Redstate

...I think it's time to splinter the parties into their constituencies and break the power duopoly forever... everybody who agrees into the freezer!

...a full-fledged frontal attack on both the Republican party, AND the Democratic party in the weeks and months ahead

Now you're talkin'

Although...have you ever considered just ignoring them?

Just let me put on a couple more layers and I'm good to go!

PS Wheee! This is my favorite day on RedState so far!

"if you ignore them they will go away"...

these shameless scumbags don't seem to go away though, so what else have we got?

Bear through the Next two years and support a conservative that will take the party back to where it should be.

A 21st Century Contract for America, if you will.

in the pool of morons we are having offered up right now, and I will personally drive him/her to every campaign rally...I ain't holdin' my breath.

I hear you.  But sometimes it seems like everyone is so busy fighting someone else, no one is actually doing anything.  Sometimes I wonder...

Remember the movie, Disclosure?  He was so busy fighting, he almost didn't Solve the Problem.  Sometimes I wonder if we are missing the big picture.

What else have we got?  I think maybe that's a very good question.  Still searching for an answer.

But, back to the here and now...

How are you planning to attack? What is your mission?  How will you know when it is accomplished?  Do you have an exit strategy?  And a plan to "win the peace"?

Newt's support of Hastert on the Jefferson thing has pretty much disqualified him from the fed-up-with-it crowd, I think.

I was pretty desperate for an alternative to the options we now have on the ballot, though some are not well known to me, that I was considering Newt.  No more.

Pence, Coburn, Sessions, Allen, Kyl, Sensenbrenner etc.

Not to bring you back, but to say, whither thou goest, goeth I.

Limited government, pro-life, free market nationalist hawk, slave to liberty, son of virtuous and forefathers and descendent of veterans of every war ever fought for the foregoing, dittos.

I no longer care who wins the '06 or '08 elections. Not only is there scant difference to us between them, but there is manifest indifference for us among them.

Furthermore, the bigger mess they make the sooner will arise a viable alternative.  

I think we need to start a discussion somewhere about this...with the issue crises of the day put aside.

We can either flip a coin on who posts it, or ask the Editors here to start an official initiative to assemble (reassemble) what we mean by conservative, what we expect from conservatism, what we demand from future politicians (going out on a flimsy limb here) or even a future Party that will stand for, and ensure that, this Conservatism is adopted and pursued and fully fought for.

your thoughts?  you have begun a healthy list here in your comment...

ps-oddly enough I haven't heard back from Mr. Mehlman or Mr. Bush yet...hmmm

when I said "every war ever fought".  In fact, as far as I know only the War of 1812 and the Civil War saw any of my ancestors fight.  My grandfathers were born in 1900 and 1903, missing WWI, and my father was born in 1933, missing WWII and Korea (while in ROTC).  He had been accepted to West Point, but lost some teeth playing football and got the boot.

If the leadership of the Republican party join with the Democrats to ram through legislation, over the objection of most Republicans, which is injurious to the party and to the country, then I'm out. And I'll do my best to see that the people responsible pay for what they have done, up to and including impeachment.

wherever we end up...new party, repaired old one...even the party called "no party"...

Could always use a few more votes.

Plus you get the thrill of saying to your friends once the returns have been finalized:

"See those 132 people? I'm one of them."

Looks like we already have thirty-some US Senators on our side.

Also, if you're running for any kind of office, you got my vote, Haystack.  Thanks for putting all this into print -- I couldn't, I'm not that good a writer, plus...I'm just too angry at the moment.

I feel slimed by the senate's immigration vote, totally slimed.

I grew up thru the tail end of the 60's revolution, and as such, I actually inhaled in college :-)

but I share your feelings about being slimed...and as I was told in an external email on this - a 3rd party just to keep the 2 entrenched ones a little closer to honest is a serious consideration.  THAT I can do regardless of my lungs' history...

(probably a Father Andrew Greeley book) where the question was asked, "Would you rather have a holy priest, or a wise one?"

I'll take wise, thank you very much. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, but..." you know the quote.  Anyway, give me people who have learned from their mistakes and adventures...like King David, maybe?:)

So, go run for office, if you're so inclined, and do anything else political that takes your fancy.  And if the media asks if you ever inhaled, just say "Yes, and?"  And if they continue to badger you, just shrug and say, "So what?"

And if you have trouble with that approach, just talk to your kids -- they've developed this Art of Stonewalling (which is also known by its unscientific name of "I'm so bored with this conversation that all I can do is mutter") into a full-blown science worthy of academic persuit.

And it works.

Cheers!

Newt Gingrich has ZERO credibility with me right now as a conservative leader.  Not only has he been on the shelf for the last decade, he now is supporting  the cockamine theory that the FBI was wrong to execute a search warrent in Jefferson's office.

The Contract with America is officially null and void, not valid in the states of Logic or Sanity.  

There are a bunch of candidates who represent more of the same, but theres one that offers real change.

I'm sure you have more knowledge of the law and the Constitution than Newt Gingrich.  I don't know what to believe in this "defense of Jefferson" case, but of anything, I think Newt's words gave the case that it was unconstitutional so much more credibility, not the other way around.

We should all tread a little softer on the issue until the Attorney General figures out everything that happened.  Sometimes us bloggers have to realize that we're not always the smartest people in the room and sometimes we have to take a step back.  Now is one of those complicated times.

That's simply ridiculous to say that Newt's campaign is killed because he tried to argue the very, very legit argument that the FBI raid on Jefferson's office was unconstitutional.

I wonder if when the AG says it was unconsitutional too all of us will take these comments back or not.

I mean, I'm a Newt supporter because he's the only candidate that I know can offer real change.  You look at his plan for immigration reform, which is similar to the Pence bill (except that was created months before), his health care reforms (he can destroy anyone on health care, generally a rallying point for Dems), and foreign policy, but say "No way" to Newt because of this?

Simply ridiculous.

There is no legitimate Constitutional question here, at all.

Newt forgot the Contract.  BuBye, Newt.

So sure of it?  Prove it to me.  Disprove the claims of the entire leadership of Congress.

when he started touring with Hillary, supporting her in some cause.  She said, "He's nuts."

The Mrs. was just months ahead of everybody else.

"When a Democrat's dug himself into a hole, don't bring him a ladder."

Newt forgot that.  Even if he's right, the Supreme Court or a compromise will sort it out, and he doesn't need to give aid and comfort to the Dems in the meantime.

to figure out you are a Newt fan, and this is fine.  Much of what you say about his abilities has merit, but there is a fundamental problem that I as the honorary secretary of the new "Fed up Party" want you to consider.

Newt is a devout Republican, but he is only a Conservative when it is politically expedient to be one.  And I can think of a few examples but it really won't matter because you will just try to explain me "out" of it somehow.  For me, both sides of the standard operating crowd need to be fired and we need to start over.  And I will only support true Conservatives from now on, not Republicans such as Newt who will talk the talk but be sitting in his barcolounger flipping channels with the remote when I need him to walk the walk.

Newt is a hall of famer in the House of Lords™(licensed by tbone) and he needs to stay out of it...his glory days are over.

See here, for a general discussion, or see my disposition of the Novelty Defense (follow the whole thread).  

Envision a world with Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid and President Feingold. Cut off your nose to spite your face? Is it all or nothing, or do we have to take the best we can get?

Seems to me this kind of jousting is right on target during primary season, but the battle lines are redrawn when the general election comes around.

is: the importance of your vote varies in direct proportion to the size of the group for which you cast it.

Throwing your support behind a party with 50,000,001   voters changes their level of support less than voting for a party that had 131, and now has 132.

It all depends on if you want to win, or to make a difference.

Mr. Haystack:

I have been disappointed by the Republican Party for some time; long before 9/11; long before the Contract with America. Like you I saw many things that were "mouthed" but never carried through. I left the Republican Party and became an Independent, or no party at all this threw Republican Party into a panic, because they dont know where I stand and the Democrats spend money and time trying to win me over, a waste of their money. I now donate my money online to candidates that share my believes and dont waste my money going to the RNC I write lettes as an Independent and feel the scorn of both parties. I bid you "Welcome" Rebel, and lets hope many more join us.

Pretty much summed up the way I've been feeling the state of politics within conservatism and the republican party.  Friends keep telling me not to lost hope in Bush, but it's been six years now.  When is he going to deliver? I'm so dissapointed that even the marriage amendment seems like shameful pandering from a bunch of shameful politicians.  How dissapointed am I? I wouldnt even vote for Brownback, whom I considered the best hope for our country.  

So yes, I'm willing to sign up for the party of the "fed up"----

See this is the scare tactics that the Hugh Hewitts and Weekly standards of the world are using: "If you dont vote republican, then awful-to-god Pelosi will be the speaker"---But what's the point of voting Republican when we get down our throats: NCLB, an incredible defecit that wasnt even there when the dems where in office, farm subsidize, McCain-Feingold, the billions of tax-payer dollars that were given to the 911 families, The prescription drug bill, Harriet Miers (and before that we almost got Al Gonzalez), the Highway Bill, Bridges and railways to nowhere and dont even get me started on this whole immigration debacle.

By the way they have governed, the Republicans do not deserve to be in power.

makes a difference, so it isn't a simple either/or situation. During good times you can do both and during bad times youre squeezed into a tradeoff.

Maybe SkipM has the right idea, but it does seem to takes parties to overcome the inertia.

After the steam blows, seems to me this dilemma reemerges.

Is this party of fed up a trail blazing solution or part of a traditional one with its own track record?

We are all leveled by the power of our vote. Let the power of your voice be extended by the merit in your arguments. Seems to me you do well enough on that score but hinder yourself by being sore.

I'd like to encourage you to hang in there. Its a messy business. But if you develop a really really good alternative solution, I'll check it out. One thing that seems agreeable is that something productive needs to be done with all the steam pressure that it building.

but it wouldn't be scary if it weren't a fact that there is a real choice resulting in a real difference.

Granting all your complaints and the conclusion that the Republicans don't deserve our support, you still have to face the alternative, which would be even worse.

Unfortunately there are a lot of constituents out there that do not yet agree with conservative and so there is political pressure to write this (choose your own adjective) legislation. So we have our work cut out out for us. There is a lot of communicating and convincing that needs to be done. But the question of how best to make a difference is still a difficult one. I personally have not yet comprehended a way which is better than working from within one of the two major parties. And I don't see one on offer here. Taking my toys and going to play somewhere else isn't going to make me any happier in the long run  So what is the most productive way to channel your indignation? Okay, I'm stumped.

I agree with your reasons for resigning. I am very upset with our current leadership for the same reasons. However, I think a more appropriate course of action is a little different.

I want a rebellion from within fought in the primaries to take the party back from the "moderate" blue blood country club Republicans. They are the minority in this party. The model that was executed in Pennsilvania is the way to go.

A full throated rebellion will do the trick. Let's get an elected conservative leadership in place and religate the moderates to the minority status in the party where they truely belong. I still believe in the big tent and keeping them in the party, but since they are in the minority, they have no right to think they are running the party. They should be listened too, but they should not be allowed to destroy the conservatives who got them in the majority.

I know that there are moderates who will be very angry with me for having this view. I do not believe they should be pushed out or not listened too. However, in light of the moderates siding with the Democrats in the Senate on immigration amnesty, I think my views are justified. So, throw your stones if you must, but I will not move from my view.

...but hinder yourself by being sore.

I plead Guilty as Charged.

Thanks.

I had to walk away from the computer for a bit to process all that has been said in this thread, and upon returning I offer some thoughts:

You folks and I run our government with a 2 party system.  Over the centuries, more or less, this has been the status quo; yes parties come and go, but they are treated like chiggers about the shins and kneecaps(so-to-speak).  There are those among us much smarter than I in the world of Civics and Sociology and any number of other "ologies" that can debate the pros & cons of more than 2 parties, but where I come down on this topic is simple.  

My personal beliefs about the American body politic are that I want a small government.  I want to hold the states up as the primary arbiters of our collective ways of life; don't like the Rhode Island rules? Move to Arkansas...or whatever.  I want a federal government whose primary role is to defend our sovereignty, represent us fairly on the world stage, and stay the (expletive removed in deference to the posting guidelines) out of my affairs of marriage, death and family.

I want a Federal Government that lives within its fiscal means, and respects hard work and personal responsibility...and does not hand out my money to those who would not do whatever it takes to care for themselves and their families.  Perhaps most of all, I want Senators and Congressmen to behave as if their jobs were temporary, and solely managed by the people that voted them into their positions.  I would like to see them strive to do everything in their power to hurry up and get as much done as possible before they are returned to the private sector; their agenda being to fight for and implement those things that I sent them there to do.

Now, I accept that I will not always get what I want; there are more people in the country than just me, and my ideals may not be among those held by a majority of my peers.  But at least I gave it the good ole college try and picked the man or woman that came closest to sharing my opinion about items on the agenda.

The Republican party has sold itself as the conservative alternative to liberalism.  As such, my voting choices are liberalism or conservatism.  Because I only have 2 parties to choose from, I have no alternative but to vote republican.  When republicans no longer act like the conservatives they assure me that they are, what do I do?  I can always not vote...many of my peers here at RS insist that this means we have liberalism running the show.  I disagree.  

The republicans, having enjoyed the majority at the Legislative AND the Executive branch for these past few years have become Liberals in conservative clothing.  Government is bigger than ever.  The immigration bill, as is, will grow government dramatically larger.  My personal business is becoming more and more of great interest to the "machine", my death and marriage and family more and more under the watchful eye and deepening control of said machine.  If I am not mistaken, the Republican party and the Democratic party are one and the same; I want out because I am not represented and have lost control of a system that was designed by our founders to be absolutely under my control.

If I vote independent, I regain AT LEAST enough control to pick a candidate that best dupes me into believing they share my conservative ideals.  I personally think we need a new party.  I would support a new party.  I would rather cast a vote for a guaranteed loser that I know in my heart of hearts shares my conservative ideals than to vote for one I know in my heart of hearts is lying to me, and will dump me like that "got what I wanted on my first date" loser we all knew back in hight school.

After all that has been said in this thread I am convinced even more that being an independent and fighting for a new party of true conservatives, or a revolt after the current faux conservatives LOSE the next 2 elections, is just what the doctor ordered.

if we got a pelosi speaker, we'd have a hastert in a dress.  if we got a Majority leader Reid, we'd have a Frist with no southern accent.  These folks have been duped into believing that a shift to the middle will keep them in power...

what they have accomplished is to have become liberals themselves...just have an R after their names.

The only thing I see happening should the left win is a raise in taxes, a reduction in the deficit, an earlier withdrawal of troops in Iraq, and probably a shameless attempt at trying to impeach the President in a time of war.  They will not succeed in this last, but the Republican majority has already started the train of these others down that track.  So, I get to turn the channel when Pelosi and Reid pontificate instead of changing the channel when Hastert and Frist do...and?

After we open the floodgates at the border, we will HAVE to raise taxes...and just by making them legal and putting them into the system they will start to pay down the deficit...but wait...more money in the coiffers for them to spend?  Where's the difference between the 2 parties on this?

I'm not nearly so sanguine about it as you are. I see more negative consequences than the ones you mention and think you understate the significance of those. And I have doubts that simply raising taxes will reduce the deficit.

The thing is, conservatives on your trajectory are likely to produce the exact scenario that will allow us to test your predictions. Perhaps you and I can revisit your comment in 3 or 6 years and pass judgement then. If you are wrong then, you can turn the tables on me and argue why I shouldn't unproductively vent my frustration by making you all the scapegoat.

In the meantime I hope to stay tuned in in case you do find a novel way to steer the fleet. But I'm not ready to hop ship with you yet. The rhetoric is a little too overboard for me.

Newt is a great idea man, but a real weak adminstrator.  This can be seen in his leadership as Speaker.  Lots of talk, little or no action.  Lets take this one day at a time until July 2007 and see if we can't find a real leader who can excite true conservatives in the GOP and the DNC.

This episode brought back bad memories of some of the stupidity when he was in the leadership.

For this new Fed-Up-Party.  I think there are enough true conservatives in the GOP camp and the Democratic Party (Reagan Conservatives) who if it could be pulled off, would make up a new majority party.

Proud to be an American and looking forward to a new political party to emerge.

I am done with them and it's time for a clean, emphasis clean, slate and good riddance to bad rubbish. And all this talk of stick with us or you will get Pelosi and the Dems should not scare anybody. We KNOW we have been scorned, cheated and discarded by this present bunch, so FED-UPs it is for me.

today, there is ultimately no difference between the parties.  Whatever letter you assign to a name, R or D, you will find efforts to increase revenues into the federal coiffers to enable more spending on an entitlement of some sort or another.

That, JohnE is the bottom line-there is not a real difference in Washington-they want our money and they want to spend it like teenagers with their first credit cards...a la mom & dad.

They do everything else according to how they interpret the polls...nothing according to what we want.  You ever had a sit doen with your Federal Reps.?  Ever been invited?  Ever been asked for your opinion?  I didn't think so...

I appreciate the thoughtfulness in your comment. And I appreciate your political objectives. If you can acquire more influence over policy as an independent then more power to you. SkipM seems to feel that way about his experience. I'll be curious to hear how you evaluate its efficacy after you try it.

A new party doesn't seem realistic though. The Greens and the Libertarians are well down that path. I somehow doubt that they are the model of what you wish for. Nor Pat Buchanan or even Ross Perot.

I personally do believe that there are significant differences between the Dems and the Repubs. Maybe not quite so much as I used to. For example, I used to think that Dem leaders were generally unprincipled demagogues and Repub leaders were generally statesman maintaining their principles. I still put the President in the latter category but no longer the majority of the Republican congress. I don't like everything Chambliss or Isakson or Deal says or does but I like it a heck of a lot better than Max Cleveland. I email them when I'm unhappy. Hopefully they at least aggregate my complaint. The rest of em don't even want my emails. It is frustrating not to have more influence but that's the system.

Lobbies have broader influence than this though, don't they? Is there a conservative lobby that seeks to influence the party at large? That kind of organized voting block might be able to exercise a more disproportionate influence on party policy, along the lines you are seeking for. Something akin to Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition. If there is one, perhaps you can bring a troop with you into it. Else there's a project for you. At any rate, I'd recommend dropping the "Fed up" moniker though. It suggests impotency.

There is one other difference I used to like to claim between liberals and conservatives that I am presently giving up on. The Angry Left is no longer uniquely so distinguished. I have witnessed the Angry Right, so am forced to give up on that slur as anything other than a shared human trait evidenced in politics.

Out of telling people that I voted for the prohibition party than I do from voting for a party that fails to represent me on matters of:

Free Trade

Small Government

Immigration

The Drug War

The Deficit

Freedom of Speech

Is there any point at which it's no longer "selfish" to keep voting for the (R)s?

the lynchpin is whether you want to be on the winning team or to make your opinion felt.  

A secondary consideration, though no less important, is whether you consider the difference between the Rs and the Ds to be more urgent than making your opinion known to both.

The Presidency is cleverly voted on by the States, not by the People, so you have to consider your vote there in the context of the Redness or Blueness of your State.  My State is solidly Blue, so my R vote is basically a protest anyway.

So if there is a difference of only a few hundred between the major parties in your State, your vote for the Rs may show your opinion more than a third party vote would.

I may as well be one of the spoilers in this thread and weigh in against those who're banging the "I Quit" drum.  (It's Primary Season, isn't it?)

I'm starting to get fed up, but because of the experience of the Clinton years (Does anyone remember a certain 3rd party?  Does the name "Perot" ring a bell?), I'm dead set against bolting the GOP as long as the alternative is that Pelosi and Reid are referred to as "Ms. Speaker" and "Senate Majority Leader".  If that happens this year, I'll definitely have you to thank, for abandoning the party instead of using the primary system to lean on the RINOs and try to get your "dream team" of conservatives into the races.  I'd rather have the Turks firing cannonballs into my front door.

All this is just starting to seem a little too familiar to me.  While I have my own problems with Congresscritters, the fact is that throwing away a vote on a 3rd party at this stage seems a little too much like giving up and letting the enemy take the stage.  Given the rhetoric that the Democrats have been throwing around in recent months, I don't see how they're going to back down from the impeachment talk if they win.  If that happens, I know at least one group to thank for it, and it's not going to be called "conservative".  Are you sure that's what you want to call yourselves?

Frankly, if there is something I'm going to be fed up with, it's this.

in Texas, using your analogy here, my looming vote for Kinky will express my opinion.  Of the remaining candidates, Texas will get the standard fare in the Governor's mansion regardless of the letter after their name..so I will instead express my dissatisfaction to them all in the voting booth, and will let them know before and after - what I did and why I did it.

and at the end of the day they are the same fruit.  Your disdain for anyone leaving the Republican party to be eligible to vote for the candidate that best represents their political ideology is misguided.

No one here is saying stay home.  We are saying the Republicans have abandoned those of us that hold to a set of conservative principles and ideals.  We are no longer represented by the party, and therefore have no reason to give them our time, money, or bandwidth.  Regardless of your concern for specific players such as Pelosi and Reid, we get the same in Hastert and Frist, essentially, so there is a net zero gain/loss.

While you may be worried about impeachment proceedings, they will insist on some degree of investigations regardless of who has majority status...remember these clowns with an R have been using the "separate myself from Bush" strategy for a couple months now.  In the House, you can rest assured these Bush problems will not be going away...but make no mistake, this President will not be impeached, or at best he will get no worse than the "spanking" his predecessor got...the case is not there against this man, only the op-ed frenzy that will accompany the so-called "work" the next Congress will waste their time and more of OUR money pursuing.

And if all that you fear comes to pass, and you hold it against those of us who have been abandoned and chosen not to take it lying down, well-knock yourself out-the people in public office did this to themselves.  We just expressed our opinions...in the voting booth, in the editorial columns of the newspaper, and on our respective websites.

Haystack, I have no wish to fight you. (ha!)

Look, its obvious that I think the premise that there is no difference between R and D government is flat wrong. What happens if we load up and commence a duel over this? I have to admit that if you blow me down on this point I will accord your position more respect. If we shoot you down on it, will it change your sentiments? I suspect it would only serve to increase your frustration and I don't consider that a productive result, even if I could crow.

Am I wrong to suspect that immigration is the catalyst for your sentiments?

just an exchange.  You are partially correct about the catalyst for my sentiments.  But what you may be missing in my angst is that it is not so much the policy the Senate has offered up, as it is the complete lack of concern for the opinions so many of us have expressed directly TO them in calls and emails and letters.  The straw that broke the camel's back WAS, in fact, the last minute amendment that suggested we need to "work with" Mexico on any actual fences or walls.

The country, by and large, has said loud and clear that whatever we do about illegal immigration, we need to stop MORE illegals from coming in to this country so that WHATEVER we wind up doing with the ones already here we can be somewhat reassured that the problem won't re-appear a few more years down the road.  The Senate ignored that, and the assumption is growing that the House will capitulate in conference.  I am fine with being outvoted or being on the losing side of a policy debate, but MY conservatism was cast aside with absolute disdain by the Republicans that voted with the majority in the Senate on this bill.

Add, from my original post, that "my" republicans gave in to the Farm bill, the Eucation bill, the 9/11 victims compensation bill, and so on and so on ad nauseum, I have determined that conservatism is no longer represented by the republican party.  I am a conservative-I have no representation in today's congress.

I can't NOT vote, but as an independent I can vote my opinion and I can lose my conservative ideals in congress just as easily as an independent as I can as an unappreciated conservative republican.

When the GOP resumes the conservative agenda, I will rejoin...until then I can flop in the breeze just as easily as an independent.  But by golly, if I find a conservative movement I will be first in line to join-with my money, my voice, and my bandwidth.

as Haystack; I just haven't resigned from the party...probably because I was a lifelong true blue lefty Dem who in 1998, in utter disgust with the Democrats, was proud to become a Republican (and waved it in my liberal friends' and co-workers' faces). That said, everything in this letter is true and easily defended by even the most conservative of us.

I am a very unhappy Republican who now finds herself yelling at RNC fundraisers on the phone and swearing to withhold any and all monetary support. However I am still a happy conservative who will never again vote for a Dem or a liberal.

I cannot say I won't vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate. And there are a handful of good Congresspeople but most in both houses need to GO NOW.

Right on, Haystack!

I left college in the late sixties as an archtypal long-haired, dope-smoking, FM radio-listening liberal Democrat.  It took about ten semesters of Life 101 and a lot of reading not prescribed by professors to ever have a thought about politics that was truly mine.  I stayed on the D side of things thru 1980 with increasing discomfort and not just as a voter, but as an activist and operative.  After the 80 election, I left politics altogether and, armed with the courage of my connections, set out to make some money.  Though no longer actively involved in politics, I could feel the country move away from the "maliaise" of the '70s under Reagan's leadership and in '84 did something that had heretofore been inconceivable: I voted R, though more for Reagan than Republican.

Skipping forward, I came to work for government.  Alaska's government was built of, by, and for New Deal Era Democrats, but has had a Republican legislature since the early '80s.  Half the gubernatorial terms since statehood have been nominally Republican, but the the current Murkowski administration is the only one that is at all recognizably ideologically conservative, though not a conservatism that would satisfy many here because of the socialistic structure of the State.

I saw first hand what the modern Democrat Party is really about in Governor Knowles' two terms.  He had a by-the-book Clinton-Gore style minimum winning coalition government with the particular Dick Morris permutation of rather than solving issues for your constituencies, you prevented solution so that you could keep that constituency in play.  This is the soul of the Democrat party; insist on policies that will satisfy the basest, most emotional needs of your constituencies and be safe in the knowledge that no legislation will ever pass that will satisfy the desire that you have created.  It is a really, really good way to keep your behind in the big chair, and that is all that they care about.

So long as their behinds are in the big chairs, the jobs go to their friends and government contracts and grants act as effective money laundry for the Party.  That is both the source of their power and purpose of their governments, and it is the reason that suddenly finding themselves completely out of power has made them so rabid.  They can get away will incredible levels of graft and corruption because, first, they are very good at it and, second, the Press gives them a bye on it because they are "good people."

I've said ad nauseum here and elsewhere that Republicans do not govern well.  First, they are very inexperienced at it; six years since 1932 really isn't much, and, second, they don't have much of a bench to call on to actually run the thing.  A Republican in a capital city is a single fish in a sea of Democrat sharks. The whole bureaucracy is Democrat or Democrat at heart, the lobbyists are more or less all Ds, and the interest groups, and non-profits, and hangers-on, and, especially, the Press.  If a Republican from fly-over country is seduced by the glitz of the cocktail party circuit in DC, one should not be too much surprised.  But the correct response is for his constituents to give him an earful at home, not to abandom him.

So for me, R is not for resign.  Whatever their failings, the Republican Party has some interest in actually solving issues, not just playing issues and constituencies.  And problem solving makes their governance far more difficult; whatever you do, somebody is not going to like it, and the Ds can start their "we can do it better" line.  Think back to how many times Pelosi and Reid said "we can do better" in their response to GWB's State of the Union address.  Their legislative strategy is to get the we can do it better dialogue going and one of two things happen: you are still talking about how to do it better comes the next election, or you move towards their "better" idea and alienate your Republican constituents.  Sound familiar?

So, I'm not resigning.  I'll do whatever I can to keep Republcans in power because the alternative is simply awful, more awful than you can know unless you have actually been inside a Democrat-run government in their current incarnation.  I know how to send letters and emails, how to write checks and refuse to do so, and I never pass up an opportunity to bend an ear.  That is how you keep them thinking like the folks at home instead of the capital cocktail party set.

So, Haystack, I respect your choice and agree with many of the things about which you are dissatisfied, but I cannot make the choice you have made.  I would encourage you, resignation notwithstanding, to stay in the game and keep the people who are ideologically closer to you in power.  There is at least some chance of a Republican listening to you; to a Democrat, a Conservative is just some lower life form, unevolved and unenlightened, and not worthy of notice.

I would add that we are pretty close here.  I am not NOT voting, but I am no longer a guaranteed R...as an independent I am not tied to a party and can vote my ideals.  For now, especially in Texas, there is no D (as you suggest) that has any inclination to consider a conservative ideology...alas, my votes will continue to have R's in them...but as a non-member I can do a whole lot more "whackin'" of the bees nest...at least until we get the right people in the party or a true contending alternative can be found.

And I appreciate it.

I'd offer these observations.

The 'complete lack of concern for the (our) opinions' is a matter of perception on our part. For that reason, I'd like to get a good bit more evidence before staking out my future on it. Consider that the majority of Republican Senators voted against the current bill and Sensenbrenner(sic?) is now demagoguing it as an amnesty 'just like' the 1986 IRCA. Furthermore it still may be changed or even canned in conference. You might consider rousing your fellows to stay in the game a little longer and convert all that steam into what yet may be a productive influence (from the perspective of your policy preferences) on the party. So there's the fat lady argument.

My stake on the immigration bill is, uh, softer than yours, so we might be working against each other a bit, but that's cool.

To the rest of what you say, I'll grant that disdain breeds disdain and probably justifiably so. It is a vicious circle. Caution, entering the circle based on a misunderstanding can be tragic.

I read, walked away, and came back to this johne...a couple comments.

the majority of Republican Senators voted against the current bill and Sensenbrenner(sic?) is now demagoguing it as an amnesty 'just like' the 1986 IRCA.

I have not verified this but Limbaugh pointed out that the Repubs that voted against are all up for re-election, and those that voted for are not; relying on short-term-voter-memory-loss™ and I suspect he may not be 100% accurate, but on to something with that opinion.  I have a deeply running cynicism of politicians in general (luxury of knocking on the door of 50 really, really hard), so I wouldn't put it past them.

This is an interesting point from you:

You might consider rousing your fellows to stay in the game a little longer and convert all that steam into what yet may be a productive influence (from the perspective of your policy preferences) on the party.

and all I can tell you is that none of my guys are in the reconciliation committee...though they will and have be/been hearing from me-unfortunately, with things like THIS from Snow and the kids up at the White house suggesting we just need to throw out some traffic ticket-like penalties, I have little doubt that the House will capitulate...in fact as paranoid as I have become in my old age, I'm beginning to think the Senate threw in that "ask Mexico first" foolishness, so when they got into conference the House could get a "fences, and no permission" concession in exchange for the House capitulating on an equivalent amnesty.

It's cool that we differ by degree on this particular policy initiative, but neither party is behaving as if they are concerned with what their constituents want...they are concerned with getting or keeping power (tis the campaign season after all)...if my paranoia is correct, then it really doesn't matter what I want...as long as they get the votes from the blocs they need to in order to claim victory in November...

Still hangin' in with ya here johne, just not likin' my chances with the guys harboring an R after their names to actually fight for conservative angles on policy.  As an example, if this bill passes, Government will have to grow enormously...this is not a Conservative approach to a problem.

I am a 1954 model myself. My mind is game but my motor is getting grumpy.

Somewhere along the line, my experience with cynicism has led me to turn the volume knob way down low. I judged it was hurting much more than it helped. Perhaps I have overreacted and turned it too low. It likely accounts for some of the differences in our perceptions. But perhaps I need to adjust it upward. I welcome advice on the subject.

I am naturally a pessimist but I at least feel more productive the more I can stick to working the positive angles. And I can honestly thank you for the work you have been doing in that vein.

and by 'fellows' i observe that you seem to be in the good company of a large bloc right here in Red River City. It might be opportunity.

because I, as a conservative, and a cynic, and a fossil(in the eyes of my children and grandchildren), want a conservative government and conservative leadership.  I have come to understand that as we age we shift more to the right; as a Professional Educator, my validation of that is when I get new college grads in my classrooms that insist they were liberals until they had money.  Enough said.

I will step out of the party and support conservatives.  I will support the cfg, and any other initiative that carries my banner on their flag(so to speak).  I have come to the conclusion that a "party" or Republicans that insist they are conservatives but have no compunction about not acting as such is a party I no longer want to attend.

When the "Party" re-asserts conservative values and ideals I will rejoinn and give them my money.  I frankly believe my departure (and the departure of others) will begin to encourage them to reconsider their move to the middle under the misconceptions that this behavior will enhance their liklihood of getting elected.

We all know, at the end of the day, that if we were in a voting booth right this minute we would be pulling the bar for R's...the problem with being a formal member of the Party is that they know that too.

A couple election cycles of not being quite so SURE anymore and they may get a touch more of a conscience...sigh...here's hoping anyway.

I CAN, however, in my own individual way through my time at RS and my own blogs, and letters and editorials in my local rags let them know I am not a guarantee right now, and that they need to smarten up...

Mr. Haystack and fellow Republican Rebels;

I am writing this in the hope that many of you will read the posting, especially you Mr. Haystack. I am not advocating breaking away from the Republican party, what I am saying that it is a very good tactical move to register as either "Decline to State" or as an independent or no party, depending on how your state allows you to register.

Why do this; for many reasons first of all it puts both the Republicans and the Democrats in a quandary; they don't know if you are a disaffected Republican or Democrat, both Parties have to assume one of two situations. Either you are for them or against them, both parties will have to spend money and time to persuade you to vote for their candidate. Polls, the pulse of both parties, takes on a new meaning, can they believe them or not.  The party be it Republican or Democrat, becomes confused as to what the "base" wants, because Decline to State (DTS)  or independents (I) can be made up of members of both parties, the Party leaders cannot determine which way the platform should be shaped.

If enough of us Republican Rebels become DTS or I's  it will force the party to think about what is best for all, not just the few.

Forming a third party just wont work, but becoming a DTS or I free you it in effect becomes a third party; a party of mystery which will appeal to many persons of all stripes.