I found some.
Pluck all you need!
Posted on 09/20/2009 10:51:33 AM PDT by AJKauf
It would be understandable for those who closely follow politics to have missed Republican Senator Olympia Snowe’s comments on health care a couple of days ago.
The second week of September was an unusually big week for partisan politics (and that’s saying something in this day and age). Commentators on both sides of the divide sparred bitterly over the crowd estimates for the massive 9/12 Taxpayer March on the National Mall. In addition, the drip, drip, drip of scandalous revelations surrounding the ACORN “prostitution sting” further strained the lengths of recent political polarization. And as the weekend neared, allegations of racist opposition to President Barack Obama’s policies — aired by former President Jimmy Carter, no less — had further dashed the longstanding hopes for bipartisan cooperation that followed Barack Obama’s inauguration in January.
Given all that, Senator Snowe’s mid-week remarks on her place in a changing GOP might seem tame. Snowe, a moderate Republican and senior senator from Maine, stated that “I haven’t changed as a Republican, I think more that my party has changed.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
“My enemy right in front of me instead of stabbing me in the back.”
That isn’t politics, certainly not politics in a Democracy. It is an unrealistic desire. You have to tolerate ambiguity in your allies, else you will have no allies.
Blah, blah, TelePrompter tele blah. You’ve now entered the Liberal circular argument zone. You lose. Loser!
Feeling incapable ? You can’t argue, can you ?
Jimmah Carter is your hero, not mine. Loser!
You don't get it, do you?
The object is stopping socialism COMPLETELY in its tracks.
When you support so-called "moderate" Republicans, you are still advancing socialism because they compromise with the Dems and give them cover. Democrats are too chicken to pass their socialist agenda on their own - THAT IS WHY THEY NEEDED REPUBLICANS TO PASS OBAMACARE AND TO PASS PORKULUS.
Better a weathervane that gives us the committees than an active opponent that will deny us the committees.
More beltway thinking crapola.
Discredits “beliefs” ? Why do we care about “beliefs” ? All we care about is results.
How are you going to get results if you don't believe in, much less fight for, your beliefs? Snowe didn't even have the guts to shave a few billion off of the porkulus bill even though she and Collins were in a prime negotiating position to do so. I would have forgave her vote if she would have offered to the Dems in exchange for hard matching spending cuts in government programs. That would have been the real "moderate" position but she didn't even do that.
I don’t care if Snowe believes in little green men from Mars, as long as she votes our way 50% of the time and gives us control.
You are completely missing the point! She is still advancing socialism by accepting the left's terns. That 50% in which she votes with the Rats are off-setting her votes with Republicans.
The other 50% we have the option of blocking her silliness through procedure or by exploiting the 50%-ers on the other side.
She voted against the Bush tax cuts at a time when the GOP had the majority. Where were those magical "procedural" rules then?
Their definition of the "Big Tent" meant that they adhered to specific principles which were open to everyone. The total opposite of today's GOP in which the Big Tent means that Republicans must co-opt socialist ideas so the NY Times won't call them right-wingers.
And you would rather die through incremental socialism in a pathetic attempt at restoring power at all costs.
“The object is stopping socialism COMPLETELY in its tracks.”
And this will happen as the result of enforcing purity in the ranks of its opponents ? I think not. I think rather you will merely give the socialists everything they want. Now, there is an argument that this will cause such a disaster that the socialists will be so discredited that evrything will be then restored by a resurgent, purified conservative party. This scenario is a fantasy.
“More beltway thinking crapola.”
Indeed. It is political thinking as it happens in the real world, not some never-never land.
“How are you going to get results if you don’t believe in, much less fight for, your beliefs?”
By all means believe in things and fight for them. Just don’t do a Charge of the Light Brigade maneuver (like purging the impure) just because. Maneuver, exploit, take strategic positions, choose your ground, use your allies effectively even if you don’t trust them, etc.
“She is still advancing socialism by accepting the left’s terns. “
Certainly. She is also impeding them the remaider of the time. If she were to be replaced by a genuine Democrat we would lose that 50% benefit. Since there is no prospect of replacing her with a better Republican, retaining her is a net benefit. The Democrats used this logic in 2006 and 2008 in their Congressional candidate selection btw. It worked very well for them. There are Democrat/Leftist discussion groups like this where they bitterly complain about “Blue Dogs” in the same way, and being idiots by definition, they misunderstand the DNC strategy. One would expect better from FR.
“She voted against the Bush tax cuts at a time when the GOP had the majority. “
And we got tax cut bills out of the committees, didn’t we ? Procedures worked very well then, didn’t they ?
And she was outvoted then, wasn’t she ? By some other 50%-ers also besides the real conservatives ?
"Maybe there once was a time when our two-party system was less a difference in philosophy than a contest between partisans loyal to the old school tie, but that is not true today. Last November, millions of people voted to change, or at least pause to review, the philosophy of the party leadership then in power. They did not just decide to change hats and join the other club for a while.
"Fortunately, for those millions of concerned citizens, we too had paused to take inventory. We discovered we could no longer afford the luxury of internal fighting, backbiting and throatcutting. We discovered our philosophical difference with those presently in power was greater than any grudge or split within our own ranks. We were ready and in position to offer an alternative for those concerned citizens who wanted to join with others, not to win a contest, but to preserve a way of life.
"We must keep our door open – offering our party as the only practical answer for those who, overall, are individualists. And because this is the great common denominator – this dedication to the belief in man’s aspirations as an individual – we cannot offer them a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments.
"Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be.
"The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party. There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths. Let no one, however, interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will be all things to all people for political expediency.
"In our tent will be found those who believe that government was created by “We, the People’; that government exists for the people and we can give to government no power we do not possess as individuals; that the citizen does not earn to supports government so that he may be free to earn; that, because there can be no freedom without law and order, every act of government must be approved if it makes freedom more secure and disapproved if it offers security instead of freedom.
"Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method and even over the men and women we choose to implement our philosophy. Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached. But if our philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of the ultimate decision. Unity does not require unanimity of thought.
"And here is another challenge to you. It is the duty and responsibility of the volunteer Republican organizations, not to further divide, but to lead the way to unity. As duly chartered Republican organizations, we all can advance our particular sectarianism or brand of candidates for the party to pass on openly and freely in a primary election.
"But, as volunteer organizations, we must always remain in a position that will let us effectively support the candidates chosen by the entire party in a primary. To do less is a disservice to the party and more importantly, to the cause in which we all believe.
Our 11th Commandment is perhaps more profound than we realize. “Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican.” To do so means we are inhibited in the support we can give that Republican if he should become the nominee of our party. Certainly our task is harder if we must challenge and refute charges made by our opponents if those charges were first uttered by us..."
-Ronald Reagan
Poor Jimmy Carter. Its plain justice that his name is now a bad word flung like dung by a monkey.
Nothing can be done without power, and there is no power without politics.
There just isn’t any way of getting to power through your idea of purity. You can’t save anyone from socialism that way.
This is true. Ronald Reagan agreed.
I found some.
Pluck all you need!
I was no huge fan of McCain, but I backed him. Simply because I knew the alternative (which we now have) was so much worse. I live in the northeast (MA) and I know how bad things can and will get if progressives (the looniest of the liberals) manage to gain a majority. At this point we not only need to help the RINOS - we need to persuade the DINOs the value of conservative principles and move them to the right. That won't happen if the conservative movement appears to be frothing at the mouth lunatics demanding 100% purity of opinions.
I have to believe that those arguing for only the purist of the pure to be elected are either living in very red areas of the country (where there are viable GOP candidates and you can choose the most conservative) or they're KOS kiddies trying to stoke infighting between conservatives.
Let the liberals attack each other. We don't do that and should never do that.
Obama much worse than McCain ? ... Oh, yes in a number of ways... But were we supposed to relish in the notion that Juan McLame was and still is - READY - WILLING and ABLE to give away citizenship to 20 million illegal aliens?
And stand still while Juan McAmnesty spits in the face of real Conservatives - verbally insults them as he DID in 2007. What are you smoking?
And in the most telling point ... “Conservatives need to stick together”... Okay - but John McCain is not even close to being a Conservative ... so who are we supposed to stick with?
What you are talking about is Being Loyal to the RNC - no matter that the RNC elites find Conservatives to be lower than whale excrement ...
You must be kidding...? Dance with RINO’s like McCain and his bunk buddy Lindsey...
Good Grief - get a grip ... Conservatives are Conservative — McCain and his ilk are off in another world....
NEVER - NEVER - NEVER will I support a RINO — RINO’s need to support Conservatives...
I prefer conservative candidates in my voting area, period. Should they come from the Republican party, great!
If not, then I will vote for them regardless of party. Democrat, Libertarian, Martian Invasion party, whatever.
Your path would sacrifice my vote and if successful, place a candidate into office that does not support my ideals. Should that happen more than twice, you lose a voter for good.
Not the best strategy if you want the Republican party to be viewed as conservative.
If you just want it in power, regardless of idealogy, then perhaps it might work. I’d hazard a guess not, considering that your particular view on the matter was tested in 2006 and 2008, with resounding results.
OK, I’ll rephrase that.
In my life time, New England Republicans were always pretty liberal.
Like Jay Rockefeller?
Ever hear of AuH2O, who as actually the candidate of the GOP for president, back in the day?
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.