Posted on 01/24/2008 9:47:43 PM PST by Graybeard58
The 2008 primary election process has clearly been unfair to conservative candidates, and here's why. Several liberal and moderate/independent states chose to hold their primary elections and caucuses early, all wanting to be first — so they said. But look at what has happened as a result. Conservative candidates like Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have been drummed out of the race by breaking their bank accounts in non conservative states before the rest of the country ever had a chance to vote for them. Is this what we call "fair and democratic elections"?
These are supposed to be national elections, not independent state elections. By allowing some states to hold primaries before others gives those states the advantage to propel or retard the individual campaigns depending on the political landscape of those few states. As we are now seeing, when liberal and moderate states hold early elections, conservative candidates have no chance of ever making it into the general election or winning the presidency.
If we are ever again to have fair elections in this country, then primary elections are going to have to be standardized and held on the same day in all states, if everyone is to have a chance to participate in the election process. Either that or there is going to have to be a media blackout until everyone has had a chance to vote. Election returns are not allowed to air until the polls are closed. Does it make any sense that we should be seeing election returns from other states before we even have a chance to go to the polls? I don't want a few small states deciding who we can vote for in the party primary elections.
We hear so much about voter disenfranchisement these days but nobody is talking about the disenfranchisement of conservatives to vote for candidates who share their views. If your favorite candidate is purged from the race early, then where is your right to vote for the candidate of your choice? "Write ins?" In most voting methods today there is no provision to write in a candidate's name, and even if there were, what chance would he have of winning? Most voters are going to vote for a name printed on the ballot. This year we have seen the largest disenfranchisement of voters in history, and they are all conservatives.
Did this occur by chance, or was it planned from the start? Considering the ambitions of George Soros and Billary Clinton to gain and hold power over the country by any means necessary, by hook or by crook, I can't dismiss the possibility that this was no accident. Yet the Republican leadership will never challenge the legitimacy of elections or the likelihood of voter fraud on the part of the Democrats. It's almost as though they are willing parties to election corruption.
Now the media wants us to think that John McCain is the frontrunner for the Republicans in spite of fact that he is the most liberal Republican in the race. McCain will never be elected president, the conservative base simply will not vote for him. Most of them would rather vote for Ron Paul who may be a conservative alternative on a 3rd party ticket in November, or they will simply not vote at all, just as they did in 2006. Why go to the polls to vote if no one you like is running?
The purpose of voting is having your voice heard and counted for the candidate of your choice; not about electing a political party that no longer represents your views. We are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils in America. What's the point when it's simply six of one, and a half dozen of the other, both choices bad? Voters who feel disenfranchised will simply throw up their hands and say "why bother?" McCain would be preferable to the Clintons or Obama only on the issue of national security. On most other issues, there is virtually little difference.
Liberal economic policies have dominated Washington ever since George W. Bush was elected. The government continues to pump worthless money into the economy just like they did this week with the cut in interest rates, which only makes the problem worse. The economy should be controlled by the free market, not the government. This is just another example of the Communism that has been taking over America.
Every time the government does something to influence the economy, it just gets worse. That is the same thing that destroyed the Soviet Union. Eventually it just went bankrupt trying to control the Russian economy and "take care of its people," just like the Democrats are campaigning on right now. Problems only get worse when government gets involved. The government is the problem, not the solution.
The economy has to be allowed to flow freely and seek its own level, influenced only by the marketplace. Anytime the government interferes with that using what they call "stimulus," it causes more inflation and our money declines in value, resulting in only an artificial and temporary fix. The real fix is to let the economy seek its own market level, not pump it up with artificial stimulus just to make the numbers look good on paper.
Yet, the American voters are still too ignorant to see it and continue voting for these liberals in both parties who are driving the country straight into Communism. The Democrat plan of dumbing down America over the past couple of generations has been successful. It's too late now to re-educate the people, because it has become too widespread. I'm afraid we have already lost the country. We have tried to warn them for decades but they wouldn't listen. They insist on asking what their country can do for them, rather than what they can do for their country.
With our money becoming worth less and less, and our products dependent mostly on foreign trade, even Washington spending more money to keep 'the people' alive won't help; it will all just be worthless. Bush and the Congress should have seen this coming years ago but ignored it. They all invested in their own survival by giving our money to special interests and pork vendors who they expect will pay them back personally after the crash of our economy.
With Fred Thompson now out of the race, I'm almost ready to switch my support to Ron Paul and throw them a real turkey. His foreign policy is a disaster but he's a strict constitutionalist and will veto every bill the Congress tries to pass that includes unconstitutional spending, which is just about all of them.
Of course, Paul won't win the elections — no way, no how. He will likely run as a 3rd party candidate, splitting the Republican Party in two because the Republican Party no longer seems to represent real conservatives. I don't think Paul is the right man for the job but I would like to see some of his policies regarding constitutional government established in Washington.
I'm starting to think now that this may be the time for a mass exodus from the Republican party and the right time to form a 3rd party of conservatives, but without the antiwar, anti-defense, blame America first attitude of the Paul Libertarians.
It doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the Republican Party, they had their chance. Every real conservative who speaks out seems to get thrown under the bus just like moderates do in the Democrat party. Remember George Allen, Rick Santorum, and Tom Delay? Many of us hoped that Republicans would have learned their lesson from the 2006 elections. That being that "you can't beat the Democrats by trying to be like them." Instead, the Republicans have become the Socialist party, while the Democrats have become the Communist party. I've had enough of it.
There is a chance that Romney can hold Republicans together but not McCain or Huckabee. Nor can Giuliani, but he will probably be next to drop out if Huckabee doesn't beat him to it. Romney is going to have problems with some Evangelicals who won't support him on religious grounds, and conservatives will not support or vote for McCain. There is little chance we can win in November. The Republican Party has destroyed itself by trying to be like Democrats.
There is the possibility that the Republican party has been corrupted by Democrats crossing over to vote for Republicans in the primary in order to accomplish just what we see happening. It could all be part of a plot hatched by George Soros and the Clintons to do just that. It's something to consider. Otherwise, I just can't make any sense out of the way the Republicans are voting today. Where have all of the conservatives gone? To their graves? Or were they all waiting to vote for a conservative in the states that now will not have that opportunity?
A mass exodus from the Republican Party, now on the heels of Thompson's departure, would send a clear message to the party leadership that they have gone astray and are on the verge of collapse if they don't come back to the conservative base. In the meantime, even registered as independent voters without party affiliation, we can still vote against the democrats and for the Republican candidate or anyone else we choose.
Conservatives are loyal to their values and beliefs, not to a political party. The Republican Party no longer shares those values and beliefs and no longer deserves the support of conservatives. I will reregister as an independent voter until I see a third party emerge that represents my beliefs. In the meantime, I consider myself just another disenfranchised conservative voter.
NO YOU THINK AGAIN!
If Campaigning in New Hampshire and Iowa is “bankrupting’ candidates (two states where the time tested way to go there is to rent a bus and spend six months driving to every coffee shop in the state) please explain how the proposed ALL STATES IN ONE DAY primary is going to be affordable?
Who won Iowa? Huckabee, who is near dead last in fundraising. But that win got him time and space to keep going.
You keep saying that early states eliminate people, but who is going to benefit in your all-in-one plan?
Please answer the question, rather than re-stating your thesis this time.
Who's doing well? Not the ones who have solid positions on anything -- it's the ones who do the best job of presenting their roses and chocolates.
Who's to blame for that? It's the Republican voters, that's who. If they can't expend the brain cells to look beyond roses and chocolates, they deserve whatever the hell they get.
National Elections are controlled by the Fed.
Primaries are controlled by the state parties.. THe RNC and DNC are the only ones who can punish a state for playing with their dates.. they did so for Michigan, but not others.
Of course I find it amusing this guy consideres IOWA a liberal state.
bttt
Before anyone said a word in debate Hunter should have been well enough known within the party to have kicked off with a fairly good base.
Thompson also was a well known commodity, who offered concise and written positions rather than merely offering an insincere "me too" after each semi-conservative public statement made by another.
Tancredo will never escape the anti immigration label that's been pinned on him - yet he was a match for any of he RINO candidates for as long as he lasted.
I'm embarrassed that the GOP has a Ron Paul faction: even when he is being fairly rational he's a freak.
The blatant elitism that has kept Huckabee in the race only supports the stereotype of an intolerant Christian - a stereotype pleases socialists and muslims to pieces.
Both sucked more supporters from the apparently weak conservative block left within the party than from the poll driven, corporate think, handsies across the aisle, libpublicans we're left with.
Of course, neither the media or the RNC would toss a rope to a drowning conservative - all they need to do is say "Ronald Reagan" once in awhile and move on to what they really want to say.
But remember that Tanc, Duncan, and Fred each should have carried decent support into the race - support that should have been directed to Fred when/if the others determined that they were not strong enough to continue, support that should have allowed him to continue.
Do Conservatives really only amount to 17% [plus a small spin off from Huckabee] of the party?
If conservatives are that small a minority today, I think it is time for the following:
Go ahead and support the pubby nominee [assuming it's not McCain], that's better than conceding to Hitlery's despotism.
Then, as soon as the election has been ratified, call for a convention to establish a conservative platform, in writing, published, and for use as either basis for a third party or as a demand for reform of the republican party. That would leave three years to find out if there might be a two party system again someday - while hopefully slowing and possibly stopping the socialist takeover.
PS: I think Thompson's greatest mistake was that he believed he was speaking to adults.
It's tempting to sit back and watch the boat sink, except that we're in the boat, too.
Robert Redford made a movie about this exact subject in 1972, The Candidate. Although I can't imagine anyone being further from me on political issues than Redford, the film is about politicians being bought and sold, lies and smears, the dog and pony show over the substantive issues, the corruption of the candidate by the campaign, and from a liberal perspective, basically all the same things conservatives are disgusted about now.
It's changed some, but it's nothing new. Politics has always been about shaking babies and kissing hands, finding a few catch phrases, being packaged like a Happy Meal, making deals with the devil, scrounging for contributions and all the rest.
Fred knew this when he got in, and in the end, the criticism of him was true. He didn't have the fire in the belly.
The only reason conservatives are complaining about the game right now is the same reason Raiders fans hate the tuck rule. We're losing. So, we got a choice, snuffle that people aren't smart enough to vote for us, like Gore did in 2000 and Kerry did in 2004 or start trying to figure out a way to win.
I never heard Ronald Reagan make the excuse that the electorate was just too stupid to vote for him, or that campaigning was shoving roses and chocolates up people's rear ends. He dealt with an election process just as flawed as the one Thompson just exited, and he managed to campaign without degrading himself or acting like the process was beneath him. He seemed to be pretty good at it, too.
Oh, MAAA-AA-AAAAN! That post deserves a prize!! Very good!
Geeze. Life isn't perfect, you know. You have a right to vote, not a right to have the person you absolutely think is the best have a statistically even chance of winning the election. It is a rough and tumble system that rewards, uh, smart politicians.
Speaking for myself, you assume a lot of false things regarding motivations and beliefs. Further, it is factually erroneous and emotionally insulting (or it would be to me) for you to describe those who disagree with you as stubbornly searching for "the perfect" candidate and of being so sissified that we don't recognize or understand your "rough and tumble" system.
It is so rough-and-tumble and your kind of thinking misunderstands it so thoroughly, in fact, that such thinking has allowed fear to rough-and-tumble the Republican party into Big Government Liberal Lite over the past 30 years. Yes, you should know all about rough-and-tumble, because you've most certainly been rolled.
I have, too. The difference is, I've figured it out. You have yet to get the big picture.
The kid has the right to wear his sexuality on his sleeve, as well; I have no right to stop him, nor does his employer or anybody else on this planet. We and the kid have the right to cause and deal with the consequences of free choices, which include the choice to discriminate against things we don't like. You want to fiddle with the consequences, and that is most decidedly OUTSIDE YOUR RIGHT and OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Do you want some cheese with that Whine!
I used to have a boss that would shut people up with that line, especially when those people had legitimate complaints and were airing them in search of a solution.
That company has fallen on very hard times because of bad management. What a surprise.
Bill, here's a couple of questions for you: Do you want a tennis ball stuffed in your mouth so we don't have to hear that tired old "cheese with your whine" pun again? Are we still supposed to laugh at it?
Thanks Finny. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I’m sorry if mine were taken as insensitive.
You know, I agree that the GOP is liberal lite. I’m not happy about it. I’m interested in constructive ways to address it.
But in the context of this race I think the reasons we don’t have a more conservative front runner, in rough order of importance are:
1.) No excellent more conservative candidate stepped forward.
2.) The ones that did step forward were marginal in terms of background.
3.) They underperformed. (Except Ron Paul, who overperformed)
I would add reason 0.) above them all: we are a more liberal country in many respects than we were 30 years ago. The Republicans want a hand in governing. We have a two party system, and inevitably both parties try to sit on the middle of where the voters are to get to 50+1% and win.
Thus neither major party is ideologically pure. For a while, we had a tiny bit of momentum to roll back FDR’s restructuring of America (say Newt’s Contract as the high water mark), but we blew it. Some of the most ideological Republicans blew it the worst. (Including the Clinton impeachment which totally killed the smaller government momentum in Congress.)
I recently re-read “The Conscience of A Conservative”. Goldwater sold a few million copies of the paperback when running for office in 1964. It is interesting to read. Most of the things that he is disputing are completely settled. He argues against special union laws. He argues against much of the 1964 Civil Rights laws.
As long as we have Social Security we are saying to citizens “It is the governments job to take care of you”. At least some of the time. (When you are young, old, unemployed, have babies you can’t afford, sick, retired or can’t afford your medicine).
When was the last time you heard someone seriously argue for eliminating social security? Bush wanted to let people under 40 put 20% in stocks.
That was demagogued like he was proposing putting swastikas on the flag. Even 30 years ago you could still talk about whether Social Security made sense.
So, with all that in mind I have little patience for people proposing that George Soros is controlling the timing of primaries. Hey, he doesn’t need to work that issue!
If my tone conveyed exasperation it was with the extremely tenditious arguments and confused issue jumping of the orginal article.
Eastern states with big cities are like that.
If you live in that hot bed of liberalism called Wyoming, I'd advise you to just move, it's hopeless.
*chuckle*
I have deep contempt for the traitorous Fourth Estate, especially as I have a degree in journalism and worked with and around so-called "newsmen" for years. Now, thank goodness, I can ignore them in my work. I don't blame them directly for Thompson's drop or the primaries. I do think, and have always thought, that open primaries are a form of oxymoron. So the question of the blame is not on my radar, though I'll gladly broadcast my contempt for the blatant fraud perpetrated by "newsmen" of the MSM -- they are not newsmen, they are propagandists, pure and simple. They are supposed to be our eyes and ears; instead they are our censors and they are too pompous to acknowledge it to themselves. They do an enormous disservice to our nation. They deserve considerable contempt, and they have it.
My thinking is that there are identity politics going on here where one set of "conservatives" gets the title solely determined by the fact that they embrace Gospel morality (as do I) that says, among other things, that abortion and homosexuality are abominations and should be battled at all times. I choose those two examples because they are so evidently at play in 21st century America. This principle of Limited Government does not factor into the social conservative's politics. This Gospel conservative, if you will, thinks that "conservative" means using the government to enforce Gospel morality on a free people.
The second and in my opinion truer conservative, is the one who gets the title "conservative" because he believes in being conservative in the application of government the way a smart person is conservative in the application of salt to the dinner plate. Sparing, cautious, minimal, is what this "conservative" stands for in terms of government. In other words, Limited Government.
As it turns out, it was the abandonment of Limited Government that led to the very things that social conservatives rightly hate and despise the most in American culture -- a government that is actively participating in forcing the cultural normalization of homosexuality on people, and a government that has successfully forced all people to support with their labor (tax dollars) the abortion industry. The Federal Government thinks it's immoral to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace or in organizations like the Boy Scouts, and the Federal Governmen thinks it's immoral not to fund abortions for poor women. If that Federal Government had been LIMITED, the national enabling of abortion and homosexuality would never have come to pass and social conservatives wouldn't even be DEALING with two of the things that bother them most.
Sadly, the two "conservatives" are diametrically opposed and never the twain shall meet. Either you're for limited government or you're not. Fidelity to Limited Government conservatism would have prevented Roe v. Wade and the prospect of gay marriage because it would have allowed us to wholesomely, freely discriminate against them of our own free will.
To me, the real solution is for us to convince social conservatives that their moral concerns are best served by Limited Government, as is illustrated in recent history.
I think the problem was the fact primaries were “open”.
We need a closed primary system. If you don’t know your party 90 days before an election you should not be voting in a primary.
Well when someone (Ann Coulter) says their favorite (Duncan Hunter)is X (I know she HAD stated this)and then consciously states otherwise, I can only conclude that she is faking me out one way or another.
It is not her analysis that is of ANY consequence here.
Since I can no longer trust her statements as a indicator of her politics, she has become as bad (and UNTRUSTWORTHY) as those she chastises for similar behavior.
And I like her but she has betrayed us conservatives when we needed her to stand for what she believes.
Sad situation.
I can't go quite that far, though it is sickening to see her proppin' Romney. She has caught the same "pragmatism" bug that seems to be going around in Republican circles. Her approach to the issue was far easier for me to swallow than Hannity whoring himself as he has. I refuse to listen to him anymore. Of those that betray us, I would measure Coulter the least of them.
I do agree though, on just the two "great biggies", Pro-Life and 2nd Amendment, Romney is a POS, and she ought to know better.
” She (AnneCoulter) has caught the same “pragmatism” bug that seems to be going around in Republican circles.”
Tom McClintok has managed to NOT succume to that disease.
He has come out for the ONLY conservative left in the race.
Now that is logical and consistent.
Damn the pragmatism disease - NO MORE LESSERof2Evils !!!
As screwy as RPaul’s foreign pols seem to be, he is the ONLY one that would certainly put a cabosh to any DemoRat congressional situation.
As point of interest/clarification, his position on Isreal is the most nuanced and best solution to Isreal’s delimma. Since US keeps Isreal from defending itself by supporting the Muslims at every turn, by removing US intervention as foreign policy that WOULD be a solid support for Isreal’s self defense.
I’ve become most annoyed at all those FReepers who say RP CAN’T be elected. Well if no solid conservatives will support the ONLY conservative remaining that would be correct.
Sad situation when abondoned reason/principals and failed common sense are dispensed for the cure to “pragmatism disease”.
Pragmatism disease IS WHAT GOT US HERE !!%##^^@@**!!!
Read the warning label folks !!!
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.