If Not Now . . .

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | July 9th, 2012 at 04:46 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

“At what point do we hold our side accountable? Contrary to what some of you want to think, it was not the Democrats who got us to $16 trillion in national debt. It was bipartisan.”

Despite making clear that I was not advocating a third party, but rather recognizing that one will spring up if the Republican leadership does not pay attention to the state of its own party, many not only assumed wrongly my advocacy, but resorted to the worn out argument of the Republican leaders over several generations — “we must fight the Democrats first” or the variant “the top priority is beating Barack Obama.”

The problem with this argument is it never ends. How many more trillion dollars must we add to the national debt before the “wait and focus on the other side first” crowd wakes up to what they have enabled?

When George Bush decided to pass Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind plan as his own, conservatives were told they needed to rally and help the President, given his victory while losing the popular vote. We needed unity.

After steel tariffs for Pennsylvania, “hush,” we were told because we were trying to set the stage for a re-election.

Then came the prescription drug benefit and we better not challenge the President because … 9/11 … patriotism … build the party.

He nominated Harriet Miers and more than half the conservative establishment beclowned themselves standing with him.

Then came immigration reform and those who disagreed from the right were racists. Solidarity!

TARP . . . the General Motors bailout . . . still Republicans told Republicans we couldn’t hold our own side accountable because we needed to fight the left “and oh my goodness litmus tests!!!!!”

Earmarks? “Litmus tests!!!!” and “pshaw, they’re just a little teeny-tiny piece of the budget.”

That was some time around $10 trillion in national debt.

Then the GOP began cutting deals with Barack Obama. “Trust them,” others said, “they have a plan.” The tea party led them to victory and the tea party congressmen started voting just like their leadership. The debt ceiling increased, spending expanded, Pledge to Nowhere pledges were breached, and still we hear “we have to fight the other side first.”

And then there was the Senate variant, “Oh Mitch McConnell had to do that or else Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and . . . and . . . and . . .”

Friends, at what point do we hold our side accountable? $20 trillion in debt? $50 trillion in debt? Contrary to what some of you want to think, it was not the Democrats who got us to $16 trillion in national debt. It was bipartisan. Some of it legitimate, much of it not, and all to the tune of “let’s focus on the Democrats instead. They’re the real bad guys here.”

The leaders of the GOP give lip service to smaller government but just last week shut down legitimate private businesses to feed the leviathan more tax revenue. Republicans in the House of Representatives are now urging candidates not to sign the ATR tax pledge and Republicans in the Senate are cutting deals that will boost revenue because — deficits. And still they add to the debt.

So if not now, when? Not until we’re all speaking Chinese apparently.

If the conservative movement cannot fight on two fronts, we’re screwed. But some of you will be okay with that as long as its an elephant and not a donkey screwing you.

Tags: Republicans

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

http://redpillreport.net/ RedPillReport

where real conservatives, and Tea Party Americans will no longer support the “lesser-of-two-evils” argument. The Tea Party handed the GOP control of the House in 2010. They may very well play a major role in handing the GOP both the Senate AND the Presidency.

After receiving these undeserved ‘gifts’ from the right…the GOP had better not blow it this time. If they do…I don’t think there will be a lot of forgiveness.

To the GOP: It’s time to be the men and women you claim to be during your campaigns. It’s time to give the Tea Party and New Media the respect they deserve. They are the reason you are still relevent. If you forget that…they will forget you, and then you’re finished!
michaelbowler

“This is another warning sign that the Eric Cantor led Republican conference is going far afield from what those who vote Republican actually want.”

We don’t need any signs, nope, not a one. This has been republican MO for as long as I have been alive…and then some. It’s as if the real person playing Lucy yanking the football at the last second was the republican establishment. Did I say “as if”, I’m sorry, I mean it IS the republican establishment, playing footsie with the democrat establishment, that is entirely responsible for our ills.

We expect democrats to do things with which we disagree, it’s who they claim to be. Unfortunately, we also expect the republican leaders to do things with which we disagree…only because, despite their rhetoric at every election cycle, once in office they either openly vote for democrat policies or they deliberately fail to put up any fight against those policies.

We get excuses about timing or about pragmatism in the face of partisan battles…or other wholly indefensible arguments. What we don’t get is a consistent attempt to implement CONSERVATIVE policy, instead we get skillfully positioned arguments that the republicans have successfully managed to limit the damage of this or that NEW democrat nightmare by compromising with the democrats. The democrats stake out really far out positions, so when the COMPROMISE is reached, they’ve actually gotten everything they wanted in the first place.

This is no accident, no failure to get the policy initiative they wanted. It is the standard “bait and switch” policy of a republican establishment, bent on increasing federal power (therefore their own when they have the reins).

Like I said, the republicans are doing exactly what they intended to do all along. At least democrats come out and say what they intend to do, even if it is sugar coated with more blarney than any Irish stone.

The TEA party republicans have failed to stem the tide, but then they also are the lowest on the totem pole in congress, hated by the democrats, the media who always act as the democrat cheering section, and most importantly, despised and feared by the republican establishment that wants to use their rhetoric, their vote garnering capacity at the polls and isn’t in the least interested in their goals, opinions or philosophies.
ohiohistorian

Congress is an interesting group of people. Since 1975, except for 4 years from 1999 to 2003, Gallup has shown that their disapproval is higher than their approval. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/congress-job-approval-rating-worst-gallup-history.aspx. Yet, despite disapproval exceeding approval in all of these years, the re-election rate for individual representatives and Senators has stayed above 85%. Open Secrets tracks the re-election rate for the House and Senate at http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php. With this dichotomy, maybe there is a problem with disengaged voters, with people not holding their representatives responsible for their votes, or for qualified people not stepping up to run.

I believe that the real problem is the lack of individual representatives who will step up to make a difference, and a group of people who only have a goal to be re-elected. John Kasich is the guy that gave us the balanced budget in the 1998-2000 (or at least as balanced as it has been in my recollection). Gingrich had bupkus to do with it. John left town soon after and his chief of staff, Pat Tiberi, sits in his old seat 12 years later and makes nice with his good friend John Boehner and the rest of the big spenders, ignoring all contact with him and his office.

You have watched John McCain grab Lindsey Graham’s hand (along with several others like Mike DeWine) and sprint across the aisle to make nice with the Teddy Kennedy wing of the Democrat Party. You have watched Newt Gingrich sit on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and spout solidarity with her on global warming. Yet all of these people (except DeWine) are continually recycled in the election booth.

We could have 20 parties, and this would not be cured by a party, so as I wrote this last weekend in my diary, get off the party nonsense. Again, it isn’t a donkey or an elephant that is screwing you, it is the voters that are screwing you. Term limits were a failed attempt to try to fix this problem. With the high re-election rate, and the low years of service (112th Congress: 9.8 years for the “average Representative, and 11.4 years for the average Senator), I do not believe it is the AVERAGE one of either of these that are hurting us, but rather what I termed in my diary the Dinosaurs, guys like McCain, Graham, Dingell, Frank, Boehner, McConnell, who have stayed for over 20 years and are well-entrenched with relationships with the other members and the lobbyists.

Instead, we need an electorate that is educated and willing to vote out those who have voted against their children, and candidates who are not the recycled trash from the dustbin of failure.

“All politics is local” is not a wrong statement. This problem needs to be fixed with people who are willing to speak truth to power rather than going along to get along. However, we keep seeing that the American people want our electors to make nice in DC. The result is that someone is not going to get what they like, and our Representatives need to make hard choices.

None of this is new, and zero of it will be solved with a third party. Let’s go whip another dead horse instead.
ohiohistorian

While we are a republic, we still need to elect the representatives and hold them accountable. How many Tea Party people were elected, and from where? The blue-dog Democrats had the same problem, didn’t they. The tendency will be for a machine guy to beat the Tea Party guy the next time, so unless we as a Party defend these people we will not ever get a turn-over in Congress enough to get a majority to shut this down.

I think it is possible in today’s Congress, but it will take a Paul Ryan or a similar guy who will not be shut up by the Dinosaurs and their ability to control the money flow for re-election.
OldElephant

Whether it is Republicans compromising with Democrats or conservative Republicans compromising with establishment Republicans, compromise is a ratchet that goes in only one direction, leftward. If conservatives cannot turn the Republican Party, there is no hope in the foreseeable future.
http://www.floridapoliticalpress.com/ tomtflorida

Since 1976, it has only been under Democrats Carter and Clinton that our national debt as a percentage of disposable income and percentage of capitol income has trended down. Under every Republican administration it has trended up, yet we are admonished by the party for being disloyal and “helping the Democrats” when we point this out.

Very few conservatives these days talk much about the debt and continued spending. Politicians praise the recent passage of the transportation bill, which is all the proof we need that no one in a position of power in DC is focused on changing the status quo.

Thanks for being one of the few that keep beating this drum Erick…
anjinconsulting

1. Term Limits for congress with no retirement; congressional paychecks must have money deducted to suport the existing Social Security and Medicaid funds.

2. A balanced budget except in times of war or national emergency; the budget cannot exceed 90% of the previous years tax reciepts with the remaining 10% going to defict reduction.

These two amendments would go a long way in restraining congress.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

I am not hopeful. Things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better.

I think that one of the parties will completely fall apart within the next ten years. We need a real leader who can articulate to the people that they are the problem. They are the ones who keep wanting middle class entitlements.

We will either get bold leadership or we will fail like Greece, but it will be far worse for us because we will drag everyone down with us and no one can bail us out.

It is a shame because there are millions of people like you and I and others on this site who know generally what must be done, but we are not politicians. And those attracted to politics are often the worse of a sorry lot.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

A third leg to that stool which would help tremendously. A line Item veto.

However, there is no chance of any of these happening. Even among conservatives you can’t get any agreement on them.

Many on this site have been against both of your amendments in the past.

We will have to wait till everything finally falls apart before we have a chance for real change. And then, no guarantee that the change won’t be for the worse.
raginpatriot

The “Ruling Class” article a couple of years ago in The American Spectator provided great insight into the dynamic that occurs between the GOP and conservatives.

This is why I no longer contribute to the party (RNC etc.), nor do I involve myself with local party activities any more (the Tea Party is now the object of my affections).

What I am doing is donating to Senator DeMint’s “Senate Conservatives Fund” and other means by which we may change the GOP from within.

But I’ve no illusions. For while I will unenthusiastically vote for Romney in November, only because Obama represents an immediate existential threat to the country, I also recognize that Romney is a Ruling Class progressive (or at least progressive enabler).

If he wins, and Obama’s gone, I’ll likely sit-out the 2016 Presidential race, or vote third party.

I voted for Perot in 1992 to send a message to the GOP after George H. effectively repudiated Reagan, and it was for naught. The GOP establishment (its money ultimately controls the primaries) hasn’t nominated a true conservative since 1984 (Reagan’s second run).

I’m tired to being the equivalent of Blacks to the Democratic Party — supposed to reliably show up on election day, and then ignored and/or laughed-at behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.

A third party after this election cycle is beginning to look not just attractive, but necessary.
ragstoriches

War is peace. Compromise is capitulation.
daniel22

they are becoming more brazen. Boehner is mad at the freshmen representatives that were Tea Party elected. It seems that they did not play ball the way that he wanted them too. Now with the displeasure that people have with Obama the GOP is counting on getting our votes no matter what they pull. That is politics.
These arrogant fools do not seem to realize what an angry electorate or citizenry is capable of and I am afraid that we all will pay the price for the purposeful ignoring of that fact.
If people choose to vote straight republican that is their choice. It may be the only way to curtail the usurpation of individual liberty currently underway. A person may choose to vote Libertarian or for Ron Paul knowing that at least their voice will be heard for a minute. Either way we must get out and vote intelligently.
We should also gear up to the next election as a viable political force if not a third party. We should dog these scoundrels at every public meeting that they have. Force their hand so that as they promise the moon they have to confront their voting record. Some of that is already being done sporadically and on local levels. We need to organize nationally and speak with one voice or else the same cycle we have now will just repeat itself. We need to show the republicans that they are not the only game in town.
earlgrey

It seems so many are predicting it is too late to right the ship that I wonder if there is anything that can be done at al.. Not sure how to prepare for the dramatic fall we are about to take as a nation.
montani

That’s the truth. One needs to only look at the vote against the the Republican Study Committee’s budget to know that there is a bipartisan problem in Washington.

Just as Christians know you can’t change the world until you change yourself, Republican voters should know that they can;t change Washington until they change the GOP.

The first problem we need to solve is the simple lack of trust of each other. We have been disappointed too many times by those who called themselves conservatives but weren’t. Solving that problem should be our #1 priority.
montani

True but the House OR the Senate OR the President can stop the spending. Our founders set up a government where any side can CHECK the other. It was our Republican House that failed us this legislative cycle. No one put a gun to their head. They decided to vote for more spending.
Joe Cor

how about Nov 7th? The top priority right now actually is beating Barak Obama; that’s not just empty rhetoric. Obama’s reelection is curtains, end of story. Republican mistakes in the past have gotten us to this point. Republicans are continuing to disappoint and be a huge part of the problem. But I pray right now that there are battles still worth fighting on November 7th. Unless Mitt beats Barry, all other battles are pointless, They are all battles of New Orleans after the war is over and in this case (unlike 1812) lost. In order for further battles with the GOP leadership have any meaning, or for a third party (if necessary) to have any impact, Barry must be voted out on Nov 6th. It seems all smart people on the right should be getting their oars pointed toward getting Mitt over the top. He is a politician in the mold of the Bushes, Dole and McCain, so he will need every bit of rhetorical help — and nudging and pushing and cajoling to do smart and right and non-passive things between now and November 7 — that conservative commentators can provide. But we must have a President Romney.
JSobieski

I mean seriously, didn’t he hear that brilliant Romney speech? Nothing really to argue about that.

What is the point in criticizing Republicans anyway, just because they won’t govern in the way that we want them to?

/sarcasm off.
kajun65

We vote them in and they set up polices to continue playing the game. They absolutely love the populace divided. I’m 100% in on forcing congress more conservative, but fear much worse scenarios to come.
jakee308

for election and all I got was vitriol and contempt about how my position would lead to McCain losing and we’d be stuck with the catastrophe that (might be at the time) is Obama. (not here)

Strange how that worked out.

I see too many indicators that tell me we’ve got at best a 50/50 shot that they’ll even come close to doing what they’ve said (depending on how many freshman we elect) and little chance they will effect large cuts in spending and little done on restoring the economy and jobs.

My personal opinion (in other words if I was going to put hard cash down on a bet) is that it’s 70/30 that the Republicans will sell us out again and again regardless of who is President or if we hold the Senate.

Once bitten, twice shy and all that leaves me more than a bit skeptical of all the “promises” and predictions and declarations of what they’ll do first thing.

I’ll bite ONE MORE TIME but this is it. They screw this up and I’ll at least start writing myself in as candidate.
jakee308

Especially if it’s founded on proven failures, unfulfilled promises and outright treachery?

If Obama was only 1/2 as bad as he is, I’d sit this election out just to let the Reps know they’ve fooled me for the last time.

Look at this another way. What could they do that would possibly lead the rank and file to trust them after the years of lies and overspending?
jakee308

is real.

I don’t mind if they don’t govern the way I want them to. It’s just that they don’t govern the way THEY SAY THEY WANT TO.

They keep lying and lying and lying.

I guess especially to themselves.
major

Even in 2010, surely we knew, 1 local race/election, would not change anything significantly.
Have we not always known it would be a slow climb out of a very deep cesspool?
This is all our own doing.
And how many other parties do we need to change human nature?
Have an answer for THAT?
Getting that Senate covered is the next battle we face, and it is even bigger than the Presidency, because it is locally where the Communists began…SO local, it was within our own families!
Getting the Senate, and preserving what we have in the House, with more improvements is the way to victory, one step at a time.
Have a clue yet?
This is all not for the Republican Party…by a long shot!
It is for the Republic, for which we stand.

Trust no one but God…not even ourselves, who are responsible for all of this.
renl57

It’s not the people who are the problem. The problem is the lack of true leadership from those we elect to be leaders, and end up being something else. We have representative government rather than direct democracy for a reason: Representatives are supposed to use their *judgment*. And being able to do that without just handing out goodies to people in exchange for votes is one part of leadership.

An even more important part of leadership is telling the people WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR.

Compare these two statements right after the signing of the Munich Pact in 1938:

Chamberlain: “I believe it is peace for our time….And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”

Churchill: “They should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road.”

Chamberlain’s happy-talk has since been a subject of ridicule. Churchill’s grimness about the growing problem was what will be remembered.

How to fix this in our own time?

1. Sensitive Americans–regardless of their political persuasions–know that this country is in trouble. Tell all candidates for office–Dem or Repub–that you do NOT want to hear any more happy talk: “Turned the corner,” “green shoots,” “quick fixes,” etc. You want the truth, however unpleasant. We can be optimistic about our *future*; but we need to be brutally honest about the *present* state of the country.

2. Quantification rather than handwaving. If a candidate or politician talks and talks about government spending without mentioning any actual numbers, tell him he’s full of it–and walk away.

3. Vision. Demand that the candidate tell you what he wants America to be like in 20 or 25 years. What types of energy will we be using? How will Medicare’s budget be brought back into balance by then?
mikeymike143

we tea partiers are the only active group that have the ground game and enthusiasm to actually get some of our candidates elected. and we proved that in 2010.

a tea party ”third party” would attract the tea partiers, conservative independents and many conservatives from the republican party ranks. leaving the republican party full of moderates and RINO’s. and this would end up pushing the dems ever farther left.

so we would have three major partiers:

tea party(for conservatives/right wingers).

republican(party of the middle, pro spending)

democrat(far far left).

in this scenario, the republican party would obviously be the ”weak sister” of the three partiers.

and FYI, a third party option WAS discussed among tea partiers back in 2009 when we were just starting off. and we decided to instead work to with the party that had just gotten clobbered in the last election(2008) in the hope that if we wokrked hard and helped them elect conservatives republicans that the repubs would be grateful and actually push conservative ideas and principles. yeah, i know, we were suckers, but it was worth trying.

even in our tea party group, which is about as pro republican as a tea party group can be, there is talk about the tea party becoming a third party by 2014, and actually fielding a slate of candidates by 2016. i hope the republicans realize if that happens, they will eventually become a small third party without much power.

yes, us tea partiers and conservatives will once again do the
”heavy lifting” for the GOP this election. and we yet again hope that the repubs finally ”see the light” and get serious about cutting
spending. if not, …………
major

.
http://wingright.org bnuckols

to “teach them a lesson;” that they need to legislate like Republicans if they want us to support them. Where Republicans turned out to vote, we held offices. Where the Republican voters were no-shows, we lost ground and offices. In a few cases, Republicans crossed over in the name of Chaos and strong conservatives were narrowly defeated in the Primaries, leaving us with a choice between a RINO, a Democrat or an under vote. We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.

Well, that was successful, wasn’t it?

The Dems won a majority and then a super majority in the Federal House, Senate and the White House, allowing them to ram-rod their agenda to spread the wealth around, undermine families and threaten the weak and sick at all stages of life. The media ignored ? and continues to ignore – our plainly stated opposition, underreporting our numbers and drowning out our voices as they proclaim that we lost because the Left better represented the voters and the Country was ready for Change! And now, the media and the liberals are crowing about the lack of power of the tea partiers, and asking everyone who will give them a few seconds what we?ll ?do? with ?them.?

Unfortunately, the “moderate” Republicans and some of our conservatives didn’t learn the lesson we wanted to teach them. Instead, they decided they need to spend more time and money wooing the swing voters and undecideds.

Do you believe we would be where we are if McCain and Palin had won in 2008, along with more down ballot Republicans? I know for a fact that my State rep lost by 17 votes out of 50,000 due to Chaos crossover at the Primary.

All we can do is vote and inform the elected, whoever they are. Drag along the down ballot conservatives. We can’t repeat 2006 or 2008.
dudette

that is EXACTLY what I have done, money only to DeMint’s PAC or directly to conservative candidates’ campaigns. And I tell GOP exactly why every time they call or send a begging letter.
kajun65

We must get the Senate!
JSobieski

My wanting to hear candidates commit to something more specific than mere platitudes has resulted in my being called an Eeyore.

100% agree that most DC politicians will start lying to themselves within a week being sworn in, if not earlier.

The key is to get them so committed to certain things that they have no way to manuever around them.
iluvit

When the electorate is divided when one of the 2 candidates is an overt, unabashed socialist and has done more to take individual that any president since Wilson, it may well be two late because the effective soul of the country itself is gone. The will to fight tyranny and evil is gone and people have become zombies living their lives like they are in some parallel universe. Can you imagine being one the glorified undecided voters. If you can be an undecided at this point in the game then you are too uninformed or too stupid to vote given the fact that the two candidates could not be more opposite.

I have fought the fight but the horizon of failure appears closer every day. Therefore, I am at least preparing for a move to somewhere where I can at least protect my retirement savings and enjoy freedom from government in my life. Freeloaders, now equal the non-freeloaders and when those lines cross it is impossible to turn back the hands of time.
tnguy

….and I like it.

Excellent post, Erick.
funwithknives

is part and parcel of the line(s) we approach in November.

There is the obvious & speakable, i. e.: Barry has to go..and a big bunch of his Buds.
Then there is the seldom mentioned: Who Leads the conservative opposition and those like-minded, that follow in their examples?

If you use Dirksen’s mantra, regarding Heat Vs. Light, it simply is not ‘hot enough’ yet for seeing and realization to occur.

Is this a call for enternal rallies, street marches and public opinion voicing?
IMHO, sites such as this could start endorsing one-issue communications bombs on a periodic basis, regularly spaced.
Align them with a news cycle topic or a current Congressional vote.
Heat-up Their servers , phone lines (and their affiliated supporting trade and interest groups )
I’m not asking for no rallies. But ‘going to where they are’ is seen here [personally] as being more effective.
No one likes to be “bothered at home”, even though they work for Us and we’re knocking on their workplace door. {like Sheldon in ‘Big Bang’, Gotta Be somewhat annoying}

Turning up the burners, *to Eleven*, is Job One.
I detest using the word ‘easier’, but it is simpler to work from home, for a vast number….and it’s feasible.
If it fails , or trickles off, you go to Plan B.
But… The Pressure is what is vital. Always Pressing, ever harder…..
Remembering that The Fight is never, ever over, or finished.
iluvit

What we need is a tea party group to choose what Rino’s are to be put out to pasture and enough of them move in an organized effort to the district of the Rino in plenty of time to vote in that district. Rent a mailbox or everyone chip and rent the same place together.

It would not take that many to do it and nothing anyone could do to stop it. All crisp, clean,legal, and definitive.

You do this to a handful of candidates, then others will take notice because they know that they are going to be next.

I know I would move to Maine for a while in a heart beat to cast a vote responsible for sending Susan Collins on a one way trip back home. What a freaking nightmare!

With good central coordination of folks willing and able to move their official residency we could finally clean up the team in one foul swoop (minimal requirements…hey look at Dick Lugar. He did not even have a home in the State and ran for office again).

Someone like Eric has the organization to “encourage” people to consider other nice places to live before an election. People can see maps of where people have agree to move and we know how may votes we will add to the district.

This is not as far fetched as it sounds and even if people know about it it does not matter because the Rinos do not have a groundswell of backers willing to organize is such fashion to stop it at all.
malvernpa

Lets look at the whole picture. The Democrats are DINOS Democrats in name only, there is no longer democracy in the Democrat party thatwas proven with the ACA. Redistributionism is Marxism (look it up)and the 21 century Democrat party is redistributionist so lets just cut the cr_p and call the democrats Marxist. Therefore the Democrats cannot be rehabilitated from their redistributionist ways and the question is can the Republicans be rehabilitated. The Democrats LOVE hearing talk of a conservative 3rd party because it guarantees democrat wins into the next century. Our vessel is the Republican party and we need to chase the RINOS out of the party and into the Marxist camp as soon as possible. This is the fastest way to fix America. That will take time but those of us who were around for the Perot disaster can rightly argue that the Perot mess brought on the expansion of the community redevelopment act and by association brought on the 2008 recession a 20 year 3rd party disaster that is not over yet.

Be as patient and persist in the agonizingly slow process of purging RINOS from the party. There is no better way.
funwithknives

this could work if you’ tuned in’ to the locality , and made it regional in appeal. Coordination with the targeted area’s activists would be vital.

Kinda like a Green Beret ‘A’ Team concept. With the vast numbers of Aged-Out workers who can’t even get an interview available, you have a ready made & incentivized workforce.
I’ll be your first volunteer, 2 months, on 1 month off, , for two years. Pay my expenses, low flat rate per month worked, and a dorm will be fine.

Now, for the money,…. always the money…..where does it come from? Gotta’ find some sugar daddies………
mustango

I know it’s a very minor point in your article but since her name came up… I doubt very much Harriet Miers would have been “clever” enough to come up with John Roberts’ “reasoning” on the ACA decision.
DerKrieger

The states can help by seizing back their usurped powers and thus diminishing the role and power of the Feds.

If we had 30 very solidly red Red states that strongly believed in federalism and the Tenth Amendment, we could defeat the federal government and minimize the impact of the weak, feckless, and cowardly GOP in DC.
Paul Seale

and I know fear is not of God, but I do not want to repeat a larger portion of what got us into trouble.
Paul Seale

Eric,

I believe in a lot of what is posted here, but I also think there is a better way.

If not now, when? I would ask the question how else?

Right now we are in the midst of an election and interviewing before the American public. Instead of focusing on what we can do, and what our vision is and how it can positively impact our future (as Reagan did – and Bush 43 did as well) we are telling them we stink. Badly.

Part of the reason conservatives – and Republicans did so well in the past was because they were able to find common ground.

A large part of that problem which exist is because neither side want to right now. Period.

Until we decide to put our best foot forward and combat socialism, we will continue to repeat the same fate of 2006 and 2008 – with very real policy implications similar to Frank-Dodd and Obamacare.

Here is another way of looking at it.

Many of us on this blog share a faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. What if we were to decide that one of our denominations was the only way to salvation, or emphasize the different methods of worship which do separate us?

That doesnt mean I follow the beliefs of everyone else. I dont. I try to follow scripture. Similarly, though, I worship in different ways than your self or others.

However, if all I focused on were the differences what would be the impact? How appealing does that look to the nonbeliever if that is all we talk about? How many will come to know Christ as their personal savior?

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks.
kinggold

Harriet Miers most likely would have validated the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds. And the Bush-signed McCain-Feingold would still have the force of law.

Incompetent Bush crony, remember.
http://www.nucre8ion.org nucre8ion

Accept it.
APA Guy

THAT is far from inevitable, IMO.
Paul Seale

…and arrogance will forever be our epithet.
gusbarbarigo

…deserves a center-right party, not a party that keeps giving us Olympia Snow (who let Obamatax out of committee) and John Quisling Roberts.

After a couple election cycles, a new party would eclipse the GOP.

The challenge will be to sway the too-big-to-fail corporate money to the new party. But I pray there enough Adelson’s, Koch’s, and Murdoch’s out there to make this a reality!

Sen. DeMint, your new party faithful is awaiting your move to a third party!
Common_Cents

Everyone needs to go to their local Republican party precinct website/fb page and check it out, then go to a meeting. Then volunteer and get involved. Easy and fun meeting likeminded people.

That is where future candidates get recruited, its where the leverage really is. The establishment just won’t tell you about it, they only want your vote and money.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

of the same people calling for a third party can’t be bothered to get involved in their local GOP. They apparently think a third party can just sprout up from a sense of frustration and win without any actual work or funds. I suppose they want someone else to do it, because I sure haven’t seen them trying to do anything from within the GOP.

(And mikey, I’m not talking about you. It’s obvious you’re involved.)
http://wingright.org bnuckols

Great analogy.
http://wingright.org bnuckols

Is a conversation for the day after the election. It’s too late now to do anything but split the vote against the Dems.
http://inkredulousbasterds.com/ Gethan Curtis

… but you got to the heart of this mess with the last 12.

With all the commentary above, regarding the pros & cons & fors & againsts of a 3rd party, there’s no point now in my adding that a third party will emerge of its own accord… vehement protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Oops-guess I just did… my bad.

Back-to-basics fundamental change will occur, IMHO, when enough of us have had enough of either form of the screwing we’re taking from them now. It’s getting closer I think.
westcoastpatriette

movements create leaders…leaders do not create movements.
acat

and nipping over to get in the lead. (Bujold)

Mew
runner12

If we get the Presidency, the House, and the Senate there will be no more excuses left for Boehner et al. They will have the stage, and will either restore the party or ensure its’ demise.

I am hopeful that they will restore the party. While a third party is good in theory, I am concerned about it working to our advantage in reality. There would have to be a massive defection by Conservative leaders in order for it to occur, and I think most of them feel that they can still change the party from within at this point.

One of the biggest threats (others being love of power, etc) to the GOP changing for the good is their fear of the Left-wing Old Guard Media. They have been trained that any slip-up in that arena will lead to failure, which in some ways is true. They have not learned to fight this powerful force in the right way, so they cow to it. All of them need to take a crash course in how to be a “happy warrior” against the media.
raginpatriot

I particularly enjoy affixing one of the “My donations are going to the Senate Conservatives Fund” stickers (graciously provided by the SCF) to RNC / Romney / Republican Party of Florida mail solicitations, and then mailing back in their postage-paid envelope.
thebadpiper

I for one think that there is no other hope to preserve the United States as the land of the free except to form a third party. I fully concur with Scott Rasmussen’s view that the real battle in this country is between the “political class” and the American people. The fundament distinction between the “political class” and the American people is that the American People see the Government as part of the problem and the Government Class sees Government as part of the solution. The distinction between Republican and Democrat is one of degree of control by government rather than one of philosophy about government control. Case in point; has Mitt Romney ever said that he is committed to reducing the size and scope of Government? Has he ever made a specific proposal on how he will accomplish a reduction in the size and scope of Government? The answer to both questions is “no.” As a practical matter and general rule, no professional politician (with the exception of Ron Paul, who while he has many virtues and fundamentally sound principles, is too out of touch with reality to be a viable candidate, and a very few others) regardless of party affiliation or alleged political philosophy, wants a smaller, less intrusive government. A professional politician is guided by pursuit of power above all else. And power is derived from control. By definition a professional politician cannot be against government because it is from government that he or she derives the purpose of their existence. It is the source of his or her power to control. Control by Government is as instinctive to a professional politician as protecting their young is to a mother grizzly bear. That is why there are so few truly conservative professional politicians. The culture that attracts a professional politician is an anathema to a conservative. All politicians worship at the alter of big government and it’s fellow travelers of big money, Wall Street Crony Capitalism and indentured servitude to Washington lobbyists. All you have to do to see the reality of this unholy political alliance against the American people is to follow the movement of individuals like Jon Corzine between government positions, Wall Street and his role as a money “bundler” in political campaigns. This big money – big government alliance controls both the Republican and Democrat parties to the detriment of the American people. And nothing will change until there is a genuine alternative to the status quo of the current two party system.
thebadpiper

And the A-Team analogy. I’ll Volunteer too!!!
http://inkredulousbasterds.com/ Gethan Curtis

The distinction between Republican and Democrat is one of degree of control by government rather than one of philosophy about government control.

Precisely.
steve962

Unfortunately for us, the problem is inherent in how the Republican party is structured currently. Unless we support and vote in people whose *primary* focus is reducing the size and role of government, we aren’t ever likely to be able to put this party back on track.

The problem – and I expect this will not be a popular sentiment here – is this: The Republican party is currently heavily focused on supporting ONLY candidates who have a strong social conservative agenda. The three legged stool is heavily unbalanced towards the social conservative leg right now — just look at the candidates we had for president this time around. Where was anyone like Giuliani this time around? They all got eliminated early, or were ignored by everyone and ended up in another party. Anyone who is socially moderate is pretty much not even considered anymore.

But the problem I’ve seen for years is this: anyone who wants to promote a strong social conservative agenda can ONLY do so by increasing the size and role of government — and if they’re willing to compromise on that, they lose that focus on reducing government. I believe social conservatism and small government conservatism are inherently incompatible – while there are, perhaps, a very small number of people who can take a balanced line and truly support both, I think one will almost always take significant precedence over the other.

I’ve seen this trend for decades now – we elect someone we believe will be a strong supporter of smaller government, but their social agenda takes over and instead they increase the size of government, often so significantly we wonder what we were thinking electing them in the first place. We never seem to learn from this. The Tea Party is a classic example – a whole lot of social conservatives adopted a small government stance just to get elected… and then went ahead and increased the size of government anyway.

Do I have an answer for this? Alas, no. I don’t expect the Republican party to shift it’s current focus away from the social conservative leg of the party back towards a more balanced stance with the other legs any time soon. I seriously doubt most people on this site will take this viewpoint seriously, even – and hesitated to write it because of that. But it’s what I believe, and I’ll stand by it.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

After a discussion last night, I took a look at Romney’s website and had to admit that he does indeed have some specific proposals up with regard to reducing the size and scope of government. Doesn’t go quite far enough for my taste, and I’d like to hear him talking more about them on the campaign trail. For instance, some of his proposals with regard to spending from his website here are:

3.Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job.

?Reduce Waste And Fraud ? Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.

?Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector ? Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.

?Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act ? Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.

?Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition ? Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a ?1-for-2? system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.

?Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.
aesthete

There will never be a “good time” to press our leaders for structural change, at least not politically. Yet the longer we wait, the worse it gets.

Pushing for our interests has to happen, because no one is looking out for us in government.
westcoastpatriette

but you are failing to make clear how being socially conservative translates into big government.

I consider myself both — a social conservative who wants limited government and I see no conflict between the two.
mikeymike143

the tea party reps elected to congress will do a good job of representing the conservative point of view. and that view includes cutting spending.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

Be sure to tell me. I also am approaching retirement age and don’t want everything I earned taken from me. But where is there any real protection from rapacious government?

And it would also have to be a place with a favorable exchange rate or else that would also eat up your life savings. Plus they have to want you. Many places in the world do not accept immigrants.
steve962

There’s no real way of promoting *any* social conservative agenda through government without increasing the power of government. If you don’t give the government power to enforce what you want, your social conservative agenda will get nowhere.

But making government smaller isn’t simply a matter of decreasing spending – it also means reducing the power of government. If your social agenda is strong enough to make you compromise on that fundamental principle, then it’s that much easier to compromise on that same principle for other reasons as well.

Conversely, if you focus on making government smaller, you may have to give way on their social principles where those conflict. Honestly, if you have a really strong social principle, and you run into a situation where reducing the size of government means going against that principle, which is going to win out? Most people aren’t going to be able to choose smaller government in that situation.

Bigger government is a slippery slope – once you start believing that more government in ANY area, even in a good cause, will help, then you’re lost.
westcoastpatriette

you sound like a libertarian who thinks everything should be legal.

So, in your view, all laws require big government?
thebadpiper

for your response. I really appreciate it when someone thinks and responds with facts rather than emotion. Believe it or not, I also checked Romney’s web site – and by the way, I am supporting Mitt Romney 110% in this election because the alternative is oblivion. It seems to me all of the proposals above, except one, have to do with reducing the cost of Government and do not in any way reduce the size and scope of government. That remains the same, it just would cost less. The one proposal that deals with the size of government (but in no way directly addresses the scope of government which I define as the degree of government control over your life and your freedom) is the reduction of the Federal workforce by 10% through attrition. Notice that it does not propose to eliminate any single government activity, just employment. First, I would suggest that from what the GAO and various inspector general reports have indicated, at least 10% of the government workforce could be eliminated with no noticeable impact if the remaining workers were fully and effectively utilized. Second, a 10% reduction of the Federal Workforce (excluding the military) from when Romney takes office would still be a significant increase in Federal employment (can’t be specific because Obama is still hiring) from when Obama took office. If Romney had said he would reduce the Federal workforce by 10% from 2008 levels or even just to the 2008 level, I would have been more impressed.
natedogg

I can tell you that this has been discussed on the left of the Democratic party as well. The reality, however, which as I see from the comments feed Finrod has mentioned earlier, is that our electoral system makes it difficult to create a viable third party.

My suggestion would be that if people are serious about having more distinct voices in Congress rather than big incoherent giant mushy tents that pass as political parties, the nuts and bolts of our electoral system have to be changed.

One way is elections based on proportional representation, as they have in continental Europe (I can explain if you want me to). The downside of this system is that it strengthens national parties at the expense of local communities, and thus kind of goes against the whole American federalism thing. My point is, this two-party issue is not something one can change by just having a major attitude shift. Believe me, many people on the left would like to do the same.
steve962

…but there are many many many more laws than we actually *need* to have in our federal government right now. I don’t happen to think everything should be legal, that there *does* need to be some regulation of some things, but as a general principle, I think the federal government should be reduced to it’s necessary functions and pretty much stay out of most social issues, leaving them to the states.

Does that make me sound like a libertarian? I suppose in some ways yes, at least in the lower case “l” sense, although I’d like to think I’ve got a more practical, common sense viewpoint than most libertarians.

As I said in my original comment, I don’t expect most people here to agree or even take what I’ve said seriously, and I respect your right to disagree with me.

But my opinion on the matter has simply gotten stronger with each passing year as I keep seeing the same thing happen over and over again. If anyone has a better explanation for why most of the social conservatives we’ve been electing, including ones who also claim to be strong supporters of smaller government, almost invariably end up supporting bigger government down the road, I’d really love to hear it.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

end up supporting big government as well.

Further, from what I can tell, those like Demint, Lee, Rubio, West, Bachmann and others whose have consistently voted against big government are all social conservatives. Several of the GOP governors with good fiscal policies (Haley, Perry) are social conservatives. Reagan was a social conservative.
PowerToThePeople

to form as many third parties as your POS hearts desire. Hell, if you need help to do so, ask and it shall be given.

As to the electoral college, we are just fine with it and have no intentions of changing it any time soon.

And we will pass on your explanations, we have no interest in being anything like Europe, thank you very much!
tnfriendofcoal101368

are being screwed by the King granting every socialist desire you ever had from heath care by welfare, to government funded abortions, to stimulus (ok that was just lining his campaign contributors’ pockets) to green energy triple downs (well that was mostly lining his campaign contributors’ pockets). Please feel free to form a third party: the Socialist Party. Know that you have my support.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

and like I said, Romney doesn’t go nearly far enough for my taste. Additionally, one of my biggest problems with his proposals is that he’s not talking about them. Maybe I’ve missed it in his speeches, but the average voter isn’t going to go looking for his plan on a website. He could use Palin’s help in coming up with some catchy phrases like “Drill Baby Drill” to drill home (pun intended) his energy plan, “death panels” to kill (again, pun…) ObamaTAX, something akin to “999″ to talk about tax reform. Something that John Q. Public will remember and maybe even seek out some more information on the matter.
aesthete

social conservatives who support limited, Constitutional government and don’t want their faith, values, and parentage trampled by an overbearing government — and social activists who support overbearing government as an instrument to force their views on other people, along with an overall activist government (“pro-life statists”, I believe is the term that is being popularized for those folks).

There is little point in discussing social conservatism as a movement without recognizing this distinction, I should think.
littlehouse18

November 7 is the day. But we have to get here. Let’s hope the Republic does not die on the 6th. Any talk of third party before then will encourage people to withhold votes for Romney. I continue to encounter folks who are inclined that way. Please think about your timing.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

and I saw no such distinction in steve’s comments. I also intended to say that I agree in large part with his view of leaving many of the social issues up to the states so long as liberal courts like the 9th circuit stop overturning what the states have decided and force us to fight in its arena, as has been the case with restrictions on abortion and same sex marriage. But we’ve had this conversation before, right?
runner12

(as aesthete pointed out) between people like DeMint, Lee, Rubio, and Bachman, who are both socially conservative and for smaller government consistently and pro-life statists.

Pro-life statists, in my opinion, have used social conservatives to get elected and then subsequently abandon other conservative principles. It is not that their social conservative principles “win out” as you seem to think, as much as they keep them intact to ensure re-election. These are not people of true conviction, but rather they are opportunists, for the most part. There may be a few who genuinely are socially conservative and naively support larger government. But rarely is it on the basis of socially conservative issues (most of the action taken by all social conservatives is defensive in nature, rather than offensive). It is generally based on a warped concept of “social justice” and “compassion.”
From ME to You

Your comment about Olympia Snowe (and probably by extension Susan Collins) ignores the realities that exist in their respective districts. You may not be aware of the political climates here in Maine but the MAJORITY of Mainers are of the liberal ‘persuasion’. The fact that we have near ‘centrist’ Senators is near miraculous.

If you have any doubt about that you should check out our two members of the House of Representatives Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud!

I would characterize Ms. Pingree as slightly left of Karl Marx and Mr. Michaud as slightly right of her. If you look at the number of votes they received in their elections you would see the ‘true’ color of the state. If you check their voting records you would see what the alternatives to Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins are.

ALL elections are a choice of the lesser of two evils and eventually are really a ‘beauty’ contest…which candidate looks best to each individual!

Waiting for a flawless candidate will entail holding out ’til the King of kings splits the heavens and returns with a flaming sword. Until then we have to make choices from the flawed human candidates we are presented with.

Here in Maine, at least for the past few election cycles, we were presented with the choice between far left leaning individuals and somewhat right leaning centrist individuals. Amazingly the latter candidates won.

That WON’T happen this election cycle, at least for the race to fill Olympia Snowe’s seat. Mainers are being presented with three candidates:

Cynthia Dill (D – far, far, FAR LEFT)
Angus King (I – far far left)
Charlie Summers (R- just right of center)

In terms of electability
Cynthia Dill – not a chance
Angus King – better than 50%
Charlie Summers – possible but not probable

Cynthia Dill will poll well in the liberal hotspots of Portland/Cape Elizabeth and the southern areas of York county.

Charlie Summers will pick up the majority of the Republican votes and perhaps a significant portion of the extreme conservative independent vote. His chances might improve with a STRONG endorsement from his former boss Olympia Snowe. If Cynthia Dill can pull enough of the far left and left leaning votes from Angus King Mr. Summers may have a chance!

Angus King will will pull all of the center by virtue of his record as Maine’s governor. He wasn’t particularly good nor particularly bad with nothing really shining out to either hurt or help him. His only real claim (IMHO) is that nothing ‘bad’ happened while he was governor (not counting the slow slide to liberalism).

Sen. Snowe is about as conservative as you’ll get from Maine given the current political climate (The weather climate is great…really enjoying the global warming!).

Our choices (as conservatives) are a candidate we agree with 1% of the time (She did say we needed change, I just don’t agree with the change she wants!

A candidate we agree with maybe 20% of the time and a candidate we agree with 60% of the time.

My vote will go for the 60% of the time candidate. Incremental change takes time. We are trying to turn the Titanic here, there are not sharp turns.
westcoastpatriette

I was having trouble nailing down the specifics to point out steve962′s over generalization re: social conservatives. Maybe he will be able to fine tune his arguments if he considers what you all wrote.
Brookhaven

Voters will give the GOP one more chance–if for no other reason than they fear what Obama would do with a second term. The likely outcome of this elections is:

GOP president
GOP majority in the house
GOP majority in the senate (but not filibuster proof)

Business as usual, trimming around the edges, or “smaller than planned increases” won’t get it under these circumstances.

If the GOP doesn’t get the message after four years of the tea party movement pressing the GOP, then I think you’ll see many in the tea party movement washing their hands of the GOP and looking in another direction.
http://www.nucre8ion.org nucre8ion

Our choices are hard and our future is harder but we are far from doomed if we are truly Americans. We need to change our minds and our conversation. The United States as we have known it ended a while back and we were afraid to face that fact. Its time for a fresh debate about the future. We are not doomed…but the US has been doomed for a while now.
Brookhaven

and there are small govt social conservatives.

The majority of Americans are pro-life. The VAST majority of Americans are against gay marriage. It’s a fallacy to focus on social conservatives as the ones being responsible for govt growth.

But, I agree with one point: we do need to focus on electing small govt social conservatives.

There’s no reason why we can’t have candidates that are good on all three legs of the stool: defense, smaller government, and social values. That’s what we should be aiming at.
http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

who promotes himself as a “social conservative” who is small government.

The two most recent are Santorum and Huckabee. They’re nearly as bad as Obama when it comes to growing government, just for different stuff.
votejoel

Fred Upton and George W. Bush also gave us the 100 watt light bulb ban. Global warming and all, you know.

I just screwed illegal contraband in my closet yesterday. That sounds like more fun that it was. . .
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

no text
westcoastpatriette

ALT2p. Just went there and like what I read. Time for all of us to think outside the box.
trimulchio

would be that the Democrat Party is probably on its last legs. When it becomes clear that they can’t elect nationally anymore (say in 2016 or 2020), I think that more rational Dems and RINOs will form a new party, just as the Whigs formed out of former Federalists and more moderate Democratic Republicans.

The Republican Party has been a fairly good home for the Conservative Plurality. The Democrats are led around by the most liberal 20% of the voting public, but there was never a true home for the more moderate or centerist 40% of the population. That math can’t hold forever, and I doubt it will last much longer.
trimulchio

http://cthulhu2012.com/

“Don’t settle for the lesser evil.”
acat

Mew
trimulchio

out of the Union is Obama is re-elected. (See, e.g., http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2012/07/stanford_republican_governors.html; ttp://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-announces-texas-opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-20120709,0,6752534.story)

You can try nullification, but these are Federal questions, decided in Federal courts. They may be forced in to a Hartford convention by circumstances.
trimulchio

The slow death of the democrat Party since 1968 has been one of teh factors making the country less governable over the last 4o some years/
trimulchio

having seen the rocks and shoals of non-Texas politics . . . .
cbartlett

We actually have an RV and have considered selling our home to do a form of “roving residency” to visit all sorts of parts of the country we’ve never seen for retirement someday. Never really thought about this as a possible reason to do it. Unfortunately, our 401K accounts have pretty much become worthless in the last few years, so retirement is NOT happening any time soon….. (fw/knives – let me know if you find that sugar daddy…)

We, the voters in TX-1, continue to strongly support Louie Gohmert. I think we’ve pretty much scared off Democrats as well as any GOP-crony-types from running against him, for now at least. John Cornyn has had a few screwy votes in the past, but, for the most part, usually bucks the Mitch McConnell crowd. Now – if we can ONLY get Ted Cruz in the Senate instead of Dewhurst…… (See Erick’s latest update on this runoff election battle posted this afternoon – aarrgghh!)
http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

nt
montani

Nothing. No conservative who pays attention to the likes of Red State would trust a Lamar! Alexander type.

The obvious model for a quasi third party would be a party with in the party. The Tea Party had the opportunity but people are so distrusting that it won’t congeal into a true organization. Some second tier politicians have tried to lead that parade only to be shoved aside. There are pockets of organization here and there but not one that can look into some congressional district and accurately identify the true conservatives running.

Red State has the beginnings of such an organization but as much as we like Erik and his experience he doesn’t have the national stature. (Sorry Erik. It’s just how I see things.)

I think it would have to come from a Jim DeMint or a Rick Santorum. Being a social conservative is a must but having a focus on fiscal discipline is where the leadership needs to be focused.

Such a person could create an organization where candidates are vetted and a GOP primary slate is announced. They could also move money towards that slate and rally people.

Maybe.
After Seven

100% of American History suggests that a 3rd Party would cause the GOP to vanish…and we’d be back to two parties, only more Conservative than before.
acat

The history of the Whigs being subsumed by the GOP is the *exception* – Canada’s recent debacle, with two separate conservative parties, is the norm.

Hint – when presented with a liberal, a conservative, and another conservative .. enough Canadians split between conservatives to give the liberals the win. For a decade.

No, Cold Warrior and the Precinct Project have the right answer to this – take over the GOP.

Mew
shadowbear12

I have supported GOP since my first vote 34 years ago. I have given plenty, I have raised two sons to be conservative while surrounded by the far left, and I have defended and swayed many. After the election, I will very likely leave if there is a movement for a third party based on unification of Tea Party groups. There is a strong current in the GOP that wants my money and vote, but does not really believe what I believe. They fail to see how they are just as responsible for this mess as the Democrats, and the only way they will see it is when they do not have my vote or my cash. Not trying to be bitter or pay back, just that there is no more time to wait and debate, the Republic is about lost.
Common_Cents

Waiting around for others to get things done.
warchief65

What we really need is to take the garbage out . Especially the RINO’s . That is where it starts . For the last 20 years or longer , we have been telling our Rep.s that it’s time to quit spending . They come and say ” your right ” , but , they did . Now look at us . The deficit is up to 16 trillion dollars , the country is broke . And Hussein is still spending our money like a drunken sailor on shore leave . What’s worst , the GOP party come up to him , AFTER he lied to us , and came up with ” you got to pass the bill to see what’s in it ” . He said that he’s not going to tax us . Now , his ” obamacare ” is nothing BUT a tax .

It’s time to clean the house . And that means anybody who voted with Hussein , is NOT a GOP . And most of all , the Rep.s who were in for over two terms . They have to GO !
inaudiblenoise

It is past time to hold ‘Bailout Bob’ Corker accountable for his actions. Tennesseans didn’t want Corker 6 years ago and they don’t want him now. Zach Poskevich is the man who will beat him. It would be a tremendous help in getting his name ID up if Red State would interview him.
Contact Info from his site:
press@zachforsenate.com
423-438-3094
www.zachforsenate.com
nomaster

We need a third party now more than ever. Ron Paul has foughten to enlight the voter to the real needs of our country. The mass media, the political power groups and the elite have block his every effort to win by not even giving him notice. Willard the Rat Man and Obama are one and the same, two sides to one coin from health care to all their other beliefs.
APA Guy

Nothing to see here but more lunacy from the Ronulan empire.
acat

I wonder what’ll become of the Ronulan Empire in 2013….

Mew
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

you have to start at a very extreme position so that you can then shift and get most of what you want. And you have to stick to your guns and not give away your winning hand.

Is that enough poker metaphors? Too often Republicans begin with a sorry position and then are quick to compromise even further.

If there is one thing they could learn from the Democrats is to be more stubborn.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

If Not Now . . .

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL