Republicans, All Dressed up, But Nothing More Than Empty Suits

Vanity ^ | 10/09/02 | B. A. Conservative

[riley1992]

FreeRepublic blindly backs Republicans regardless of issues or the Republican platform.

You betcha. "If you don't vote Republican, you are handing it to the Democrats." is the war cry. God forbid anyone should think outside the box.

[B. A. Conservative]

I have not yet looked into the Republic of Texas. I know they exist but am not familiar with the organization or what they advocate.

Your comments about change are very relevant to the end of the United States. Basic mathematics govern financial accounting. The rules for you and for the United States are basically the same with a single exception; you cannot lawfully print paper into money. The United States has been spending more money that it has received in revenue every year since WWI with only one or two years as an exception. There were no surpluses during any year during Clinton's term or Bush II's. I am sixty and there has only been one true surplus for one year under Eisenhower. The admitted estimates of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security are about 12 trillion dollars. No one can accurately even begin to guess at the unfunded liabilities of Medicare when the boomers reach retirement age. US GDP is roughly 10 trillion.

Up until sometime in 80's, beneficiaries retiring under Social Security reaped a windfall profit. Average benefits exceeded the taxes paid in plus a reasonable return on the invested capital. Up until the 70's the benefits exceeded contribution by a wide margin. Almost all beneficiaries retiring now will lose money based on their prior contributions. Anyone under the age of 50 is going to get screwed royally and the younger you are the worse the screwing. SS is nothing more than a cheap Ponzi scheme exactly like a chain letter. It was never fair. It was never equal. And it has always been Unconstitutional. Medicare is worse. Almost all the present problems being experienced by Americans related to the health care system are the direct fault of Medicare or US government policy.

Things changed but you are living in a delusion or a fantasy if you think they are for the better. And if we don't change Social Security and Medicare, the United States will be bankrupt before 2016. If we don't return to living under the Constitution, the United States will end in bankruptcy, but the world will be a better place.

[ex-snook]

"You betcha. "If you don't vote Republican, you are handing it to the Democrats." is the war cry. God forbid anyone should think outside the box.

Righto. So what differences does a voter expect and what does he get? Review the sameness - expanded government, bombing countries without war declaration, NAFTA exporting factories, robbing the Social Security 'lock box', runaway Attorney General's snoop patrol, ignoring illegal immigration, despise military opinions, servant worker jobs replacing factory jobs, using union Reagan Democrats for photo-ops.

Differences - more morality in the White House and big tax cuts for investors and the dead.

[riley1992]

Differences - more morality in the White House and big tax cuts for investors and the dead.

To his credit, he cut taxes for more than just that. However, on all else we agree. It is asinine how you are slammed around here now for daring to disagree with the Bush Administration's policies. Automaton comes to mind for some odd reason.

[rintense]

A third party would only mean the complete and utter death to any chance of there ever being a conservative government ever again in the Untied States. Take a good, long look at New Zealand and their multi-party system.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think yours is a very reasonable definition and is very close to my own point of view. Unfotunately, that nation began a slow decline during the Civil War, and has existed only in vestigal form since passage of the Income Tax nearly 100 years ago. We will never go back to that earlier version of our nation. It just isn't going to happen. So the best we can do is try to hold the line against creeping national and global Socialism.

[Protagoras]

Do you prefer Kennedy, Bradley, Byrd, and Blagojavich?

It isn't a yes or no proposition. I don't vote straight tickets and I don't have to choose the people you listed in order to reject the clowns I listed.

I reject Ryan (both of them) and also Blagojavich. I reject Nixon and Kennedy.

[rintense]

You ought to be ashamed for trying to turn that on those of us who vote on principal.

Then you have pegged nearly 100% of the Bush bashers here on FR. They have admitted they voted for Bush because he was either:

1. A lesser of two evils
2. Anyone but Gore

So don't just throw out your admonishments without acknowledging that many of the angry conservatives on FR have only themselves to blame for not voting their principles.

[Arioch7]

I agree with you. However, I think that the real problem here lies in the RINOs who pretend to be Republican in order to get the vote if they campaign from a GOP district.

The reson I vote GOP(Although sometimes I vite LIbertarian.) is this... most people in the US are centrists. They are neither left nor right. I believe most would be Conservative if they fully understood the ramifications of thier choices but to most people politics is a two day study in ideas the DAYS before they vote.

After reading the platform of the Republican LIberty Caucas, I have come to the conclusion that it is easier working within the GOP to attempt to change IT rather then fighting against it.

It upsets me that many people in the GOP are moderates but that is the way it is and the way it shall remain for a long time. While President BUsh has shown some spirit on certain issues, he has capitulated in others. The reasons for this are it is easier to try to change things when one is in office rather then when one is outside of the power structure.

It comes down to Realpolitik, and the reason some are getting angry with you is that if we followed your vision, we would be a fringe party unable to do ANYTHING. As I have said, I work inside the GOP to bring it more to the right and if people like me succeed, it will bring the country farher to the right.

I might add, the political capital is not present to demand the changes that you wish. We must do it by incrementalism. This is the same strategy that the left has used with the DNC and on the American public, and it works. The country would NEVER go for thier looney lefty ideas so they have waged war using incrementalism hoping that it will be too late once the Country wakes up and realizes what is happening.

IN summary, I share your ideals but I am a realist and will fight for every last inch. Who would have EVER thought ten years ago that a President would campaign as a Conservative and win? Albeit, as a Compassionate Conservative but a Conservative nevertheless.

The reason we are practicing Realpolitik now is that the November elections are a HAIRSBREADTH apart and we must not lose. If we Conservatives all abandon the GOP, what will we gain? The Libertarians and the COnstitutionalists will gain more members but will still be fringe groups and the DNC will have acheived an absoulute stranglehold over our government.

I am hoping you are just a frustrated idealist and will see my point, because as I have said, I share your views but strategically you are advocating your own extinction and giving the GOP free reign to become EXACTLY what you predict. IN other words, your actions(If taken en masse.) would produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Protagoras]

I guess you where wrong on this.

Yes, it didn't get canceled. I'm surprised.

Could you be wrong about your fellow Freepers who vote Republican?

Wrong about what?

You have to vote for the best person for the job, that is your civic duty.

Even if the best person isn't running? If two commies were running against each other, which one would you vote for? If two crooks were running, which is often the case, you vote for the one who stole less? I don't choose to vote that way, but we keep getting bad candidates because lots of people have the childish notion that it is the right way.

The bottom line is that we have to vote in the primaries and get Conservative GOPers on the ballots.

I'm not interested in conservatives if they represent what many so-called conservatives here stand for.

Unless you cannot vote in good conscience, at least consider voting for a conservative R, they have the best chance of making a change and it keeps the Ds out of office. They are the ones who want to destroy our country.

I cannot vote in good conscience for ANYONE who doesn't represent smaller government and the rightful role of government in a free society. Namely, to defend citizens rights.

And we have to DO something, get involved. Write letters to the editor, run for office, get involved in polling place duties, run for committee positions for your local GOP, put up signs, protest.

WE? You have a frog in your pocket? I'm more involved than you are ever likely to be. Skip the lecture, you don't know anything about my involvement so you have no credibility on the issue.

Finally, Stop fighting about the things we can deal with later.

There is no no "later" when it comes to fundamental differences. I oppose all parties that would expand the role of government, or for that matter, keep it the same. That includes Republicans in most cases.

LP, CP and RP agree on basic principles and are close on many issues.

Incorrect on "basic principles", partially correct on "many" issues.

I'd much rather see GOP vs. LP in general elections, I know both really care about the Country and Liberty.

Debatable.

The lack of action and in fighting by the conservative base is the reason the GOP is not more conservative and why we are losing the country.

We are losing the country because people have abandoned the principles of limited government and personal responsibility. Both major parties are guilty of continuing the downward spiral.

[Arioch7]

Did you read my post? :)

[reformed_democrat]

It isn't a yes or no proposition.

Yes. It is. You either vote Republican, or you get a dem.

I reject Ryan (both of them) and also Blagojavich. I reject Nixon and Kennedy.

Then who do you choose, and how will they win?

If you can't answer that question, then you, like Perot's Pinheads, Buchanan's Bimbos, and other assorted "libertarians" who vote their feelings will elect democrats.

Better a Bush-Bot then a dem shill, even if your intentions are good and you feel better about yourself for not voting Republican.

[reformed_democrat]

"If you don't vote Republican, you are handing it to the Democrats."

You have it right. In spite of yourself.

[Cacique]

btt

[Protagoras]

More like a RBA. Republican before American. Go vote for Hitler you moron. How the hell old are you? Why do they let children on this forum unsupervised?

[sixmil]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The time to steer your party is not election time. By then it is too late, and you are forced to vote RINO, assuming you still believe your vote counts. The reason why RINOs, like liberals, seem to always be calling the shots is simply because they are more politically active. Those of us in caucus states have no excuse for being politically apathetic. Those in primary states will have a harder time breaking into the machine, but you have to get in and put your issues and candidates into the party platform before the primaries. Political activism/participation is something that has to happen year around. When you get mail from the party, take them up on their offer and go to the meetings and run for office. There you will be able to steer things and come election time you will not be forced to vote for the RINO to spite the socialist. Also, you have to remember that there has never been a successful 3rd party in this country. New parties are always spawned from existing parties, so save yourself some trouble fighting history and work the existing party.

[sixmil]

One more thing. I have nothing against 3rd parties, it's just that they have no viability in elections without run-offs. Until this is implemented in every state and at the national level, we are stuck with the 2 party system. For national elections at least, that would require a constitutional amendment, which is a pretty tough hill to climb.

[Mulder]

I'm very dissatisfied with the current GOP leadership also. I believe that there is really not much difference between the two parties at the top (grassroots/local level is a MUCH different story). Both of these arguments have been hashed out for years here by those on both sides.

However, a large number of good conservatives think there is a difference between the leadership of the two parties. They think that by winning the Senate, Bush and the GOP will take a hard turn to the right.

The only way to know for sure is to vote the Republicans into office, such that they have a majority in both Houses of Congress. I'm supporting my incumbent GOP congressman and I urge others to do the same.

If the GOP takes back the Senate, one of two things will occur.

The first possibility is that a conservative agenda will finally be advanced in DC. I would be very happy with this outcome.

The second possibility is that a conservative agenda will not be advanced in DC. Under this scenario, many of the grassroots Republicans will "wake up" and realize what is happening. This would lead to an increase in conservative activism at the grassroots level, and would lead to many challenges against RINOS during the primary elections. It could very well spawn another Reagan revolution or Contract With America.

The best way to "force the issue" is to give the Republicans the Senate.

[billbears]

As to the great things that democraps do, it is illegal in this state to drive in the rain with the with your lights off. Thousands of people are ticketed for not wearing seat belts!

LOL!! And you're blaming Democrats for that? Better check your history there. Who was the politician who pushed for airbags, lowered speed limits, seat belt laws, and that stupid third brake light, all of which BTW increased the price of cars and increased revenues through tickets into the coffers of each and every state. Why I think, yes I know that was Elizabeth Dole!! Not some local democrap as you say.

Documented here with attached report at bottom

Read the report. More than once she went against the Reagan administration's wishes and against businesses. I guess it was 'for the children' huh?

[Red Jones]

And you and your wannabes have no votes...... it does take the votes to get into position to govern.....

you're mistaken deport. as ba conservative made clear in his editorial the conservative side doesn't lack votes it lacks leaders. The actual history is that when the republicans have conservative leadership they win in a landslide. In 1980 & 1984 we had a real conservative leader and we won by very wide margins. In 1994 the republicans campaigned on a strong right-ward bent with contract with america and made very strong gains in congress. Bush 1 of course won easily in 1988 when people assumed he would at least try to be loyal to the ideas he was campaigning on. Then when they saw he was a big government, bash the private secotr monster just like the democrats they elected clinton in 1992. Even in the face of the very terrible, corrupt and criminal democrat party leadership these liberal republicans that the bush' represent can barely win. Very much unlike when the republicans have conservative leadership as has been demonstrated. So, it's not a lack of votes. The american people do support real conservatism. It is a lack of leaders inside the republican party that is the problem.