Posted on 06/03/2002 6:33:14 PM PDT by Texasforever
There has been a very loud and nasty argument gong on around here for months about how the GOP and George W. Bush have deserted Conservatives to pander to moderates and liberals and that they would stay home to show their discontent.. I say argument and not debate because there has been no debate just charge and counter-charge. I have issued the challenge to several disaffected former GOP and Bush supporters to start a thread that would focus on viable alternatives to both the GOP in 2002 and a replacement for Bush in 2004. None have taken up that challenge so I will start the thread myself.
This thread is not to continue the argument pro and con for either the GOP OR G.W. Bush.. Assume that conservatives have decided that Republicans are a lost cause and that the task is to put into place a viable alternative and candidate that will not result in conceding the elections to the democrats because that is neither smart OR rational. With that in mind I hope some of you that have given up and are very vocal in that stance will make your case for how conservatives should vote in the mid-term elections and who should be the conservative choice for POTUS, regardless of party, in 2004. If there is a candidate out there that you know about that could be groomed for national office in 2 years then please tell us why you think so and as much about the record on conservative issues as possible.
Once again, please refrain from just airing the same reasons for not supporting Bush, the GOP or both. That is already documented. The purpose for this thread are viable alternatives or solutions.
Ron Paul
Pat Buchanan
Alan Keyes
Howard Phillips
Newt Gingrich
Dan Quayle
Bob Barr
Brent Shundler
Tancredo
3rd Party to be named
Harry Browne or LP candidate
Let the democrats have it.
I'm trying - again. I'm going to run for Precinct Committeeman in the primary election. I'm getting involved in a congressional campaign attempting to unseat a RINO and replace him with a real conservative. However, I'm running into the same country club RINO cheerleaders that I always run up against. Where do these people come from!? They think, like many here, that just because a person puts an (R) after their name that we should automatically support and vote for them and that any upstart Republican challenger is a threat to their power. Never mind that the incumbent Republican candidate shouldn't even be calling himself a Republican.
I've got one of my friends running with me. We hope to be RINO hunters, ferreting out all of the RINOs in the party and finding conservative challengers to replace them. We're going to start at the local party level because that's about all we can do.
I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment - again. But I guess I've just got to keep banging my head against that wall.
Sorry, but I fail to see the difference since Bush has ushered in more of the socialist agenda than that Dem/Soc could have.
You are going to be holding a lot of people responsible and you will still have fewer socialist tenets accomplished with the Dem/creep than we have had with Bush. I suspect that the many will chalk it up to ignorance and blow it off.
Put another way, I don't believe them and have no reason to help them.
And then ignore the man behind the curtain, aka the current majority of the American electorate. Like it or not, they currently skew moderate to moderate left, for a variety of reasons. This dumbing down of the electorate has taken years, and won't be reversed overnight, no matter how much some stomp their feet and demand immediate implementation of a conservative utopia.
IMHO, Bush is taking a somewhat opposite course from what is the conventional wisdom for elections. Instead of 'run conservative in the primaries and then run center', I think he is building trust and credibility with the moderates, the wary but not hard left, the uninformed, the political ignorant, the feel-good, and the boomer me-generation, who after 9/11 for the first time considered that maybe some of the constructs from which they base their opinions were incomplete or even wrong. Debunking the myths about conservatives so hammered home by every aspect of the media, destroying the template, so that when he does loudly advocate a conservative position, it won't be dismissed out of hand. But I bet he is going to campaign hard for conservative candidates this Fall. Slow at first, not over the top, but solid support.
Have you(speaking to all) ever dated someone more liberal than you? Did they change their opinions overnight, just because they were dating you? No, first you built trust, then they would listen and consider your arguments, and weigh for themselves. Finally they would begin to see for themselves. But first trust was required.
Do I agree with everything he is doing? Absolutely not. Actually I am glad Rush and others are loudly voicing their displeasure, much as a spouse would when one goes to far. This is healthy, and not appropriately expressing disappointment for bad decisions often only makes thing worse. But what angers me is when unrealistic childish rants become self-destructive, all the talk of sitting home, abandoning, etc. Rather than constructive criticism and seeking solutions, some here actually sigh with relief when they think they've found their latest excuse for pouting and quitting. I guess the burden of actually having to successfully win converts to conservatism in a difficult cultural environment was just too much, far easier simply to give up. Too many grumbling Jonah's rushing to seek shelter under every little sprouting weed, despite Ninevah's ears being opened.
You play the hand dealt you, and in 2000 it wasn't good. Yes, we now have an excellent opportunity, but it still requires strategy, patience, and prudence. Do I agree with every decision? Nope, and some will backfire. But in the big picture, they've done an awful lot of good so far. Bush won, you and I didn't, nor did Rush, or Drudge, or Savage, et. al. Again, he's building trust with the wary but open. Some will say that he broke the trust of the base, but they also probably said that many times about their parents. Good parents and good leaders make mistakes, but we judge them over the long-term. Whatever we do, let's work towards the goal of results, not destroying the family.
I never suggested we go for Pres. first, as is the case in your invalid examples. Not only are your examples invalid, they are a repeat of the strawman position that I have already disavowed on this thread. I am not going to go in circles with you.
I am glad your county is getting more conservative- they need a conservative party to fight for them. All resources they give to the national GOP will be used to marginalize and thwart them.
That said, I would like to associate myself with the comment by IronJack regarding the broad cultural nature of the struggle against socialism. It isn't all about elections and political office. That's the part of the iceberg that's above the water-line.
Finally, I've been toying with the idea of a write-in in the 2004 Republican primary for the candidate whom I feel best represents my views -- Dick Cheney.
We could send them into Saudi Arabia. Where does your pick stand on that?
Who'd of thunk that would happen right here in River City.
Ah, did somebody actually SAY "Let the Democrats have it?"
A 'Kitty Genovese' strategy does not advance conservatism.
That is interesting. Just a thought. If Cheney embodies the traits you see lacking in Bush and Cheney is supporting Bush and advocating his policies what comfort does that give you in electing Cheney academic as it is.
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.