Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

Jim Robinson

[carenot]

A sinking economy and Ross Perot lost the election on '92.

Yes, Ross Perot did lose the election for himself when he quit for awhile and then came back.

I would have voted for Ross if he hadn't have quit.He said his daughter's wedding was going to be disrupted or something.

Then he came back.

I didn't trust him him anymore.
So I voted for Bush.

[Mustang]

JimRob...thanks for this forum. IMHO, this site, (your site), should remain true to its original tenent...Conservative discussion, thought and ideals. We don't want a "Pubbie or Rat" leaning venue, just a place for clear thinking folks to stop by and share our view of political reality, right and wrong, good and evil,...and the challenges we face to overcome the hurdles ahead.

Mustang sends from "Malpaso News"

[headsonpikes]

Bite me, runt.

[Mustang]

Please pardon my above hiccup. Brussel sprouts do it to me every time. :-))

[gcruse]

I will also point out that FreeRepublic has give voice to a great many Libertarians

              As a platform, yes, it has.  As a point of attack, without a doubt.

 I would hate to see these people leave FreeRepublic because of a mere label.

          Libertarians become persona non grata around election time.
          Once you have made that crossing intact, labels won't run you off.

[TigersEye]

LOL Sorry I got back to you so late but glad to get some good chuckles for it. Blueberry pancakes would have been great this morning. ; )

What I won't do is tell the RNC that they own my vote.

I don't think I'm doing that by posting my agreement with JimRob on FR. I also post a lot of hard edged criticism of GW Bush and other Republicans when I think they deserve it. I could practically see the forehead veins throbbing when I posted that "Bush is outta here if he votes for the AWB".

I get my point across to the RNC by letters and phone calls and returning their donation cards with terse notes about CFR and the like with no money in the envelope. I also use conservative polling/petitioning and orgs like the NRA to amplify my voice.

They by no means have a lock on my vote but by your own admission the default position is hard to avoid. But but but President McCain??? McCain or Hitlery. McCain or Lieberman. McCain or Kerry. McCain or Dean. Aiyeeeeee!!!!! Choices like that are the stuff of Monty Python skits. Or Torquemada.

Is there still room in Belize for me?

We have to crush the left and we have to do it soon.

[Sabertooth]

Political shifts and movements in a country the size of the US are like big ships and they don't stop on a dime. They need to be slowed prior to turning or you'll dump half the passengers into the drink.

True as far as it goes, but not an accurate description of what is happening with the growth of government spending under President Bush. Going from, say, a 4% growth rate to 3% growth can described as an incremental step toward smaller government. Under Bush, the growth rate has increased, with more budget busters planned, like prescription drug benefits. Those are concrete steps toward larger, not smaller government.

I think the Perot voters knew exactly what they were doing...sending a message to the Republican Party (sound familiar?). By not looking past their noses, we got exactly what they deserved, eight years of the Clintons.

How did Clinton, with a 43% plurality, win an eight year term?

It was the advisors of Bush41 who didn't look past their noses when they lost a third of his 1988 voters, and they cost us four years of Clinton. It was the advisors of Bob Dole who didn't look past their noses and get enough of those votes back that cost us the second four years of Clinton.

Campaign managers are paid to win elections. Candidates are supposed to hire good managers. The accountability, and blame, falls squarely on the losing candidates for whom you and I voted in '92 and '96.

I agree that at times the bushies give W a pass for failed strategeries, but, I also see others NOT giving W credit for his successes in an equal portion. Neither is conducive to correcting mistakes or reinforcing effective rationale.

Agreed. Being a kneejerk in either direction is no constructive. Bush 43 and Rove deserve credit for the 2000 win, regardless of how lost they are in California.

If they move toward you instead of the middle, they have no chance of winning an election.

In which direction did the GOP move in the losses of '92 and '96? When losing seats in the House and Senate in '98? They did so again in 2000, but lets call that a wash, with the GOP taking the near tie for the Presidency. The main factor in 2002 was that Bush was riding high on his outstanding performance following 9/11, and was able to do well with strong mid-term coattails.

The last time the GOP made a concerted effort to appeal to conservative principles was in 1994. Refresh my memory... how many GOP incumbents were thrown out of the House or Senate?

Not unless he picks up more new ones than he loses. Politicians are always looking to solidify their base while picking up swing voters from the other guy. If they lose a few from the fringe, they don't care.

This was in response to my comment "If a politician pursues strategies that lose voters from one election to the next, then that politician has only the mirror to blame."

Obviously, if an incumbent picks up more voters than he loses, he isn't going to lose the election. That's irrelevant.

My comment was specifically about politicians who lose their seats by losing parts of their base when trying to appeal to new voters. Getting new voters is dandy, but when a political strategy loses more votes than it gains, the strategists are to blame, not the voters.

BTW, my definition of "base" is anyone who voted for a politician or party in the previous election. President Bush counts among his base both RINOs and conservatives. Fair enough?

I have a question. What exactly is the definition of a politician "taking my vote for granted" (tmvg)? Does that mean of they don't vote or govern exactly as I would if I were in their place, they are TMVG? Where's the line? 50%? 75%?

For me it's hard to quantify. I know it when I see it. Insulting my intelligence with a candidate is one way. Riordan is barely more loyal to the GOP than Buchanan or Bob Smith. He endorses Democrats over Republicans. Why should conservatives be expected to show more party loyalty than a candidate?

Here's another... the "do you want Hillary?" ploy. That cuts both ways, yet too often the bad strategists responsible for the losses to the Clintons in the first place keep getting paid for consultations.

How many statewide races has the GOP lost in California since 1998? Damned near all of them, and all of the high profile races have been run by limp candidates who were ashamed of conservatism and tried to appeal to the center. Losers all, because they pursued strategy that is an axiomatic loser.

Attempting to buck History, Bush and Rove sought to repeat the error by annointing Riordan. Since defeating McCain in the 2000 primary, Bush's only California electoral success is that he got his petty political score settled with Bill Jones.

Meanwhile, the elephant in the room in California, the one the Bush has refused to understand since 1994, remains unaddressed.

[carenot]

Howz about Moderately Free Republic?

Dang, Fred!
Yer killin' me!

[Kuksool]

{Tell a politician your vote is his entitlement, and he'll step on your face to get to a swing voter}

Wise words. In order to have a healthy republic, the citizens must be ever vigilante in holding their elected representatives' feets to the fire. Gov't corruption frequently occurs, when politicans know they are entitled to least 51% of the vote. Thus, we must never let our representatives take our votes for granted.

[Torie]

Sometimes appeasing on one issue, allows one to make progress on another. And sometimes the Left has it right, all things considered given the values of the society at large, and to oppose to is to lose it all. Politics is all about judgment, and parsing the details, and the costs and benefits. I tend to be a micro kind of guy. I want to know all the details on complex issues, before just going for it. And yes, on some issues, I have not mastered on the details, or have mastered them, and am ambivalent. And so it goes.

[TLBSHOW]

In order to have a healthy republic, the citizens must be ever vigilante in holding their elected representatives' feets to the fire.

BUMP

[DrNo]

If I may quote the constitution, Article 4 section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee every State in this Union a Republican Form of government..."

emphasis added

;^)

[Duramaximus]

Conservative... absolutely! Republican... no way!

The Republican party is all too willing to compromise on issues to gain popularity among middle-of-the-road voters, and this posture troubles me.

I read around 250 of the posts responding to your question, and it disturbs me to see the number of those who believe compromise is a path to winning.

It is the Republican party's compromising attitude that gives us a Senate of RINOs, such as Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snow, and John McCain.

What do we have to show for this? A minimal tax cut, expanded tax relief for parents who pay little or no taxes, rampant illegal immigration on our Mexican border, homosexuals mainstreamed into our society, a litany of environmental laws designed to restrict free enterprise. The list is endless.

No, I am a conservative, and I appreciate the conservative side of Free Republic. Let the RINOs whine....

[Joe Hadenuf]

I concur. A big mistake.

[Torie]

The idea that individuals on this site should not criticize Republican policy, or individual GOP politicians, based on reasoned discourse, is nutso. That will never happen. If it does, I suspect my half-life around here will be shortened. But when one does, one is going against the grain, and should endeavor to avoid perfervid bellicosity. Just stick to the facts, and leave folks with something to reflect upon. In fact, that is a good way to go in general.

[Buckeroo]

You are correct about your thinking of yanking the term "conservative" away from the web pages because the obvious republican party platform that some think the concepts are equal, as in "conservatives" are "republicans." This is nonsense thinking and I am glad you brought out the truth albeit, indirectly.

It is true that republicans are generally more conservative than democrats but that is like the analogy of which sinks lower to the bottom of the ocean, "whale fecal matter or an iron anchor"? ... both political parties just drop to the lowest level they can .... with one taking a faster approach, even though it has more distance to cover.

[budwiesest]

A morally dissolute or relativistic people will never enjoy traditional freedoms in their most expansive and secure sense.

Good point, however if your ticket is punched "American" you're entitled to whatever freedoms are on the menu. Try as you might to qualify the recipient, all that was then, is available to all Americans now. Should you wish to continue to dance around principles, may I suggest more feathers?

[Joe Hadenuf]

The idea that individuals on this site should not criticize Republican policy, or individual GOP politicians, based on reasoned discourse, is nutso.

Nutso is right.

This may have worked in the 50s or even early 60s. Things have changed radically, and so have people willing to sell out for personal gain or votes etc. Politician just don't seem to have the same allegiance for their constituents, too many back door deals, flip flops, to much chance for fraud and deceit.

I personally have taken much flack due to some of my comments about the two parties in DC. I am not a follower, and I do not blindly vote for anyone, or any party due to party affiliation. I am glad to see that many others seem to be on the same track.

[Texasforever]

The Republican party is all too willing to compromise on issues to gain popularity among middle-of-the-road voters, and this posture troubles me.

Tell me how to win elections without the "middle of the roaders".