Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Guest Post by Crabby Old Man

Learn From the Enemy

I have expressed my extreme annoyance before with conservative ideological purists who vote for some third party candidate that they should know cannot win the election or else throw a tantrum and not vote at all.

I remain convinced that we conservatives need to follow Bill Buckley’s advice and always vigorously support the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.

I leave my reaction to the reader’s imagination when we got the final (probably fraudulent) results of the November 4, 2008 Minnesota Senate Election Results:

Al Franken, Democrat, 1,212,629 (41.99%)

Norm Coleman, Republican, 1,212,317 (41.98%)

Dean Barkley, Independence, 437,505 (15.15%)


The November 3, 1992 Presidential Election Results made me pull my hair out:

Bill Clinton, Democrat, 44,909,806 (43.0%)

George H.W. Bush, Republican, 39,104,550 (37.5%)

Ross Perot, Independent, 19,743,821 (18.9%)


And then there were the November 6, 2012 Presidential Election Results:

Barack Obama, Democrat, 65,899,660 (51.1%)

Mitt Romney, Republican, 60,932,152 (47.2%) (3.9% loss)


Some farmer math:

2008 turnout 61.6% - 2012 turnout 58.2% = 3.4% difference

3.4% + 58.2% = 61.6% (tie?) (higher turnout = win??)


It may run against the grain of a lot of people to vote for the least of evils, but look at what throwing the election to the worst of evils has got us! Look at all the damage the clowns currently controlling the executive branch have done. Consider the left wing hacks Clinton and Obama have appointed to the judiciary. Is there anyone who thinks that the military has been improved by having had Slick Willie and Comrade Hussein as Commander in Chief? How much has the conservative agenda been advanced by handing the country over to the left rather than the moderates? The conservatives have leverage with the moderates. They have none with the left, particularly the far left.

The belief that the country will experience a conservative epiphany after suffering under leftist rule is beyond ridiculous.

No one doubts that the Democrats bicker among themselves, but they demonstrated that they have the party discipline to unite behind their candidates and WIN. The Republicans need to learn from the enemy and do likewise.

64 comments:

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

Your first problem, is that you assume the folks that didn't show up would otherwise have voted for Romney (there was a good chunk that didn't want to vote for Obama, thus stayed home).

Second problem, you assume that those who voted 3rd party would have all voted for Romney, had they not voted 3rd party. See above for same rational.

It's not a matter of getting someone who's "most electable". Obviously, Romney wasn't, else he'd have been elected. Obama was, because no one in the Dem party ran against him, and he has more folks willing to vote the party line then Romney did.

Foxy Wizard said...

Every Republican after Reagan has carried the ball that much closer to Statism. Bush Sr. was a Rino, and so was W. Both of them expanded the reach of the Federal Government in quantum leaps. Of the current crop of Republicans in the House, including so called Tea Party candidates, many have gone along with the old Guard and have been completely ineffective. I appreciate your concern for my vote, but I will continue to vote for whoever I see fit.

Foxy Wizard said...

I had the very same conversation with folks on this blog several years ago. Free's argument was that the Republican Party had abandoned us and why support them. y argument was that anybody was better than Obama, because he is a new kind of Democrat, inflicting permanent damage to our nation.

And he certainly has. But so have the republicans, only a bit slower.

I argued years ago that we needed to do something about immigration, and provide a path to citizenship for those born of illegals who are not American Citizens. I argued that first we needed to secure the borders. I watched as a Republican President, with both houses of Congress, passed laws to secure the borders. They did not. Now, we are having a much less favorable set of laws crammed down our throats.

I watched as a Republican President, George W, expanded the medicare program and exploded the budget. All these Republicans in Congress did nothing to slow down the growth or power grabs of Government. And don't forget that TARP was initiated under a Republican President, Bush.

And look at who the republicans trotted out as the most recent Presidential candidate...Romney, which took Obamacare completely off the table, cuz Romney agreed with Obamacare in principle.

Look at Congress now. What are the republicans in the House doing about the IRS scandal? Are they defunding that department? Are they defunding Obamacare? Are they funding the building of the fence? No, no and no. Their top priority appears to be immigration.

"The belief that the country will experience a conservative epiphany after suffering under leftist rule is beyond ridiculous." Says who? You? Why is it ridiculous? Tell me one thing the republicans in power haven't caved in. The budget? Caved. Obamacare? Caved. The debt ceiling? Caved. Immigration? Caved.

Caved. Caved. Caved. At least the idiots on the left have some convictions. The Republican Party appears to have none.

Freemom said...

Foxy...said it.

Foxy Wizard said...

I had the very same conversation with folks on this blog several years ago. Free's argument was that the Republican Party had abandoned us and why support them. My argument was that anybody was better than Obama, because he is a new kind of Democrat, inflicting permanent damage to our nation.

And he certainly has. But so have the republicans, only a bit slower.

I argued years ago that we needed to do something about immigration, and provide a path to legitimacy for parents who have lived here for years and had children born here. I argued, though, that first we needed to secure the borders. I watched as a Republican President, with both houses of Congress, passed laws to secure the borders. They did not follow through. Now, we are having a much less favorable set of laws crammed down our throats.

I watched as a Republican President, George W, expanded the medicare program and exploded the budget. All these Republicans in Congress did nothing to slow down the growth or power grabs of Government. And don't forget that TARP was initiated under a Republican President, Bush.

And look at who the republicans trotted out as the most recent Presidential candidate...Romney, which took Obamacare completely off the table, cuz Romney agreed with Obamacare in principle.

Look at Congress now. What are the republicans in the House doing about the IRS scandal? Are they defunding that department? Are they proposing a flat tax? Are they defunding Obamacare? Are they funding the building of the fence? No, no and no.What are they doing about the unbelievable violation of our privacy by the NSA? Nothing. Their top priority appears to be immigration.

"The belief that the country will experience a conservative epiphany after suffering under leftist rule is beyond ridiculous." Says who? You? Why is it ridiculous? Tell me one thing the republicans in power haven't caved in. The budget? Caved. Obamacare? Caved. The debt ceiling? Caved. Immigration? Caved.

Caved. Caved. Caved. At least the idiots on the left have some convictions. The Republican Party appears to have none.

jim marquis said...

Foxy, we idiots on the left appreciate the compliment!

Foxy Wizard said...

No, problem, Jim. Credit where credit is due! :)

SoLow said...

They're all crooks - fuck 'em all. As soon as a successful BUSINESSMAN (or woman) runs against "politicians" I'll vote. Until that happens, I won't waste my time.

free0352 said...

You know how I know Mitt Romney wasn't an electable candidate? He didn't get elected!

So your whole theory is whack Crabby, because it didn't work, over and and over. The "electable" Dole didn't work, nor John McCain. Ultra Conservative George Bush and Ronald Reagan?

Elected.

If you want to tell me that the country is turning away from the social issues I'd agree. But its crying out for an economic conservative. Instead, the GOP gave us the architect of ObamaCare and then cheated to get him nominated because nobody in the GOP wanted him.

And then you wonder why the GOP stayed home?

Bram said...

I've read Ed Rollins describing how HW Bush started dismantling the Reagan reforms on Day One of his Administration. Screw him - I'm glad I voted for Perot in '92.

The Republicans better start nominating candidates who are actually conservative - and some conservative leadership in the House. I've lost patience with them and will no longer tolerate their Rino crap.

T. Paine said...

Crabby, while I agree with you on this issue, it does not matter any longer who the idiot Republicans nominate for president in the future, whether conservative or a RINO; that person is not going to win.

Obama and the statist fools in the media and education sectors have indoctrinated the American people where the "takers" now out-number the productive citizens. They won't vote for anyone that is going to take away their SNAP funds, lifetime unemployment benefits, and Obama-phones. Welcome to the new normal of socialism in the land of the quasi-free.

It will remain so until the time comes when we can educate our kids once again about history, economics, and civics. We have to reclaim our culture of independence and rugged individualism in order to right this ship.

Oh, and I suppose it would help if the statist medica would actually report the news instead of the government talking points.

Until we do these things, it won't matter. We could resurrect Reagan himself and he wouldn't win the presidency with today's low information voters and statist ideologues being in the majority.

jim marquis said...

SoLow, wouldn't you say Romney was a successful businessman? I mean, he has a car elevator...

Zelda said...

It was awful to vote for Romney. They really need someone who can stick it to the Democrats for all their hypocrisy and bad ideas.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Google Third party chances and read: http://www.thisnation.com/question/042.html

This is a short but informative article that is well worth reading in its entirety. The take away is that third party movements have a record of failure.

Google liberal conservative distribution and read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States

The Right 34% consists of Enterprisers (11%), Social Conservatives (9%) and Pro Government Conservatives (9%).
The Middle 23% consists of Upbeats (11%), Disaffected (9%) and Bystanders (10%).
The Left 41% consists of Conservative Democrats (14%), Disadvantaged Democrats (10%) and Liberals (17%).
The pertinent take away is that neither the right nor the left can win without attracting support from the middle, or even the opposite end of the spectrum. It is beyond me how anyone can imagine that conservatives, particularly social conservatives, can win elections without compromise.

The epiphany idea is the silliest of all. Putting the worst of evils in office to make the people suffer and finally see the light reminds me of the story from many years ago about a teen aged girl who committed suicide to teach her parents a lesson.
First of all, the conservative agenda is set back, not advanced. Most importantly, the opposition becomes entrenched and extremely difficult to dislodge. I point out that Al Franken (a true second amendment champion and pro-lifer) won the first time by the slimmest of margins, with the help of a third party candidate, and is now given an 80% chance of being reelected.

And then there is the absurd argument that there is no difference between the two parties because they both move in the same direction, it’s just that one moves faster than the other. Let’s use a current example, national health care policy:
Who believes that there is no difference between Obama Care, hastily slapped together and justified by all sorts of falsehoods without public debate, and a thoroughly debated alternative phased in over several election cycles? Yeah, yeah, I know. There is no difference because we ended up with a national health care policy anyway. No difference at all!!!

Tater said...

Sorry Crabby, I'me with Foxy. Still don't understand his love of undocumented democrats or why he wants them to vote, but otherwise we agree.

I'm done voting for RINOs pure and simple. It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for Rubio again and if the GOP doesn't give a shit about their base, then fuck 'em I don't give a shit about them.


Besides, after Obama, I don't think even the dems can screw this country up any worse. Maybe if they can go ahead and turn the rest of the North & West Coast into Detroit, the South can FINALLY succeed!!!

CrabbyoldMan said...

RE:I don't think even the dems can screw this country up any worse.

They have not had enough time yet to turn the rest of the country into a Detroit. When they do, your beloved South will have been dragged down right along with the rest of the country.
My pleasure in watching the Detroit and, sooner or later, the California Democrats twist in the wind is tempered by the realization that the rest of us have a fine chance of going the same way.

Bram said...

Crabby - When I stop seeing stories like this, I might actually start to care about the GOP again. They really are the stupid party - and they do not represent me.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/18/republicans-vote-to-keep-military-aid-fo#comments

Haverwilde said...

"They have not had enough time yet to turn the rest of the country into a Detroit."

Bull! The US is borrowing 40% of every cent they spend. Detroit isn't that bad off. The left with the help of Jim M. and his ilk, and the RINO statist who want to share the power with the corrupt leftists have all but destroyed this once-great nation.

Foxy Wizard said...

It is true that third parties have never won. This is, in part, because many of us have held our noses and voted for the "lesser of two evils" for so many years. The Republican Party left me when it left Reagan.

When was the last time you heard a Republican presidential candidate vocalize Conservative principles like Reagan did? They don't. Wanna know why? Because they are not Conservatives. In fact, they HATE Conservatives.

Marco Rubio vocalizes Conservative principles (except on immigration, much to the chagrin of Tater). Ted Cruz does as well. A few can during campaign speeches, but as soon as they get elected, turn around and vote with the democrats. Remember the "young guns"? They were gonna make some changes. They didn't. They act just like democrats.

So, no. I'm ready for a Third Party. Not a third candidate. A Third Party.

rbb said...

gop is a joke.

The right wing extremists need a new party, the social buttinskis need a new party, the drown government in a bath tub folks need a new party, the all wars all the time nutters need a new party.

Really, what is gop now anyway but a bunch of whiners blaming everybody else except themselves for their hilarious demise.

It's the media's fault!

Whither thou goest, O once proud gop?

Haverwilde said...

The GOP is a joke, no doubt about it.

Too bad the democrats have chosen to become the most corrupt and evil party in American history.

CrabbyOldMan said...

It seems pretty clear that voting is the emotional act of venting to some folks. To others, it is a rational act having the aim of advancing and/or inhibiting an agenda. I think of myself as being in the latter group. I am surprised at how many are in the first group.
I’d bet the farm that many of the first group are being fooled and exploited via the other side funneling money and technical advice to “conservative” splinter groups under the table.

Bram said...

Hey rbb - long time.

Your party is a joke too. All the libs I know are disgusted by the Obama Administration. They have completely given up on civil liberties. They get real uncomfortable about the fact that their party is indistinguishable from 1930's Fascists.

Tater said...

"To others, it is a rational act having the aim of advancing and/or inhibiting an agenda. I think of myself as being in the latter group."

That being the case, why you typing in all boldface? ;-)

Crabby, I'm siding with Einstein definition of insanity. I keep holding my nose and pulling the leaver each election for yet ANOTHER 'EFFING RINO!! And for some reason the result keeps remaining the same. I wonder why...

It gets old Crabby, maybe the GOP needs to learn that its base can be driven off.

Later

CrabbyOldMan said...

For emphases.
This is the reason:
We have a political system that gives whoever has the most votes the power to run things. I don’t think anyone thinks that is going to change. I wouldn’t hold my breath while waiting for a revolution.
If those of us who want the things that you and I both want are a minority, we get nothing unless we ally ourselves with others who have a similar agenda or else whose agenda is not inconsistent with ours. This requires that we prioritize our objectives and inevitably involves compromise. These facts give us the options of either convincing everyone else that we are right and that they are wrong, or, like Einstein’s insane person, keep butting our head against the wall without getting any result at all.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Bram, who in Egypt was able to throw out the President we do not like? I read that the reason the military became disenchanted was because the guy was prone to foreign military adventures. We do not want that. It seems like a good way to influence things to me.

Tater said...

" These facts give us the options of either convincing everyone else that we are right and that they are wrong"

Ok, I'm game. Let's convince them (the GOP) to run conservative candidates for a change. I think the best way to do that is emphatically NEVER vote for a RINO again. Hopefully they'll get tired of running RINO after RINO and losing elections. THEN and only THEN, will they finally nominate a conservative. As long as we keep playing their game, they'll never try ours.

Hey, worth a shot, ain't like we've been winning any elections anyhow...

Later

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

I'm sorry, but with the way the Rep. party has been going, I don't want to give them the votes to run things. I've always voted for the candidate, not the party. Maybe that's where we went wrong as a country. Letting us be pandered into political parties instead of thinking citizens who vote for individuals. If a Rep. candidate stands for things I believe in, and keeps his/her mouth shut about social issues that have no political necessity, then I'll vote for them. Otherwise, it's a case of who is the best candidate to represent me. This isn't a team sport, it really is a case of who the better man is, not who the least evil is.

It's like retail products. You can continually buy the cheap version that breaks every 5 weeks, or you can shell out the extra for quality that will last 5+ years. Your choice, but it depends on what's important to you.

Foxy Wizard said...

Crabby, you can yell all you want, but I think it's pretty clear you have lost the argument. I guess as long as a candidate, any candidate, puts an R behind their name, you're gonna vote for them. Looks like most of us are done playing the Charlie Brown/Lucy game with the football. Screw the Republicans.

Foxy Wizard said...

One more thing. In my arguments with Free on this very subject, last time I argued that the reason we should hold our noses and vote republican was The Supreme Court.

But who was the deciding vote that kept the Obamacare train wreck headed our way? John Roberts, a Bush appointee.

Thanks, Republicans.

Screw you, Republicans.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Tater, if the conservative candidates that we both favor cannot get a majority of the votes, what is the point of nominating them?
…THEN and only THEN, will they finally nominate a conservative.
And for how many election cycles are you willing to hand the country over to the Chicagocrats?

Fearthuinn min an Saille, what is the difference between who the better man is and who the least evil is?

Foxy Wizard is right that I vote for the party.
Minnesota is controlled by the public and private sector unions, the looking-for-a-handout-crowd, the university egg-heads, the fringe groups and an assortment of other loons, all under the umbrella of the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party. I have voted for some jackass Republicans in my time just to keep the competition alive.
I have never seen a Democrat seeking national office that had national security and economic sympathies I like. NOT ONE.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Fearthuinn min an Saille, just what exactly do you mean by and keeps his/her mouth shut about social issues that have no political necessity,?

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

The least of two evils is someone you don't agree with on anything, but is someone you'd put up with because you have to.

The better man is someone who you can vote for, because you honestly back him and agree with the majority of his stance and can come to the middle on the rest.

As for the social issues that have no political necessity, if you really need that explained to you, maybe you should consider not voting. I could be biased, but I think that's a pretty straight forward statement.

Robert B said...

CrabbyOldMan: "It seems pretty clear that voting is the emotional act of venting to some folks. To others, it is a rational act having the aim of advancing and/or inhibiting an agenda."

Actually, you are the former. You are displaying your emotions here quite clearly, and certainly voting for those whom you feel have a better chance to win despite not sharing your convictions.

Those who are voting rationally are the ones looking at their convictions, not liking the positions of the more "popular" candidates, and giving their votes to those who support their beliefs.

All the arguments you give for voting against this "better chance" position of yours are no better than your own. In essence, you are telling people not to stand by their convictions, be complacent, and simply accept voting for someone who does not represent their beliefs... because.... what? it's not going to be as bad?

I'm sorry, but it's beliefs like yours which brought us here in the first place.

Foxy Wizard said...

Crabby, maybe if you type in boldface AND in caps, people will agree with you.

Ask yourself this question: Would Romney and a Republican Congress have abolished Obamacare? Would they abolish the IRS? Would they balance the budget? Would they dismantle the NSA? Seal the borders? Do what needs to be done to secure Social security? In other words, will Republicans fix Washington?

I doubt it.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Fearthuinn min an Saille, I’d hate to see what you consider unclear.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Robert B, here I have thought all along that the purpose of voting is to influence public policy. Thank you for correcting me.
I have believed that if there is a primary candidate I agree with on five out of five issues, but do not think that candidate can win the election, I should vote for a different primary candidate, who I do think can win, but agree with on just two of the five issues (assuming all the issues have about equal weight). This will maximize my say.
It minimizes my say to vote for the first candidate. That is, supporting a candidate who loses the election relegates me to no influence at all.
Who is rational?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Foxy Wizard, I doubt it too.
No one is going to fix Washington unless they have the votes to do so. Even then they will fix Washington only to the extent that the voters want them to.
Accordingly, conservatives first have to put together a winning coalition to get elected. This inevitably means compromise.
Then they have to convince the voters that conservative policies work better than what has been done. It will require time to enact legislation and then demonstrate that it improves things. The time required means that the conservatives will have to be reelected.
I strongly favor the strategy of working from within. I think that the Tea Party should crank up and put itself in the position of being the most influential segment of the Republican Party. The way to do so is to advocate rational economic and national security issues and defer the social issues to each state for each state.
Third parties that cannot win, protest votes, flogging dead horse issues, extreme positions that alienate potential political allies are all childish baggage we need to shed.

Foxy Wizard said...

Anonymous Foxy Wizard said...

Hey, Crabby, how about this one? McCain, the Republican Party's nominee in 2008, is now siding with Obama on reviewing the stand Your Ground Laws, in light of the recent Zimmerman trial verdict.

Never mind that the Stand Your Ground laws had NOTHING to do with the trial. It was a self defense case, not a stand your ground case.

But this shithead, Sen. John McCain R, is siding with Obama against your right to defend yourself from an attack.

I rest my case.

11:27 PM

CrabbyOldMan said...

I voted for McCain. I did so because I thought that we would be far worse off having the Messiah in the White House.
Are you trying to say we are better off by having Comrade Hussein?
I rest my case.

Foxy Wizard said...

Wow. Crabby, you can't possibly be this obtuse. The argument you posed is that we should all vote Republican rather than Democrat, even if the Republican is really a Democrat. Right?

McCain makes my point- that there is no real difference. McCain and co. isn't concerned with my concerns in the least. Is he pursuing the IRS abusers? Bringing the Benghazi coverup to light? Cutting spending? Taking a stand for our second amendment rights? Doing what he can to slow down implementation of Obamacare? Keeping the military from being gutted? No. He's siding with Comrade Hussein, as you call him, on a bogus issue, backed by a bogus case, to further Obama's agenda, which appears to be the destruction of America. Exactly how much worse would it be if McCain wasn't there?

Your argument is being disproved before your very eyes, and you rest your case?

You really are the problem.

Foxy Wizard said...

But since we have both rested our cases, let's hear from the jury.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Ah, Foxy Wizard, conservatives have to have control of the government in order for McCain to do all the things he didn't do. Conservatives do not have control of the government.
My argument disproved?!?
I'm the problem!?!
If you had not made an additional comment, one that I could not bring myself to ignore, I, too, would have been content to let the jury decide.

Haverwilde said...

Well, Crabby, I have to side with Foxy on this one.
McCain is not a conservative, he is a democrat-lite.
What is worse than the hard left turn of Obama, is the slow left turn of McCain.
If we are headed toward Detroit as a country, let's get there faster while we still have a memory of what was great about America.

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

Agreed with Foxy. It's one reason why I didn't vote for McCain, even though I was willing to "hold my nose" (but the Universe decided I was going to sit that election out). Obama had no record, but being from IL, I was well acquainted with Chicago style politics. Obama hasn't proven me wrong on that one.

As for Romney, he wasn't willing to actually have a stance. Hillary debated less like a woman than he did. "Oh, that sounds like a good idea....I agree with you on that....blah blah, blahblahblah."

I have no issues with changing stances on things, but he had no real stance to begin with. He also decided to play the social agenda card - leave that crap to the States where it belongs. The Fed should only be about economic issues, period. If they have their opinions, fine, but leave the law making on that subject to the States. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

As for what I consider unclear...Romney's stance on anything. He was pretty good at muddling everything, kinda like Obama's first campaign (where none of his supporters, who are my friends, could actually tell me what he stood for).

CrabbyOldMan said...

Haverwilde, Foxy Wizard and some others just cannot seem to grasp that I am not saying (and never have) that McCain is a conservative as is defined by most (including me) who comment here. I'd say thaat both he and Romney are middle-of-the-roaders.
However, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that we are all better off because we elected the Chicagocrats instead.
I addressed the argument that slow change and fast change are indistinguishable before.

Tater said...

Nah Crabby we understand you just fine. As one who couldn't stand McCain, but voted for him nonetheless, I did exactly as you did for the reasons you are arguing. Question is what good did it do voting for McCain or Romney? Both are squishy, and neither could debate/beat Obammy. I'm tired of voting for crap, time to send the GOP a message; put up a conservative or I'll be staying home.

Later

Foxy Wizard said...

I guess Crabby can't seem to grasp that most of us are sick and tired of the Republicans doing exactly what the Democrats are doing, only a little bit slower. I have seen the light. Crabby, if you want to be a sucker and vote for a Republican who despises you as a Conservative, be my guest. I will no longer throw away my votes on unworthy candidates. Period.

Is that clear enough?

free0352 said...

Tater, if the conservative candidates that we both favor cannot get a majority of the votes, what is the point of nominating them?

Who lost the 2012 election for President?

Oh, your moderate. So much for getting the majority of votes.

GHWB, Bob Dole, John McCain? Yeah, your "strategy" (I use the term loosely) doesn't seem to have a very good track record.

You can go back to screaming in all bold caps now, while calling me emotional.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I am just getting on the computer now. I got sidetracked by a half hour errand that took up half the day.

I have seen a lot about what weak candidates McCain and Romney were, that they both suffer from a multitude of failings, and that they are both horses asses generally speaking.

However, I have not seen any suggestions as to what conservatives can do to control what public policy is. That is, unless it counts to say “we need real conservatives as candidates” and “we need someone who will (insert grocery list of conservative objectives) (throw in cure cancer for good measure)” without explaining how a conservative minority can attract the majority of the votes and win the election.

The Democrats have proved to be very effective at keeping a diverse coalition of lunatics, thieves and parasites together well enough to win. Conservatives may as well get used to never having any say at all unless they learn from the enemy.

free0352 said...

without explaining how a conservative minority can attract the majority of the votes and win the election.

You're basically saying Conservatism is doomed. I agree. But anyway, I'll make this very simple for you.

Vote Libertarian.

We're the future, Conservatism is the past. Government is proving every day that it fails. On a long enough time line - a political philosophy that espouses big government can't win because its horse is hitched to big government. Since they cannot win on a long enough time line, we can't lose.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Free0352, on a long enough time line, the left will have destroyed the country. On a long enough time line, we will all be dead.

I don't think conservatism is doomed. I think it is in great danger.

The threat is as much from the wackos on the right as from the wackos on the left.

My own dream is to see a right-center coalition that can control the agenda and crowd the far left and the far right off the bed.

Since the world is not made up of hermits who are all isolated from one another, I consider Libertarianism to be a flawed concept.

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

Both parties have pushed out the moderates, and that's the problem. I'll vote for someone who has the balls to say their focus is on economic issues, and only that, no social issues whatsoever.

Gay marriage at a Federal level is now off the table, so we don't have to worry about that (unless some dumbass in the Rep party decides they're going to do whatever is possible to reinvent DOMA), which would be a quick trip to the "never vote for that person" list. Same goes for the mention of abortion. They can hold whatever opinions on the subject they want at the Federal level, but I'd rather them toss that to those at the state level.

In the next election, things I'm looking for....scaling back the DHS and/or splitting it up again. Scaling back/demolishing the IRS. More efficiency in all departments. Get rid of the idiotic dead weight (specifically in the Dept of Immigration) in each department and let them fend for themselves in the private sector. Stay out of State politics, unless it's a dispute with another state (I think there's something in the actual framework section of the Constitution to that affect). Cut spending (see the dead weight comment). Get our nose out of skirmishes in other countries till we get our own pants on right, most of those places existed well enough (or bad enough) prior to our stepping up onto the world stage. They'll survive or die without our help. Get a decent immigration pathway, collect back taxes on everyone who is here illegally and jail those who did so illegally (by stealing SS#s), ship the rest home and make them apply and get in line behind everyone who did it right the first time.

That is what I want to see from any candidate. So far, the Reps are just arguing with the Dems and we still don't have a budget.

Foxy Wizard said...

The reason there has been a two party system in this country for most of this century is because both parties represented the views of the majority of Americans. That is no longer the case.

There is room for a viable third party to emerge because the old guard in the Republican Party has alienated it's base, and the Democrat Party is virtually impossible to distinguish from the Communist Party, except in it's presentation.

This has left a huge number of Americans feeling unrepresented, hence the popularity of Ron Paul. And Ron Paul appeals to many of the younger generation as well as the old.

I am a Libertarian, and have been for many years. I have mainly voted Republican because if my choice was between the repubs and the dems it was a no-brainer. But I can no longer support most Republicans. I have seen enough of them get elected by saying all the right things, only to turn around and become Dem-Lite once the election is over.

You have to have giant balls to run for office as a Libertarian, because you go mostly alone. Your message is what has to sell, not the party message. You have to do the work of actually verbalizing Libertarian principles in such a way as that people connect them to their lives. At one time, most Libertarians felt we had a place in the republican Party. It is now clear that we don't. So if enough principled voters begin to go outside the party, they will have to change or they will be destroyed.

I believe the Libertarian Party can be the party that can grow into a viable, competitive force. The Ron Paul brand has been damaged cuz he has said some nutty things, but there are others taking his place.

Crabby, my comments toward you have at times been abrasive on this thread, and for that I apologize. But I will now make my point to you with this question:

Exactly what does today's Republican Party stand for?

Tater said...

Exactly what does today's Republican Party stand for?

That's easy, they're the "We're not as liberal as the Dems" party. They sure as hell ain't conservative any more.

Later

CrabbyOldMan said...

Foxy Wizard: I accept your apology, but only because you offered it, NOT because one is necessary.
If one gets one's undies all in a bunch over abrasive language, or because someone exposes some sacredly held belief to be rubbish, then one should not comment.
I have enjoyed our exchanges. They are a way to learn.

I have to run now, and don't expect to be back until fairly late in the day.

Foxy Wizard said...

I like to keep discussions civil. Well, except with Trolls, who like it rough.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Divide and Conquer:
a way of keeping yourself in a position of power by making the people under you disagree with each other so that they are unable to join together and remove you from your position. A small minority have continued to govern by a policy of divide and conquer.
Source: The Free Dictionery.com

Divide and conquer is a premise that works like this:
It is easier to defeat smaller groups of enemies than it is to defeat one large group of enemies, even though the total number of enemies is the same. Consider two armies on a battlefield. The easiest method for Army A to defeat Army B is to "break up" Army B's large body of soldiers, and separate them into smaller groups. In this way, Army A can concentrate on defeating a much smaller group of soldiers, one group at a time.
Army B's smaller groups are prevented from receiving support from the larger group. They cannot easily get reinforcements or refill ammunition. They are helpless against Army A's larger force.
This idea is not limited to the battlefield, however. In society, it is always easier to convince one person of an idea than to convince a large room of people. Individuals on their own are easier to control because they do not have the support of a "group mentality" or emotional defense.
Source: Answers.com

Foxy Wizard said...

Great insight, Crabby.

So Conservatives (Army A) used to be represented by the Republican Party (Army A). All were together. No problem.

Then, Rino's (Army B)started peeling off, voting for Democrat Party crap, and in the process destroying the strength of the Army. In essence, the opposition peeled Rinos away, making both armies A and B weaker.

Now Rinos (Army B) are trying to get Conservatives (Army A) to vote Republican, to supposedly strengthen Army B, but both armies are still getting their asses kicked.

Army B, the traitors of the party, are blaming Army A for not towing the party line, when it is Army B who left Conservative principles in the first place.

So why doesn't Army B, who left the Army divided in the first place, come back and unite with Army A, and vote for true Conservatives?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Because they are not conservatives as we would define them.
My point remains that the conservatives need to join forces with somebody or be shut out altogether.
In the meantime, conservatives need to be attracting more people so as to become a larger minority with the ultimate aim of becoming a majority.
It is going to take a lot of self examination.

Foxy Wizard said...

My point remains that so called Conservatives who continue to vote for Rinos are the reason the Republican Party keeps running Rinos.

We could go back and forth like this forever.

CrabbyOldMan said...

And you would be wrong forever. The distribution is bell shaped. You cannot avoid the reality that conservatives are a minority. So are the liberals. The majority of the voters are center-left and center right.
You seem unable to separate what would be pleasing to you personally (actually both of us) and what will fly in the real world.

Foxy Wizard said...

We have been doing it your way since Bush Sr. How's that going for ya?

"And you would be wrong forever." Apparently, you're the only one on this thread who agrees with you. Ever stopped to consider that maybe it is you who are wrong?

I'll give you the last word.

CrabbyOldMan said...

No we haven't.

Do you remember Ross Perot?
Do you remember how the tantrum throwers stayed home and twice put the Chicagocrats in power? Both were "your way", not "my way".
Those things set back the conservative agenda big time, but certainly made the irrational set fell better, didn't they?

It is entirely possible that I am the only one who agrees with me.
I always thought that facts are facts no matter if no one at all believes them. What the majority would like them to be is irrelevant. Leave that to the leftards.