As I have said on several occasions now, we don't need a new president as much as this president needs better advice. He needs to see and hear that ignoring crimes as serious as election tampering, conspiracy to blackmail Republicans and Congress, selling US secrets and access to restricted technology for campaign cash, covering up the murder of a Secretary of Commerce is simply not acceptable ... even in time of war. He needs to be told that ignoring such serious crimes sows the seeds for the destruction of this Republic. Instead, by reading a thread like this, and other threads where this issue has been raised, he might get the impression that Freepers think he can do anything he wants as long as he and the GOP win. That's the same attitude that motivated a lot of democRATS in the last several elections to violate so many laws.
Why is it a problem to complain to our party about something that is clearly wrong for them to do? Unlike so many issues raised in this thread, are there any grounds for dispute? As I said, does ANYONE think no laws were violated by the democRATS? Does ANYONE think honest investigations of those activities took place under Clinton? Does ANYONE think it good if politicians and political parties are above the law? Does anyone believe more damaging information wouldn't be learned about democRAT activities if these matters were investigated?
Now some claim that investigating would be bad for Republicans but is allowing them not to the sort of precedent we want to set? What about future administrations ... some democRAT? Will it be ok if they decide not to EVEN investigate crimes too? And besides, I'm willing to debate point by point whether investigating these crimes (and where possible prosecuting them) is bad OR GOOD for the prospects of the GOP. Anytime ... anyplace. But few who are so ardently defending Bush seem to want to do that.
I would slightly expand this to include a constitutionally minded congress, and there may be a couple possibilities, each with pros and cons, that attempt to work within the party and failing that, to continue without the party but offering the option to leverage any influence with voters to increase the constitutional conservatism of the party.
I do not, in this post, presume to be able to present any consensus of opinion on candidates or positions, so I won't try. I am, however, suggesting the starting point of ways to be more influential with Republican Party leadership, and I am assuming that there are sufficient issues on which both staunch Bush supporters and those that would like Bush to be more conservative could agree. The specifics below are examples, the underlying concept doesn't pivot (I don't think) on the specifics, other specifics would suffice (presuming we reach a consensus).
Assuming such consensus (a big assumption I grant you), it would seem the following is a largely 'intellectual' effort, well within the scope of the posters here. Whether it moves beyond that, clearly depends on how attractive the ideas produced are to candidates and incumbents who would have to 'carry the banner' so to speak thereafter, and how much support they and said ideas generate. But formulating the ideas is well within the scope of this forum, thanks entirely to you, Jim Robinson.
1) Develop a new 'contract with America', a more constitutional contract with America. It's planks/provisions to be determined, but would run along the lines of:
Then offer said constitutional contract with America (CCA) to candidates and incumbents alike, to see how much actual support it gets.
The point in this post again is not to presume to pick a consensus of what the issues would be (on which both Bush supporters and more conservative advocates might converge) but to suggest for discussion, a process to influence direction.
2 ) Develop grassroots swing vote (at least for 2004, but ideally for 2002 though that seems remote at this time)
Independent swing voters decided previous outcomes, and could well decide the next (2002 and 2004), we can lead the direction of those swing voters.
Demonstrate in 2002 elections (if not too late) ability to swing votes towards conservative candidates and issues (RNC anointed or not). A coordinated write-in campaign with the cooperation of selected candidates might prove influential enough to swing the outcome, or put the outcome in doubt.
Who would the candidates be? For state and local office, unknown. For national office, 'known' names have been suggested elsewhere, some serious, some not, more could be offered. Again, it would be presumptuous in this post to identify consensus candidate(s). What is suggested is a process by which conservatives can influence the Republican Party leadership.
If candidates win, great, hopefully they'll sustain their position as campaigned.
Else, if enough votes were swung from Republican candidates (I doubt 'independent' Democrats would ever vote conservative - but that has been debated here as well) then leverage that 'swing vote' influence to get Republican Party leadership, including current administration to adopt a more 'conservative' position, or risk losing that swing vote in 2004. I'm acutely aware the potential to 'take votes from Republicans' is anathema to many here. Political animals of all persuasion don't seem to pay attention to anything less. They do measure what to do by how much pressure they get to do it. That's the point of putting the outcomes of their elections in doubt. The advatages of doing this with congressional races in 2002 certainly would seem to outweigh the risks at the presidential level in 2004. ie, if this might work, sooner is better.
The 'conservative position' advocated with swing voters and the Republican Party would be something along the lines of option 1) above.
There are aspects of this that smack of brinkmanship, which I don't like, and would like to see it removed without loosing any impact. I do believe however (as I suspect others in this forum do as well) that we do approach a constitutional brink and commensurate measures are needed to bring attention to the issues.
I am certain there are aspects of this that I'm mistaken or naive about. To those who would educate me, please do make it a constructive education. Show what is wrong, why it's wrong, but ideally, suggest an alternative (that lacks your stated objections) that you believe would in fact work and why.
Thank you Jim for the opportunity to present my thought. If you feel this may inadvertently inflame and cause more damage than contribution, then please do remove it.