Posted on 03/23/2014 5:34:26 AM PDT by Moseley
The danger is this: In the USA’s upcoming 2014 elections, Republican elites assume that everyone all now agrees that conservatives ‘must’ support non-conservative candidates to win more elections. The GOP is operating on the belief that everyone is on board, simply because insiders have officially decreed it to be so.
However, the grassroots in the USA remains unconvinced. Worse, the Republican establishment has no plan for truly healing the actual wounds. Elites want to avoid change more fervently than they do want to win elections. Elites violated trust by advancing liberal policies in the U.S. Congress, but they won’t apologize or reform. The GOP will do anything to win elections – except change.
It simply doesn’t matter what you or I think. Activists are going to sit on their hands whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, unless the GOP fields conservative nominees. Elites can denounce such thinking all day long, but that changes nothing. So the Republican Party is heading into the 2014 elections with the establishment deceiving itself into thinking that grassroots volunteers agree with Party plans.
Also, the grassroots acts independently in the US. Washington insiders suffer from the delusion that the tea party follows tea party “leaders.” But the tea party came first. Self-appointed “leaders” later on tried to rush in front of the parade. Many tea party “leaders” are cooperative this year. But that does not mean grassroots activists, donors, and voters will fall into line with Republican Party strategists.
The crucial debate threatening to tear the GOP apart is this: Ronald Reagan said: “Somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.” Therefore, conservatives must bite their tongue and support Republican candidates and office-holders who are not conservative. That’s the thesis.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
So how can Republican voters tell when a candidate truly is “80% conservative” or when he is going to endorse a liberal Democrat? Ed Gillespie is the establishment’s great hope for taking back the Virginia US Senate seat. An establishment leader himself, John Warner stabbed Gillespie in the back. Gillespie is the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and senior adviser to George W. Bush.
I don’t think anyone expects or demands a 100% perfect conservative. I rub a lot of shoulders with tea party leaders and activists. What they want is to not be lied to and betrayed. Conservatives realize that “80% conservatives” usually vote only 50% conservative once in office. The problem is betrayal.
For years, John Warner and Tom Davis were the quarterbacks for attacking Virginia conservatives. John Warner led the campaign to sabotage Ollie North’s nearly-successful campaign for U.S. Senate in 1994. John Warner arranged for Marshall Coleman to run as an independent. North lost by only 2.7% running as the Republican nominee while former Congressman Coleman took 11.4% running as an Independent
I understand the concept of the 80% Republican completely.
However, when that 20% disagreement extends to Amnesty, legalization, normalization or acceptance in any fashion that remotely includes citizenship, or when it includes wild capitulation to Democrats on debt, vastly inflate budgets and creates or perpetuates undeserved entitlements, they become 100% opposition to me.
And there isn’t even a Tea Party group, earnest or otherwise that could convince me to vote for it - EVER.
Who would you vote for?
Here in Georgia, I’m going to vote against my congressman who voted with John Lewis and Hank Johnson (Ds) on the Paul Ryan debt capitulation bill. He did this unapologetically after I’d told his office three times that unwarranted debt is one of my triggers (along with any Amnesty of any sort).
I will vote against him in the primary if he has an opponent. If not, I’ll not vote.
For the Senate seat traitor Chambliss is deserting, I’ll vote for any candidate that pledges no debt increases, no Amnesty, and who will pledge to NOT vote for McConnell for leader of anything.
I’m not a Republican, but it is in those races where I might find a viable conservative candidate, so that’s where I’ll vote. At the minimum, I can hopefully influence the reduction in RINOs Georgia sends to DC.
I agree with the 80% theory. But if the 20% are the items you mention I will not vote for that so called conservative.
Thank you. Good luck.
The Buckley Rule: Support the rightwardmost viable candidate
Do so in every primary and general election. Do so based on your own sound conservative principals, and not the sweet songs of paid political operatives.
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/340485/print
Yeah - it's always better to vote against 80% of what you believe in and insure you get someone who is 99% against everything you believe in.
If Sun Tzu had written about warfare like that, he might have an entry that says, "If you cannot win 100% of every battle, you should stay off the field and fall on your sword because you are obviously unable to grasp the concept of fighting".
The problem is that ~80% of a politician’s votes are meaningless, on issues where they have no effect on the outcome, so they can vote in a way that burnishes their conservative credentials while doing nothing for the cause.
They can then vote 20% of the time in a way to undermine conservative principles, when it counts.
IMHO the 80% rule is old and no longer applies. Reagen was 80’s. Twenty five years in the history of politics in today’s world, is new normal, and those who are on the side of amnesty, debt, spending like a drunken sailor, and trust with no need to verify, do not ever need to be elected to dog catcher, much less a position of trust. They are the enemy, and anyone supporting them is also your enemy.
The hard part is convincing folks that not voting for Republican’s is as dangerous if not more so, than voting Democrat. There is a difference in fundamental beliefs in the two parties. Read the platform and hold your candidates feet to the fire, but do not allow another obama to sneak into office because four million whatever’s just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the lesser enemy.
Perspective, and example says there is not a sane person alive who would make the case that Mitt Romney at his worst, would even hold a candle to the unconstitutional and illegal activities of the present occupant of the White House, and vacations would be none. There I’ve said it.
Who would you vote for?
Good question.
I believe 80% of the posters on FR should run for president because they won’t find someone that will support 100% of their views. The democrats love these “activists” that sit on their hands while they keep putting their clowns in office.
Agreed. Reagan made a gee-gosh comment as a PRELUDE to negotiation and to reassure conservatives why he was compromising with Tip O’Neill to move the ball down the field, to gain some ground.
Reagan was NOT laying down a hard and fast rule to govern all campaigns for all time. He was referring to the compromises he cut with Tip O’Neill.
But the 80% figure — any measurement — is meaningless because votes are not all of equal importance.
1 vote may be so important that it outweighs all the other votes.
If the 20% where a Member of Congress diverges are the most important, then the other 80% don’t matter.
The implication is that the 80% agreement matters.
In reality, the RINO’s are voting liberal on the most damaging and most significant and most important issues, and voting conservatives on the LEAST significant issues.
In other words, the entire discussion assumes at all votes have the same value or importance.
They don’t.
The canard assumes that it is possible to measure such things. It isn’t.
The canard also assumes that votes are the only things that matter. They aren’t. An elected official can hurt conservatives and advance liberal policies in many ways other than voting on the floor of Congress.
Suppose a politician had a high conservative ranking based on votes, but campaigned for liberal democrats for office. Would you call that person 80% your friend?
Anyone who tells the truth, if that is possible. Smaller government, balanced budget, no amnesty (follow the law), eliminate many federal departments, quit killing the unborn, no quotas, no man/man or women/women marriages, and get evil off the throne and good off the gallows and back on the throne. Social issues are important for without them you have no decent nation.
Indeed. I can live with the 80% rule as far as politicians who share 80% of the following views (to pick 5, so that they can falter on one of these and hold fast on the others):
Immigration/amnesty
Debt ceiling
Balanced budget
9th and 10th amendment
Closing many unconstitutional federal agencies.
Or, if a politician will fight to close 80% of the federal agencies I think should be shut, then I’ll support them.
If they will work to repeal 80% of the gun laws I think are unconstitutional, they have my vote.
If they will eliminate 80% of the unjustified power of the IRS and NSA, I’m for them.
the problem is ... what is the 20% they disagree with us on?
if it’s:
support for abortion
against gun rights
amnesty for illegal aliens
support for sodomites
Then they might as well be democrats.
I will never support anyone who differs much from me on one of the above issues, I don’t care if I agree with 99% of everything else they believe in
That’s what the little American voters cannot understand: the politician is out for himself, but our uninformed think the politician he recognizes is “on my side”.
20% disagreement extends to Amnesty
Exactly!
What will your side do to earn my vote, rather than simply expect it?
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.