Disenfranchised conservatives, stolen elections

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.

Re: "several liberal and moderate/independent states"

From Wikipedia's article on South Carolina:

In 1964, Barry Goldwater became the first Republican to win the state since Reconstruction. Since then, South Carolina has voted for a Republican in every presidential election from 1964 to 2004, with the exception of 1976 when Jimmy Carter, from neighboring Georgia, won the state over Gerald Ford. George W. Bush won the state in 2004 with 58% of the statewide vote over Senator John Kerry. Republicans now control the governorate, eight of nine statewide offices, both houses of legislature, both U.S. Senators, and four of six members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

SC should have been conservative enough to give Fred more than 15.7% of the vote, if Fred had a chance nationally. Hunter trailed Fred badly, and he now supports Huckabee, which should say all that needs saying about his candidacy.

Rather than complain about the primary schedule, we need better candidates. Where are the young, smart, dedicated, charismatic conservative candidates? Who, for example, is the conservative Republican version of Obama? By that I don't necessarily mean black, but young, smart, and able to appeal to college students?

I think that if the primaries were all held on the same day it would put the selection process even more into the hands of the MSM, the big donors, and wealthy candidates. Neither Duncan nor Fred were ever going to have the money to simultaneously fund organizations and air ads in multiple big states before the voting started. And without returns from the first states there is no objective criteria to determine who is allowed to participate in the "debates". I would like to see different states take the first turns, maybe through a lottery of some sort, and for the earliest votes to be for registered Republicans only. The current system is flawed and disadvantageous to conservatives, but holding all of the primaries on the same day would make things much worse, I think.

The bottom line to me from this election is that Fred had a perfectly reasonable chance to get it done and just didn't run the sort of campaign he needed to. I say this as a Fredhead from the start who has not boosted any other candidate and is now only very reluctantly trying to warm up to the Mittster.

Good article.

I would add a couple of observations to it.

1) 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.

True, but there is more going on. There is also the reality that, the socialists having taken over the democrat party, the JFK type democrats ( pro America, support the military, lower taxes but big government programs types) have fled to the republican party. They are not small government, constitutionalists. The result is that the republican party, at present, is really the democrat party of the 1950's and early 1960's repackaged.

Excluding the libertarian, who is not a republican either, the four remaining candidates are all either 1960's democrats or old liberal republicans. They are not conservatives.

2) The delegate procedure needs to be changed to closed party member or registered republican only voting (registered well in advance not the last minute) with no cross over. it also needs to be set up so as to favor no specific group or region.

The only solution is either a renewal of the Republican party on principles or a third party. What the republican party really needs is a leader who is committed to conservatism and who is young and vibrant and who can also overcome the MSN. The latter element is no small battle. Hunter and Thompson fit some of these criteria, but neither could get any traction.

When even some of the alternative media (radio, print, Internet, and blogs) are willing to compromise principle to "beat Hillary," we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Hillary lite, which is what the top four remaining candidates approach, + a democrat controlled congress = a virtual Hillary. We need a candidate who will stand up to the MSN + the democrat socialists. Otherwise the net result will be the functional equivalent to electing her. It is one of the reasons Rush Limbaugh, who has not compromised principle, has said that with some of the candidates (not all) he might not be able to support the nominee.

I have no idea what I will do in the primary or in November, living in a blue state my vote hardly counts, though I always vote. Since my representative in the House, a republican who campaigned as a conservative, twice voted to override the president's veto and voted for the socialist - Hillary care - version of SCHIP, I also have no one to vote for on more than one level.

I do know one thing, my real influence is with my wallet. It is shut, since Thompson dropped out, and it is staying that way.

Great post.

The gradual erosion of the two-party system into a "compromise" de facto one-party system is upon us. The Republican Party that believed in small government is gone because TRUE Republicans would be out there saying "We shouldn't be involved in this--vote for me, and I'll cut things, vote for them, they'll give you things."

When the debate is no longer about "SHOULD the government be so involved in people's lives?" but "HOW MUCH should the government be spending for you?" then conservatism is done.

I would say we need to reconstitute the party and return to basics but that is just silly, and a denial of reality.

Reality is that the average American believes that big government is there, so we might as well get OUR share. And that spells the death of conservative government.

I'll await the stupid attack posts from those who want to live in fantasy land.

Who, for example, is the conservative Republican version of Obama? By that I don't necessarily mean black, but young, smart, and able to appeal to college students?

Basically, they have none. All the RINOs are old men now. No young blood. J.C. Watts might have been a good choice, but he quit on us. He left Congress. His choice, but, he could have been a good one. But, they have no good, solid, young ones that would interest anyone nationally. Look at the Republican field in this election. There is NOT one candidate that everyone can rally too. They are basically all the same, liberal, socialist, RINOs. They differ a bit here and there, but are mainly the same. Just change the face. The words and actions are basically the same. No, the republican party has pretty much put its self back to the 1960s again. It is going to take another 20-30 years for them to crawl back up. Then, they will repeat their stupidity again, and down they will go. Republicans are republicans own worse enemy. I only have to offer RINOcrat Socialist Party member, liberal president Jorge Bush as an example.

Reality is that the average American believes that big government is there, so we might as well get OUR share. And that spells the death of conservative government.

The trouble with getting OUR share is that someone has to pay for it. There is one potential bright spot, though it may be a long time coming. It is rooted in the weight of reality. The present approach to big government is unsustainable on both programs and taxes. The refusal to do our own drilling for oil and build refineries etc. adds to the problem and makes it less sustainable. Social security, which only Thompson addressed, is going to hit a wall.

Less government control (getting the government out of the way), lower taxes, etc. are the only solution. The Europeans, who are in denial, are being made to face this reality in some areas. Just as they are being made to face the war with Islamofascism.

The trouble with building a house of cards is that eventually, being unsustainable, you have to return to reality. The house of cards crashes. Constitutional principles, which limit the federal government, and are in the USA constitution are the answer.

The problem is like surgery, the pain of getting through it and the recovery can be long.

When was the last time you got a call from the Republican Party asking for money, and they didn’t hit you with the “We have to beat Hillary” speech? Beating Hillary has become the primary, if not the only, cause of the Republican Party. The Clintons set out to ruin us, and in a round about way, they have. Conservative ideals, towards family, community, the Constitution our nation and the economy are what we need to beat Hillary and all the Hillarys to follow. Instead, we champion candidates who pay grudging homage to conservatism to sucker in the gullible, party faithful. They are semi pro life for as long as they have to be. They believe in the right to bear arms to shoot ducks until they can take those arms away. They love the invasion of illegals and amnesty, so long as it doesn’t cost them votes. They all promise to nominate strict, constructionist judges, all evidence to the contrary. They all promise to give us tax breaks, but can’t say how they are going to cut down the size of government They all, with the exception of Paul, promise to protect us from our enemies, but none of them can come to grips with the idea that Islam is our enemy or the simple concept of protecting our borders. They are all a bunch of liars, something that would have hurt a Republican in the past, but these days Republicans turn their heads, wink, and say that’s what Republican politicians have to do to get people with values to vote for them. Folks, these people are going to lose for us, and we won’t even have the satisfaction of saying we supported a worthy candidate. We are just doing what we’ve done for so long, supporting the lesser of two evils, and going with our best chance to beat Hillary. She is going to kick our butts. ...If the Republican Party is continue going in the direction it is right now, conservatives should consider getting out of its way.

If the Republican Party is continue going in the direction it is right now, conservatives should consider getting out of its way.”

As a conservative, I have already...

I voted for Duncan before he dropped out and now I’m doing nothing till Nov...

I just resigned my position in the Republican party and I havent paid my dues for this year to the 2 Republican womens Clubs or 2 Pachyderm Clubs I belong to because I’m not going to attend any meetings this year...give money,...help raise money or do their “good works”

They can potter along without me...

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.