Posted on 11/12/2008 8:31:15 PM PST by SecAmndmt
(CNN) -- The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?
Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?
But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
That is the reason NO ONE (sorry a couple of thousand our of 200 million) went for Paul.
Like it or not, marketing is what it is all about. If he couldn't market himself better than a couple of thousand what does that tell you?
Have a nice day.
It’s been a while since I took German, but I thought that “Arbeit Macht Frei” amounts to “Work Makes One Free,” and in practice that particular sign equated to “Jews, Gypsies, and Subhumans Only.”
Just my $0.02.
—BrazillionBob
True. But in the new Obamanation, it might well be translated as “Whites Only”...
IRAQ WAR IS AGAINST TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE POSITION
March 9, 2006
House of Representatives
Mr. Speaker, William F. Buckley has often been described as the godfather of modern-day conservatism. In 2004, he wrote that if he had known in 2002 what he now knew, that he would have opposed the war in Iraq. Last June, he wrote that if we stayed much longer there, it would soon become misapplication of pride rather than steadfastness of purpose. Now, in one of his most recent columns, Mr. Buckley wrote that, ``One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. `
` Many conservatives said before this war started that it would mean massive foreign aid, huge deficit spending, and would place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military, when traditionally conservatives have been the biggest critics of the U.N.
The so-called neo-con architects of this unnecessary war have led people down a primrose path in the opposite direction of and very much against every traditional conservative position.
He’s got a point about the Republicans losing their way, ideologically, but he’s still a goober about the War on Terror. Does he think that if we don’t defend ourselves, that the terrorists will go away? We tried that while x42 was in office, and all it got us was continual attacks, leading up to 9/11. Since we started fighting back, and doing our due diligence as far as intelligence in concerned, we haven’t been attacked on our soil.
Umm...you do know who won the election, right?
Would Ron Paul have won if nominated? Doubtful. But the outcome wouldn't have been any different than with McCain: a republican loss.
What idiots voted for Bob Dole II in the republican primaries?
I would bet more republicans favor abortion being a state issue too. Fred Thompson did.
The reason for that is that every faction in the Big Tent supported smaller government in theory - except for their own particular agendas. Bush ended up having to buy them all off to keep them in the Tent, resulting in a bigger spending party than the Democrats, who at least wanted to cut military spending to pay part of the bill for their social schemes.
There just aren't that many fiscal conservatives left in the Republican Party. It's representatives have come to the cynical conclusion that they can't sell that message, so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The prophet speaks!!
Ouch that’s gonna leave a mark lol!
Ron Paul didn’t win because not enough Republicans were interested in him, or thought he had a chance against the Democrat candidate.
No, you get the Congress to declare a war and kick ass. That’s what works, that’s what’s always worked in the past, but instead we have globalists like Bush adhering to something different.
“I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.” ~Ron Paul
Congress made speeches about doing that when x42 was President, but he didn't think he had the political capital to do it, what with Monica and the possibility of impeachment, and all. Those same folks in Congress decided that they didn't want to give that power to George W. Bush, so he had to do it without them.
“Does he think that if we don’t defend ourselves, that the terrorists will go away?”
I don’t think RP has ever advocated that we not defend ourselves.
His argument is that we should go after the specific individuals responsible for planning 9/11, and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy.
I find it ironic that the same CIC who is supposed to have kept us safe for 8 years has left our southern border virtually wide open during that time.
“Ron Paul didn’t win because not enough Republicans were interested in him, or thought he had a chance against the Democrat candidate.”
None of the conservative candidates had a chance. Republican voters did not have the discernment or courage to vote their conscience after the media anointed the “top tier” - globalists all. I know one person, a Huckabee supporter, who decided at the last moment to vote McCain instead, because “he was going to win anyway”.
There is only one way for conservatives to retake the party, and that is to get engaged at the grassroots level starting right now.
Then it shouldn’t have been done. How much trouble would we have saved?
If it was REALLY necessary, as it is now claimed, Congress would have done it.
And yet, we haven't been attacked from across that border, so somebody must be watching for terrorists there.
No, they wouldn't have, because they didn't want to have to shoulder that responsibility. Heck, they don't even want to take responsibility for closing any military bases. They shove that off onto a 'Special Commission'.
In any election in which Hussein could become the victor, the majority of voters are neither Republicans nor patriots.
Similarly, in any GOP nomination contest for POTUS in which Pork Barrel Paulie, the paleosurrenderman and shrimpin' subsidy guru of Galveston emerged as the victor, the plurality of voters would be neither Republicans nor patriots. Libertoonians, maybe.
From time to time, libertoonians make the sensible point that it is not to be taken for granted that they will vote GOP in the absence of a candidate like Al Qaeda's mouthpiece in America. To say the least, El Run Paulie and the Paulistinians should not presume to take for granted that GOP voters and other patriots will EVER vote for the snugglebunny of the Islamofascisti to be our CinC.
From time to time, libertoonians make the sensible point that it is not to be taken for granted that they will vote GOP in the absence of a candidate like Al Qaeda's mouthpiece in America. To say the least, El Run Paulie and the Paulistinians should not presume to take for granted that GOP voters and other patriots will EVER vote for the snugglebunny of the Islamofascisti to be our CinC.
Are you supposed to be a parody of some rabid and idiotic extreme Ron Paul-hater or are you for real? I can't tell.
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.