"Republican Party Falling Apart"

The Post Chronicle ^ | May 22, 2007 | By Basil Harrington

[Tennessee Nana]

“If Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter does not get the GOP nomination”

Ahhhhhhh noooooooo...

Not Ron Paul...

FRed Thompson/Duncan Hunter, FRed Thompson/Tom Tancredo or FRed Thompson/JC Watts...

Or IF FRed does not run..Hunter or Tancredo...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Fred has yet to prove his conservative credentials, IMO.<<

So there is no electable candidate you like? I have some doubts about Thompson, but he sounds better than Giuliani and McCain. I think we should give Thompson a look.

[theFIRMbss]

>you don’t seem able to argue your position. What is your position?

I plainly stated
my "position" way back in
post 39 and

"argued" it plainly
back in post 62. Now
I'm leaving this thread

because it kinda
feels like THAT OTHER THREAD where
Freepers went bye-bye...

[Psycho_Bunny]

George W Bush’s legacy is the destruction of the Republican Party.

[DesScorp]

"Where do you get that from? Because he believes in the Constitution?"

Because he's a libertarian whackjob that places the blame on America for Al Qaeda's attacks.

It's probably time for Ron Paul's cult members to spam Little Green Footballs again.

[JoeSixPack1]

After ‘00, they said the DemonRats were finished and the sky was falling.

After ‘02, they said the DemonRats were finished and the sky was falling.

After ‘04, they said the DeomnRats were finished and the sky was falling.

After ‘06, they said the Repubbies were finished and the sky was falling.

‘07: the DemonRats are in trouble, the Repubbies are in trouble.

The sky hasn’t fallen.

[SittinYonder]

I think we should give Thompson a look

I've looked and I have questions that aren't being answered. I wonder based on his record whether or not he represents a continuation of the current domestic policy. My position on Thompson remains open, as I've stated several times.

As far as "electable" candidates ... any one of them, with enough votes, is electable.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I’m keeping an open mind about the candidates I think are not completely hopeless.

[SittinYonder]

I plainly stated my "position" way back in post 39 and "argued" it plainly back in post 62. Now I'm leaving this thread

Wow, thanks for coming back and posting more worthless jibberish.

because it kinda feels like THAT OTHER THREAD where Freepers went bye-bye...

I'm not sure what your insinuating, but I doubt very much that I'm going to be banned because I posted a story seeking discussion about the conservative candidates in this race. But maybe you're right ... hit the "report abuse" button and we'll see if I can log on tomorrow.

[bmwcyle]

The parties will still bet there. I’m worried about our Constitution.

[okie01]

As nice as this sounds, the author needs a reality check

Or led away to a place where he could watch the birds and listen to quiet, soothing music.

[mad_as_he$$]

Another “Duh” moment.

[SittinYonder]

I’m keeping an open mind about the candidates I think are not completely hopeless.

So am I. I've been very clear where I stand on Thompson, but he's got a record that begs questions. As long as he stays out of the race *officially* he can continue to avoid answering the questions.

I'm not opposed to Thompson, and as it stands now if he's the nominee I'll vote for him. But the other candidates are being vetted while Fred sits on the sidelines.

[SittinYonder]

Because he's a libertarian whackjob that places the blame on America for Al Qaeda's attacks.

You sound like Chris Matthews at the MSNBC debates when Paul said "original intent."

I fail to see what's wrong with someone who believes we should stick to the Constitution.

Paul deviates on two key points with the Libertarian Party - he's not in favor of open borders and he's Pro Life. I'm sure there are others, but I haven't paid attention to the LP platform in many years.

I don't agree with Paul's position on the WOT and his failure to understand that it's not our policies but the "dictates of their religion" (as Tancredo put it) that drives the Islamofascists to hate us.

But just because he's wrong on that issue doesn't make him a bad person, and it doesn't mean that those who appreciate a strict constructionist in the Congress are "cult members."

[SittinYonder]

I don’t dispute that the Republican party has a future, and perhaps the author of this piece doesn’t dispute that either. I think the real question is whether or not the limited government, conservative Republican Party has a future. People will still vote for Republicans and Republicans will still win elections, probably. But will those Republicans be big government socialists in favor of tax cuts and deficits (as opposed to big government socialist Democrats in favor of tax increases and deficits)?

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, “The Constitution means what the Founders thought it meant...”

If the Federalist Papers are any indication, the founders agonized over meaning and clarification, and such disputes as existed didn’t disappear when the Constitution was ratified. While not a believer in some squishy ‘living document’ concept used by activist judges to squeeze idealogical agendas through a Constitutional filter, I do think the establishment by the Founders of a Supreme Court, whose central purpose is one of interpretation—as well as mechanisms to effect revisions to the document—indicate that the Founders recognized that times change and history moves. That which is too rigid breaks.

[JoeSixPack1]

Stretching imagination; if a third party candidate takes the presidency (ie: some rino in denial), pubbies will lose a lot more than rats.

Super stretching imagination; the scorecard of party switchers would be fast, furious and probably down right ugly without even a kiss goodbye. :-)

[SittinYonder]

I’ve taken quite a bit of bashing on this thread - which is fine. I can defend my positions.

But I see you’re still posting on the thread without responding at all to my request that you defend the unfounded accusations and insults you hurled at me (including that I’m an anti-semite).

Are you going to apologize or can you defend the invective?

[RightOnline]

So, O Sage, why don’t you define “extremes” for the rest of us dolts.

[decal]

“But will those Republicans be big government socialists in favor of tax cuts and deficits (as opposed to big government socialist Democrats in favor of tax increases and deficits)?”

Well, that’s up to the folks who are going to be voting in the primaries next year - and those folks tend to have long memories.

All this reminds me of Sandy Tatum - he used to be head of the United States Golf Association (there’ll be a point here; bear with me now).

The USGA among other things runs the US Open, which is known for being the single-toughest test of golf each year because of the way the USGA sets up the course - long rough, fast greens, that sort of thing.

One particularly brutal year one of the players complained to Mr Tatum that it seemed the USGA was intending to humiliate the players.

Mr Tatum replied: “We’re not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, we’re trying to identify them.”

Even so with this brouhaha - we are finding out whether the GOP is worthy of remaining the party of conservatives or not.

Do the GOP conservatives, CPites and the more hawkish Libertarians join forces to toss out the RINOs, and then do the RINOs and more reasonable Dems join up to toss out the Barking Moonbats (BM for short), forcing them to join forces with the Greenies?

That wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen, to my mind - we’d have two parties that can be taken seriously, rather than the one-half party we have now.