Posted on 12/16/2009 12:31:45 PM PST by AJKauf
Ask yourself who would win in a theoretical election: Obama ’09 or Reagan ’84? Sure, President Obama’s victory last year was impressive, but his approval ratings are dropping by the hour and the late Reagan is consistently cited as one of the country’s most beloved former presidents. Perhaps Reagan wouldn’t win 49 states as in 1984, but is there any doubt, knowing what we know now, that Reagan would emerge victorious — and do so decisively?
Republicans can win big in 2010 and 2012 by talking less about social issues and more about economic liberty and federalism.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
As someone once said, "Any teenager who has ever bought a box of condoms KNOWS IT'S A BABY!"
No, I would describe a "moderate" as someone who gets an American Conservative Union rating of about 75 or 80, rather than a 95 or 98. A "liberal" gets about a 20, and a "left-winger" gets a 5. Let's keep it real.
And so, no matter what nice conservative words you might utter, because you refuse to return to fundamental republican principles and stand firm for them in your actions, you're guaranteeing the continued decline of the patient. Your party is dying because of consistent and ongoing compromise of fundamental American principles. And you say you're going to do nothing about it.
Incorrect. I'm doing everything I can about it. Our group threw everything we had into NY-23 to support Doug Hoffman, not Dede Scozzafava. I was personally working behind the scenes, calling people I know in the Scozzafava campaign to convince her to drop out of the race. It worked, but not quite soon enough.
Again, according to the people who run the GOP, "conservatives can't win" anywhere. The party's resources continue to be focused on pushing liberals, not true conservatives. One other thing: the GOP long ago abandoned those areas you're talking about. They refuse to use any resources to do what you say.
Again, you're wrong. In district after district, we're finding real conservative candidates and pushing them up to the top. We're making real progress in states like North Caroline, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. But we won't get to a 100 percent conservative level nationwide this year. As I said, we can't go to war with the army we wish we had. We have to go to war with the army we've got. We can make it more conservative, and we're trying.
You might be able to fool some with what you're saying, but not me. I know too much about the reality of today's Republican Party.
Oh really? In what capacity have you worked for the party, or any of its nominees? I worked for Jack Ryan's Senate campaign in 2004. If we had won that race, Barack Obama would still be an obscure state senator in Springfield, Illinois (and he'd still be working his day job as a community organizer and ACORN lawyer in Chicago).
The GOP has only had a genuine conservative nominee for president in two elections and that was Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (Goldwater in 1964 was a pro-war, fiscal conservative, but was not a social conservative). Reagan won big in 1980 and after four years of witnessing conservatism in action the country gave him a landslide in 1984.
If you look at elections over the last 40 years, the more liberal the Republican nominee was, the worse he did.
Christian conservatives realize that sin is a word for "that which injures." Sometimes, grossly injures.
Yourself, others, your family, your community, your relationship with God.
Or you can say to the alcoholic: "Live and let live, bubba."
Better yet, conservatives would better explain HOW something injures and is an unhealthy choice.
Let's keep it real.
The reality is that the corruption of the GOP has invaded almost all the cells of its body politic.
American Conservative Union rating
Which do you think is the more dangerous to the sheep: A wolf in wolves' clothing, or a wolf in sheep's clothing?
It sure did work. It elected the Democrat.
Dang "third party spoilers" those Republicans. And they spent a million bucks of the rank and file's money to do it.
Telling conservatives to “embrace libertarianism” is the same as telling them to quit being conservatives.
I want to take our party back. Going third party is what the Democrats want us to do, because it will ensure their dominance for many more years as you build a new party from the ground up. Look at how well the Green Party is doing on the left, and the Constitution Party on the right. Look at the Libertarian Party, which defies such labels as “left” and “right.” All three of them have been around for many years, and not one of them has ever won a single seat in Congress.
That’s because they lack a principled vision, just like the Republicans do.
No you don't. You already said you're going to support liberals.
Well, good luck with your principled vision. The sad part is that it’s virtually identical to mine. I just have a better idea about where to apply it: take the Republican Party back from the RINOs.
I deny the alleged dichotomy between “social conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives.” The same fundamental principles, the same understanding of the proper purpose and role of government, underlie both. If you are only one or the other, you are not really a conservative at all, just a would-be tyrant who happens to want to control different things than other tyrants do.
Anyway, I generally agree with the article, in that emphasizing federalism (and the limits of government) is a good approach on social issues and emphasizing personal freedom (property rights, etc.) is a good approach on economic ones.
Good luck with that. I tried for twenty years, but have accomplished more in two years from the outside. It’s a new day.
Fixed it for you.
You sound a lot like those NFL fans who expect a 16-0 year every August. The minute your team loses its first game, you’re making a pile of your pennants and stocking caps and team jerseys in the back yard, pouring gasoline on it and lighting a match.
Rather than start an expansion team, we need to fire the head coach. The team has plenty of talent.
The Tea Party movement needs to take over the Republican Party. It won’t happen in one year, but it’ll be a lot faster than building a third party from the ground up.
So, in your estimation killing 50 MILLION Americans has done NOTHING that negatively impacts the economy?
Actually, the demographic trends indicated that the Goldwater mix (cut back on Big Government across the board) is the winning formula for modern times.
In 1919, the government said to the alcoholic, "You Are Forbidden To Do That!"
It took only a dozen years for the government to acknowledge its error -- and for the government to EVER acknowledge error proves what a BIG error it was -- and go back to the true conservative stance that personal matters are none of its business.
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.