Why vote GOP back in?

[Oceander]

With all due respect, I did not mean to imply that one lone voice calling up on the phone was going to make them turn on a dime.  The point is to keep the pressure up, constantly, without regard to whether or not you're getting personalized customer service each time.  And, perhaps just as importantly, get your friends, your neighbors, your family, whomever will listen to you, to do the same - offer to make it easy for them, you'll write the guts of the letter, stick it in a document with their name and address on it, and all they have to do is sign it if they like it, and you'll even mail it off for them.  This is not the sort of thing that is going to appeal to anyone who needs immediate gratification (which is why it's hard as heck for me), but it has to be done.

[Thor]

With all due respect, I did not mean to imply that one lone voice calling up on the phone was going to make them turn on a dime.  The point is to keep the pressure up, constantly, without regard to whether or not you're getting personalized customer service each time.  And, perhaps just as importantly, get your friends, your neighbors, your family, whomever will listen to you, to do the same - offer to make it easy for them, you'll write the guts of the letter, stick it in a document with their name and address on it, and all they have to do is sign it if they like it, and you'll even mail it off for them.  This is not the sort of thing that is going to appeal to anyone who needs immediate gratification (which is why it's hard as heck for me), but it has to be done.

I dunno, a half a dozen phone calls and the same amount of emails should have yielded a result of some sort. Bear in mind, that one phone call or  email actually represents the sentiments of a significant number of other constituents that just haven't bothered to write or call. I forget the exact number, but it was an overwhelming one at the Federal level.

[Oceander]

I dunno, a half a dozen phone calls and the same amount of emails should have yielded a result of some sort. Bear in mind, that one phone call of  email actually represents the sentiments of a significant number of other constituents that just haven't bothered to write or call. I forget the exact number, but it was an overwhelming one at the Federal level.

There is a multiplier effect.  Now, are these Congress-bee-itches of the right political persuasion, or are they on the dark side?

[bkg]

I felt the same way in 94.

Now we see where we are after that.

Made a long term difference did it?

I think this is the crux of why I asked the question, Rich, and I thank you for carrying the torch. Under GOP rule, the spending and entitlements went through the roof. Just like they are under this congress and administration, albeit at a different pace. I'm dismayed, admittedly, at the statements that wanting a true Constitutionalist is a fantasy. My perspective is that hoping for the GOP to do anything different than they have under full congress/administration power is also fantasy - which is what prompted me to want input.

My only intention was to hear peoples opinions, and challenge them based on my world view and experience, so that I could get a better understanding of the thoughts. I'm perceiving a lot of anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist if they are not in the GOP. I don't understand that position - I mean that, I don't understand it. That's not an attack, it's an acknowledgement of not being able to make sense of that position. I hoped this would open the conversation, but it's turned into a pissing match, which is incredibly disappointing to me.

I guess the bottom line is that I'm aligned with your perspective of voting for someone with like ideals rather than the letter behind their name. That letter doesn't guarantee like perspectives at all anymore. At the end of the day, if I find a canditate - local, state, national - who I feel good about voting for, then he/she will get my vote, regardless of party affiliation. It's the only way I think I can feel good (at this point) about voting.

[Oceander]

I think this is the crux of why I asked the question, Rich, and I thank you for carrying the torch. Under GOP rule, the spending and entitlements went through the roof. Just like they are under this congress and administration, albeit at a different pace. I'm dismayed, admittedly, at the statements that wanting a true Constitutionalist is a fantasy. My perspective is that hoping for the GOP to do anything different than they have under full congress/administration power is also fantasy - which is what prompted me to want input.

My only intention was to hear peoples opinions, and challenge them based on my world view and experience, so that I could get a better understanding of the thoughts. I'm perceiving a lot of anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist if they are not in the GOP. I don't understand that position - I mean that, I don't understand it. That's not an attack, it's an acknowledgement of not being able to make sense of that position. I hoped this would open the conversation, but it's turned into a pissing match, which is incredibly disappointing to me.

I guess the bottom line is that I'm aligned with your perspective of voting for someone with like ideals rather than the letter behind their name. That letter doesn't guarantee like perspectives at all anymore. At the end of the day, if I find a canditate - local, state, national - who I feel good about voting for, then he/she will get my vote, regardless of party affiliation. It's the only way I think I can feel good (at this point) about voting.

I didn't realize that voting was all about "feeling good"?  Pardon my language, but that strikes me as something one is more likely to find on DU.

You seem to be imagining more so-called "anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist" sentiment than actually exists.  Very, very few here think the GOP as it is presently constituted is the cat's pajamas; most have preferences that are, in fact, closer to yours than to anything the GOP gets on about.  That being said, a lot of folks here do not think that being an enslaved political purist is an enviable thing to be, and we are realistic enough to realize that you have to work with what you've got, not simply sit around and wish for what you haven't got.

The very simple, blunt fact of the matter is, there are only two going political parties right now, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, and any putative third party merely subtracts votes from one of those two, thereby aiding and abetting the other, without ever having a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected itself.

To put it more simply, any vote for a party that is not the Republican Party, as foetid as that party may seem to you, is a vote for the Democrat Party.  You want to vote for some third-party conservative/ultra-conservative?  Go right ahead, just so long as you are willing to be honest enough with yourself to realize that doing so is precisely the same thing as voting for Obama and the current crop of crypto-communist Democrats.

The rest of us will see what sort of semi-coherent, less than disgusting shape we can whip the current GOP into, and we will go with that, until such time as it becomes apparent that the only solution is armed revolt - and we have not yet reached that point, and we will not until after the 2010 elections.

[bkg]

I didn't realize that voting was all about "feeling good"?  Pardon my language, but that strikes me as something one is more likely to find on DU.

<snip>

The rest of us will see what sort of semi-coherent, less than disgusting shape we can whip the current GOP into, and we will go with that, until such time as it becomes apparent that the only solution is armed revolt - and we have not yet reached that point, and we will not until after the 2010 elections.

Don't misinterpret the "feel good" comment as an emotional decision. That wasn't my intent. At the end of the day, I need to be able to take pride in my vote, be able to say I supported a true conservative (or the most conservative on the ballot?), and that I voted for freedom and liberty. That's all I meant by feeling good about the vote.

I agree with your last paragraph. We will get to the point that a reset is the only solution. It will happenin my lifetime, but I agree that it will be a few years out... likely after 2013.

[Oceander]

Don't misinterpret the "feel good" comment as an emotional decision. That wasn't my intent. At the end of the day, I need to be able to take pride in my vote, be able to say I supported a true conservative (or the most conservative on the ballot?), and that I voted for freedom and liberty. That's all I meant by feeling good about the vote.

I agree with your last paragraph. We will get to the point that a reset is the only solution. It will happenin my lifetime, but I agree that it will be a few years out... likely after 2013.

Why not take pride in the fact that you did what you could, on the peaceful side of the line between civil society and armed rebellion, to save your country from the totalitarians and the crypto-communists?  To paraphrase a very old cliche:  No-one ever promised that voting would be a bowl of cherries.  Also, to paraphrase a line from Rush:  if you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice.  There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, and waiting for such a candidate before you cast your vote is tantamount to voting for the other guy - in other words, by deciding not to choose, you have still chosen, but now you've chosen the guy whom you know is out to steal your property and gut your life rather than the guy who, if you and all of your buddies and fellow conservatives ride him hard enough, might just do things that you can at least live with.

[bkg]

Why not take pride in the fact that you did what you could, on the peaceful side of the line between civil society and armed rebellion, to save your country from the totalitarians and the crypto-communists?  To paraphrase a very old cliche:  No-one ever promised that voting would be a bowl of cherries.  Also, to paraphrase a line from Rush:  if you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice.  There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, and waiting for such a candidate before you cast your vote is tantamount to voting for the other guy - in other words, by deciding not to choose, you have still chosen, but now you've chosen the guy whom you know is out to steal your property and gut your life rather than the guy who, if you and all of your buddies and fellow conservatives ride him hard enough, might just do things that you can at least live with.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't vote . I've never stated that or intended to imply that. I will just vote for the candidate, like your first sentence, that supports freedom, liberty, COTUS and shrinking gov't. Will that person exist? Who knows. I can say Bachmann will get my vote again in 2010. 

BTW, the Rush quote is "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choce." 

[Oceander]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't vote . I've never stated that or intended to imply that. I will just vote for the candidate, like your first sentence, that supports freedom, liberty, COTUS and shrinking gov't. Will that person exist? Who knows. I can say Bachmann will get my vote again in 2010. 

BTW, the Rush quote is "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choce." 

As long as we're still playing on the same team, that suits me just fine.  And thanks for the correct quote for the Rush line - I couldn't remember it exactly, which is why I tried to CYA by saying that I was paraphrasing it.

[formerlurker]

I didn't realize that voting was all about "feeling good"?  Pardon my language, but that strikes me as something one is more likely to find on DU.

You seem to be imagining more so-called "anti-constitutionalist or anti-true conservatist" sentiment than actually exists.  Very, very few here think the GOP as it is presently constituted is the cat's pajamas; most have preferences that are, in fact, closer to yours than to anything the GOP gets on about.  That being said, a lot of folks here do not think that being an enslaved political purist is an enviable thing to be, and we are realistic enough to realize that you have to work with what you've got, not simply sit around and wish for what you haven't got.

The very simple, blunt fact of the matter is, there are only two going political parties right now, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, and any putative third party merely subtracts votes from one of those two, thereby aiding and abetting the other, without ever having a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected itself.

To put it more simply, any vote for a party that is not the Republican Party, as foetid as that party may seem to you, is a vote for the Democrat Party.  You want to vote for some third-party conservative/ultra-conservative?  Go right ahead, just so long as you are willing to be honest enough with yourself to realize that doing so is precisely the same thing as voting for Obama and the current crop of crypto-communist Democrats.

The rest of us will see what sort of semi-coherent, less than disgusting shape we can whip the current GOP into, and we will go with that, until such time as it becomes apparent that the only solution is armed revolt - and we have not yet reached that point, and we will not until after the 2010 elections.

I  think the only way it will work is if a candidate does what Lieberman did -- career politician, with a solid base of supporters, making a political statement with the move to Independent, or something similar.   They can't be new kids on the block.   

 

[formerlurker]

Jesus Christ...  You DO like to make assumptions don't you?  You seem to be assuming that I don't. 

I DO call them.

I DO write them.

I DO e-mail them.

I DO fax them.

Just as I do with my Congressperson and Senators at the state and federal level.

I haven't taken a baseball bat to one yet, but I'm keeping that option on the table.   

No, just covering the bases here.   The "make me want to vote for them" debate has played out to death and caused a massive banning at FR, to the point of near hysteria.   The I-am-staying-home-or-voting-for-my-guy usually goes hand in hand so just throwing it out there.   One of those rinse, wash and repeats.

I have been involved with local politics much of my adult life.  I know my local politicians (not federal, I only know my District's Congressman) very well and speak to most of them weekly/monthly or on a regular basis.   They know what my position is on pretty much everything, as I know what their position is.  Give and take is the name of the game.   They get my support (we are talking a great deal of moderate Democrats here in MA, GOP is on life support here) if they are on the same page with me on many important issues.  I don't vote party line (I do for federal office), cause I can't here in MA.  

When I state local - I mean your city/town selectboard or councilors.  Your school committees are supposed to be apolitical so there shouldn't be a political designation after their name on the ballot, although if you are involved enough you know what politics they espouse.    If you are heavily involved locally then fantastic.   Run for office if you can swing it.   There is an old Chinese saying I like about a man moves a mountain by first removing small stones.    I think we can all handle the stones and should aspire to move the mountain.  

  

[Thor]

I don't consider a third party out of the question IF they have enough financial backing and have strong candidates. If one looks at Ross Perot, what killed his campaign was the fact that he threw in, then reneged, threw in again. His indecisiveness is what killed him.

 Fred Thompson was a potential shining star for the GOP. His procrastination and his half-hearted attempt at running killed him. I really liked Fred, too.

All in all, I keep the MN Gubernatorial Election of 1998 in the back of my head. Nobody expected Jesse Ventura to win, not even himself. People DO tire of the same old shit.

[bkg]

I don't consider a third party out of the question IF they have enough financial backing and have strong candidates. If one looks at Ross Perot, what killed his campaign was the fact that he threw in, then reneged, threw in again. His indecisiveness is what killed him.

 Fred Thompson was a potential shining star for the GOP. His procrastination and his half-hearted attempt at running killed him. I really liked Fred, too.

All in all, I keep the MN Gubernatorial Election of 1998 in the back of my head. Nobody expected Jesse Ventura to win, not even himself. People DO tire of the same old shit.

Exactly correct. Perot would have won had he not waffled. And Ventura won because he didn't kis asses and didn't care if people voted for him. That resonated with people like me (didn't vote for him) who now proceed with the "if they WANT the job, they're the wrong person for the job" model.

[TheSarge]

And Ventura's reign in MN was by and large considered a joke.

The protest vote got him into office...but made him ineffective after he got there because he really didn't have the support of either side.

It's the same situation we'd have faced had (God forbid) Ross Perot been elected.

We can effect change within the two party system.  We just have to get off our collective asses and vote and support and knock on doors for the person that best represents our beliefs...not just pull the lever for the same old RINO just to keep the sear represented by an (R)

Third party types like John Young and Ross Perot and Kinky Friedman make for nice headlines during an election.  But all they end up doing is hurting one party or the other.

Case in point...had Perot NOT run in 92...Bill Clinton would still be chasing skirts around the Capitol Grounds in Little Rock.

[bkg]

I doin't know that, frankly, I care if a "party" gets hurt. I'm more interested in a candidate than a party.

Ventura did a lot for MN. But he got a lot of bad press for being 1-Jesse Ventura 2-not part of the establishment and 3-tax custs.

Our vehicle tabs were the lowest in my lifetime. Now we're 1.5% of LIST PRICE of a vehicle, with a standarized depreciation method. It's fawked. Cars that were maxed at $250 (I think that was the limit) are now $1300.

I'm opening to working w/in the party, but I still don't know two things. will the GOP put forth a conservative candidate? and Will the GOP do anything different in the future than they have in the past?

I fear the answer to both of those is NO.

[TheSarge]

I doin't know that, frankly, I care if a "party" gets hurt. I'm more interested in a candidate than a party.

Ventura did a lot for MN. But he got a lot of bad press for being 1-Jesse Ventura 2-not part of the establishment and 3-tax custs.

Our vehicle tabs were the lowest in my lifetime. Now we're 1.5% of LIST PRICE of a vehicle, with a standarized depreciation method. It's fawked. Cars that were maxed at $250 (I think that was the limit) are now $1300.

I'm opening to working w/in the party, but I still don't know two things. will the GOP put forth a conservative candidate? and Will the GOP do anything different in the future than they have in the past?

I fear the answer to both of those is NO.

Then I fear that you're in for a lot of frustration and heartbreak in the future.  Third party candidates are an island unto themselves and tend to be extremely useless once they manage to get into office..if they ever do.

[bkg]

Then I fear that you're in for a lot of frustration and heartbreak in the future.  Third party candidates are an island unto themselves and tend to be extremely useless once they manage to get into office..if they ever do.

I can't agree that they are useless, especially on the local level. Throw them into the Presidency, and you'll have two parties fighting him/her, I agree. Maybe that's exactly what we need?

What makes you confident (honest question, cause I lack such confidence) that the GOP will go conservative? Will change the direction? will reduce the debt? Will, for the first time in decades, promote liberty and freedom? I fear that they will be in the future as they have been in the past - liberal leaning big spenders.

[Thor]

The only viable way that a third party could even work is IF they also took a significant amount of seats in the House and the Senate, in addition to the Presidency. Then, they would have to work amongst ALL of the parties.

I remember Jesse having some tough problems because the MN house and senate was either Dem or Republican. That sure didn't help him much.

[TheSarge]

The only viable way that a third party could even work is IF they also took a significant amount of seats in the House and the Senate, in addition to the Presidency. Then, they would have to work amongst ALL of the parties.

I remember Jesse having some tough problems because the MN house and senate was either Dem or Republican. That sure didn't help him much.

The only way...IMHO...that a 3rd party would be worth anything either on a state or national level is if...for example...every Conservative Republican you can think of suddenly switched their party affiliation to something like the "Conservative Party"...or the "Constitution Party".

Same thing with the Libs.

Otherwise it's political suicide to try and run on a national level as a third party candidate.  Just ask Ron Paul.

What people fail to realize is that while third parties sound great...all you have to do is look at countries like Italy...or Israel...or other nations that have thousands of smaller "third parties" that slice up the vote so much that at best a Prime Minister or President of one of those countries has to cajole army twist and threaten enough of them into a shaky coalition just to get basic legislation passed...at worst it's a train wreck of one issue politicians that can't even agree on what time to adjourn every day.

Our two party system isn't perfect...no system TRULY is...but it's in reality a better option than the alternatives that face us.

[bkg]

The only way...IMHO...that a 3rd party would be worth anything either on a state or national level is if...for example...every Conservative Republican you can think of suddenly switched their party affiliation to something like the "Conservative Party"...or the "Constitution Party".

I agree with this. Once (or if) conservatives start jumping ship, then we will have a whole new ballgame. Given that we're seeing people jump back and forth between the two parties tells me that the parties are not very different.

What people fail to realize is that while third parties sound great...all you have to do is look at countries like Italy...or Israel...or other nations that have thousands of smaller "third parties" that slice up the vote so much that at best a Prime Minister or President of one of those countries has to cajole army twist and threaten enough of them into a shaky coalition just to get basic legislation passed...at worst it's a train wreck of one issue politicians that can't even agree on what time to adjourn every day.

Would you rather have a government that, in their words, gets stuff done? Or one that is effectively neutered due to infighting? Frankly, I'd prefer the latter. When the government doesn't get stuff done, we are in a better place - when they are getting things done, it's almost always at the expense of freedom and liberty.

Our two party system isn't perfect...no system TRULY is...but it's in reality a better option than the alternatives that face us.

I would agree with this if we really had two separate parties. They are very close together now. Well, the dems have pulled the GOP on a hard left... and then turned a harder left themselves. So the choice seems to be lib or socialist. We don't seem to have the lib vs. conservative anymore.

[TheSarge]

I agree with this. Once (or if) conservatives start jumping ship, then we will have a whole new ballgame. Given that we're seeing people jump back and forth between the two parties tells me that the parties are not very different.

But their not going to...for many different reasons...some good and some bad.

The parties are different.  Fundamentally at their core they are worlds apart.  The ones like Specter and Jeffords that you see jumping ship never were Republicans to begin with.  They'd be better off in the "Opportunist Party".

The Reagan Republicans need to remind the Rockerfeller Repubs in the party that we "paid for this microphone"...and take it back.  Like I said...we have to buck what the "thinkers" in the Party like Newt or Steele say we should do (like vote for Scozzafava in NY-23) just because it's the safe vote.  THAT is what leads to us becoming the Dem-Lite Party.  Instead we should be more bold and unafraid like Palin and endorse and support the candidate within the primaries that best represents us.

We wouldn't have been talking about Arlen Specter jumping ship had we Republicans gotten more behind Pat Toomey or whom ever the Conservative was that opposed Arlen last time he ran for re-election.  Same thing applies in Maine...Rhode Island...etc.

Would you rather have a government that, in their words, gets stuff done? Or one that is effectively neutered due to infighting? Frankly, I'd prefer the latter. When the government doesn't get stuff done, we are in a better place - when they are getting things done, it's almost always at the expense of freedom and liberty.

When Democrats and RINO's don't do anything we are better off.  When Conservative Republicans  roll up their sleeves and get to work...it's good for everyone.

What we need as a party sounds like it doesn't make sense but is the root of the problem.

We (Republicans) need to get over trying to have a love affair with the media in hopes of being "liked" and at the same time need to quit living in fear of them savaging every thing we say that doesn't fit their Liberal mindset.

We're not neutered from infighting...we're neutered because of fear of falsely being called "racist" because we oppose Affirmative Action in hiring policies or support racial profiling at the airport security line.

Saying that having a government that gets nothing done is beautiful prose for the talk shows and the political stump speech...but bringing the federal government to a grinding halt means I don't get paid.  It means that for the sake of political "points" supplies don't get where they need to go in war time.

Republicans shot themselves in the foot when Newt and company brought the federal government to a grinding halt in their tiff with Billy Jeff.

So you might want to rethink slightly your belief that government not doing anything is better for everyone.

I would agree with this if we really had two separate parties. They are very close together now. Well, the dems have pulled the GOP on a hard left... and then turned a harder left themselves. So the choice seems to be lib or socialist. We don't seem to have the lib vs. conservative anymore.

That's so much regurgitated FreeeRepublic crap and you know it!  Just because the pundits and the MSM say there's virtually no difference...or at least portray that in their coverage...doesn't mean it's true.

[bkg]

I'm not a republican.

Aside from the Bush tax cuts, what has gov't done to encourage freedom and liberty in the last 15 years? If the answer is few, compared to socialist policies, then I once again have to wonder why having a neutered gov't would be a bad thing.

I've never even been to freerepublic - don't even know WTF it is. I stand behind my statement, and I think the GOP record supports my statement. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but given the growth of gov't and spending under the GOP, I no longer see them as a conservative party.

[Thor]

I'm not a republican.

Aside from the Bush tax cuts, what has gov't done to encourage freedom and liberty in the last 15 years? If the answer is few, compared to socialist policies, then I once again have to wonder why having a neutered gov't would be a bad thing.

I've never even been to freerepublic - don't even know WTF it is. I stand behind my statement, and I think the GOP record supports my statement. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but given the growth of gov't and spending under the GOP, I no longer see them as a conservative party.

You can't look back at the last 15 years. You have to look more deeply. Reagan, while not my ideal Republican (that's for another thread), did a LOT of good for this country. Perhaps look at his tenure in office. GHWB merely let what Reagan and his staff put into motion continue to work. Clinton did, too, at least economically, for the most part. Clinton basically rode the wave of Reaganomics until he started making banks and lenders loan money to people who would otherwise not have qualified to own a home. That homeowners wave lasted until 2005. It was huge and I benefitted from it immensely. The jobs started going away around Sep 2000 shortly after the tech sector crash (FYI, that's still pre-GWB). Not much to be found out there. As the jobs market slowly declined, the housing sector started to fall. I watched it all happen right in front of my eyes. (My ex-wife is a Real Estate Broker up there in MN.)

[bkg]

You can't look back at the last 15 years. You have to look more deeply. Reagan, while not my ideal Republican (that's for another thread), did a LOT of good for this country. Perhaps look at his tenure in office. GHWB merely let what Reagan and his staff put into motion continue to work. Clinton did, too, at least economically, for the most part. Clinton basically rode the wave of Reaganomics until he started making banks and lenders loan money to people who would otherwise not have qualified to own a home. That homeowners wave lasted until 2005. It was huge and I benefitted from it immensely. The jobs started going away around Sep 2000 shortly after the tech sector crash (FYI, that's still pre-GWB). Not much to be found out there. As the jobs market slowly declined, the housing sector started to fall. I watched it all happen right in front of my eyes. (My ex-wife is a Real Estate Broker up there in MN.)

I agree - Regan did well by people. But while you suggest I don't look back only 15 years, I also suggest that we don't always look at Regan. What about before him? What about after him? He was, in many ways, an enigma. The GOP has  strayed FAR from his positions.

[Carl]

I don`t think you will find anyone here that is going to laud the Republicans for spending but that is not all there is to their record either.

Compare the response to terrorism with what we have now as well.
One could say that goes a long way to protecting our freedom and liberty.

How about forcing Clinton into some welfare reform?
Course parts or all of that are gone now

Unions weren`t on the receiving end of spending the like we have never seen before as payoffs.

It is easy to find fault and the things we don`t like stick in our minds but I didn`t see a rush to take over health care from them,11 months in and that train wreck is now a reality.

It isn`t a perfect world and never will be.