Posted on 01/07/2010 8:45:58 AM PST by ColoCdn
The GOP gave you Bush and “compassionate conservatism”.
How`d that work out for ya ?
OH, and Lee Greenwood needs to write another song.
I’d like to see the Tea Party replace the Republican Party. It can be accomplished in a non-destructive manner.
Right now we can vote for Senators and Congressmen from the Tea Party. We do it by supporting them in the primary, then the general election. Once we get them seated, they caucus with the Republicans but still vote for constitutional conservative values.
We continue to vote for Conservative Republicans (if there are any nominated) for president. We do this until the R.P. declines to the point the Tea Party has replaced it.
During this process the R.P. moves right trying to keep from becoming irrelevant. Either that or it finally formalizes its position and is absorbed into the Democrat Party.
The RP has had my support for most of my life. It did because the people I most agreed with (Conservatives), were Republicans. Sorry but the RP has drifted so far, it’s candidates no longer share my views.
In my state it actually tries to defeat Conservatives.
Did they think I was gonna support that? NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
O’Reilly, Miller: Palin Could Be the Next President (FoxNews 2010-01-06)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9A_VKHCn9Q
No doubt a national “T” party ticket would get us a democrat POTUS (shorthand is POS). But we need to form a “T” Party that focuses on the local election level, where it can win congressional seats, such as that rep in PA and even with Senate folks like lieberman. And they could have a very popular national ‘spokesperson’ in Palin, if she were to be game.
This party, when it gains congressional seats, can force the republicans to form coalitions in congress that must acknowledge Conservative values in order to control legislation, and to hopefully reduce spending.
once there are established party members in congress, then we could consider running on the national ticket.
So I guess I’m saying SP should run for Alaskan Senator, and act as the “T” Party Chairman.
Where do I send my donation?
I have no problem with the ticket split per se, but here’s a problem, at least as I see it.
Parties have a built in instinct to disagree with other parties. If a Tea Party candidate were to become president while 50% of Congress was Democrat and 25% were Republican, both parties would oppose him/her, instinctively and probably even to to teach the upstart party a lesson.
Cooperation will the Tea Party will be difficult for the Republicans at first.
Note that when Brush increased our national debt by about 90% the RP was quiet as a church mouse. The usually big spending Democrats actually complained.
Now it looks like Obama may double the national debt, and the Republicans party is panicked. The Dems don’t see any problem with it.
Whatever a Tea Party president tried to do, both other parties would find terrible.
BTW, I do believe folks need to remember Perot and the reason we wound up with Clinton. (Bush didn’t help either...)
We need to stop doing things that don’t work. Third parties don’t work, we need to stop doing it.
“Like voting for GOP/RINOs and expecting government to shrink, spending to decrease and strict adherence to Original intent !?”
That’s not what I said. Voting for RINOs doesn’t work either. We need to stop doing that also.
Stop doing things that don’t work.
If you think of an idea that hasn’t worked in the past (like third parties or blind loyalty to the Republican party) don’t do it. Keep thinking up ideas (if he hasn’t worked in the past, don’t do it). Eventually we’ll come up with something new that will work—then we’ll do that.
Success starts with stopping; stop doing things that don’t work.
The failure to vote for the lesser of two evils gave us Obama.
This an ongoing debate in my family, but Bush 41 is the reason we got Clinton.
If you do the numbers based on the electoral college it’s obvious that Clinton would have won with or without Perot.
That race was over long before November, too.
That election probably opened my eyes to the oblivion the Republican party was headed for. That year Bush waged a real campaign for about six weeks. And realizing the glitz the media was going to heap on Clinton, that just wasn’t enough. Clinton was out there bashing him. Perot was out there bashing him. And good old George remained above it all.
Day after day I asked myself, “When is this guy going to start acting like he wants another term.”
I think he was convinced that when push came to shove, people would admire his handling of the war, and vote him back in. As his poll numbers seemed to slide, it didn’t register with him that he might be in trouble.
The media fronted for Clinton. Everyone from Johnny Carson to Sixty-Minutes to the major networks and newspapers and magazines, heralded the brilliance of this high school level clown. Of course Clinton had done nothing up to this point, that anyone could point to and say, “Look at that! Isn’t he grand.”
He played the sax for a few minutes on Carson and he was all the rage. His most notable event before that was putting the audience at the previous Democrat convention, and the public who bothered watch, to sleep. He was a buffoon. It was pretty much universally accepted, he was.
Then the media went to work, and by golly, he was simply brilliant. If so, why was his state at 49th or 50th position on almost every category? Well, the media didn’t ask that question. Remember folks, he’s BRILLIANT! He’s a breath of fresh air. He’s young. Oh he has a young daughter. His wife is a brilliant attorney. Why it’s going to be a co-presidency made in heaven. Well no, hell perhaps, but not heaven.
Bill Clinton was the smart ass high school cut-up in class, the guy that wouldn’t amount to much and go on to work at the local Dairy Queen or filling station. Of course, in the Democrat model, that’s just the type of guy you want leading the free world.
Fulbright put him in his youth program. Clinton got to visit the White House and meet JFK. Then it was off to the races as this jackass grifted his way to stardom.
I’m sure you know all this. It frustrated me. In Barack Obama we have another know-nothing, destined for stardom despite his associations, his ignorance, and anti-U.S. stance.
One guy sold his soul to the Chinese and the other to just about everyone else, except the U.S. and it’s citizens.
Perot was a tool. As much as anything, I think he helped sell the American public on the idea that Bush was a hapless idiot.
In the end Clinton got 43% of the vote, Bush got 37.4%, and Perot got 18.9%. You may be able to look at key races and come to the conclusion Bush was destined to lose w/wo Perot. I don’t look at it that way. It’s an academic discussion at this point of course.
To my way of thinking, Clinton got his 40% + 3. Bush failed to get his 40% by 2.6. But who did that 18.9% represent? Where did those votes come from?
Perot was seen by those who supported him as a straight shooter. He was a guy that was going to take a fresh honest look at things, and get our house back in order. I didn’t totally buy off on it, but he did have his appeal. It was an appeal that I saw as at least 75/25 a Conservative appeal.
His poll numbers were in the 30% range just before his psychotic episode. He was in/out/in, and he still drew 18.9% of the vote. There were some hungry people out there. Neither Clinton or Bush appealed to them as much as Perot. I don’t think more than a couple of percent of those folks thought Perot was the next big Liberal. If anything, they thought he was going to be fiscally responsible. Those charts spoke for themselves. That doesn’t bode well for a Liberal’s hopes and dreams IMO.
If Clinton would have gotten more than two or three percent of the Perot vote, I’d have been surprised. If Bush had gotten picked up 12.6% plus one from Perot’s vote, he would have won (of course ignoring the electoral vote for the time being). There’s no way in hell I see Clinton taking 6.3% of that vote.
IMO, Bush would have won with a vote of about 52% to 48%, perhaps a bit more. I believe he would have beaten Clinton handily. Still, that would hinge on him getting the electoral vote necessary. It’s possible he wouldn’t have gotten them. I can’t say really.
Here’s the vote totals. Clinton 44,909,806, Bush 39,104,550, and Perot 19,743,821. Although Clinton wound up with 370 to 168 electoral votes, what happens when 13 to 15 million more votes goes to Bush? That two hundred point electoral margin is obliterated.
While it isn’t conclusive who wins IMO, I do believe it’s a good debate. I personally lean toward Bush. The type of person Perot connected with, was not a Liberal IMO.
I think most people knew Clinton was a Commie dufus. And his wife was a nightmare.
Still, in the end you might be right. Thanks for raising the question.
BTTT.
“IMO, Bush would have won with a vote of about 52% to 48%, perhaps a bit more. I believe he would have beaten Clinton handily. Still, that would hinge on him getting the electoral vote necessary. It’s possible he wouldn’t have gotten them. I can’t say really.”
It is an argument I no longer try to have in our family. I voted Perot, by the way, and my cousin brings it up every time he wants to start something.
I ain’t so blindly ignorant or stupid or stubborn as to say that I wish I could go back and change that vote.
A few years back I took a long hard look at the electoral map and I still feel that Clinton would have pulled it out. I do think your popular numbers are good though. That would have been interesting and ahead of it’s time to have Bush 41 win the popular, but lose the election on the electoral college.
As you aptly point out, I don’t think the media would have been all that upset as they were with his son.
Thanks for the additional comments.
I thought Perot was interesting. For one thing he wasn’t a Republican or a Democrat.
When he dropped out, he lost me.
God bless Stockdale.
I thought this post debate skit was the funniest of SNL in the 90s.
http://vodpod.com/watch/1073492-snl-joyride-with-ross-perot
Yet, that was a good one.
As I understand it, the SNL players would develop their own ideas and pitch them. If Michaels and crew agreed they were good, they’d be given the green light on the skit.
That world mean that Hartman and Carvey, one or both came up with this skit.
I like Carvey and Hartman. And every time I see Hartman in an old skit it saddens me. He was very good and taken way too soon.
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.