Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise

Townhall.com ^ | May 28, 2014 | Dr Ben Carson

[StoneWall Brigade]

Amen to that.

[MaxMax]

... I am afraid we might be passing a point of no return

That is absolutely not true! One POTUS could change this country back to it's roots
of Constitutional rule of order. It's taken the Socialists how long to get this far?
And they've had to do it in the dead of night, on Christmas eve, and Fridays when nobody was looking.

It will only take one hand to turn the lights on and Force the Constitution
back into respected Law and kick the growth of Fascism in America into the sewer.

America's cup is Half Full.

[nathanbedford]

Your point concerning demographics is well taken. I recall that the very first vanity I posted on FreeRepublic years ago drew a lot of criticism because I blamed Bush for failing to enforce the border. It is probable that Reagan could not been elected governor in California today. I have not calculated but it is also possible that when the electoral College is broken down with the contribution of the big states which are more and more dominated by Democrats' demographics that Reagan would not win the electoral college even if he won your 51% in a national race. If not this cycle then the next or the next.

The lesson I take from this is that amnesty is a mortal poison pill which spells the end of Republican electoral chances, the end of conservatism as a viable voice on the national stage, and the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism so it must be stopped at all costs.

Assuming for the purposes of discussion that it amnesty can be avoided, the question remains, how do conservatives fashion a platform which will attract a national majority? I tried to lay that formula out.

Assuming that amnesty will be shoved through, the question is how much of it amounts to granting citizenship and when, and how many of these newly minted socialist citizens will vote. Assuming the worst, the conservative movement will be severely crippled. If demographics prove out somewhere in between, the war within the party whether to stand on principle or pander will continue with the panderers holding the advantage.

All this is subject to change with a Black Swan such as an economic crash, a war, a serious terrorist attack, or a major scandal. Technology might also play a decisive role which causes everyone to rethink the nature and role of government. We just don't know- which is, in my view, all the more reason to adhere to principle.

[Gene Eric]

A provocative but seemingly restrained final paragraph.

+1

[trebb]

Well-written piece. Too bad so many will miss the point and see only that which pisses them off - Carson has become unclean in many of their eyes and they will proudly ensure the next Leftists on the ballot wins.

[Altura Ct.]

Conservatives have been compromising for as long as I can remember. In fact I am not sure they really stand for anything.

[Theophilus]

We have nothing left to compromise. But I won’t take my marbles and go. I’m ready to load my slingshot with them.

[Kaslin]

You are so right and you can see many did not go beyond the title and the word compromise. That is all they needed to read to make a judgement

[Kaslin]

If he is a plan, then you are a moron. Obviously you did not read beyond the title and the word compromise. Now read the article again and again if you have to

[Resettozero]

Sincere thanks to you for the ping. I might have missed reading this thread.

I’m not ready to vote for Dr. Ben but I respect him and have to take a closer look at someone the press is denigrating like it is.

[verga]

Eloquent, this is why you were the barrister and I am just a simple shop teacher.

[Resettozero]

I have just read Dr. Carson’s article from Townhall and am disappointed that this is his thinking. For me, this was an eyeopener.

First, “God helps those who help themselves” is not Scriptural.

Secondly, he really must have been insulated in his medical world more than I had realized. He’s talking about a post-WWII America and not the way things are now; somewhat naively.

Third, I shall take this article into consideration before jumping to defend him so quickly next time.

Now to read the comments on this thread. Thanks again. R2z

[Lazamataz]

If a Republican does the same as a Democrat, there is no point to voting for the different label.

Give me a choice and I will vote for it. Give me NO choice, a HOBSON'S choice, and I see no point in voting.

[Lakeshark]

The title has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the article.

The only thing the title did was bring all the Johnny one notes on the thread to explain to us how to be in perpetual servitude to the totalitarian left.

[Resettozero]

I am convinced that Americans with common sense will soon regain power. It is essential that we not use the opportunity to exact revenge upon the liberals.

I too am hopeful. But these two sentences back-to-back make me scratch my head.

Now, to the comments.

[Resettozero]

I need to look at the individual candidate to know what I can accept from him.

There are candidates who aren’t totally in line but that we respect and can grudgingly support, or accept as the best we can do to advance the cause when they are the nominee, but there are also those who disagree on some key issues that we sense are much worse than just their stated positions, people with a hidden agenda, people who are really against us, when I see one of those I won’t vote for him.

With prayer, this is the best I can do as well. Realizing that I can be deceived into voting once for a non-conservative (Lindsey Graham), I am not ready to stop voting altogether, as long as I can.

[GeronL]

Conservatives have been surrendering. The word compromise assumes both sides are doing it and I have yet to see Leftists do that

[Resettozero]

We would not be in this mess if on principle we did not compromise.

Patrick Henry said on principle, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” He did not compromise. He was given liberty.

Nicely done...and persuasive.

[Resettozero]

Not trying to rile you up but you obviously aren't in the fight to win back the Senate and keep the House. That's the fight we have to win.

Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I would like to respond.

Conservatives DO want to fight to win back our Country. That includes winning the House and Senate and the Executive Branch. A few of us on FR have been reading our American History again and have concluded that politics as usual is not a good strategy to accomplish that which we desire.

If our tactic of voting ONLY for conservative candidates proves unsuccessful, I believe we are no worse off than when we voted straight Republican.

[JRandomFreeper]

Carson's point is that we should vote for whichever liberal candidate gets the GOP nomination, regardless of whether that candidate supports abortion or not.

It's not going to happen.

/johnny