A note to the GOP

Doesn't matter what the Republicans do, the Democrats have the next 8 years locked up.

Could be, Blue.









Just a little over 12 years left  

Did I tell you all I joined the Libertarian party?

dblshockpwr wrote:Did I tell you all I joined the Libertarian party?

Funny, I filled out a questionnaire online a few years back and based on my replies it said I'm a Libertarian. I'm fiscally conservative and socially somewhat liberal (live and let live) so makes sense.

Unfortunately, the populous has figured out they can vote people in that give them stuff. Once we go bankrupt as a nation and there's no more money to give away, and no money to pay all those outrages benefits to government employees (national, state and local) the enough of the populous will get it to make the changes necessary. To bad we will have to go through all that when changing directions right now could get us back on the right path over the next decade .. Live and learn, and some people always have to learn the hard way ..

Exactly, SA.

Here's an interesting article:


Why Republicans are Abandoning the GOP
by Steve Deace on July 3, 2013

While the topic of conservatives potentially abandoning the Republican Party remains on the front burner, a new study has been released that explains why some have already bolted.

The study, commissioned by a conservative market research group, applied “scientific methods of qualitative research” to find out why some Republican-leaning voters are abandoning the GOP. For example, last year Mitt Romney turned out fewer whites, Catholics, and evangelicals than even John McCain did in 2008, and did worse with Mormon voters than George W. Bush did in 2004. To compensate for the loss of a sizable chunk of his base and win the election, Romney would’ve needed an unattainable 72% of that Hispanic vote currently getting so much attention.

After researching a sample of disaffected Republican voters the study drew four conclusions that were strangely missing from RNC Chairman Reince Priebus’ much-hyped “autopsy” that basically any MSNBC commentator could’ve written. I’m sure it was just an accidental oversight on Reince’s part.

1) Voters are tired of “voting for the lesser of two evils.” This was actually true of both conservatives and moderates. These voters were no longer persuaded that supporting a bad Republican candidate over any Democrat was the right thing to do.

2) Voters lost hope in the Republican Party and believe the party can no longer deliver on its promises because its leaders lack courage and integrity. According to Anne Sorock, the author of the study’s conclusive report, “the lack of perceived leadership by principle was strongly connected to this sense of loss.”

3) Voters now preferred what the report described as an “affiliation with a new community” that would pursue its principles – which was primarily the Tea Party.

4) Voters feel what the report characterized as a “perceived betrayal by the GOP establishment.” Specifically, Sorock says that when party leaders attacked a candidate they liked these disaffected Republican voters across the ideological spectrum took it as a personal slight and that they weren’t welcome in the party.

To bring these crucial base voters back into the fold, the report concluded that Republicans should “strive to create a community around shared principles” rather than attacking grassroots candidates with “lesser of two evil” (i.e. electability) arguments.” The report went on to say the GOP’s problems are not only, or even primarily, philosophical but with the party’s leadership itself.

That is spot on if you ask me.

For years I believed the divide in the party was conservatives versus moderates. Then I thought was social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. Then I thought it was conservatives versus libertarians.

Then I realized that’s all a distraction.

The divide in the party isn’t ideological at all – it’s based purely on control. All the ideological debates among us are intended to keep us distracted from the real problem. Oh sure, I disagree with libertarians and other conservatives all the time. But out here in the grassroots we actually agree on the primary purpose of the Republican Party—to advance the general principles in the party platform and offer the country a stark contrast to the statism offered by the Democrats.

However, there are those like Karl Rove who would rather lose elections than lose control of the party, and they’re against anyone that threatens their powerbase by empowering the grassroots. So they don’t like Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or even a moderate like Rudy Giuliani when they run for president. Despite the fact all of these men have various issue and ideological differences. That’s also why they despise grassroots champions like Sarah Palin and barely tolerate conservative talk radio.

They understand an empowered grassroots threatens their control of the party apparatus, and they need control of the party apparatus because there’s no more room at the Democrat Party Inn. So if they’re going to use gangster government to line their own and their crony capitalist buddies’ pockets they’ve got to reverse the jersey and control Team GOP instead.

I don’t agree with a Giuliani-type moderate on a whole host of issues. In a national primary I would work hard to beat him (and did). But while he’s my ideological opponent he’s not my political enemy. A Giuliani would actually take the fight to the Democrats on an issue or two—like defeating radical Islam, for example. A Giuliani-type moderate may philosophically disagree with you on lots of other things, but he sees himself as part of a broader coalition. Therefore, he’s not going to use the party apparatus to thin his own herd like the Romulans tried to do at the rules committee prior to the convention last year.

The GOP ruling class believes in nothing but themselves, which is why they’re more ruthless in primaries against their fellow Republican than they are in general elections against Democrats. This also explains why they’re hemorrhaging their own voters, and why they just don’t seem to care about it as they allegedly pursue all voters except those that might actually vote for them.

It’s why they lie, shamelessly repeat often-debunked fallacies, and are more comfortable talking to George Stephanopoulos than they are talking to you.

These people would rather lose elections than lose control of the party, so they’ll ignore studies like this. They want you to stick around provided you shut your hole and know your role—which is to shut up and vote for their approved candidates.

If you threaten to leave the party they pay it no mind, because you’re just a booty call to them. It’s not like they’re in this for any higher calling like preserving freedom and liberty. They’re flat-out gangsters, and gangsters produce gangster government like TARP and scamnesty.

You can’t affiliate, partner, or reason with gangsters like this. You either replace them or start your own gang.

In other words, Bush's fault

cravnravn wrote:In other words, Bush's fault

In a nutshell, yes.

W relied too heavily on his dad's cronies. He wasn't in control... Cheney and Rumsfeld were.

We must (and we will) get away from these political dynasties. They are way too connected to the national apparatus, including the monetary system. We must and will return to a system where politicians are independent and are unable to "plug-in" to any kind of "control apparatus", it only fuels corruption.


A little over 12 years left  

ColtsKurt wrote:

cravnravn wrote:In other words, Bush's fault

In a nutshell, yes.

W relied too heavily on his dad's cronies. He wasn't in control... Cheney and Rumsfeld were.

Kind of like Valarie Jarrett runs the whole show for Barry.

BlueShoes1 wrote:

ColtsKurt wrote:

cravnravn wrote:In other words, Bush's fault

In a nutshell, yes.

W relied too heavily on his dad's cronies.  He wasn't in control... Cheney and Rumsfeld were.

Kind of like Valarie Jarrett runs the whole show for Barry.

Don't know that name, Blue... but doesn't matter. ALL politicians have their "people" that tell them what to do. Sometimes its the local party bosses, sometimes the leaders of the house or senate.