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.
Little kids can be satisfied with candy. I guess all some grown ups need is a gun.
John
It's their impotency that's fueling their hate. Not to worry, the only way Rudy gets knocked out is by a rival candidate and that guy will have to be more likable and more persuasive.
I saw only a headline heree that stated something about Mitt Romney going "on the attack" against Guiliani and McCain.
That's a special breed of wisdom that many on FR simply can't cope with.
Pretty much what I said in the last sentence. The candidates have between now and the early California primary. After that, I believe it will be academic.
Personally, I feel there is about to be a major slaughter within the next six months.
Yeah, I'm always concerned about that, but the terrorist groups know that it will backfire. They remember how the Country came together after 9/11, which may explain the lack of attacks here. I'm not trying to diminish the threat, but Europe does not seem to react as does America. I also see the Iranian threat, but they would be smart to wait until our presence there is reduced.
Bottom line, yes I agree, a major event may well change the mix, but without it, I think the current top 3 will continue in that position.
I guess the difference between you and me is, I believe a person's past actions is a clear indication of what their future action will be. You apparently believe what a person says he will do in the future, regardless of what his past actions show.
Alright, fine. Let me ask you this, have you seen the youtube video here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
What's your take on this?
Nope. We didn't like sending Elian back to Castro. We didn't like killing Terri Schiavo, and we don't like electing candidates that are pro-abrortion. What exactly is your position?
The link doesn't work. If this is the link that he said he'd run on the Democratic ticket, DUH. Do you know how party endorsements work in NY? You'd be a fool not to have as many as you can, especially in a 5-1 D city, where independents also lean D.
It's worthy of note, that in 1983, Ed Koch had the backing of both the Democratic party and the Republican party in NYC. It didn't make him a Republican any more then this makes Giuliani a Democrat.
To your larger point, a person's past actions do have something to do with their future actions, but it's not the only indicator. If I had judged Ronald Reagan's future by his past, I'd expect that he'd liberalize abortion laws, raise taxes, and generally be a center-right or even Nixon like Republican. Oops. Guess that didn't work out so well.
Reagan was a democrat and later admited he changed his views on abortion. I can't speak for Nixon because I don't remember where he stood on that issue. Rudy admits he supports abortions still, so there is a difference between the two.
You know NY politics better than I do. What you said about party endorsements is similar to what someone said over on the youtube thread. Another poster answered by saying this:
Yea, I am. I'm a real straight shooter, if you know what I mean. :-)
But? : )
;-)
Oh for Pete's sake. I barely remember making the argument at the time that it wasn't smart politically, nor was it consistent with making right to life arguments up to the state instead of the federal government, which is your position with Roe v. Wade, correct?
I'm just so tired of the inconsistent arguments offered by you and your friends. I don't care in the least that you don't have any respect for my opinions. I've long since worried about trying to get you to think logically.
It is WAY past time to be battling about Terry Schiavo at this forum. If you want to dwell on it for the rest of your life, go for it. Leave me out of it.
That's true in a sense, but it overlooks the larger picture. After all, Giuiani did not run for, nor did he receive, the nomination of the NYC Democratic Party.
If I'm correct, Giuliani never said he wouldn't run for the Republican nomination, he merely said he'd be willing to accept the Democratic nomination if the situation presented its self.
Clearly, given his views and given his association with Reagan and such, he wasn't going to get anywhere with that, so he didn't run for the Democratic endorsement. But with a system like NY's, you'd have to be either a fool, or an uncompromising ideological purist, not to accept the nomination of any party if it presented it's self as a realistic possibility, because it's virtually impossible for it to hurt you and will all but certainly help you win.
Ed Koch didn't run for the Republican nomination during his first run, but accepted it during his second run. It didn't make him a Republican by any real standard, but it he won with 80something% of the vote because of it.
It also has to be put in the context of Giuliani's support of non-partisan elections in NYC. I'm not sold on his position, but it's a position he's taken for a long time, which further explains why he'd accept the Democratic nomination.
Think of it this way: Would anybody around here complain if Zell Miller were nominated by both the Republican and Democratic parties for President? (no, that won't ever happen, that's not the point) Didn't think so.
Gingrich is my favorite of all those rumored to be in the race.
The social conservatives have blackballed him, too, so I don't think the argument changes.
I don't know who I'll vote for when Texas gets a chance to vote. I suspect this forum will have gone to hell before then at the rate it's going, so my opinion here might not matter.
SIGH. thanks for actually addressing the POST i sent you (not)
Not once have I got on a thread and called you names. i have never mashed the abuse button on anyone, including you. I have never accused you of posting drunk, or made up a single story about you. EVER.
Secondly I dont think anyone was flaunting thier past. We were having fun, and apparently fun is different to each person. Sure we can laugh at things now that maybe were painful at one time. And just maybe some of the stories were funny to us. Big deal.
Yes I am divorced. I suppose you would hold me in much higher esteem had I remained married to someone who set my feet on fire, or my lashes and brows. Who would get up in the a.m before me and sit under the hood of my car and then tell me he "rigged my breaks so id die" before going to visit my mother, because he didnt like her (and those are the MINOR things).
Yes I suppose had I stayed married id be more to your liking and better fit your idea of purity in the conservative party.
Did I experiment with drugs as a teen, sure. and that reflects on me now, as an adult HOW? I have NEVER bedded strange men, EVER.
Under your purist logic, anyone who has ever done anything bad or questionable in thier past has no right to discuss family values.
Well then, lets tell all the women who have had abortion and now regret it, to just shut up. i mean after all only folks who have NEVER done anything bad have the right to speak about the horrors of it. oh and the exhomosexuals, lets shoosh them too and the xdruggies ect.
Some folks who have had VERY checkered pasts, but have turned thier lives around have helped the conservative social values more than any pious, self rightous person could imagine doing. But hey, lets shut them all up anyway. right? They might make the purists look bad *gasp*
I will post and say whatever I want. this is my forum too. Dont like what I post? Fine dont read them. You thought our thread was disgusting FINE-why did you read it then?
You sure got all your little pointers down for someone so repulsed by what they read.
I didnt say anything to you yesterday to be mean and I clarified that. Apparently you like the way you are and this IS the image you wish to project. fine. more power to you. But dont expect me to just stand by and take it.
Personally i think youd prefer we werent all off having a rip roaring good time. youd much prefer that we were all here banging our heads against the rudy wall so that you and your cronies could instead call us self rightous, religious bigots.
BTW, I think your choice of a candidate says WAY more about your family values then anything i could ever post! now if you dont mind, id like to get on with my evening. Have a good night nopardons and please dont bother responding to me. you posts have said enough already.
All the best to you!
Without an Afghanistan to focus upon, we will take a hit and stand feckless for all our great technology ... because the political environment prevents our Commander-in-Chief from sending our special forces and technologically superior weaponry deep into Islamofascist strongholds like Iran, Pakistan, or Indonesia to terminate with extreme prejudice the demonic scum. And our borders will remain open to any infiltration because business interests direct our politicians in the illegal immigration issue.
I am not hopeful at this point because the democrat party has so divided US in order to manipulate voting blocks, it has made us impotent. The clinton goons wants Rudy as their main opponent, IMHO, and that tells me they know how to soil his image in order to promote her lowness to the white whorehouse. The democrap party doesn't get it, the war with Islamofascism, and Republican politicians are too focused upon their political negatives to act out of principles ... those intangibles of conservative character.
Rudy is not a unifying figure though he may be tough. Without unity of purpose in the nation's politicians, we are disarmed and totally vulnerable, split in half on resolve ... just the way the democrat party wants this nation so we the people fall at their socialist feet to beg for government to care for us not just protect us. I fear that is Rudy's strategy also, to so tie his future to protection as to ignore the fundamentals of what conservatism is. Rudy Giuliani is no conservative.
"I feel, sadly, that should this happen, as a practical matter nothing much would change as no state would ban first trimester abortions, anyway." Why is it professing conservatives cannot get beyond kill or kill ... why must pregnancy termination supported with law be an automatic death sentence for the alive unborn. Cannot you or your associates see another way, to base pregnancy termination upon self defense for the woman and the right to remain alive for the alive unborn?
Well, I have news for you.......IT ISN'T; so please stop hijacking thread after thread after thread.
And no, I think that there are some very good reasons for people to get divorced. But they shouldn't find fault with others, for being divorced; that's sheer hypocrisy.
BTW, Rudy won the S.C. straw poll tonight. :-)
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.