It's Time For A Revolution within the GOP

[Cosmoline]

I like to go over to the DU boards and laugh at them from time to time. It's good clean fun. But the plain fact is our leftist friends are WAY ahead of us on the political front. One of the advantages to being out of power is it keeps you sharp. We've gotten soft. Very soft. We have a President who is completely out of touch with core conservative values from budget balancing to guarding the borders. In his own way he's as arrogant as his father was. In spite of being deeply unpopular he continues to press his outlandish policies of massive overspending, directionless overseas conflicts, and basically doing all he can to keep big business happy--from huge gob'ment contracts to open borders for a stream of cheap labor.

We had better be prepared to purge the GOP of GW's influence in 2008. Because I guarantee GW has every intention of trying to pick the nominee himself. We had better be ready to kick people out of power, or we'll be stuck with some limp RINO rag of a candidate that even Hillary would be able to beat. And we all know where that will lead when it comes to federal gun control

What we need is a revolution not just within the GOP but among conservatives in general. A revolution to shrink the government and reduce the role of the feds in domestic matters--not increase it.

 

[cuchulainn]

Maybe there should be a revolution within the GOP, but I wouldn't characterize the vorciferous braying over at DU as "ahead of us" or "sharp."

Don't confuse effective with loud, angry and hateful. Those droplets you feel are crazed spittle from their lips, not sweat from their brows.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Amen!

WAAAAY long story short, the plan I've been advocating for quite some time now is to

A) prevent additional damage by keeping the collectivoLeftists at bay, which in real world terms means electoral evisceration of most Dems. Someday, they'll be back as something reasonably American, but until then, simply put, too much armor is gone on the good ship USS Republic, and no one knows how much more damage she can take.

B) Reform the GOP, by steering them away from dark, creepy authoritarianism and by steering them towards attending to the constitutional fundamentals of our Republic.

C) Concerns the big L party, but I'm not going to mention it, lest it touch off yet another :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: rendition of the "Why Libertarians will never get ahead/are more principled than anyone else/we're prisoners of 2 indistinguishable parties/no change can happenunless you break the 2 party cycle/that's never going to happen/blah blah boring blah" thread.

 

[Zundfolge]

www.rlc.org

 

[MrTuffPaws]

The only thing that will save the GOP is it to fracture and send its bat crap crazies off to their own doom. The GOP are the Democrats now. Less freedom, bigger government, spending craziness, and no self control.

If the Dems get smart and reform themselves in the image of responsibility, then the GOP is doomed.

 

[Frandy]

One of the advantages to being out of power is it keeps you sharp. We've gotten soft.

Well, I see it as the Republicans in power didn't get soft, they just got too, too corrupt. Having all that power usually corrupts absolutely. Happened to the Dems and now happening to the Repubs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I guarantee GW has every intention of trying to pick the nominee himself.

No no no no no no... It's Cheney and Rove who do the picking...

 

[rick_reno]

Are you assuming Bush has core conservative values? I don't think so. He's able to talk about them, which demonstrates that he knows what they are - but his actions have demonstrated that he doesn't "walk the talk". There are some Republicans who have those vales, but they are in the minority. It's a follow the leader game in Washington, and unfortunately - the leader doesn't appear to be heading in the direction you like.

 

[Borachon]

Third party?

 

[bjbarron]

A third party? That's what gave us BJ Clinton I.

Better to stay away and let the GOP go down in flames. It worked before but they have regressed. Another shot of reality is required....

After all, given the choice between Hillary and McCain...um, come to think of it, is there any choice between Hillary and McCain? One is a swinging d**k and the other is a Senator from Arizona.

They'd both try to take my guns. They'd both put liberals on the court. They both hate the constitution. And they both make me puke.

It's still early, but I've got the same bad feelinig you have. You know, if we get Hillary for 8 and Jeb for 8...Chelsea would be old enough. Then one of the twins....and on and on.

 

[akluvr]

+1 rick reno

 

[Standing Wolf]

Republicans? That's a branch of the Democratic (sic) party, isn't it?

 

[Stauble]

constitution party

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

All you are seeing now is the traditional fight over the carcass. The hyenas managed to chase off the lions and now it is time for the hyenas to fight amongst themselves over who gets first shot at the carcass.

 

[rwc]

Cosmo,
I would say there are a fair number of us Democrats who feel the same way. The Republicans need to reform their party.
Sarcasm aside, life is no better on the other side of the coin. Lots of folks who would rather hear themselves "talk without sayin' nothin'".

I believe the majority of Americans reside where they always have, in the middle. I hope that a presidential candidate steps forward and recognizes that most Americans believe in liberty and freedom, and that there can be reasonable arguments on both sides of the "hot button" issues.

I don't know who that is or whether (s)he is an R or a D. We'll find out in 3 years...

 

[longeyes]

The issue is not the survival of the GOP, the issue is how exactly to preserve the radical vision of America we all believe in. That, frankly, may not be possible within the current political ground rules. If we are a minority voice we have to find a way not to be completely submerged.

 

[beerslurpy]

What are you talking about Bart? I feel that we dropped the ball in 2001 by letting the neocons take over the republican party, but I wrote that off as just a bad tide pushing the boat despite the intentions of the occupants. Bush was a do-nothing, almost irrelevant president before 9/11. After 9/11, government in this country went crazy like a malignant tumor. 9/11 was a huge crisis and lots of politicians saw an excuse to make their dreams happen. I dont think there is anything we could have done to prevent this.

I think all the talk we have been having recently about this accumulation of power and dependence on goverment being a bad thing is a sign that eventually things will take a turn in the other direction, and perhaps in the next few election cycles.

I am grateful that the party that decided to embrace statism happens to have a core consitutency that hates big government. My biggest worry is when the Republican's core constituencies begin to lose faith in the party that is betraying them that the fall will not dismantle the power structure so much as hand it over to someone who will abuse it more enthusiastically. Whether this happens boils down, IMO, to whether enough Americans have really switched sides from individualism to some form of collectivism.

 

[Byron Quick]

Republicans, Democrats. Heads, tails. You're still just left with a quarter.

Individualism? Republicans? ROTFLMAO! Don't get me wrong. There are individualists who are Republicans. They're individualists in spite of being Republican, not because they're Republican.

 

[sd]

the DU mentioned at the top of the thread is democractic underground?
at first I was thinking Ducks Unlimited , like what the *!@ ?
sorry, had to share that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Statesmanship

I wonder if a true to life, honest to goodness stateman stepped forward to rescue us all from the big gov't evil that has overtaken us, would we recognize that individual for what he is, or would we, in our cynical way, write him off as someone trying to take advantage of the current geopolitical situation?

 

[RealGun]

Bush was a do-nothing, almost irrelevant president before 9/11. -beerslurpy

He had been in office only 8 months. The administration wasn't even fully staffed yet.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think the fact that he was 8 months into a 48 month term and still was not fully staffed sort of supports the "do nothing" claim.

I think you are a few years late regarding a revolution in the Republican party. Bush did two things in his first term that any real conservative should have opposed without question.

First, he expanded federal welfare more than any president since LBJ by signing Medicare Reform.

Second, he signed Campain Finance Reform, after saying he thought it was probably unconstitutional.

No real conservative would support either of these things.

I had real hopes that Bush and the Republicans would save us from big, intrusive government. They had been saying for years that if they ever had control of the Presidency, House, and Senate at the same time they could lower taxes, decrease welfare, increase freedom, and decrease size of government. I really believed them, too.

I have decided that, barring the rise of a new political party or major restructuring of the Republican party, the best we can hope for is political gridlock. I hope the Democrats take back either the house or senate in 2006, and give us the gridlock our country so badly needs.

 

[BryanP]

A third party? That's what gave us BJ Clinton I.

By that same logic that's what gave us GW's first term as well.

 

[RealGun]

I think the fact that he was 8 months into a 48 month term and still was not fully staffed sort of supports the "do nothing" claim.

Nice try, but it is not unusual for appointments to take that long or much longer. That's why I think there should be two terms without a truly compelling, as in blatant, reason to change administrations. There is no other way to get real value from the turnover.

 

[Waitone]

The chance that either party will reform itself is slim to none. Thanks to our Vermin on the Potomac we now have two life support tubes feed the parties. Democrats are fed from the left end of the philosophical spectrum. 527 's are the result of campaign finance control legislation. It freed Democrats from having to mouth certain platitudes to gain paying supporters. Democrats are now under the monetary control of the most radical groups around the world.

Republicans are not fed from an ideological direction. Their feeding tube comes from corporate interests. Take corporate money from campaign contributions and combine it with control of the legislation and you get a corporate statist government.

To be fair Democrats get money and lots of it from corporation. Republicans get some money from 527 and like organizations. The important factor to remember is look at which direction the party faces when expecting its next infusion of nourishment.

Until campaign finance laws are changed to empower the middle of the spectrum, both parties will continue to head for the extremes of the political and social spectrum. Campaign finance control was a horrific law, there was no popular demand for reform, it was a cynical power grab by both parties sever their dependency upon little people, and it all could have been stopped by the action of one man of principal. He failed and now we have an increasingly shrill and fractured political process. With luck all we have done is hurried up the appearance of viable third parties.

 

[The Drew]

First of all... The electorate is STUPID meaning they'll vote for the same party they've been voting for despite whether that party betrays them or not.

Those of us who actually think about our votes are screwed because We should vote for a 3rd party, but there aren't enough of us to overcome the amazing amount of sheep that just blindly cast their partyline vote.

How else do you have senators and representatives spending 50 years in office? We need term limits in ALL levels of government. That way we're at least guaranteed a little turnover now and again.

The GOP is headed for a splintering... It will be telling about the strength of the two party system if the GOP doesn't officially splinter, rather just continuance of the factioning that is currently going on.

There are two main differences between Neocons and Liberals, First the'd rather cut taxes in order to stimulate the economy and bring more money in. (as has been demonstrated by this administration) and second, they funnel that money back to corporations rather that to the "poor" Both redistribute wealth, Both are about expanding government by getting my revenue, but they have different approaches.