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.
In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt's supporters wanted Taft out - they didn't succeed, so they took the "my way or the highway" route and he ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate. This let Woodrow Wilson in, who bequeathed us the League of Nations; this silly, preposterous idea is still alive in the guise of the United Nations, and we cannot seem to get rid of it.
In 1992, a good number of Republicans voted for the freak with big ears. The result was Bill Clinton. Here we are, 15 years later, dealing with the fallout of that still - Hillary is closer to the Oval Office than she should be.
It's worth keeping this history in mind before anyone storms off.
Regards, Ivan
when did you "reach out to me" ? If you did i missed it, you would have to be a little more gentler to get my attention.
Look i dont claim to be perfect, but i think youre going a little far in your assesment of me or we, or whatever.
And YES they do see you that way, its just that noone is brave enough to say it to your face.
you come across very know it allish, elitist in your upbringing and as if you are above all us working folks- smarter, better breeding etc.
You also come across as harsh and cruel and self rightous and now to add to all of that you come across as a huge prude and someone who is incapable of letting thier hair down. if even for one moment.
That bun atop your head is just a weebit too tight.
I thought perhaps the kindest thing would be to tell you, because its obvious from posting with you that you dont see your self as your posts reflect. at all.
Infact i would go as far to say that you find yourself kind and helpful, but even when you try to be, you come across as looking down on someone, scooping down to thier level from your high thrown to help. noone wants that kind of help.
The only ones that dont see your posts that way are those that have a simularly large fragile ego. or the ones desperate for you approval.
I am NOT putting on a show for you, or for the public. if i gave a patootie about the "public" i wouldnt be posting on a public forum!
You can sit on that high horse all you want and perhaps instead of reading the posts and sticking your nose down at us, perhaps you could have joined in and brought the conversation to a higher level. instead you chose to boost yourself up by looking down on others.
Anyways, im sure ill get flamed a million times over for this post. so i will remind anyone who reads it that i am not trying to be mean, only giving another perspective. sometimes it help:-)
Goodnight nopardons.
When I first saw the title of this thread, it looked like bait. And only for a few people it was explained. It's kind of a waste of space IMO.
Let me chime in here dmw because as a more recent veteran than Psycho-freep I too have a take on the subject. We who have stood sweating in the jungles on SE Asia (like P-F did), or frozen our a**es off on some godforsaken mountain top (like I did) do not take kindly to being referred to - even by insinuation - as 'traitors'. There were two separate a**holes on related threads who actually called me that in two separate posts. One even said "I spit on you!"
I calmly replied to both of them that it was ironic that I had spent 12 months sleeping with a .9 mil half-way around the world just to preserve their right to call me a 'traitor' or to 'spit on me'.
No we're not pretending to be immune to criticism. But those of us who have laid it all on the line for all the rest of you deserve a little better than to be called such names - directly or by insinuation.
...ummm... might it ALSO mean that he instead realizes that in the order of priorities national survival against the creeping Islamofascist and Iranian nuclear terror is an issue paramount over all others, hence the man most trustworthy to handle it should be elected?
Its a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to answer it honestly, because then you'd have to take back a lot of stuff said on this thread already.
No, I stand by my explaination
In my own life experience - and this strikes VERY close to home, the operative principle is "The more TALK, the LESS WALK."
IE. The difference between Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker on the one hand, and Ronald Reagan on the other.
Watching Rudy praying through his tears at funeral after funeral post 9/11 is more convincing as to what is in the man's CHARACTER than any amount of Bible-thumping being spewed by FAKE CHRISTIANS who live in glass houses while throwing BRICKBATS at passers-by.
And I know - because I spent 12 years married to a PSYCHO who did that on an everyday basis. Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde she was. I am surprised I am still alive, frankly.
I was one of the millions who responded to pleas from Dr. Dobson and raised our voices to our representatives in 93-94 to make sure it didn't happen.
But you just pretend that you forgot - or weren't you of age and paying attention yet? Mr. Smoothie?
Indeed. Much as I admire TR, the 1912 third party run was a petulant act of revenge that was THE biggest mistake of his political career and cost the country dearly. The GOP offered him the 1916 nomination if he would just stay out so Taft could win. How the world would have been different if he had been thinking rationally! But his ego got the better of him - as can be said for some similarly-minded FReepers around here...
I realize that it must be a great deal of fun for you ( plural, again ) to sit around and pick me apart, try to get me to explode, make up stories about what I look like, who I am, and hey, if that makes you feel better, perhaps I and my friends should sit put of a thread, or just follow you around and play the same game on on you. Would you like that, or would you be hitting the abuse button, until all of your fingers bled?
Oh yes, I am such a "prude" that I should be excoriated for not having at one time or another in my life drunk or smoked pot, woken up on the bathroom floor, in the morning, in some sleazy bar, engaged in fights, flirted/bedded strange men, when in a drunken stupor, and/or been divorced. /s
I have fun and I am hardly the stiffy cartoon character that you are so fond of imagining. But unlike you, I feel no compunction to flaunt my "adventures", whatever they may or may not have been, on a CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL FORUM.
You need to just stick with your chat threads and stop hijacking political or news threads with you middle school games.
Yes, I was called a baby killer and so were many others.
I don't do links.........sorry. Either take my word for it, or don't. I'm sure it will happen again and then, perhaps you will see it.
I just went over your FR posts and it seems like the only thing you ever post about is Alan Keyes and is supporters. What's your deal? Do you even stand for anything or anyone?
After I stopped reading this thread last night, I was reflecting on things, and had a few thoughts along these lines. While I don't care for Rudy's political views, he really is a stand up guy. He can speak well, and he can connect with people on a human level, but I think you used a good term. Character.
I may not agree with a lot of his views, and know he's no saint in his personal life. I still recognize him as a man whos character was chisled in adversity, and made better for it. Now, I know some FReepers will be up and arms over this. It's beyond their ken to understand how someone could hold views they disagree with, and still be a man of character. But he is. ;-)
..a few others know, and silently agree with you, but won't publicly commit.....
..some are as heartbroken as I am....
..and some have so much 'life' happening they don't have the energy/time to address this.
I'm not leaving Free Republic.....I won't let this negativity drive me away.
There are more solidly strong conservative patriots here than those who are driving the wedge.
Patience is a fruit of the spirit, and JR has shown himself to be a patient man...
...so be it.
I have the same opinion about the attacks on Hunter, Romney, and the rest of the candidates.
If people don't want to support Guiliani, that's fine. I support no one and am simply observing. Non-supporters should simply say they can't support Rudy because of his stand on abortion or the second amendment. No need to trash Guiliani as a person nor those who support him.
Well, I hope you understand my position. Participation in threads like this, for me, is to try to get people to state claims in a restrained manner and elevate their discourse above the level of fifth-graders on the playground.
Are you saying that I shouldn't be here?
There are vitriolic attacks on Jim Robinson.
That is not right!
I copied your own post; how can it be wrong? Your post said they don't realize the divisiveness here. And I noted that you fixed that by making sure you pinged them or went to that thread to talk about it. Which I think is very, very interesting.
As to disrespect, it's fascinating that you think some of us are disrespectful of Jim but are silent about your friends being called treasonous liberals because we happen to like a Republican he doesn't like.
Also, why don't you point out just which post to Jim I've made that has been disrespectful. In all instances, he wrote to me first, btw, and if you think some of the terms thrown around are respectful, then I question your judgment.
And while we're talking about disrespect, what makes you think it's up to you to advise us to leave the forum? Are we now to march in lockstep? That sounds actually worse than disrespectful.
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.