Posted on 09/14/2009 5:01:13 PM PDT by seanmerc
RUSH: And you enjoyed it for all the reasons that you've mentioned. But we've gotta be really, really careful here, Dana, about this left versus right government thing. You mentioned third party, and we've been through this with Perot.
CALLER: I know that. I know that. And I think Perot helped Clinton get in, I don't doubt that. I do believe there has to be a huge movement before people can vote that way.
RUSH: But a third party is not going to do anything other but ensure the reelection of Obama and every other Democrat running for office because even if you come up with a charismatic third-party presidential candidate, still isn't going to have anybody of any significance running in that party for seats in Congress of the US Senate unless this movement happened to become the majority movement in the country, and that's not what's happening. I respectfully disagree with you here. I understand the anger at the Republican Party. Hell, I've got it, too. I've had it for a long, long time. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is not a left versus right thing. This is a conservative ascendancy that's going on out there. You didn't show up and protest like this when the Republicans were in power.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
IT is because of liberal UNION control of education that got US BamaKennedy. IF the citizens of this nation are not taught FACTS such the Constitution and what their individual rights are then we no longer exist as a Constitutional Republic. YOU could not be more wrong.
The last time the Republicans controlled the government (House, Senate, President) for twenty years was 1861 through 1884.
“That’s right libertarian, it does get tiresome talking about something that is almost nonexistent but they do have party positions.”
Again, there are libertarians who have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party. The two are not necessarily the same.
You are obfuscating, McCain lost in North Carolina and Indiana because of the votes Bob Barr took. If Barr wanted to run for President, then he should have had the balls to run in the primaries and face off fare and square, what he did was weaselly and people fell for it.
“Gee, if all of them were worthless, then somebody missed an opportunity to run against them.”
All of them weren’t. The presumed front-runners were.
At this point in time I think you as well as Rush is right.
Look, I know we're all really ticked off about the RINO's but that doesn't negate the fact we have some good guys up there and I really don't think they're going to abandon the party that brought them to the dance.
Didn't I once hear that all politics (except for Dear Leader) begin locally? To me that means more than going out door to door and selling some other same party person. It means get your derriere out there and run. Run for dogcatcher, run for city counsel, kids in school? run for Superintendent
See, it doesn't matter what particular job you run for and (hopefully) win. Name recognition, bringing about small changes which the good old boys have always rubber stamped.
As an example, every September my town has an annual garage sale weekend. That means people wait til then to sell large items (and not so large) every September. What's wrong with suggesting and then possibly implementing a Spring Cleaning garage sale? Keep the September garage sale since it's close enough to Christmas for people to be casting an eye on looking for inexpensive Christmas presents. Sounds kind of like a silly idea until one remembers that once the garage sale has the potential to bring in out of town guests who'll spend money on food and drink. Be out in the forefront in suggesting something like this or something else your town/city could host. (and, yeah I know, I live in a small blip of a town)
Put your heads together with some like minded people and instead of sitting around on your duff talking, get out and do something.
Seems to me there's a distinct lack of name recognition and without good name recognition people aren't likely to cast their ballot for you. If there'a already a project underway which you can support get out there and help.
A third party will simply allow the dems to win just as they did when Perot ran.
“No, its not. But, I’m afraid, that horse has long ago left the barn and wandered a few counties over. The Constitution has been read rather tortuously for a couple of hundred years to justify such a mass of stuff that you will not stuff it all back. Thats not going to happen.”
If no rollback is possible, then what do you suggest? Push the collapse on to my grandchildren? Let the frog continue to be merely boiled so he doesn’t notice?
Close enough for me and in my time here no one has ever told me where they differ on positions, they only say how they personally don’t believe in some particular part of the platform.
Here is another Reagan quote from that 1975 article that you quoted earlier.
“” Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind–the side we’re out to defeat wins.””
Very little. Dumpy ol' office drone Gingrich was the spokesman for the 94 Conservative revolution. Not very "likeable", certainly not charismatic or camera-ready. Yet he was able to strike the match which loosed a grassroots grass-fire.
Geo. Bush certainly wasn't "likeable", and his stuttering deliveries are infamous. Yet he was able to deliver an election running hard to the right...
Conservatives, unlike liberals, tend to be well informed, and look at records to make their decisions. I know that stuns many here, but that is precisely why likeable RINOs get nowhere, even though they preach to the right during their campaigns.
“They work for us, settled point. “
I should think it’s clear now that *they* don’t consider that settled.
“Now, what is YOUR responsibility with respect to said politicians ?
Hold them accountable at the polls.
“Whether you are damned or not is up to a higher power. But anger or dissatisfaction with your politicians is an unwise and immature basis on which to make voting decisions.”
It worked well enough for the Founding generation.
“One must view the options available and judge the likely effect of your choice in the broad context.”
Let’s see, vote for the Marxist or his allegedly-Republican waterboy. Choices, choices. In the end, same end.
Righteous anger and dissatisfaction is all that is left to save this country - provided it can be saved. I fear that there has been far too much pragmatism for that by this point. When you continue to repeat an action expecting a different result, you end up where we are now. John Quincy Adams was right on the subject of “voting”.
They have held at least one house, an administration, or more for nigh on twenty years, to include control of all three for a considerable period, wherein Conservatism waited, while Globalism went forward.
“Would you like to see the plain language version of the traditional libertarian platform on border controls? It is a bit of an eye opener.”
Again with the “Libertarian Party” nonsense. What was McCain’s position on border controls? The rest of the GOP leadership? The positions of the libertarian Republicans?
Failing to defend the border in time of war should be treason. Issuing an ROE to the Guard to retreat on American soil if faced with armed men crossing the frontier in time of war should be actionable as treason. But, of course, treason doth never prosper.....
J’accuse both parties and both Administrations for that. Shame on me for expecting better from the Republicans than the Democrats.
Er, I have no obligation or responsibility to vote for a particular party. I'm not the GOP's slave... and I'm no longer their sycophant, since they proved they will not hold up their end of the bargain.
I.e., its always your fault, you can’t evade it. Even if the choice is between bad and worse, you are morally required to make that choice.
Again, you're 100% wrong. I'm not legally, morally, or Constitutionally required to make any choice at all. You may wish to be constrained by your own imperfect logic, but I certainly won't allow myself to be.
“We” got 8 years of less-bad government than we are getting now.
Wrong again. Don't you get tired of it? Spending increased, both in raw numbers and as a percentage, during Bush's term. The GOP made Clinton look frugal... and nothing in McCain's history indicated that he would not cooperate with the Democrat Congress on the same ideas they're pursuing now. He actually has more experience with unConstitutional legislation than Obama, and he'd certainly carry a few partyline Pubbies on his coattails, making passage of these ideas even more likely. No thanks.
Have the GOP send up nominees like Mike Pence, then find several dozen motivated new faces who have actually fought and followed through on their limited government ideals to take over Senate and House seats from entrenched Dems and Pubbies, and I'll consider dedicating my time and money to the party once again. Until then, keep the overly simplistic bleatings for the sheep, and enjoy several more cycles like the last two.
Weird example, Gingrich only reached congressman for his Georgia district as far as popular elections go and Bush was more likable than McCain and Steve Forbes and the others in 2000.
I think that we have to figure that even in 2008 that McCain was more likable than Mitt Romney who had tons of money and organization but turns people off.
and the others had no support because their supporters don’t participate and the few that do never reach ‘critical mass’.
If you cannot compete in caucuses in Iowa and some small counties in NH, you sure aren’t ready to go national.
Grass-roots conservatives rarely do campaign work.
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/AboutRSC/memberlist.htm
if I thought nobody on that list is worth supporting, I’d have to ask myself what i’ve done to elect somebody. And I’d start to wonder if I was really interested in American politics.
“You are obfuscating, McCain lost in North Carolina and Indiana because of the votes Bob Barr took.”
McCain lost because he refused to attack his opponent. He lost because he’d much rather poke conservatives in the eye then his friends across the aisle.
I’m not sure how you think the additional 26 electoral votes would have put McCain over the top....
Again, third parties did NOT GIVE US OBAMA. McCain did.
Union control of US education happened long before the US Dept of Education was any sort of significant factor. They were powerful for a half-century or more where it really counted, in the big urban districts and the state houses.
In fact the US Dept of Ed. is pretty insignificant even now.
As for miseducation, or the ideological aspects of it at least, I can’t even really put most of the blame on the unions.
The rot started in higher ed, in the corruption of the faculties of Liberal Arts, who controlled the training of the people who went on to teach at teachers colleges, who in turn taught the teachers. Its a classic case of Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions”.
And in this, I am not a bit wrong. I saw it happen.
Hey when you try and get people to vote against republicans and try to sell libertarianism then you own their immigration policy as well.
No.
Other candidates included Reps. Bob Dornan and John Schmitz of the Birch Society. Pete Wilson won the primary and the election, 1982.
“If you cannot compete in caucuses in Iowa and some small counties in NH, you sure aren’t ready to go national.”
So, you’re fine with two Democrat-leaning states picking the GOP candidate?
“And I’d start to wonder if I was really interested in American politics.”
Some are worth supporting. Plenty aren’t.
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.