory if we elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama as President. King went on to explain that this is the way those people think. It is a fact. And Obama has promised to run away from Iraq...music to their ears.
But McCain’s formula has him calling that true statement a “non-issue” and disrespectful to Obama. So he blasts a fellow Republican, not showing HIM much respect at all.
And doesn’t see the problem with that...
well you don’t just hope and pray he picks a good VP. You give it to him straight. If he wants our support then he’d better pick a conservative VP. If we give him unconditional support NOW, he’s going to take us for granted and pick a colin powell.
And no, he’d better not pick romney as that would tick off all the social conservatives and he’d better not pick Huckabee as that would tick off a lot of other conservatives.
What we can do right now is go after Obama and Hillary. That would be a form of negative support.
nyconse, with due respect: I am a conservative and I will be voting for McCain. While you express your opinion - “We conservatives have held our noses and voted for years-no more” - ably, please do not claim to speak for all conservatives, as more conservatives will make the decision I am making (vote for McCain) than the decision you are making (withold their vote).
It’s obviously a dilemma as McCain has many RINO deviations, and backstabbed us on immigration etc., but there are big issues at stake - taxes, life, judges, Iraq - where the differences are anything but small. Obama is down-the-line wrong and leftist on every issue there is. So when most of us conservatives ask the question who is best to lead the country, its not a hard decision - McCain is better. “judging from his votes, was never a conservative” Not much of one lately, granted, but his lifetime ACU score is over 80%. Again, a big difference from lifetime 5% ACU rating Obama.
PS, btw dont blame me for the nominating decision, not my desire nor call. I was rooting for Thompson and Romney and then voted Keyes.
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.