by giving people something to vote for, not vote against.

You need to join your local Republican committee. Every conservative on RS should join their local party committee, whether it’s a precinct committee or a county committee. Start attending the next meeting. In time you will make your way on.

“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” –Frederic Bastiat

We can’t let Democrats vote in Republican primaries. That’s how we end up with so many moderate Republicans in the general elections. I also don’t think the majority of conservatives in the Republican party want to leave the party. It does seem, however, that the national party doesn’t want us. Look at how quickly they jumped behind Charlie Crist. The only other candidate that has announced is Marco Rubio and the party is trying to knock him out before it even starts. Bottom line, Conservative Republicans win. As long as the national party keeps trying to dilute that, Republicans will lose. If the choice is between a Democrat and a cheap imitation, most people will go with the real thing.

And I agree, to an extent, that extent being the way the system favors the incumbent. Without an Arlen Spectre-style implosion, good luck in getting the voters to know or care about what they’re congressional rep is doing. I don’t mean to sound bitter - I see this as a real problem. Most congressmen are insulated, with their votes being dutifully recorded in the books and then buried on some back page in a newspaper few have the time to read.

Still, taking back congress in the primaries can be done, but what would help in this would be some leadership from the top. The Republicans are still flailing about, trying to stand for everything and as a result they stand for nothing (yet).

They both have elections based on winner-take-all districts. (Japan has some weird hybrid system that I don’t know the details about, or understand!)

Yes, they’re both parliamentary systems, which does explain the 3rd and 4th parties in both countries, but Reps are still elected on a by-district basis, which makes them much more comparable to our system.

(Italy, which also had a major party (the Christian Democrats) implode within the last 20 years is, I believe, a fully Proportional Representation (P.R.) system, which is why I didn’t mention them.)

Anyway, the point still holds - one of the two parties in the U.S. *will* collapse eventually, it’s just a question of “when?” (and “what caused it?”).

And, FTR, I don’t think the Republicans imploding will lead to the ascendancy of ether the LP or the Constitution Party - both are truly “minor parties” in every sense of the word: a much more likely scenario is an entirely new party (probably called the Federalist Party or the New Federalist Party or something…) forming in its place, a la the Republican-for-Whig switch.

This is my fear…The last time we had a third party run we had Bill Clinton got elected and re-elected….What was the driving force behind United We Stand America’s existence?… Fiscal irresponsibility…why did it come about?…because most of the voters couldn’t see the difference between the Republican Party and the Dems on fiscal issues and fiscal responsibility.

Republicans came storming back in 1994 running on being the party of fiscal discipline, anti gun control and the socially responsible party and promptly lost in 1996 when Bob Dole ran away from all those issues.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

we will never ever ever ever ever and I mean EVER forget anyone who goes along with that deal.

And any argument like “well I went along with it to make it better” is not going to cut any ice.

ARE YOU LISTENING REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS?

you can’t inspire any group of troops or people no matter how well trained and disciplined by telling them they need to fight just because we want you to fight and don’t worry about what cause we are fighting for because when you get right down to it…we think the enemy is right after all and we just want to fight for our own glory and further our own power.

As for the Whig, American, (Know Nothing Party) Republican Dynamic…The know nothing Party was only one aspect and ideology that led to the demise of the Whigs…The know nothing party was built up mostly of Protestants concerned about immigration and the worry that the influx of Roman Catholics into the country would lead to the Pope having political control of America as he had had in Europe during the dark ages…The American, or know nothing party didn’t last mainly because of the split between free soil northerners and pro slavery southerners within it’s ranks.

From American Experience: Political Party Timeline

Political Party Timeline: 1836-1864

The political party system entered an era of change when the issues surrounding slavery took center stage. Fears were spurred by the threat of slavery — or of abolition — in new territories; the influx of immigrants; the rise of industry; and the perpetual conflict over states’ rights. These concerns drove many Americans to seek different political alliances. New parties sprung up, representing the nation’s widely differing opinions. Some of these parties were short-lived, since they represented such narrow interests. Amid this turmoil, the Republican Party was born… and the Whig Party disappeared.

1836

Whigs: Henry Clay

Henry ClayThe Whig Party formed out of the National Republican Party, the leaders of which were John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. They were nationalists, supported internal improvements and moral reforms, and desired gradual westward expansion in congruence with economic growth and modernization. The Whigs were based in New England and New York, mostly made up of Northern middle-class people, market-oriented farmers, and native-born skilled workers. In 1836, the Whigs factioned off, but generally united against Jackson’s policies of the last eight years. They especially disliked Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s hand-chosen successor.

Democrats: Martin Van Buren
Martin Van BurenThe Democrats were the successors of Jeffersonian democracy. They favored localism and freedom from modern institutions such as banks, factories, and reform movements. They had a commitment to states’ rights, a limited government, and an agrarian ideal. They believed in westward expansion by the acquisition of new territories. They were made up of Northern artisans who felt threatened by industry; farmers hurt by tariffs; immigrants who desired to keep their own traditions; and Southerners and Westerners in favor of land acquisition. In 1836 they threw their support behind Andrew Jackson’s successor, Martin Van Buren.

1840

Whigs: William Henry Harrison
W.H. HarrisonIn 1840 the Whig Party ran a “Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign in which they presented their presidential candidate, William Henry Harrison, a Virginia aristocrat, as a simple man and hero of the people. The Whigs believed in a “loose construction” of the Constitution which included supporting big government with a national bank and the congressional regulation of the expansion of slavery.

Democrats: Martin Van Buren
The Democrats upheld a platform which endorsed “strict construction” of the Constitution in 1840. They opposed the government’s interference with the spread of slavery, the existence of a national bank, and the federal funding of internal improvements.

Liberty Party: James C. Birney
James C. BirneyThe Liberty Party was the political outgrowth of the growing anti-slavery movement. It had been born in 1839, when the movement factionalized into conservative and radical parts. The radicals followed William Lloyd Garrison, who demanded the immediate ending of slavery, denounced the U.S. Constitution, and allowed female activists into the movement. The conservatives formed the Liberty Party and sought to end slavery gradually through traditional, political channels.

1844

Whigs: Henry Clay
The Whigs were unanimous in their nomination of Henry Clay for the presidency, standing on the same platform as previous elections.

Democrats: James K. Polk
James PolkDemocrats desired the annexation of Texas and the complete control of Oregon Territory, then shared with England as well. They nominated James K. Polk, who was a Southerner and sure to favor westward expansion.

Liberty Party: James C. Birney
Again nominating James C. Birney, the Liberty Party continued to stand on an anti-slavery platform, including several planks for equal rights and the elimination of racial discrimination in the North.

1848

Whigs: Zachary Taylor
Zachary TaylorThe Whigs were split by the annexation from the Mexican War. They attempted to offset this damage by declaring no platform at all and nominating Zachary Taylor, a man who up until 1848 had had very little to do with politics.

Democrats: Lewis Cass
Lewis CassThe Democrats were also split by the Mexican War annexation. Southern and Western Democrats allied along a moderate platform to extend slavery, not going far enough for many slaveholding Southerners, who desired a firmer assurance of slavery’s expansion.

Free Soil Party: Martin Van Buren
The Free Soil Party absorbed men from the Liberty Party who had nowhere else to go; “Conscience,” or anti-slavery, Whigs; and “Barnburner” Democrats, whose anti-black prejudices allied them with anti-slavery men.

1852

Whigs: Winfield Scott
Winfield ScottWhigs were dedicated to the enforcement of the provisions of the Compromise of 1850, which included the admission of California as a free state and a stricter fugitive slave law. They condemned further agitation of the slavery issue and saw the Compromise of 1850 as the solution. Yet they did not come out as vehemently pro-slavery, and some Southern Whigs deserted the party to join the Democrats.

Democrats: Franklin Pierce
Franklin PierceDemocrats also supported the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 and united along pro-slavery lines.

Free Soil Party: John P. Hale
John P. HaleFree Soilers were the only political group to officially denounce the Compromise of 1850. They demanded the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law and opposed the further admission of slave states.

1856

Republicans: John C. Fremont
John C. FremontThe Republican Party grew out of resistance to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which overrode the Missouri Compromise and allowed slavery to spread into Western territory by popular sovereignty. “Anti-Nebraska” men included anti-slavery Whigs, Democrats, Free Soilers, reformers, and abolitionists.

American Party: Millard Fillmore
Millard FillmoreThe unprecedented rate of immigration at mid-century, particularly from Catholic Ireland, caused many nativists to fear foreign invasion. They organized into a secret order known as the “Know-Nothings” or the “Order of the Star Spangled Banner” and then politicized themselves in 1856 as the American Party. It was made up of mostly ex-Whigs who were anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and desired to lengthen the naturalization period, allow only citizens to vote, and only native-born citizens to hold office.

Democrats: James Buchanan
James BuchananDemocrats again united along a pro-slavery platform, endorsing states’ rights, the Fugitive Slave Law, and popular sovereignty in the territories.

1860

Republicans: Abraham Lincoln
Abraham LincolnThe Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings. It became more moderate in its stance on the exclusion of slavery and denounced John Brown’s raid. The platform endorsed a protective tariff, the Homestead Act, and internal improvements.

Constitutional Union Party: John Bell
John BellThe Constitutional Union Party was the anti-extremist party, absorbing Southern Whigs who didn’t want to vote Democratic and Northern Whigs who felt the Republicans were too radical. They united in order to block a Republican victory.

Democrats: Stephen Douglas and John C. Breckenridge
Stephen Douglas and John C. BreckenridgeThe Democratic Party split completely along sectional lines. Southern Democrats walked out of the Democratic National Convention, which nominated Stephen A. Douglas on a popular sovereignty platform, to name their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge, on a slave code ticket.

1864

Republican/National Union Party: Abraham Lincoln
In the midst of the Civil War, the Republican Party asked that the country continue to fight according to Lincoln’s war measures. The party demanded an unconditional surrender and supported a constitutional amendment to end slavery.

Democrats: George McClellan
George McClellanThe Democrats were split along “war” and “peace” factions, but managed to unite behind George McClellan in the 1864 election. With a “Union first, then peace” platform, the Democrats appeased both those who desired to defeat the Confederacy at all costs as well as those who favored negotiation and compromise.

My contention would be that the demise of the Whigs occurred because of it’s absolute refusal to deal with the majority opinion of it’s constituents conserving slavery. There were several abolitionist parties that sprang up and had some measured success while the Whigs and the Constitutional Union Party who played the part of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party today. The Whigs died because they ignored their constituents and tried to go along to get along with the pro slavery Democrat party and failed miserably in the attempt…

Again, let me stipulate I’m not calling for anyone to leave the Republican Party or join any third party movement…I’m simply pointing to what I see as history repeating itself!

And for the life of me…I don’t understand why the Conservative majority of this party is subjected to so much ridicule for standing their ground and fighting for what the believe in when they are being attacked by the unprincipled compromises in the Rockefeller wing when the Rockefeller is always given a pass for being the ones to constantly pick the ideological fights to begin with!

maybe you can explain that Neil…I consider you a friend…but I just don’t get you sometimes when it comes to this.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

I’m in their fighting…am I throwing the odd threat to stay home around? sometimes in a fit of emotion…

from here

You certainly don’t have to throw an occasional one of those in on my account, but I wish you would

If i would have seen an occasional comment like that I would not have so easily been able to reach the conclusion that you were PRO Sit-It-Outer or Alternative-Party …. that is neither of our faults, of course, there is much that goes unseen by the majority of RS readers. We are not and cannot be here all the time and see everything…. I often repeat myself in Comments across threads… because some will not have known I ever said it (especially the Conservatives first in primaries, but may be some exceptions) and make a comment on a particular point and some lack the context if I don’t say (repeat) the other relevant statement…. Even if we do see something, we cannot remember everything everyone said when we did read them. We get to know some personalities here and who they are because we see them often, but most people we will never know their background and remember their positions and/or where they are coming from. It just is NOT reasonable in these environments. It is easy to forget these things (especially for non-IT folks who haven’t dealt with it for decades) and why I did the respect Diary. We can all use occasional reminders. EVEN ME!

so you say you won’t/don’t openly advocate Sit-It-Out or Alternate-Party but it seems you revel in the prediction it is a certainly.

First of all…I don’t advocate it…Second of all I don’t revel in what I see as an increasing likelihood. I’m a student of history and my take is this…if it’s happened in the past because of a certain set of circumstances it will happen again if the circumstances that led to an event line up at some point in the future…it’s that simple…it doesn’t make me happy…nor excite me in any way…it saddens and infuriates me because it doesn’t have to happen except for the fact that the leadership in OUR party and some here seem hell bent on creating the circumstances that have led to declining voter rolls for the party and Perot type runs in the past.

Secondly, you insist on sticking to the false dichotomy of A=B when A infact is caused by D * E….

Many see not heartily encouraging people to work within the Party still as the same as - if not encouraging, but allowing with little resistance because it fulfills your analysis of what will be - excusing/allowing it

I’m in no way “not heartily encouraging people to work within the party..I’m not at all comfortable with people staying home…or leaving in disgust…. I’m working within the party to prevent it…and part of that work is pointing people to the sad fact of what is happening and has happened over the lat two elections…It’s what I’m so busy screaming about…

I honest to GOD don’t see what’s hard to understand about the axiom of “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

Since you have all the brains apparently…why don’t you tell me how you get someone enthusiastic about a candidate or a party and get them to go door to door in the rain sleet and snow to knock on doors when they don’t believe there is a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican you want them to campaign for and the Democrat the Republican is running against?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

My prediction is that Obama will be done in by his own party. We are beginning to see this right now regarding Gitmo and the tribunals.

This is exactly what happened to Jimmy Carter.

What the Republicans need to understand is if they do not present a clear alternative, as Reagan did, they will have a hard time winning.

So let’s not water down our convictions for the sake of winning when it will not be necessary.

I’m touring Alaska right now, and may not be able to continue this dialogue. I will check back with you when possible.

Until then, keep your chin up.

I wrote one, Martin A. Knight has written several better ones.

This diary is part of the same process. We need to take control of this party. Getting active in the local party is part of that. Sticking with the party is another part. Getting conservative candidates past the moderates in the primaries is another.

Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Join the RedState Strike Force

Temporary Precinct chair in two different precincts in the last three elections, a District Convention Delegate for the last 3 elections and credentials committeeman in 2004, and a state convention delegate in 2004.

But to hear people tell it…all I want to do is get everyone to leave in a fit of temper because I’m too lazy or stupid to do anything else!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

But your reaction is all too often acted upon. I said you were the one who most concerned me because I’ve seen your posts and I know you are part of the base. And when such ideas are repeated often enough people begin to think it’s the right thing to do.

And staying home is cutting off your nose to spite yourself. And far too many have employed that tactic…but on the other hand…for the record it’s not my reaction because I’ve said over and over again that I’m not leaving the party…I’m working to change it and warn everyone that others are reacting that way and will continue to do so….

I also agree 100% with this:

One of the problems is that the more elections we lose, the more the leaders think that the people want the Democrat ideas. That leads to more squishy candidates and more lost elections. It’s a vicious circle and they don’t seem to understand that we can’t out Democrat the Democrats.

buy leaving or not voting…that is the effect…and it doesn’t help…but on the other hand…how do you convince those wanting to stay home that the part won’t read their slavish votes as an affirmation of their wrong thinking that promoting squishes is the way to win?

That’s the horns of the dilemma that we currently find ourselves on and I’d like to find a way to solve the canundrum!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

And you have the audacity to attack these people for being dumb?

I want people to have been declared Republicans for some time before qualifying.

And I can’t wait until the 2010 elecitons, here in what I think is OH - CD1 represented by Driehaus who knocked off Chabot this past election. I will be very vocal in not supporting him and pointing out everytime he tries to state a conservative stance that he supported Pelosi and Obama from the jump. Which if enough of that gets out, the more rural areas of the distict will be enough to overwhelm the city of Cincinnati, and some of the neighborhoods around Cincinnati, that blindly supported Obama no matter what.

The “problem” isn’t the rules or the apparatus. It’s the people who enforce the rules and run the apparatus. If there were hard core conservatives enforcing said rules and shutting Crist out of the process we wouldn’t be - or at least we shouldn’t be - complaining.

So, I come back to my original question. What’s your solution?

the party man there will of course be no money for either the NRSC or the RNC or directly to Crist…..my money will go to Rubio if he decides to run as an Independent….that is how NEVER in a million years for the Crist choice! the same will hold true in the PA race should they find someone to run against Toomey….what I am saying is the party apparatus has lost its COLLECTIVE mind and are acting like the Democrat party within our own party. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH because at some point it has to be! that point is NOW….WE did not lose the last two elections cycles because we were too Conservative WE lost because the Party was to LIBERAL!

I have already redditted and dugg Moe’s FP and I know who my locals are and I know my committemen here in VA I know my area’s state Senator and I have been to meetings I AM DOING the legwork necessary to ensure that Conservatism is RESPECTED and given DUE deference too that WE DO NOT GO LEFT!!!!

So let me reiterate that I will NEVER in a MILLION years SUPPORT the party apparatus NOR their choices when they USURP the RIGHT of We The People! I will NOT be a lemming and follow the plan THEY set up! I have never been a follower I am a leader and I intend vis a vis my involvement locally to lead!

Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy

and a handful of others seem determined to keep dragging my name into discussions I am not a part of: this is all I have to say:

[Disgusting picture redacted. And blam – NS]