That would be supporting candidates who represent the opposition party's platform in much greater degree than your own. Pure stupidity.
Posted on 05/10/2009 1:08:11 AM PDT by Ron C.
Warning – this is a long and ‘windy’ post – not recommended for the semi-conservative or casual reader.
Lately I’ve ran across many a post and comment on FR that made me decide to again post about politics - for the sake of many of the newer Freepers – and for this nations sake. This post by Jim Robinson is corollary to what follows. Read it – Jim defines what I call a complete conservative.
Now, the first item of business - the definition of the 'Republican Party,' a.k.a., the GOP. A few members of Congress, a couple of state governors and a few past candidates for high office generally prompt the greatest amount of disparagement of the GOP on this website. Their voting screw-ups and lackluster comments are often used to denigrate 'the GOP' in general and often followed by statements such as, "Screw the GOP, I’ll never vote Republican again." That insults many, and proves that writers know little to nothing about party maintenance, or have any clue as their own responsibility for it. Yet, it is literally the voting public at large that determines what a political party becomes – it’s strengths and it’s weaknesses are a direct result of the level of public oversight and involvement in all aspects of party function and activity at the local level. Ignore that, and you get ever-poorer performance at the top – on par with the poorer performance of the citizenry in general at the bottom (local level.)
First - what the GOP is not. It is not defined by, nor do sitting members of Congress solely constitute ‘the GOP’ – yet that is the most common perception. Nor is the RNC, with a mere 165 members 'the GOP.' (All of them count in the national total, yet they are a distinct minority, very much outnumbered and at the eventual certain mercy of the total. Oh, sure – they are a powerful minority – but ultimately irrelevant in the face of the majority.)
"The party," - all political parties are made up solely of elected and appointed members within each State of the Union, along with a few chartered party club members which are by charter are allowed to join the party, pay dues, and allowed to vote in state and local party business. In California, the most populous state, there are only about 3,000 dues-paying party members qualified to vote in party business meetings and in State Party Conventions. The huge majority of GOP members in every state are elected district party representatives in local district 'central committees' – aka, 'wards' in eastern states. Of course, any elected state GOP officeholder is a member, as are any alternates or those they are allowed to appoint as members of the state party. In smaller States, the number is much less. An average per state would be perhaps 1,000 party members in the more numerous smaller states.
There is no published figure of what the 'total GOP party members nationally' is, nor is there such a figure for the 'Democratic' Party. The entirety of the GOP is not more than 62,000 members nationally.
So, lump all the RINO’s you can think of that currently serve in state and national government together, and add up the figure. Lets say you know a lot of RINO’s in Congress, and in State legislatures – and you can come up with as many as 100 of them. That would be .19% of total GOP membership – hardly representative of the huge majority at the local level, most of them quite conservative.
The second item of business here is wrapped up in what it means to be 'conservative.' You’ll not find a better definition of it than what Jim Robinson had to say in that link above. But I would go quite a bit further than Jim did – particularly in using that word 'aggressively.'
If you are under attack and faltering, and the GOP is – and if you really want to aggressively alter the makeup of the GOP – you become part of it. I did, and I have made a big difference (admittedly in the somewhat past) – by being a key force in routing RINO’s from State party leadership positions in droves. If you are really conservative, you join the war – where it counts. Either true conservatives help keep the party conservative – or you fail the final test of conservatism itself. That failure became ever greater after Ronald Reagan was elected – to the point that today less than .01 percent of GOP affiliated voters ever darken the doors of GOP meetings in their own neighborhood – and many that do are not conservative. That low number is a measure of the knowledge of the pubic in general, and of Conservatism wisdom in particular. Yet that door is THE most critical place where conservatives can help ensure the level of conservatism within the party. It seemed that once Reagan was in office, conservatives felt that their presence in the system was no longer needed. Also distressing has been the steep decline in the number of the 'faithful' – which should understand being 'watchmen on the wall' far better than those without wisdom. Sadly, today the level of Church involvement has declined to its lowest point in US history – yet, in stark comparison, during the Founding Era ministers were literally among those at the forefront of political activity.
Third - one thing needs to be understood clearly. Conservatives are extremely unlikely to ever prosper outside of the Republican Party. They must either fight to keep it pure (that is, socialism / socialist free) at the local level – or haul up the white flag of surrender. Third parties have done nothing to prosper conservatism, throughout this nation’s history. In fact, the few that have claimed conservatism (and largely aren’t) have repeatedly succeeded in doing nothing more than electing Democrats in the districts where third party candidates drew 1 to 2% of the vote – the margin by which the Democrat won. When any do gain office, they generally prove far less than conservative.
In fact the largest 'third party' vote ever recorded in US history was that of the 'Progressive Party' under Theodore Roosevelt, which drew 27.4% of the vote. But, note well - in the early 1900’s Democrats were the conservatives, while Republicans were the first to drift off into ‘progressive’ socialist politics. Unfortunately for us today, early 1900’s 'progressive' Republicans radically altered our political process, by co-opting political power to the top of the political ladder from the local level where it had resided for over 130 years. That single action helped send the party into the wilderness for near 50 years, and while it was there Democrats turned socialist and the Republican Party slowly became conservative.
Ultimately the degree of conservative success rests with conservatives themselves. And, if you’re like me – you’re a working stiff with a job somewhere or you’re working your buns off keeping a home together, caring for your family. You don’t have a lot of time – or a lot of money to sink into political activities, so if you’re going to do anything – you need to know how to be most effective with what little time you have. And believe me, you can be very effective, if you know what to do – and that is, walk into the real political arena nearest to you – at the local level, and figuratively, put on your political brass knuckles.
It is probably less than twenty minutes away from the front door of most Freepers. And, quite likely, you can gain a voting seat (without election) – simply by showing up – once or twice a month. (That is, if the local district committee is a few people shy of their allotted number of seats filled.) But, even if all the seats are filled, they all need alternates to sit in for them when they cannot attend for some reason. So take a friend or family member with you. It is worth noting here that quite often only one or two people will actually go to the trouble of getting the few signatures that it takes to get on the ballot for the Central Committee in a California district. When that happens, they are ‘elected’ by default. The position and their names don’t even appear on the ballot! Then, THEY get to appoint the remaining people to bring the district committee to its allotted number. That is a stark difference from public oversight – or 'conservative' attention to what makes up the party they choose to affiliate with. It is such apathy and indifference that has produced the squishy nature of the GOP in the largest and most populous states, and has led to ever greater pollution in even the most conservative states.
For over two decades, I voted many times per month – at the local district level, and at the county level. And, as a dues paying elected or appointed member of the state GOP, I voted often at all state conventions. I worked hard to purge liberals from any power in the state party, and I became highly effective at it. Ask RINO Pete Wilson how effective I have been. Ask Arianna Huffington, and her millionaire switch-hitting ex-husband Michael (with a very obvious case of aids) who both came lurking around the CA GOP, claiming that they were staunch Republicans. (Luckily, I knew about Arianna’s deranged past long before she came in the door – thanks to early use of the then brand new Internet.) Neither one got far, and both eventually left the GOP after being exposed for what they both were.
Bottom line, if Freepers really hope to see a GOP that harks back to conservative principles, and want to aggressively pursue such a goal - the only process that is effective begins at the most numerous level of the elected party – a few minutes away from your home. If we cannot be guardians at these most important gates to the political arena – forget about it at the state and national level. It is within this arena that conservatives can effectively block RINO’s from moving higher up the political ladder – by identifying them through personal contact, listening to their conversation, finding out what they believe and would like to see come to pass in future legislation. It is in this arena that you can identify the best – and help promote them toward higher office – and easily stop the worst of the worst.
The Reagan Revolution was initially energized by thousands of conservatives that had begun with Barry Goldwater a few years prior. In those days, back-yard political gatherings attracted literally thousands of local teens and college youth – and their parents – all of whom provided an energy level beyond any seen prior or since.
Conservatives could easily make that all happen once again – if enough of them decide they really want to become aggressive at making a political difference. Absent such an effort – conservatives will have only themselves, and their personal lack of effort to blame. Samuel Landon, one of our Founding Fathers, said it best. "On the people, therefore, of these United-States it depends whether wise men, or fools, good or bad men, shall govern them; whether they shall have righteous laws, a faithful administration of government, and permanent good order, peace, and liberty; or, on the contrary, feel insupportable burdens, and see all their affairs run to confusion and ruin."
Samuel Langdon is also quite famous for the following quote, from the same sermon. (spelling here is as in the original.)
"From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives, and all the higher powers of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding, and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God, and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish the public welfare. Beware of such as are cunning rather than wise; who prefer their own interest to every thing; whose judgment is partial, or fickle; and whom you would not willingly trust with your own private interests. When meetings are called for the choice of your rulers, do not carelessly neglect them, or give your votes with indifference, just as any party may persuade, or a sordid treat tempt you; but act with serious deliberation and judgment, as in a most important matter, and let the faithful of the land serve you. Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators; for how can you expect good laws to be made by men who have no fear of God before their eyes, and who boldly trample on the authority of his commands? And will not the example of their impiety and immorality defeat the efficacy of the best laws which can be made in favour of religion and virtue? If the legislative body are corrupt, you will soon have bad men for counsellors, corrupt judges, unqualified justices, and officers in every department who will dishonor their stations; the consequence of which will be murmurs and complaints from every quarter."
Sorry my rant is so long - but, unfortunately in some ways it is not nearly long enough. For those that have never really entered the political arena, there is a world of things you should know, and will have to learn on your own, and from others that have gone before you. I can not say it more bluntly than this - if you do not go, learn, and fight - then who will?
May God bless you...
Ron
You are a tiresome character assassin. How dare you name-call on behalf of the dumbest and most counterproductive political strategy ever devised. Dumbest ideas since the charge of the light brigade to attack everyone and anyone on the right who isnt 100% lockstep with your own dumb “all or nothing” unworkable strategy.
EV, you know perfectly well that I voted for Keyes in the primary. I also have children . It would be wrong to let Obama win and have him put our nation at risk, destroy our economy, and attack the culture of life (which he has already) by NOT trying to stop him. I would NEVER do nothing to stop Obama by failing to support McCain/Palin.
If you did NOT vote McCain/Palin, two prolife candidates then YOU are the hypocrite for failing to do the practical right thing for the culture of life ... you are so full of your own shopworn, foolish estremist bullheadedness, you cant see how you only lose supporters for the cause and divide and conquer the right with your bitter, divisive character asssassinations. you fail to see that divided we fall, and in our divisions the LEFT wins and your cause loses. Get off the high horse and stop calling people hypocrites for the crime of being smarter and more rational in their political actions than you.
You sir are the hypocrite. You claim to be doing some good.... when in fact you are so wrong that
Yet any one of them smell like roses compared to what we have today in the White House, a pro-abort non-Christian who is socializing the country and freeing terrorists.
“It’s over dude. Buy some ammo.”
that’s what the libs want you to believe. They said that in 1993 and 1975 and 1965... It’s never over.
“Another straw man argument, EV. Rockingham did not say that we need to gather power in Reagan’s name, but that just as Reagan did it once, we can do it again.”
EV’s modus op is always the straw man and the shift-o-rama.
To me, they all just respond to the socialists with a milder socialist solution. They are not conservatives who are self directed.
If John McCain is pro-life I’m the Queen of England. He’s a wicked, godless, arrogant enemy of conservatism, and his nomination by the Republican Party is one of the most shameful political episodes ever. Don’t lecture me about not supporting that snake. You don’t own my vote, and you don’t have a franchise on my political support or anyone else’s.
The old joke is that the Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument, and the Republicans respond with a plan to do it in three stages.
So true that it isn’t really funny.
Yeah, with mush in opposition.
“I refuse to associate myself politically any longer with anyone who breaches their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which states as its crowning purpose the protection of posterity.”
The winning strategy is to JOIN OR DIE. If you dont want to JOIN. Fine. Dont join. You always have the alernative ... Die (Politically that is - become a meaningless and irrelevent nonentity with zero political power, ruled over by the Obama socialists who are more than happy to have you be a taxpaying sucker for their schemes, living in near house-arrest.)
“They could care less about the core principles that our liberty depends on. That I care about.”
You dont give a damn about principles. Not for a second. Its all a sham and act on your part. If you cared about principles, you would share the concern of Ron C. about how to advance them. But you dont give a damn about that, and your sophistry to attack those who are concerned only exposes your muddled thinking.
Your complete and utter lack of concern with actually advancing principles like eg actually advancing the culture of life indicates that your whole political motivation is built around a fetishism of some sort and not real flesh-and-blood principles that affect us.
I dont care if *you* will JOIN OR DIE, I only know that the successful fighters for liberty in this country will JOIN OR DIE. United we stand and divided we fall. Splitters and extremists can stay powerless eunuchs if they cant handle the concept of coalition politics 101.
That would be supporting candidates who represent the opposition party's platform in much greater degree than your own. Pure stupidity.
Conservatives "in coalition" with liberals, hacks and compromisers, with of course the wicked folks always coming out on top, is before anything else what is destroying our free republic. I pray that someday soon you wake up to that fact.
“Don’t lecture me about not supporting that snake. “
You supported worse ... Obama.
Not only are your principles a sham but your continued sham actions of attacking Republicans more harshly than OBAMA are clear as day.
“his nomination by the Republican Party is one of the most shameful political episodes ever”
And your yearlong attacks on Romney, plus your attacks on Thompson HELPED MAKE IT HAPPEN. Gosh, you are such a devious hypocrite! First you attacked Fred Thompson on the obscure he’s merely a federalist on abortion. Then Romney - For months you NEVER ATTACKED MCCAIN, just Romney - when it was perfectly clear that Romney would be the main alternative to Rudy or McCain. You didnt like Huck too, fine, he was just a sucker draw to get mccain nominated, but why attack him... hmmm. Only when McCain was a lock did you go after him. Almost as if you are trying to HELP OBAMA WIN.
“You don’t own my vote, and you don’t have a franchise on my political support or anyone else’s.”
Then dont be a hypocrite and act like you own *my* vote and call me names for doign the RIGHT THING! How dare you dish out what you dont take!
I really dont care how you voted. I only care that people realize where you are really coming from ... an extremist, counterproductive, very muddled, unprincipled position.
JOIN OR DIE.
Strawman.
Strawman.
HARD TRUTH: John McCain has done a lot more for the prolife cause than Alan Keyes.
So maybe you are a Queen after all.
Juvenile.
John McCain is the bane of the pro-life movement.
Your apology is gracious, and demonstrates a willingness to be open minded. This is at odds though with your attack on McCain (Post #297) where you stated that "John McCain is the bane of the pro-life movement."
While I agree that McCain's voting record relative to pro-life issues is mixed, he nevertheless garnered a 0% rating from NARAL (reported by On The Issues) - as did many other democrats and republicans. This hardly qualifies as being the "bane of the pro-life movement".
Before he went over to the dark side too and endorsed John Judas McCain, Senator Santorum made it clear that McCain “more often than not” stood with liberal Senators in blocking conservative legislation in the back rooms of the Senate.
It is that inside knowledge from the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania, plus the rest of the public record, that I base my statement on.
And I stand by it.
Senator Santorum: McCain unreliable on Life Issues
1/16/2008
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)
McCain’s largely pro-life record, Santorum claimed, concealed other problems, such as McCain’s support for embryonic stem cell research and his vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Washington, DC (CNA) - Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has attacked Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain of Arizona for hindering social conservative issues, arguing that McCain is a poor choice to lead the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Speaking to radio host Mark Levine on Levine’s Thursday night radio show, Senator Santorum cited Senator McCain’s compromises in congressional debates about Supreme Court nominations as evidence the Arizona politician was not a strong pro-life candidate.
Santorum, who is now a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said of McCain, “this is not a guy who would give me a lot of confidence that he would appoint the judges who are necessary on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, who would be strict constructionist judges.”
McCain’s largely pro-life record, Santorum claimed, concealed other problems, such as McCain’s support for embryonic stem cell research and his vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Further, Santorum alleged that during his tenure in the Senate McCain did not provide the necessary support to discuss and vote on social conservative issues on the Senate floor.
Santorum disclosed what happened behind the scenes when he held meetings to gather votes for proposed legislation, telling Levine, “That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done.”
“And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them” in preventing votes on such issues.
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26460
I agree - McCain would never have been someone that I trusted. Yet I held my nose and voted for McCain (actually I voted for Palin) because Obama was a much more frightening choice. Personally I wanted to see a Fred Thompson candidacy.
But getting back to the issue at hand, McCain isn't alone in his support of certain pro-abortion topics such as embryonic stem cell research. Point being, there is plenty of blame to go around.
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.