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.
Your opinion doesn't mean jack around here.
I will tell you what I have noticed. Guiliani is drawing this bile right now. If I start a thread on Romney, watch how many of the same people will show up and start in on Mormon's, gay marriage in Massachusetts, etc.
Seems to me that some of these folks are determined to be negative about any candidate except those at the bottom of the polls. Rather curious, that.
I will tell you what I have noticed. Guiliani is drawing this bile right now. If I start a thread on Romney, watch how many of the same people will show up and start in on Mormon's, gay marriage in Massachusetts, etc.
Seems to me that some of these folks are determined to be negative about any candidate except those at the bottom of the polls. Rather curious, that.
You outta try it, it may do you some good!
I am amazed that a Brit would have that knowledge of American politics regarding the situation 130 years ago. You're absolutely correct about it. I sort of made Garfield my upper division history course hobby, but I'd think less than 1 in 1000 Americans would have the knowledge you shared in a few short sentences in your post.
I realize I'm not addressing the moral of your story. I'm not sure I'm in the mood to get into the middle of this food fight tonight. After all, it will continue for many long more months. I'm quickly losing my desire to post here at all until a truce is called.
But I couldn't help myself from complimenting you on your knowledge of American history. I own a bazillion history books from my undergraduate days, but I couldn't tell you who the PM was in 1880 England, that's for sure.
Right. Everybody's stupid.
Of course it is not too early to pick sides. Since we're FReepers, we already HAVE picked sides I would hope. That is, we support the conservatives and fight the liberals. That's easy. Giuliani is a liberal. That's why people are dumping on him and going after the people who abuse this forum by campaigning for him here.
Hey! LOL!
Just wanted to clear the air, MM. I think it took courage for you to admit you voted for Jimmah Carter in 1976. I commend you for expressing yourself in that way here on Free Republic.
In 1976, I voted for Gerald Ford and regretted that decision ever since. I wanted Reagan and campaigned in several states for him. Ford won by a whisker. That is history. That was then and this is now. Lets not make a similar mistake again in 2008. Lets go for a conservative candidate who can give us MOST of what we want.
As you know, I haven't chosen anyone, yet. And I've only ruled out supporting Giuliani. So the door is pretty much open at this time. I'd love to see Gingrich get in the race. We shall see.
Hey! Good to see you!
I'll take it you've noticed that this particular "stalking target's" "targeters" can be regularly counted on to come down against the conservative position at every pass. A good percentage of them are right here on this thread.
I'm on the same boat. I was on the fence at first, but lately, and since that "Rudy Supporters are traitors" thread 2 days ago, I am now firmly a die hard Rudy Supporter."
Jim, I hate to be the one to say this, but - here is further evidence of the "Law of unintended consequences" at work. You could have moderated the tone of this debate, prevented it from turning into accusations of "treason" and "liberalism" being hurled around - but you didn't. You tacitly encouraged it.
So Freepers like Psycho, myself, (and at least a handful of others who have chimed in as well - and who knows how many more 'lurkers'), took offense and now, instead of being merely open to Rudy, we are positively FOR him.
And I'll eat my kevlar helmet if I don't back him til the end - either of the primaries, or the general, however far he gets.
And if someone beats him in the primaries, I will vote for that person over anyone in the Hitlary party.
My opinions about Keyes were not formed by Democrats. Keyes and his operatives, like you, are responsible for my eyes being opened... slowly, between 1996 and 2000, when I was a supporter of him.
Probably by the changing array of state flags on your FR webpage. That is a dead giveaway. :)
No candidate is perfect and all of them have flaws. It is not only justifiable to strenuously fight for ones principles, but a duty to do so. But when all is said and done, it is reprehensible to falsely personally attack, with lies, propaganda, and innuendo the candidates and their supporters, here; a site that is supposed to be dedicated to posting FACTS and whose one prominent goals, as stated by you, is to make certain that all of us work to keep as many Dems out of political office as is humanly possible.
You detest the Clintons and rightly so. So do we all. You are completely against Dems holding power. So say all of us. I assume that you still feel that way and if I am mistaken, I would like you to dissuade me of that belief.
Without rancor and without personal attacks, I and many others here, have posted facts about Rudy, to refute the lies and calumny heaped daily upon him and us.
Does that mean that all of us, his supporters and just those who haven't really picked someone to support, but still post facts about Rudy, have "compromised" all of principles and gone off into the DARK SIDE? NO ! It means that we have looked at the GOP field, have not found a Conservative who is worth supporting, so have found someone who gives us more than 1/2 a glass of what we all state clearly that we want from a president; a candidate who CAN beat any Dem thrown up against him.
Are you joking? There really was a thread like that?
Like I didn't know long ago that your little Clown friends watched that stuff.
What was that in reference to?
No offense intended, but who allows the comments of anonymous internet posters determine for whom they will vote? I certainlt don't know a lot of people who are so easily swayed by either positive or negative feedback.
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.