Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Moseley
You do what works where you live and what people there think is right and let other people do the same where they live.

Some districts won't elect someone you'd recognize as conservative. Would they be better off with a Democrat, who, by your own view, would likely be more liberal than any Republican would be?

Almost all of the old Rockefeller Republicans -- the East Coast liberals -- are gone. Except for those two women from Maine, there doesn't seem to be very much of a liberal (or what the press would call a "moderate") wing of the party left in Congress.

Rather than the old liberal ("moderate") bloc, you have Senators and Governors who are a little more corporate, a little more country club than the rest of us. They may be a problem, but they're not the main reason Republicans are in such bad shape right now.

For example, every Republican in the House voted against Stimulus-Porkulus. To me that's a sign that this RINO thing is getting to be a red herring. People love to talk about it, beyond whatever real importance it has in politics today.

I didn't have time to read through your whole article. Some of it looked interesting. Two comments, though.

1) Sometimes it's not a clear-cut case of liberals/moderates vs. conservatives. Oliver North was carrying a lot of baggage that would likely make many Republicans and Independents hesitant to vote for him.

Sometimes the problem is the baggage a candidate has, not an ideological split. Whether or not you or I would have been enthusiastic about North's candidacy, it's not a good test case.

2) My guess is that very, very few Republicans voted for John Anderson in 1980. Most of Anderson's support came from liberals and Democrats who were disillusioned with Carter, or from those who were already ex-Republicans. There weren't large scale defections from Reagan to Anderson. At least, I'm not aware of any Republican elected officials who endorsed him.

Reagan was able to hold on to even very liberal GOP Senators. That's because he knew what was important and was able to prioritize. He wasn't distracted by side issues.

38 posted on 05/17/2009 1:48:36 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: x
X WRITES: For example, every Republican in the House voted against Stimulus-Porkulus. To me that's a sign that this RINO thing is getting to be a red herring.

Yes, but this show of unity is SINCE the last election. It is encouraging that the GOP is showing signs of life. It is because the GOP DID NOT do that before that we got slaughered in the eleciton.

AND X WRITES: Some districts won't elect someone you'd recognize as conservative. Would they be better off with a Democrat, who, by your own view, would likely be more liberal than any Republican would be?

But that has nothing to do with it. A candidate needs to persuade the voters why his or her policies and ideas and qualifications are better for that district than the Democrat. And if you TRY, it is not that hard. If you DON'T try, it is impossible.

Furthermore, this sets up a false idea. If you run a pale, watered-down version of a liberal Democrat, you think anyone is going to vote for him? Why? Why not vote for the genuine article, the Democrat? If you run a pale echo of the Democrat, you have not given any incentive for anyone to vote for the Republian. PLUS you have repulsed the conservatives in the district. So you have lost your conservative base but you HAVE NOT gained liberal votes.

Notice, though, that persuasion is hard work and takes time. So you cannot get a quick and easy solution. There is no short-cut. THere is no way to FOOL the electorate. And that is the problem. Moderates and RINO's think they can FOOL the voters, instead of persuading them. As to Ollie North, so what? Liberals demand that conservatives support liberal nominees no matter how many stupid policies the liberal Republican has advocated, no matter how many times the liberal Republican has kicked conservatives in the teeth, no matter how bad a candidate the liberal is.

Conservatives are expected to overlook the "baggage" of liberal GOP nominees. The whole point is that it is a one-way street with the Vichy Republicans. NEVER would a liberal Republican accept the idea that conservatives are uncomfortable with the liberal nominee. But, on the other hand, liberals ALWAYS find some excuse to attack, sabotage, and betray conservative nominees.
53 posted on 05/17/2009 6:40:50 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.ShaleOilNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson