Posted on 10/14/2014 2:21:31 AM PDT by servo1969
There is a noble-sounding attitude that many Americans hold regarding whom they vote for. "I vote for the candidate," they say.
It sure sounds good. Voting for the best candidate, rather than the party, sounds as American as apple pie. But as the Democratic Party has become a doctrinaire left-wing party, this sentiment is no longer noble. It is actually foolish and dangerous.
There was a time when there were terrific Democrats whom an independent and even a Republican could vote for. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was such an example. He was a liberal -- he believed in the good that he thought an expanding government could provide -- but he was a hawk on foreign policy. What did "hawk" mean? Hawks were politicians such as Lieberman who believed that both for America's sake and in order to reduce cruelty on earth, America must be the world's most militarily powerful country, and that it must be prepared to use this power, when feasible, against the world's worst cruelest tyrannies.
Lieberman wasn't the only such Democrat.
Another was the great U.S. senator from New York (served: 1977-2001), Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who coined the phrase that summarized the post-1960s steep decline in America's values: "Defining Deviancy Down," the title of an article he wrote in 1993 for the American Scholar (a conservative journal).
Another such Democrat was Henry "Scoop" Jackson who served as U.S. Senator from Washington state from 1953 to 1983. Jackson was one of the leading anti-Communist "hawks" in American politics.
But such Democratic politicians no longer exist. The left chased Lieberman and others out of the party.
Therefore, voting for just about any Democrat for the House or the Senate, and almost as consistently for governor, is a vote for leftism. It is a vote for clones of President Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, to mention just the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Obamacare provides an excellent example of why "voting for the candidate" is an act of self-delusion. Every vote for this medical and economic transformation of America came from Democrats in the House and Senate; and every Republican, even the most "moderate," voted against it. Regarding the most destructive legislation in modern American history, "the candidate" didn't mean a thing. Party meant everything.
This may be the primary reason Republicans do not do better in a country in which few of its citizens identify themselves as "left:" Republicans run against their opponents, rather than against the left and the Democratic Party. That's what Mitt Romney did. And that's why he lost an election he should have won. Romney never defined his presidential campaign as being opposed to the left or to the Democratic Party. It was solely against Barack Obama, a popular president at the time and the first black ever to serve as president, something that continued to mean a lot to many Americans who hoped that this fact would reduce black animosity toward white America.
Had Mitt Romney constantly repeated that he was not merely running against Barack Obama, the man, but against Barack Obama, the most left-wing president in American history, and continually explained what that meant, he might well have won. But he never made the election about ideology or party. Instead it was about individuals. He, Romney, was the best candidate because he could fix things -- as he did in his business career and with the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. So the election was not about how big government undermines the whole American experiment; how big government makes citizens small people; how the left sees America as just another country; how the teachers unions have helped ruin public education; how the left changed our universities from places of education to places of indoctrination; or how cruelty -- mass murder, torture, slavery, and totalitarianism -- would inevitably take over as America retreated from more and more places. Which brings us to the present elections. The most horrific movement since Nazism and communism, violent Islamism, has taken over much of Iraq solely because America retreated from that country. Millions of Americans understood, and many of us wrote and broadcast, that if America leaves Iraq, a country that was becoming increasingly stable and peaceful, it would be transformed into a bloodbath -- which is exactly what has happened.
Why doesn't every Republican candidate remind voters that the Democratic Party supported the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq -- and that this made the Islamic State possible? Either the left succeeds, or America succeeds. Tell that to your constituents, Republican candidates. And then tell them that the left's political party is the one your opponent is proud to represent.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Romney, warts and all.
Again, I go back to the issue of math and strategy. Romney's strategy was to alienate social conservatives and attract moderate liberals. They though they could make up the gap. They were wrong.
For those voting their Christian principles, we MUST understand OR we're doomed to this recrimination every time: these voters have no choice but to follow their God. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
They could not support Obama, and the COULD not support Romney.
If someone doesn't wake up and truly 'get' the nature of these folks' religious beliefs, then the republicans will repeat their mistaken strategy. These conservative Christians will NOT compromise on their key issues.
So did I, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in which Romney served as a one-term governor. He did not seek reelection, probably because the necessity of functioning as a conservative chief executive of the Bluest of the Blue States finally took its toll. There was simply no way for him to be effective in countering the deeply ingrained political corruption of Massachusetts machine politics.
Case in point: Had he not agreed to what subsequently became known as Romneycare — the litmus test for Obamacare — and had vetoed it instead, the partisans of state-mandated and controlled healthcare would have gone over his head, appealing to the Supreme Judicial Court to overturn his veto. And they would have, in all likelihood, done exactly that.
Reading the tea leaves, Romney avoided the inevitably bloody political fight by acceding to what the Commonwealth's General Court and Senate agreed to — supposedly reflecting the will of the people of Massachusetts — I gather in the name of public peace.
He understood that, as governor, he was a representative of the will of Massachusetts citizens. If Massachusetts citizens have given every indication that they favored such massive transformations of the healthcare system, then even if Romney thought they were morons to think that way, still, as governor, he "works for them" and what they want. He might have thought that what they wanted ultimately operated against their interests; but I daresay that Romney concluded that his job was not to suppress the free expression of what citizen/voters want. He could point out the unintended consequences of enacting their wishes, and did so. But in the end, he understood that the governor of any state is the tool of its people, and not the other way around.
I don't much like his theology. But I sure did and do like him as a capable, highly intelligent, honorable, and just man.
Democrat, democracy and democratic are BAD WORDS.. nasty..
need Proof.?....
Democracy is the road to socialism. -Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx
I.E.. When you are for democracy that makes you a democrat literally.. no matter the mask you wear..
Democracy never worked(well) never will.. it is a nasty thing.. FILTHY REALLY....
It is the dictatorship of the proletariat.. no mystery some want that..
No democracy has EVER been democratic.. ALWAYS an elite rules..
It is Mob Rule by mobsters..
DEMOCRACY IS A LIE...... a scam... Ponzi mafia games....
HOWEVER; there is a truckload of democrat republicans..
Not the smidgen of sense God gave a goose..
Brain washed for many decades in givernment schools..
Almost literally worshiping democracy as a fantasy..
Cause it “IS” a fantasy.. democracy CANNOT WORK and doesn’t..
Idiots shouldn’t vote.. when they do you have democracy..
The juvenile cliche’ of “it isn’t fair” is at the root of it..
Juveniles voting.. it’s true, some people NEVER grow up..
Thats the genius of socialism(communism)... DEMOCRACY...
Any that think Karl Marx was stupid are indeed stupid..
It’s just that he never grew up.. hes not stupid..
As are ALL democrats.... i.e. socialists..
And a good bit of republicans whom are in fact democrats..
Merry Christmas—>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/6wxiaix3sdyf3hl/MerryXmas.avi?dl=0
Some folks seem to worship the Republican Party.
That's their business, but I can't join them.
I understand, NorthMountain. You MUST follow your God. (I should say, "OF COURSE you must follow your God".
I'm not real sure what's hard about understanding that. It's not like it's an historical novelty. And, if someone really doesn't "get it", then have them peruse just for a moment the Christians in Iraq who so easily could mouth the words, "I reject Jesus and Mohammed is god's only prophet."
If they would simply say those words -- they don't even have to mean them -- they and their families could live.
But they CANNOT deny their God. I hope, NorthMountain, for the sake of America, that republicans come to understand this.
... republicans come to understand this.
"Republicans" are not monolithic. We have, for example, the likes of Karl Rove, Thad Cochran, and Mitch McConnell who have essentially declared war on conservatives. We have the likes of John Boehner, whose principles (if any) are well hidden. We have the likes of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who actually are conservative and constitutionalist.
And, we have many, many in the rank-and-file who are personally very conservative, very dedicated to the Constitution ... and who think that because the Republican Party platform more or less agrees with them, that the Republican Party leadership agrees with them as well. This is simply not the case.
Marco Rhineo is conservative This Week.. (probably)...
Oh really??? I wasn't aware of that at all.
He’s probably not the best example. Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal make better examples.
That was the premise behind his public statements about gay unions, gay scouts, gay military, gun control like his, romneycare, health of the mother....
Designed to appeal to moderate liberals with the knowledge that it would repel social conservatives.
It was a strategy that failed.
These things don’t get accidentally stated in the midst of a campaign for the presidency.
I feel like a stranger in my own land, which has become totally strange to me.... I feel like a stranger in a strange land....
And as such, so much exposed to mortal danger, emanating from both domestic and foreign sources. Obama welcomes either or both.
Why would you and your Christian cohorts not try to stop his further depredations against/destruction of the United States and the American way of life?
Whatever. I doubt your criticisms of Romney are provable, if seen in context. Still, you can always try to persuade me otherwise: I've got my "ears on."
Good night for now, dear brother in Christ. It's time for sleep....
Hi Betty, hope you had a great evening. I am not addressing whether or not Romney would have been a better president than Obama. He would have been. In fact, I imagine every social conservative who withheld their vote would also agree with that.
However, that is not the issue. The issue is that there is a huge bloc of social conservatives who CANNOT vote for anyone who violates their understanding of their obligation to God.
My sense is that it is in actuality a relatively short list: life; natural marriage, family, sexuality; free exercise of religion.
Romney was coy about life all along, and his ‘health of the mother’ “slip” seemed to be a signal.
Romney had simply gone over to the dark side on natural marriage, family, sexuality.
Romney was fairly strong on free exercise. There was no problem there.
So, Romney was better than Obama, but Romney violated key principles. It was impossible for them to vote for him and have a clear conscience before God.
My hope is that republican ‘get it’ and offer up a candidate which they can support. Otherwise, we’ll be back at this same place in a few years.
How do they justify it? As the judgment of God on this nation for it is God who causes the rising and falling of kings and kingdoms.
At the present rate, there won't be a "place" to come back to in a few years.
Ebola is a game-changer.
Amazingly, it went from Liberia, to Texas, and then through extreme incompetence ended up in my state, Ohio. Exposures took it all the way south of Cleveland to Canton. Who knows where from there. For example, there is only one degree of separation between Canton hospital (nurses there exposed) and our location here in southern Ohio due to families connected between those areas.
But what "game" is Ebola "changing?" To make a statement like that, suggests that you have direct knowledge of God's intentions. That is, you already "know" what God's endgame is; Ebola is a fact because it is evidence of something that has not yet occurred, but which leads inexorably to a finding of fact that the Second Coming is imminent.
This wouldn't be the first time in the history of the human race when fear of the Apocalypse achieved social resonance. Indeed, Christ's nascent Church, almost immediately after the Resurrection, expected His Return at any second. They were waiting expectantly, with longing joy, for the healing of the breach between Heaven and Earth that was occasioned by the original sin of Adam, a breach that could only be healed by the Son of God Who incarnated as fully Man.
This motif repeats throughout human history, usually at times of great cultural distress and dislocation, times of war, or pestilence; times of social anarchy that ensue when the natural ties of the human community, thus the civil order, wholly break down. The underlying theme seems always to be, "the times are so evil, God must surely want to step in, to destroy the evil; to heal the human condition, to perfect the world of creation, and so reunite any 'prodigal son' with Himself."
So for you to raise the Ebola issue in the context of this discussion about politics, I gather you are concerned about the end-times. Indeed, this seems of a piece with the refusal of certain Christians to vote responsibly on election day in 2012.
I am struggling to understand this. Seriously, I have no animus towards you or anyone else — I most sincerely regard you as my dear brother in Christ. I just want to understand what happened, what it was that secured a second term for the most corrupt president in the history of our nation, who is not so much the Chief Executive as the Chief Underminer of everything that America has historically stood for — principally that we are a "nation under God," that our "natural rights" are direct grants from God, and thus not anything Obama's State can fool with.
Then the thought hit me, right out of the blue. It is so primitive, I don't want to ascribe it to you or any member of your like-minded fellowship.
I can understand the "stay-at-homes" or the people who wasted their ballots on impossible choices in the last election only on the basis that they were convinced, they believed, that God elected Barack Obama as His instrument of devastating affliction on the American people in compensation for their egregious sinfulness....
Thus the Ebola piece fits right into this picture: It is a divinely-imposed scourge of human, even specifically American, perfidy and sinfulness.
Or do I go too far here, dear brother in Christ? If so, please, please do correct me.
In closing, let me just add that I find the idea that one must choose between being a faithful Christian and being a good citizen is premised in a false choice, a false dichotomy.
I think you pretty much about covered it...
The chinese curse of “I wish you interesting times”... AWAITS..
Hi Betty, my comments about Ebola were in response to your above italicized comment at #75 and not in relation to eschatology. In response to "no place to come back to", I thought perhaps you might be thinking of ebola, but whether you did or not, it did make me think of it as a real possible vehicle for "no place to come back to" to be realized.
So, even though my intent was not eschatological, your thoughts about those who vote their conservative Christian principles are on point. I do think they might see Obama allowing ebola into the country to fit with their notion that Obama is an unusual, indirect judgment of God on this country. In other words, God allows the country to suffer the consequences of its own decisions.
I can understand the "stay-at-homes" or the people who wasted their ballots on impossible choices in the last election only on the basis that they were convinced, they believed, that God elected Barack Obama as His instrument of devastating affliction on the American people in compensation for their egregious sinfulness....Thus the Ebola piece fits right into this picture: It is a divinely-imposed scourge of human, even specifically American, perfidy and sinfulness.
On their behalf, I would take issue with your comment about their "wast(ing) their ballots". It is a wonder that "not voting for those who violate their most deeply held beliefs" would lead to a "judgment of consequences" on this nation. It is a wonder that their numbers are great enough that they decided that election. They would consider it a wonder that they would be castigated for not voting for any candidate who violates their most deeply held religious beliefs. They would wonder how anyone could not understand why they did what they did.
My own hope is that the republicans don't do a repeat on this same thing. If they do, they will again lose the votes of these conservative Christians. "When will they ever learn....when will they ev-er learn."
Galatians 6:7 - Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
I totally agree with “lesser of evil” calculations in politics when the lesser of evil candidate is essentially a decent man. After 8 years of Clinton, Bush was a breath of fresh air and I am so thankful he was president on 911. He was and is a decent man and a believer who aspires to do the right thing.
With some people it gets to be a judgment call at some point. I swore for two years before McCain declared for president that I would never vote for him, since I consider him to be one of the most faithless and untrustworthy individuals in politics. But in the end I did.
His behavior in politics continues to be an embarrassment.
After watching the romniacs savage Palin and the Tea Party folk for years, and watching Romney himself go AWOL all during the fight of the century over O’s assaults on the constitution (Palin led the defenders from her little Facebook page while Romney sat out and focus-grouped his supposed principles) I swore I would never vote for the guy. But in the end I did.
The Romniacs and McCainiacs like to blame the rest of us for the fact that their candidate lost. Doesn’t work on me, since despite my misgivings I did vote for them. But we did warn that McCain wouldn’t be able to inspire the base (you can’t go around attacking Christians and conservatives and then expect them to be too enthused about you). And we warned the same thing about Romney (all the worst attacks on Palin and the tea folk, when they came from Repubs, turned out to be from romniacs). You can’t expect conservatives to back someone who doesn’t back them. Romney himself seems like a decent fellow personally, but the romniacs are some of the most unlovely people in politics. And I was always struck by the fact that Romney does not fight, and does not lead. He prepares his resume and waits for the call.
The Repubs have the chance right now to make their case but they seem to have lost faith in their own principles, and lost the will and ability to defend them. Their strategy for the last couple of decades seem to be to hide their supposed principles and hope people will vote for them accidently, instead of explaining them and persuading people.
So now the party seems determined to run someone who is soft on immigration and soft on abortion and marriage. I keep saying, run an open-borders guy for president and you’ll split this party. They aren’t going to listen, of course, and if they lose they’ll blame conservatives again.
Run someone who is soft on abortion and marriage, again, and they will split this party. Blame conservatives if it makes them feel better, but with tears in my eyes, they have been warned. Don’t do it.
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.