Posted on 06/29/2013 11:44:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox News Channel viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the “Freedom Party.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Creek, I hope you don't mind that I pinged you ... boxlunch, is that how you define "conservatives" -- those who want to see those agencies shut down? What about the libertarians who have always wanted to see those agencies shut down -- are they conservatives, too?
Cripplecreek, do YOU think that's a good definition of "conservative"?
Or is "conservative" like Rick Santorum, very much anti-abortion and "pro-family," but who, in shutting down Planned Parenthood, instead of allowing taxpayers to keep their own money instead of fund Planned Paranthood, Santorum stated that he'd redirect those taxpayer dollars into adoption-promoting programs. Is that what "conservative" is?
A huge number of Americans don't consider themselves "conservative" but support "conservative" causes. Pro gun rights - is that conservative? How do I tell my very liberal but very pro-2nd Amendment friend he's conservative? Anti-abortion and anti gay agenda -- is that conservative? If so, how do I tell my liberal Democrat friends who hate abortion and the gay agenda, that they're "conservative"?
For "conservatives" to try to take the mantle and insist that it's their way or the highway ... they're sabotaging themselves out of vanity, IMO.
No, AMERICANS who didn't consider themselves conservatives along WITH conservatives voting for Ross Perot gave Clinton A PLURALITY. He went into office OPPOSED by well over half of the voters (57 percent)the first term, and got steamrolled with the Republican Revolution, which was a very good thing, and the second term, opposed by 51 percent of the voters, was IMPEACHED. Yes, he was IMPEACHED.
There would have been ZERO Republican Revolution if Clinton had won a majority OR if HW Bush or Dole had won.
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill
So WHY aren't you learning from history, Innovative???? Why do you keep on failing to see the GOOD THINGS that happened for conservative causes when Perot split of the vote?
Yep. And your insistence that a Third Party cannot benefit conservatism is YOU failing to learn from history.
I understand your point. MY point is that the jobs are being exported because government regulation has made it a losign proposition for businesses to keep the jobs here.
Your tagline describes you to a tee: you think “winning” with a full-on leftist like Romney isn’t losing.
I have renewed hope with this and a couple other threads in the last couple days. I see many of the names I have argued with since the primaries coming around to our way of thinking and realizing that the lesser evil/win at any price crap is just that.
To be sure, there are some hardcore statist types determined to mock us, but, and I address this to anyone still reading this thread, they have nothing ‘but’ mockery.
The facts of history are what they are. One does not go right by moving left. Someone DID vote for unprincipled GOP politicians and got them elected. Those unprincipled GOP politicians DID stand idly by while DOMA was tanked. They DID vote with the dems on amnesty. They DID NOTHING to stop a gay takeover in the military.
And they HAVE DONE NOTHING to defund Obama’s destruction of America. Not one damn thing. If they did, then show it.
Now on a near 500 post thread with a wide cross section of the Freeper body politic participating, I want the lesser evil defenders to show us all exactly WHY we should go with that broken philosophy when the past month has CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY shown the very real results of what comes from it.
We have here the seed of the actual ‘Rebellion” that Jim talks about actually sprouting. —For real.— We have people waking up to their past mistakes and saying “No More!”
And yet, and like clockwork, we have people demanding we get our collective tails back in the closet and back to the GOP plantation.
If all the new converts really and genuinely have had a come to Jesus moment over this, and I pray to God they have, I want people to stand up for what they believe in. I want them to stand up and reject our past mistakes and tell these GOP suckups to go straight to hell. If we collectively can’t do that, something that basic and simple to the issue, then I really do not see the point in even discussing the matter at all. We should all just drop politics entirely and do what we are told.
< We have here the seed of the actual ‘Rebellion” that Jim talks about actually sprouting. —For real.—We have people waking up to their past mistakes and saying “No More!” >
Someone could just as easily say that if all the conservatives who didn’t vote for Mittens HAD voted for him, we wouldn’t be in this Tyrannical Takeover position to begin with. I have no interest in coming back to this thread to this potential flame war, so I’ll just say this:
It does not matter how we got here. Everyone’s perception is different.
It does not matter what YOUR perception is about who was wrong about 2012.
It does not matter what MY perception is about who was wrong about 2012.
If anyone just doesnt feel normal unless they’re in a flame war, let me provide a glimpse of what it looks like to the rest of us. Just pick one of these two statements and run with it:
1. We wouldn’t BE here if YOU AND YOUR KIND had gotten a clue much sooner and changed from being a stubborn, ignorant, hard-core statist to joining the 3rd party mindset.
2. We wouldn’t BE here if YOU AND YOUR KIND had not abandoned the GOP to stupidly vote your conscience and pursue your lofty and unattainable dream of winning an election by voting 3rd party.
This continued debate is pointless and a colossal waste of time, and most likely the trolls will try to throw out the bait to sidetrack what they fear most: An invigorated, pissed off Tea Party.
If the GOPe do not immediately do a complete reversal of their behavior to save our Republic, ALL that matters is the future, and thus, IMO, we should ALL refrain from discussing the past, some of which i listed above. Just my 2¢ that i needed to say.
Somehow, i just cannot see our Founding Fathers sitting around wasting time and emotional energy with verbal haggling about how they ended up in their own bloody predicament.
Because people who refuse to understand the mistakes of their past repeat them.
If you want to deny 5000 years of history, be my guest.
BTW.....No Amnesty, bigger fences, citizenship via established laws.
MAKE IS HERE, MAKE IT NOW. If Palin says this and ends being world policeman bailing out the world with blood and treasure, then OK for a new party. Otherwise I'll see if the Bunga Bunga Party is listed.
Yes lets support brain dead union slobs..
Get real. Manufacturing unions are just about useless.
I’m not totally sure I’m following where you are going with that. Would appreciate a little more explanation of what you are getting at so I can try to respond.
Are you just saying maybe even the word “conservative” has been kind of corrupted, means a lot of things to a lot of people and we shouldn’t even try using that word?
Rather, just (if you are talking about a new party), instead of saying we are “conservative”, just say THIS is what we stand for a list out the platform, where the party stands on various issues, and how we intend to keep anyone running under the “Freedom Party” banner accountable to that? (Maybe the word “Constitutional” is better. I am very, very conservative personally, but I want my government to abide by the constitution, while allowing me the freedom through my personal life and church to promote conservative causes.
And, at least for me, for the one issue of adoption you mentioned, no, I don’t agree with government giving money to adoption promoting programs. I am totally pro adoption, but don’t want the government in any part of it. That’s not government’s job.
Don’t know if that answers your question or not - again, not sure I’m following where you were going with that.
I haven’t the time to read all the posts and hope I’m not repeating someone. My wish is for Sarah to git off the pot and call a convention of all the conservative parties across the U.S. Make them sit down together and hammer out a single platform for a single third party composed of all the splinter parties. Then call on all the Independents to join them. She is the only person I know who has the ability and the power to do that (perhaps with the help of Ted Cruz). With that I have to leave and go to church. Hold the fort.
Everything you say is true, and it is a given that my posting doesn’t apply to people who don’t really subscribe to the change necessary.
I had read multiple posts from various posters that were along the line of “people should apologize to us”, and by the time I got to yours, I thought I needed to bring it up.
Obviously, if someone wants to bring the same mix of politics into it that have brought us to this point, it would be pointless to proceed with that person on our side.
My point was more to the treatment of people who may have had to be dragged kicking and screaming across the line, but they got across the line nonetheless.
In retrospect, I should’ve left you folks alone on this.
I wasn't challenging your definition of "conservatives," I was trying to make the point that for some folks, simply being anti-abortion is "conservative," such as Santorum, considered by many a "conservative" though he would use government, in that example I gave, in a way that you and I both agree is the antithesis of "conservative."
The real elephant in the room is that conservatives and libertarian-minded Americans need to unite. I think that many self-described conservatives exclude as "non-conservative" those who do NOT want the Federal government to be in the business of marriage, "wars" against consequences of moral failings such as drug abuse and obesity, and abortion. A libertarian in principle would automatically be for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, but may not be for a Federal law outlawing abortion. There are conservatives who would therefore reject any alliance with libertarians becase by their definition, "conservatives" want Federal law to outlaw abortion.
It's tangled and thorny. Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses. I don't pretend to have the answers. I do know that more of the same -- voting for Republican liberals instead of Democrat liberals -- is the wrong answer.
Say what you will about manufacturing unions, that’s neither here nor there. The simple fact is that it was America that created the entire modern world, largely through manufacturing. Besides, I think you’re confusing private sector unions with public sector unions. For example, the teamsters supported Nixon in the early seventies (not that he was anything to write home about, but a whole lot better than McGovern in ‘72), mostly because of the Alaskan Pipeline (thousands of teamster jobs), but nevertheless, Nixon also pardoned Hoffa, got him out of the big house. The teamsters also supported Reagan in the ‘80s. They’ve also voted over 40% GOP in every presidential election since ‘72. You can’t judge everything by appearances; they can be deceptive, and hide the truth. This is something the dems count on in every election cycle. Carter and Clinton were both presented to the American people as a couple of mainstream, aw-shucks good ole boys from down south. The truth was far different. Government unions are a different creature altogether, and should be abolished on the first day of Sarah’s new administration. I believe they were created in the early ‘60s by Kennedy with an executive order. Another executive order, by another president should be enough to rid ourselves of them, courts be damned. As for being slobs, there’s nothing wrong with being untidy, so long as your heart is in the right place.
It makes much more sense to me for the Conservatives to form their own party and let the Libertarians stay with the dim lite GOP.
The Libertarians at the WSJ comment board, claim to identify more closely with Liberalism than conservatism. Of course their idea of Libertarianism is liberty for me, but not for thee.
They support gay rights and same sex marriage, but oppose the rights of religious groups to oppose homosexuality in any way.
They support the right to abortion and open borders. They oppose the support of Israel.
They support higher taxes and what they call, corporate responsibility and we call, crony capitalism.
They support private property rights FOR CORPORATIONS over private citizens’ property rights.
Most of all the young libertarians at the WSJ are atheists, who support the freedom FROM religion.
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.