Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Wedge Issues Posted by: “Common Tator” in FreeRepublic.com April 16, 2002
The one thing that amazes me on this site is the belief by some that the conservative position is the majority position.
Mostly people tend to believe it could be the majority position if the right candidate ran, or if it weren't for the media or RINOs or etc, etc. They really don't have a clue.
Roughly 2/3 of the public has firm views. They have made up their minds and do not change them. This group is nearly equally split between the left and the right.
There are about a 1/3 of the population that is never sure. Sometimes it will go left and sometimes it will go right.
When a party restricts itself to its base it will be in a minority party. The "base only" party will be reduced to crying as the other side works its will. In some nations both the left and right restrict themselves to just their base. That nation then develops five or six parties. And all governments in that nation are coalitions of a major party and some of the minor parties. In that situation the minor party always has more influence than its numbers represent. For the Rino and Dino haters that is the worst of all worlds.
Many of Rino and Dino haters try to make ours a 3 or 4 party system. They never figure out that their splinter right or left party would never get much power in a government based on coalitions. They are too small. It is the centrist parties that have a 1/3 of the public as potential members that get the clout in the Multi Party system. As you can see in a 2 party or a 5 or 6 party system the center tends to prevail.
But in our two party system the center is an instrument the major parties use to enact their goals. In the multiparty system it is the center parties that use the right and left to enact their centrist goals. Such a system like those in Italy and France are RINO and DINO paradise.
This nation now and for all of the last 140 years has been roughly 1/3 left, 1/3 right and 1/3 in the middle. Those in the middle who run for office are what we call RINOs and DINOs.
When Republicans drive RINOs out they leave the party to become DINOs and take their political power with them. The Democrat party gets them by default.
Then the Democrats thanks to its Dino buddies have a veto proof house and senate. It was Barry Goldwater's greatest accomplishment. In my BRAIN I knew Barry would elect a lot of DINOs ... and he did.
If a party with most of the center wins the presidency too, they have a filibuster proof senate. That party then can do anything it wants to do. When the party leadership takes control they implement the parties’ core beliefs. It was what LBJ did after Goldwater drove all the RINOs into LBJ's camp. It let LBJ do the "Great Society." LBJ had to have Barry's help to do it. And Barry did what it took to give LBJ the support he needed... LBJ had all the left. Barry gave him all the center.
To win control a party must keep its base and get over half the middle. If the Republicans have more RINOs than the Democrats have DINOs the Republican agenda prevails. If the Democrats have more DINOs than the Republicans have RINOs the Democrat agenda prevails.
Those that demand the defeat of RINOs are doing all they can to enact the leftist agenda. They are the most valuable asset the left has. One of the most effective tactics in politics in the negative campaign.
Negative campaigns are not about getting votes for your candidate. They are about getting the other side's base to not vote for their candidate. Thus if you can get the right to vote against a Rino or not vote at all, you can elect a very liberal candidate.
If you can force the Republicans to nominate a right wing candidate so right wing he can't get the center voters, you elect the left candidate.
If your only criteria is winning, you might as well just support Clinton.
Paste an "R" by her name if that helps assuage your conscience.
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
Yup.
Hey! I hope you can pitch in with the Duncan Hunter campaign in South Carolina. I like you, am not about to bow down in the House of Rimmon, even if it is styled a "Big Tent". I intend to do my utmost, wherever and whenever, to advance the Duncan Hunter campaign. He is the man we need in these times. I know better than to place my trust in men, but I pray God will guide Duncan Hunter, and indeed, each of us, to do His will.
I wonder if people understand what a large percentage of the GOP is TOTALLY INFLEXIBLE on the matter of abortion for presidential candidates.
Anal retentives?
Like this one?
Posted by Jim Robinson to Corin Stormhands
On News/Activism ^ 02/28/2007 6:01:56 AM CST · 516 of 549 ^
You're out of your gourd. A social liberal for president? From the Republican party? There's nothing rational to debate. It's complete madness.
In the last election I held my nose and voted for two "moderates" who both lost. On the other hand I voted for a solid conservative against a RINO in our congressional race and the conservative won.
Posted by Jim Robinson to Corin Stormhands
On News/Activism ^ 02/28/2007 5:55:16 AM CST · 514 of 549 ^
You are most welcome. It is rather irrational for conservatives to be debating whether or not we should support an abortionist, gay rights supporting, gun grabbing, illegal alien supporting ex mayor to be our presidential nominee for the Republican party. It's surreal.
If Rudy gets the nomination, the DemocRATS will win the Presidency. He's too much of a gun-grabbing, pro-gay, abortionistic statist to win on a national level. He can try to reinvent himself, but his record speaks for itself.
You are a complete and utter ass.
They don't care. Many would rather lose the religious vote, apparently.
Posted by Jim Robinson to tkathy
On News/Activism ^ 02/28/2007 5:32:15 AM CST · 45 of 55 ^
Yeah, well too bad the so-called frontrunner doesn't have a chance to win. He's not going to make it trying to compete as a liberal against Hillary or Obama. Plus he's going to lose more conservative votes than he can ever hope to gain from the liberals. It's a surefire recipe for disaster.
Posted by Jim Robinson to tkathy
On News/Activism ^ 02/28/2007 4:45:05 AM CST · 40 of 55 ^
There's no conservative here that wants to see the socialists/Democrats seize power. That's why we're working so hard to make sure a conservative get the nod. You can't win from a conservative party by trying to out liberal the liberals. No conservative wants to support abortion, gay rights, gun control, McCain-Feingold, global warming, illegal immigration, etc., etc.
Asses everywhere resent that statement.
Posted by Jim Robinson to nopardons
On News/Activism ^ 02/28/2007 2:45:47 AM CST · 22 of 55 ^
Yeah, he's a socialist. Uses socialist tools to divide and conquer. He does not respect our constitution or our rights. Wants to control free speech, regulate or ban guns, seize private property, use the heavy hand of government to control, regulate private industry, wants to award special rights to homosexuals accelerating the breakdown of moral society, he devalues and degrades human life, claims there is a constitutional right to abortion, is even ok with ripping unborn babies limb from limb and or sucking their brains out. The man is a socialist. Have a feeling we're going to learn a lot more about him as the campaign move forward and he's forced to disclose his financials and business dealings (assuming he doesn't drop out first).
The GOP retreated its way into losing the House and Senate in 2006....
Posted by Jim Robinson to SJackson
On News/Activism ^ 02/27/2007 11:24:22 PM CST · 316 of 549 ^
What can't be used against Rudy? The fact that he is a social liberal? He admits it. Is proud of his support for gay rights, abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, global warming, control of free speech, etc, etc.
C'mon, these are all socialist issues. These are issues near and dear to the hearts of our finely feathered liberal fiends from the globalist/socialist/Marxist Democrat party. These are the issues they use to breakdown down our moral society, erode away our constitution, dissolve our national sovereignty, erase our borders, tear down our defenses, strip us of our national heritage and pride, divide and conquer our people. Caving to socialism step by step will destroy our Republic.
The global socialists are at war with us and are making great headway because we refuse to see it or react to it as war. The enemy within is just as dangerous if not more so than the foreign enemy.
Posted by Jim Robinson to Torie
On News/Activism ^ 02/27/2007 11:08:33 PM CST · 299 of 549 ^
Government force is government force. The Founders placed a lot of value in free speech. So do I. McCaine-Rooty, et al, are working overtime to strip us of our constitutional rights. Government stripping our rights to free speech and or free assembly in the support of the candidates or causes of our free will is tyranny.
A vote for any candidate that would strip away our rights is a vote for tyranny.
Posted by Jim Robinson to advertising guy
On News/Activism ^ 02/27/2007 10:56:29 PM CST · 284 of 549 ^
Well, I guess I was wrong. Unfortunately. Rooty's supporters have been after me all night because I posted that. They say I'm a big meanie and should be ashamed of myself for third grade taunting. One of them even called me a "closet fag." I'm soooo hurt. Crushed in de feet.
But I am determined to recover and fight on:
I see it's "cut and paste" day at the pre-school.
Posted by Jim Robinson to Torie
On News/Activism ^ 02/27/2007 10:34:24 PM CST · 251 of 549 ^
Couple problems with your gratuitous assertions, mate.
1) Rooty fully supports and protects "gay rights." One of the "rights" in gay rights is the "right" to use government power to crackdown on anyone who dares not believe that two mommies or two daddies is perfectly normal and is a good thing for our government to teach to our youngsters in public or even private schools. Even Sunday School.
2) Rooty has no more respect for the first amendment than he does for the second:
Dennis Prager asks Rudy about McCain-Feingold:
DP: These are some of the issues that have prevailed in the American conscience right now. Where do you...let's get to specifics. Where do you differ most, if you can identify it right now, from John McCain?
RG: I don't know how I differ from John. I mean, John and I have pretty much the same view on the war, as best I can tell. I mean, I think he is...it may be that I'm more firmly committed to tax cutting than he is, although he has vote for some tax cuts. He hasn't voted for others. I'm not sure. But John and I are good friends, and if we do end up running against each other, it'll be interesting to see where and how we differ.
DP: Well, here's one possibility. My listeners know this, that this is actually rendered him, unfortunately, unvotable for me. And if I have him on, I will tell him that, and that is campaign finance reform, which has ensured that essentially, only multi-millionaires run for office in the United States of America, especially to the Senate, because I cannot...if I, Dennis Prager, who doesn't have any money, wanted to run, no millionaire could give me a million dollars. They could only give me $4,000 dollars. So you have any views on campaign finance reform?
RG: I think there's no question that the present McCain-Feingold law has had tremendous loopholes in it, that people have taken advantage of. And it needs to be corrected. It needs to be cured.
DP: So you would like to see it in place as well? You're also for...
RG: I would like to...but I think, in fairness to Senator McCain, that he has recognized some of the problems that maybe weren't foreseen in McCain-Feingold, and has promised to try to fix it. I don't know that that's happened.
DP: Well, let me then be specific. Why shouldn't people just be allowed to give any amount of money they want to any candidate, and just have it publicly known? Why should there be a law limiting that freedom?
RG: Well, I mean, there...I think there are very good arguments on either side of that. I've always lived under a campaign finance law that had limitations on it, so I'm sort of pretty comfortable with it. But the reality is that the Supreme Court has so far ruled on that, and I guess found McCain-Feingold...
DP: Unfortunately.
RG: ...found it Constitutional, although that was a pretty close vote.
DP: All right. We need to spend some time alone together.
RG: But I mean, I grew up in a system in New York where we had campaign finance, and we had matching funds, so I got pretty used to it. But it's the law, unfortunately, the campaign finance law has become so complex and so difficult.
DP: Like the tax code.
RG: It is easily as complex as the tax code, and it's become sort of a gotcha game.
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=fac1ad6b-eaa1-45a2-b1c6-3fe2c099887d
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.