Open Arms and Two Parties (At Least Until 2013, Please)

I was talking to my dad the other night, and he’s angry.  Really angry.  At me.  And at every other American who let things get to this point in this country.  He’s been saying for years that this is where we are heading, that both parties are the same at their core (greedy, power-hungry, not caring about the people, etc.), and that we’ve been handing over our liberty bit by bit for ages.  He’s right.  But he’s so angry . . . that he’s right and been right all along, that we were all too lalala about it all for so many decades, that I can barely talk to him about politics.  Everything I say seems to make him angrier.  Now that I finally see what is going on, how bad things are, I’m still part of the problem.  It’s my fault and the fault of everyone else who is only just now speaking up.  He doesn’t say it, but you almost get the sense that he wants the country to fail to teach us all a lesson (he would never ever want that, but I’m trying to make a point here).  Now, I know that my dad is a patriot, always has been and always will be, but that sense that we’re getting what we deserve is something that I am seeing in a lot of conservative responses and posts around the blogosphere.  That and the now’s the time to overhaul the two-party system and / or provide the republican party with competition that is really conservative.  Both of these stances strike me as myopic, unrealistic, and slightly petty.

On someone’s blog (there are so many that I try to read that I can’t keep up anymore and usually look at my Reader in horror at the bazillion posts that have popped up in only a day–much less in a week. Why do people feel the need to post five or six posts a day?  Unless it’s Gateway Pundit or a news site, I don’t get it.  It’s overwhelming to me, and I freeze.  Anyway,), I left a comment that when the libs do start waking up in larger numbers (they already are in small pockets here and there) that we need to welcome them with open arms and not berate them for being so late to the plate.  Oh boy, did people have stuff to say about that.  No way!  They’re the problem.  They are to blame.  It’s their fault.

Are you kidding me?  If someone says, oops, crap, backed the wrong guy/party on that one, let me help fix it, we do not spit in their face and turn them away in a fit of pique (however justified).  This is undignified and rude, yes, but worse, it’s small-minded and short-sighted.  This was something I saw, too, when reading some of the conservative comments on that HillBuzz post about President Bush.  Someone wrote, in essence, that the HillBuzz epiphany was too little too late, and that they were personally responsible for the election of BO (of course that’s silly, but) it’s that angry, bitter undertone that I think is going to destroy republicans and/or conservatives in 2010 and 2012. 

Being petty, small, bitter, and angry may feel right, and God knows we all have those moments especially now when everything is careening out of control and off the rails, but ultimately, it’s the surest way to shoot ourselves in the face (not foot).  If you believe that our country is in real danger here (and I do) then you have to rise above whatever anger and bitterness you feel towards other people who want the same thing you do.  This is not just about taking the high road, this is about saving our constitutional republic.  That strikes me as far more important than scoring a few points by lashing out at people who once supported BO (et al.).  And it’s certainly more important than closing ranks and alienating the people who sincerely regret their previous view (they were lied to and wanted to believe something better was possible, is that really so wrong or bad?).  In case you didn’t notice, we are outnumbered here, even if we aren’t outnumbered in actual numbers (more people identify as conservative in this country than liberal, and that number is growing with each passing day), we are certainly outnumbered in terms of media access, money, and political power.

Getting drunk on the power of the Tea Parties and the grass roots movement that has sprung up is the surest way to failure.  Look what that sense of power has done to the dems.  Do you really think that we aren’t susceptible to the same hubris?  That is what I see happening in this whole push for a third party that’s really really conservative not fake conservative like those damned republicans.  To me, this is about priorities.  What is more important right now (and next year):  getting dems out of Congress in the largest numbers we can manage or setting up a “real” conservative party, so there!  Take that, you bad bad dems and reps.  We’ll show you.  Well, no.  What will happen is what always happens when people think the time is ripe for a third party (um, Perot? Nader? well, not Nader, he never got close, but Perot did.  “Close” is not good enough for me, sorry).  There are a couple of pesky little problems for third party candidates in this country, not the least of which is our Electoral College and the fact that the House makes the call if no candidate wins a majority.  That’s at the presidential level, of course, but even at the state level, third party candidates don’t historically do well, and when they do, it’s because of some other factors (like when the DNC railroaded Lieberman and angered the people enough to give him the win when he ran as an Independent).

Do I love the two party system?  Nope.  Do I think that at rock bottom both major parties are pretty much indistinguishable from each other?  Well, sort of.  Do I think we need a strong conservative pool for 2010 and a strong conservative for 2012?  Absolutely, one hundred and ten percent.  These people, however, have to come from the republican party.  Any third party conservative candidate will be too conservative and tagged with problematic associations (with the Tea Party movement, for instance) that will terrify or at the very least put off independents and moderates of both parties.  I don’t think that a third party candidate will do anything other than draw votes from the “other” conservative (i.e. the republican nominee) and hand the win over to the dems.

And a lot of people, like me, won’t vote for a third party candidate for these exact reasons, even if they prefer the third party contender.  We have to deal with reality (and not live in some ideological bubble that blinds us to what is realistic and probable–we can’t be like those dems, right?), and the reality is that we need to pull together now, more than ever, that we need to welcome anyone who is angered by and wants to change the path we are heading down, and that we cannot do that if we close ranks against people who are new to the fight or if we insist on changing our entire political system at this crucial time in our history.  That’s a huge and separate undertaking, and is it really one that is more important right now than getting the radical progs out of DC?  I don’t think so.  Not even a little tiny bit.  If When that fails (and it will, it always does), we lose a hell of a lot more than an election.

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Open Arms and Two Parties (At Least Until 2013, Please)

  1. hmmm, your dad sounds a little bit like my dad, although i try never to talk politics with him ever. even when we agree he still ends up yelling at me.

  2. As I saw BO's speech on Afghanistan, and watched him nominate Benanke to a 2nd term my fears were confirmed. The same people that now control BO also controlled President Bush. I think our Republic is nothing more than an illusion. Congress has about as much power as the Senate in Imperial Rome. What is the point of voting Republican they are controlled by the same people.

    Both parties are running up massive debts, both parties are keeping up in perpetual wars that we are not allowed to win. Both parties keep sending our jobs over seas in the name of free trade. No I am done with the parties. I will decide on a case by case bases, voting for the best canidate. I no longer care about the R, D, or L.

  3. @ Kerry, yeah, fun, isn't it :p I try to keep reminding myself that he's not really upset with me personally, but it is sometimes hard to keep that in mind. As I've gotten older I've become far more conservative, and I think that I must have driven him stark staring mad when I was younger! I'm lucky he didn't disown me, come to think of it. LOL He's a great guy, but you know how dads are. 😀

    @ Trestin, I've never been a party person (in the political sense, I had some wild years when I was younger . . . ), but I think that's because I was so torn much of the time, feeling strongly about some social issues and strongly about fiscal and defense issues. My social issue side is dwarfed by the fiscal and defense now, so it's not quite the struggle for me in those terms. But I would vote for a dem again. One day. Maybe in 2014, but certainly not before then! 😀

  4. And Trestin, I don't think that Bernanke qualifies as someone who controls BO, nor do I think that President Bush and BO are in the same league at all. President Bush may have done some not great things with regards to TARP, but he's certainly not responsible for the Freddie and Fanny mess, nor for the real estate collapse that's related to F&F and goes back to Clinton's years. Is it possible that you are over-reacting here? I mean lumping President Bush in with that traitor and impostor BO? I'm shocked by this, really.

  5. I think the central bankers do control him. Why else would he keep fighting in Iraq, and Afghanistan and keep the same people at the Fed? I am not a fan of Bush his spending was out of control. He was a fiscal socialist. Yes BO is worse, but I think they were put in power and controlled by the same people. I think the two parties are controlled by these same special interests.

    You make a great point about reaching out to liberals. I think we need all the help we can get.

  6. The special interests and lobbyists need to banned from DC and not permitted to essentially buy whatever they want. That is not in the interest of the people, and it is not provided for in the Constitution. It makes our government corrupt (anyone with enough money can buy protection, and this happens on both sides, you are right about that). I'd like to see that eliminated from the entire political landscape.

  7. Of course your right , again.
    My fathers generation suffered the depression and WW2 but also saw tremendous development in the growth of America. An admirable job and due a great deal of kudos. But also there were a lot of screw ups too. It's human nature.
    Third party is a bummer for tight elections. But I do believe we need a third party because I don't think the men in suits are willing to change. To them it's always the other guys fault and if you don't do it our way you're a bum. Doesn't matter which party you talk about.
    The catch is that for a third party to work it has to start from the grass roots. It must work its way up and prove itself by having elected officials. Without that you're just air. The current parties will through lots of money down to stop you. So much as you've said before, it's better to work with the Republicans now to get things balanced out in Washington. And work bit by bit to change them as best you can until a new party can happen.
    I'm not sure that Glenn beck followers will go along with that. Even though I go along with a lot of what he says. We could learn a lot from the Newt too.

  8. I feel strongly both ways. 🙂 I agree that a third party and any such candidates dilutes the vote. And I agree with you that the urgency of the moment overrides any wisdom in forming a 3rd, conservative party at this time.
    We do need to resolve the “RINO”-conservative breach somehow. But I'd hate to see America with 4 or 5 political parties with “coalition” governments like many other countries.

  9. I believe third party candidates split the vote and will ensure that the Dems stay in power. Primaries are the place to vote in the more conservative GOP candidate to run in the general election. An example would be the 2010 FL GOP senate primary race (Rubio vs Crist). We need to encourage GOP conservatives to run against the RINOs in the primaries. We cannot afford to split the vote with a third party.

  10. Absolutely. The very Best thing that can come of this is that ignorant people see the light and learn something that they take into the future. Focusing on punishing them After they see the light would be so… Liberal.

    As far as a conservative third party, or even a strong conservative repub candidate, if they're haflway honest, they're going to have to say “We need to take our medicine in order to fix things”.
    That will never go over unless enough people are convinced that doing anything else will make things much worse. Hard to imagine that kind of mind shift in just a couple years.

    As far as third party, it will only happen (If Ever) when some folks run who aren't so easily branded as whackjobs. Perot and his VP pick, Nader, Ron Paul, all so easily branded as whackjobs. Not gonna happen, Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture….

  11. i am with you in the belief that we do not need a third party to step forward as an alternative to the Republican Party. Much as i DO NOT believe that the Libertarian Party is a viable choice.
    Yes, a strong and vibrant third party that had a deep base in being able to support a president from it's ranks would be one thing.
    But to have a president from a party with no backing in either house… yes, nothing would get done legislatively and on the one hand, this is not completely a bad thing, but there are agendas which could be forwarded that would never see the light of day.
    My view is that we, Conservatives, need to take back our Republican Party and push forward the true Conservative agenda the Republican Party was built on. If the moderate Republicans don't or won't support this, let them find solace in the arms of the Democrats who scoffed at the Conservatives who “hijacked the Republican Party” in the NY-23 race.
    It amazes me no end that so many people think that the Republican Party has to look to the left for advice on how to operate and manage the Republican Party. These are the very LAST people we should take advice from or seek counsel on furthering the Conservative ideology.
    IF (big 'if' here)they wake up and realize what they have wrought on this country we should accept their apology and welcome them aboard this train. Remember that a convert is the most zealous in the ranks of the faithful.

  12. Velcro: That is an idea that absolutely terrifies the left. Look at how they have fought tooth and nail every idea and proposition to move election days from Tuesdays to a Saturday.
    They DO NOT want the people who are working at the jobs which maintain this country to actually vote. Ergo: keep voting day during the week.
    It is easier to get out the non-working population and although there are provisions to allow the working people out there to vote, most don't or won't because it is setup to defeat their efforts to quickly run out at lunch and cast their votes.

  13. @ Heyman, heh, I did have Glenn Beck partially in mind when writing this. I think he's dead wrong on this one, at this time. As you say, if a third party is to emerge from this BO debacle, it will need to grow slowly, get established–much as the Independents have trying to do for years, and there are all of 2 Independent senators and 0 (as in zero) Independent House reps. The two-party system is established and ingrained, trying to uproot it now is a serious mistake. Massive mistake. We need to get some power back in DC, get BO out of our WH in 2012, and then we can think about how to either remake the republican party as more conservative or entertain a third grassroots party. If the third party moves forward, the first and best thing to do is to put them in local and state office, then in Congress, then build up numbers and run for the WH. We're talking decades. Change like that doesn't happen over night, and it certainly doesn't happen at this critical point in our history.

    @ Velcro, 😀 Me, too, actually, but I'm trying to prioritize here and be realistic, as are you. Again, too, we are America, and I'm sick of people saying we need to be more like Europe or some other country. Ours is the best system out there, and while it's in danger now, doing what other countries are doing is not the answer. It wasn't the answer for our founders, and it's not the answer for us.

  14. @ Conservative Lady, this is an excellent point. Ensuring that a conservative gets the nomination is the best way to get what we want and not have to worry about a third party stepping up and gumming up the works. I will not support a RINO in the primaries, and I will certainly not support a grasping former RINO who has simply read the writing on the wall and starts suddenly talking like a real conservative. Records matter. Geez, we saw that with BO, right? We can't get hood-winked again (not that WE did, but much of the country did, and that's something to learn from).

    @ Kid, yes, that's a real problem with third party candidates, they tend to be seen as “fringe” and whackjobs. I didn't think Perot was a whackjob, but a lot of people did. And few would argue that Nader is not a whackjob. 😛 Ron Paul is another case altogether, he's gone from Libertarian to Republican (and back again? not sure about that last one), and although an interesting character hasn't a chance in hell of winning the WH.

    @ WoMO, I agree that the Libertarian party isn't a viable third-party option here in the U.S. It's very popular in the UK, but it's not really in line with our values and belief systems here. It tries to be too many things to too many people, in a way, and there are too many radical elements that have latched onto it (people who want to eliminate government completely–an idea that I think is almost worse than a totalitarian dictatorship. Almost.). They also have some pretty extreme social views that I find difficult to swallow. It's almost like they took the worst of the liberals agenda and decided to support it with great enthusiasm, while simultaneously supporting some of the conservative agenda that frankly flouts the very liberal craziness they support. It's an intellectually dishonest approach, I think, and it's also highly illogical (and therefore anathema to me). The final result of their vision would be something like the Old West, with everyone toting guns, little authority, no regulation, prostitution and gambling and drug use rampant, and general lawlessness. Um, no thanks. I'll take civilization and order over that historical freak show any day of the week.

  15. @ WoMO (sorry, I ran out of room on that last comment so am continuing here). What happened in NY23 is actually an example of why a third party won't work–granted, the actual republican candidate was really a liberal (no idea why she thought otherwise), but even with that as fact, the third party guy lost. Sure, Beck and some of the third party advocates are saying that the fact he got close is evidence that the time is ripe, but close? Really? Is that how we comfort ourselves next year when the dems keep massive control of both houses of Congress? *shudder*

    @ Velcro, this is something that we on the right REALLY need to work on. BO's get out the vote thing worked massively well (even without the ACORN voter fraud, which we obviously do not want to model). I know for a fact that a great many people in my town didn't vote at all last year because we live in blue blue blue state, and they didn't think their vote would matter. Well, if enough people think that and stay home, then it certainly won't matter. I get pretty ticked off when I learn that people didn't vote, and usually refuse to talk to them about politics or listen to them complain (if you don't vote, you have abdicated your right to complain). But I have to change that view for now. We need every single vote, every single disgruntled, worried, scared, or vaguely ill at ease person out there. And we do need to work harder to both attract more people to the right (it makes no sense to me that black people are largely dems, ditto Latinos) and get people out to the polls on election day. If they want to station Black Panthers outside polling places, we station some Special Ops guys right beside them. We know their playbook now, and we can counter it and use it ourselves. I say we go for it.

    @ WoMO, I'm okay with Tuesdays, actually. Most polls are open from 7 to 7, and most workplaces don't mind if their employees are late or leave early to vote. Keep in mind that a lot of blue collar and other demographics likely to vote conservative are hard at work on Saturdays, too. 😀

  16. Fuzzy, actually there's another problem for conservatives, which is the media has tagged us as being religious to an obsession. Seems whenever I hear the word conservative from a state run media source, it's always Evangelical Conservative, or 'religious right' or some variation.

    And most people associate evangelical with the TV preachers, and even if they get by that, they still have the impression of people who are very closed minded and want to force their values on everyone. We need to shake that image.

    fwiw, I work with a guy that is gay, and back during the last election, we were briefly talking about 'conservatives', and he said “Yea, it's always the three G's with them, God, Guns, and Gays” to which I replied “I'm a Conservative, which only means small fiscally tight government, low taxes, no personal intrusion and capitalism, I don't care about anything else.” He is convinced the huge majority are not like me. And maybe he's right.

    That is one of Sarah Palin's problems btw. I'd like to see her or whoever say that religion doesn't have any place in political discussion, other than to say to each their own, though for anyone interested, “I am …”

    The gays absolutely hate her, not sure if it was her very visible religious side or maybe they were jealous that a lot of guys find her attractive, but man do they hate her.

    I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention at the time, but of all I've read and heard since, I can't think of anytime Ronald Reagan mentions religion outside of the level of God or The Creator is mentioned in our founding documents.

  17. @ Kid, this is a real problem, but it's another liberal Alinsky move. Paint us all with that broad fundamentalist, Bible-thumping brush and then demonize the entire right. It's not going to work this time, though. We definitely need to shake that image, and I think the way to do that is to continue being open to people are like us and want change. Frankly, I think that the right is far more conducive, ideologically, to atheists. We believe in individual freedom and responsibility, so do they. If they want to not believe in God, so be it. I think that we are actually the majority on the right, Kid, the smaller government, fiscally conservative, lower taxes, free market, personal liberty conservatives are growing in numbers every day (in no small part thanks to BO). There is nothing in the Constitution about being gay or not or about having to believe in any one way (or at all), so trying to make these conservative issues is a red herring. One that the left loves to hammer on but which actually has no place in our party.

    Again, I turn to the HillBuzz post about President Bush, almost all conservative posters welcomed the HillBuzz boys (all gay, all pro-Hillary) with open arms, stating that we don't care what they do in the bedroom. Sure, the marriage thing is an issue, but it's not the be all and end all. Even BO does not support gay marriage. So finding someone who can win the WH and who does will be impossible for them–they know this. Also, interestingly, they are rabid Sarah supporters, too, though if she ran against Hillary, they'd vote for Hillary. Makes sense, though.

    Tides are turning . . . slowly. And conservatives are going to lose that crazy, frothing at the mouth, redneck tag sooner than we think. It's not true, and it's all smoke and mirrors designed to undermine and undercut us. Palin was seriously Alinsky'd, but she's still standing. 😀

  18. Yeah, I know, Kid. But the fringe media is at a crossroads, too. They need to choose between their ideological craziness and being a for-profit business. It's kind of funny, really, if you think about. Supply and demand. If they keep going as they are, they will keep hemmoraging viewers and money, but if they want to stay solvent, they will need to meet the public's demand for real news, not ideological pro-BO propaganda. I guess the NYT has made its decision, but it's not at all clear that CNN has (MSNBC can stay afloat via GE, but even they will start losing money soon, especially as more conservatives decide they don't really need GE products that help keep MSNBC and BO afloat.). CNN may be the one who makes the leap back to mainstream and therefore watchable news. It's kind of fun, and very sad, to watch.

    You have a good Sunday, too! 🙂

  19. Gee Fuzz you're generating some action on this one!
    The talk seems to be moving towards how to combat the Dems sleaze machine. They have chosen the battle field and you must fight it their way. You must use Alinsky tactics to do any good at wakening the Dems so called “blue dogs” to move them in your direction. The Repubs need to start media campaigns that call a spade a spade. More visual images of BO and The left wing dems of congress in a negative lite.. reference the communist revolution posters and flags. Have organized protesters show up at dems town halls and meetings. be noisy be seen be a bother. Start slogans and chants that will piss people off. Buy ad time on the 3 networks that expose the corruption of the Congress and their misappropriations of tax money. They must keep their candidates clean and use second party activists like Acorn and liberal blah blogs has been used by the Dems. Like Dr Democrate said in Paris they need to be in a constant campaign mode so that their view point is constantly in peoples face. The Repubs need to start a smear campaign like the “Call them out” bs that the DNC Uses. They need to stop being the nice and proper type people and fight the war to win.
    ARRRGH!!!!

  20. Fuzzy, The question would be if the government supports them with tax money. It's had to believe the NYT can possibly stay afloat on it's own revenue. I wonder if some of these aren't already getting money somehow.

    Agree CNN.

    Comcast bought NBC from GE, I wonder if msnbc goes along..

    And I'd have to remember that it was CBS that put out the archive video of hillary and daughter calmly walking down the stair from Air Force One and yapping away on the tarmac with the greeters when hillary was running around yapping about dodging sniper bullets. Course, they didn't want hillary, they wanted BO, but still they are very capable of eating their own and it is fun to watch from that aspect.

    Ok, gotta go see the wizard.

  21. @ Heyman, I know! Isn't it great? I was a bit nervous about posting this because I thought I'd step on some toes, but it seems that others are thinking the same thing. Yay! But you're right, I think it's time to take off the gloves and fight fire with fire. That was what Sarah Palin wanted to do last year, but McCain was all noble and wanted to rise above it, believing more in the American people than I guess they deserved–they were led skipping down the garden path on that one, and some are still there, mouths agape, eyes glazed, unable to understand that their messiah is a false prophet. Idiots. Anyway, yeppers, let pull out all the stops now, this is war. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

    @ Kid, yeah, I think the “bailout” of the NYT is already in motion, though. Not sure about the Comcast/MSNBC thing, will look into it one of these days.

    As to the lambasting of Hillary, they were taking their cue for BO on that one. He stabbed her repeatedly in the back, and the fringe media couldn't wait to join in the fun. The HillBuzz boyz were furious about that and voted for McCain!

    The wonderful wizard of Oz?

  22. I think a way for some success for the Repubs would be to find a way to bring in the minority groups such as gay, black or health careites is to say 1st we are fiscal conservatives and the rest we can find civil ground.
    For the marriage issue… take the word marriage out of all government documents. Leave it in the church where it belongs. Joint certs instead of marriage lic.. Benefits are are the same since there is no definition other than to say it isn't between species or children. Marriage is something between God and a man and woman. Give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God that which is his. If Gays want the marriage word then they can go to a church which agrees to that.
    There are plenty of black conservatives. Invite them in and listen to what they say. I think you'd be surprised how little the differences there are. More publicity using blacks talking about the divisive use the Dems have been in regards to blacks. They keep feeding them bs and keeping them down on the farm, so to speak.
    Health care simply needs to be defined so that people can see the bs that is coming out of Congress. The Repubs don't look like they have a concise plan which they need to bring all their parts together and get the info out there. Beat the Dems to the punch in info. Call them the mongers before they can say anything about you.
    ARRRGH matey!!!

  23. Fuzzy, it makes so much sense. Conservatives just want to BE. And be let alone by the govt to do their work and raise their families. Atheist or religious. That was the whole point to religious freedom. As long as people are good citizens and don't attack others.

    But I tell you I feel I am under attack by the left. They are trying to take over my HEALTH CARE. That is as personal and important to me as anything in my life. I am furious!

  24. @ Heyman, I think that's a good idea, really, taking marriage out of the legal and government system (for tax purposes, etc.). People can still get the marriage credits, but they'd be called something else. You'd have to get married twice, once in a religious ceremony and once for the courts, but so what? At least everyone could do it, then. And it wouldn't lead to lawsuits against churches for not marrying gays–the main reason I'd oppose legalizing gay marriage; I don't care if gays marry, but it would just end up being an attack on religion, and I will never support that. We can definitely offer minorities and women far more than the dems can. All the dems offer is perpetual poverty and oppression and the absence of opportunity. Let's do it!

    @ Opus, absolutely. Freedom OF religion would surely entail freedom to not have a religion at all. Why not? Makes perfect sense. Don't force me to give up my religion, and I won't preach to you about my God and faith. Perfect. We ARE under attack from the left. And we're going to win. We care more and have more to lose. We're angry, we're indignant, and we're friggin' AMERICANS. We're not losing this.

  25. Your dad's right to a degree.

    The Moderate/Country Club or “Rockefeller-wing Republicans are every bit as Keynesian as are the liberal democrats and many of them are also pretty socially liberal, as well.

    The “Moderates”/Rockefeller-wing Republicans have always been the monied interests of that Party and they do exert a lot of control over its agenda.

    As for “welcoming liberals,” that can only be “reformed” or “recovering” liberals, because for one thing, those who believe in things like redistribution of the wealth and that “America is not taxed enough,” will never “see the light,” they are, ironically enough the equivalent of the “dittoheads” to the mainstream media that they claim Conservatives are to personas like Limbaugh.

    True converts are always welcome….but many liberals may capitulate on a single issue and still hold to the liberal line on all the others….hardly “seeing the light.”

    As for, “Any third party conservative candidate will be too conservative and tagged with problematic associations (with the Tea Party movement, for instance) that will terrify or at the very least put off independents and moderates of both parties. I don't think that a third party candidate will do anything other than draw votes from the “other” conservative (i.e. the republican nominee) and hand the win over to the Dems.” (FS) that's true, almost solely because the liberals control the mainstream media. They've largely been able to “Bork” or “Quail” Sarah Palin, the assault has been relentless and it's not just the news-media, the entertainment side, especially late-night TV has insinuated “cool/hip/liberalism” into the popular culture and a lot of people buy it…or at least, a large part of it.

  26. @ JMK, yes, he's right . . . and he's wrong. As I say in this post, I don't think that being angry at people who are late to the plate is a good strategy. Well, not to the extent that you want the country to crash and burn as “punishment” (again, this is NOT how far my dad would go, but many would. Are).

    There IS room for socially-liberals in the conservative movement (or there better be if we want to save this country!). No one will ever convince me that supporting a woman's right to choose and gay marriage is the same as wanting to destroy this country's founding principles and Constitution and rebuild it as BO and his traitorous horde are trying to do. Let's call the progs what they are: traitors to this country. Period. They don't want America to BE America. I, a socially-liberal conservative, will not let that happen if I can possibly help stop it. If people believe this country's founding principles are in peril then I can't help but think they're mighty petty to push out and away people who don't walk lock-step on every issue. Petty and short-sighted. And self-defeating.

    This image of dems of “cool/hip” etc. is a fallacy. It's an Alinsky-based snow job. They're not cool, nor hip. They are puppets being manipulated by a huge, organized machine that is playing on their ideological support for equality and using that to gain total control of every aspect of our government, our lives, and our country. Does that sound paranoid? Hmmm, maybe. But I believe it. It's happening and been happening for ages (as my dad says), but never more openly and dangerously than it's happening now.

    You cannot, to my mind, consider yourself a conservative if you are for bigger government, high taxes (including arbitrary ones on the wealthy simply because they're wealthy), and fiscal responsibility. These, I think, are the defining principles of conservatives. Rooted in these is the divide between conservatives (who want free market capitalism to continue offering opportunity and fostering freedom) and liberals (who want the government to legislate “opportunity” for all–i.e. socialism bleeding into totalitarianism or even, yes, fascism.). Everything else stems from these, but there is room for social liberalism within this (yes, I know, somewhat narrow) rubric.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s