Where Goeth The Republican Party?

[Shooterman]

From Muth's Mini-truths.

excerpt

• One of the more interesting dynamics in Nevada’s U.S. Senate race are the growing number of groups and organizations who you would think would be slam-dunk supporters of Sharron Angle – like the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – who are nevertheless reportedly mulling support for Reid (or “going Swiss”) simply because whoever would replace Reid as Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats would be measurably worse.

• Reid is, literally, the lesser of two evils in their minds….and probably even in reality.

• Meanwhile, Republican tea party darling Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts gave Harry Reid the 60th vote he needed on Thursday to pass a bill increasing the federal government’s chokehold on the nation’s banking industry. Many tea party activists, so thrilled with Brown’s victory to replace Teddy Kennedy just this past January, are having some serious buyer’s remorse.

http://www.muthstruths.com/2010/07/16/mini-muths-truths-july-16-2010/#more-1231

[Shooterman]

More from Muth's Truths.

excerpt
A few weeks ago it was revealed that Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) had established a legal defense fund.

At the time it was believed that the shakedown….er, fund was established to help Ensign himself pay the legal bills associated with his indefensible defense of sleeping with a staffer’s wife, then helping the staffer illegally get lobbying contracts, and finally having his parents pay off the staffer’s wife and family to the tune of ninety-six large in an effort to cover-up the whole sordid affair.


excerpt
Using your federal elected position to raise money from folks who might want something from you to pay the lawyers of staffers who might have information that could be used against you in a court of law is apparently legal in our national sewer better known as Congress.

And yet….no leading Republican candidates or elected officials, in Nevada or in our nation’s capital, have called on Sen. Droopy Drawers to resign. What a dysfunctional party. No wonder so many of us have left.

http://www.muthstruths.com/2010/07/16/just-when-you-thought-ensign-had-gone-as-low-as-you-can-go/#more-1229

[Talismen]

Corruption is all around. We know that.

But the way to fix it ISN'T to resign from the whole operation.
It's to stick, and fight.

And during the fight, you make sure you pick your battles wisely.
By doing so, you direct the nature of the battle, instead of it directing you.

[Shooterman]

Corruption is all around. We know that.

But the way to fix it ISN'T to resign from the whole operation.
It's to stick, and fight.

And during the fight, you make sure you pick your battles wisely.
By doing so, you direct the nature of the battle, instead of it directing you.

So who wants to resign from the operation. Those that have grown weary of the PUB/DIM Duopoly, are just choosing another direction in which to fight.

In '52, this country had an opportunity to be governed by an Old Right Conservative. Instead it chose a liberal/moderate in Ike.

In '64, the country again had an opportunity to chooses and Old Right Conservative. Instead in chose the ultra liberal, for his time, and consumate politician, LBJ.

We had the opportunity again in '08. Instead it chose the ultimate liberal of all time ( almost as bad as Lincoln ) Barack Hussein Obama. I don't believe the opportunity will come again in my lifetime.

[NosferatusCoffin]

McCain is an old right conservative? A guy whose major policies were pretty much in lockstep with Obama's? (illegal immigration, Cap and Trade, taxes, First Amendment supression etc)

You will have an opportunity like we have not had since 1980 when we have people like Palin, Jindal, Bachmann and the like to choose from for 2012. The RNC etc will try to push Romney or a clone like him. But that will fail, mightily. Things are totally different now then from 24 months ago and the old machine politics of the GOP is DEAD. Deader than Britney Spears' career.

The first job will be crushing the Dems in November (a very good chance there). Then starving and stalling Obama until 2012. (less likely, but not impossible) Then defeating the 2012 Dem nominee. (Hint: it will not be Obama)

[Shooterman]

McCain is an old right conservative? A guy whose major policies were pretty much in lockstep with Obama's? (illegal immigration, Cap and Trade, taxes, First Amendment supression etc)

Wasn't referring to McCain.

You will have an opportunity like we have not had since 1980 when we have people like Palin, Jindal, Bachmann and the like to choose from for 2012.

Sorry, don't believe Jindal is ready yet. As for Palin and Bachman; saints preserve us.

The RNC etc will try to push Romney or a clone like him. But that will fail, mightily.

I hope that's true, as I believe the likes of Romney, whom I would never vote for, Huckleberry Hound, or The Gingrinch, leaves me cold.

Things are totally different now then from 24 months ago and the old machine politics of the GOP is DEAD. Deader than Britney Spears' career.

Sorry, again, Nos, but the money controls the machine and the machine still has a lot of influence.

The first job will be crushing the Dems in November (a very good chance there). Then starving and stalling Obama until 2012. (less likely, but not impossible) Then defeating the 2012 Dem nominee. (Hint: it will not be Obama)

Time will tell, Nos. Personally, I believe there is too much time left before 2012 to be counting any chickens before they are hatched.

You may be quite right about Obambam; Hillary may just challenge him, but if he gets the troops home, the died in the wool antiwar LIBS will be in his pocket again. He has the Health Bill and now the Give Money to The Unions and Down in Mouth Bill. He just may be tougher than we think.

BTW, in my humble opinion, we are in dire straights for an Anti-Federalist to once again take the helm.

[Talismen]

So who wants to resign from the operation. Those that have grown weary of the PUB/DIM Duopoly, are just choosing another direction in which to fight.

In '52, this country had an opportunity to be governed by an Old Right Conservative. Instead it chose a liberal/moderate in Ike.

In '64, the country again had an opportunity to chooses and Old Right Conservative. Instead in chose the ultra liberal, for his time, and consumate politician, LBJ.

We had the opportunity again in '08. Instead it chose the ultimate liberal of all time ( almost as bad as Lincoln ) Barack Hussein Obama. I don't believe the opportunity will come again in my lifetime.

Another direction, at this point, means we stick with obama for 4 more years in 2012.
There is no way around that.

Staying and fighting for the soul of the GOP...and believe me, it is alive and well inside that elitist blue-blood RINO shell...is the wisest choice, at the moment. Yanking the party back to it's original foundations, which, like it or not, involve a good mix of conservatism and libertarianism, is what is needed.

3rd parties, at this point, although attractive...will doom conservatism.


I also feel that if things get worse...we may find ourselves skipping the 3rd party route, and going directly for another Revolution.

[Talismen]

obama's biggest task in 2012 will be to convince voters that his policies made the country and its citizens better, not worse. He can play the blame-bush game all he wants, but people are ALREADY not believing it, and the small number that still do will ALWAYS believe it.

[Shooterman]

Another direction, at this point, means we stick with obama for 4 more years in 2012.
There is no way around that.

I understand that reasoning; I really do, Miss Talis. My only question would be when do we head in another direction?

Staying and fighting for the soul of the GOP...and believe me, it is alive and well inside that elitist blue-blood RINO shell...is the wisest choice, at the moment. Yanking the party back to it's original foundations, which, like it or not, involve a good mix of conservatism and libertarianism, is what is needed.

If I may ask, do you honestly think the foundations of the Republican Party were rooted in conservatism and libertarianism?

[Talismen]

I understand that reasoning; I really do, Miss Talis. My only question would be when do we head in another direction?

When it becomes obvious....to a majority of citizens....that the only other way is a 3rd way.

What you see happening with the Tea Party movement - with millions of people who have joined, and are continuning to join, the movement - would be the foundations of that realization beginning to take place. When and where it happens, all depends (in my estimation) with what happens over the next 2 to 3 election cycles. That "3rd way"...if/when it happens...will have it's roots within the Tea Party movement.

Make book on it.

If I may ask, do you honestly think the foundations of the Republican Party were rooted in conservatism and libertarianism?

Why don't you tell me what YOU think the foundations of the Republican Party were rooted in.

Then we'll go from there.

[Shooterman]

Why don't you tell me what YOU think the foundations of the Republican Party were rooted in.

Then we'll go from there.

Simply, corporatism, ( mercantilism ) a large central government with almost unlimited powers, monarchism, and a desire to use state funds ( whether tariffs or taxes ) for the betterment of a few. A Central Bank that had already been kicked down the road twice. Power at the force of a gun.

Can basically be summed up as Hamiltonian as opposed to Jeffersonian principles.

Sounds familiar, eh?

[Talismen]

Well, let's look at the OFFICIAL definitions of Federalism and anti-Federalism:


http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.html
(snip)

The third major system is the federal system. In a federal system, the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. The United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are examples of federal systems.

http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/?title=Anti-Federalism&src=abop&qpvt=anti-federalism&fwd=1&q=anti-federalism

(snip)

Anti-Federalism is a political philosophy which opposes the concept of Federalism. In short, Anti-Federalists dictate that the central governing authority of a nation should be equal or inferior to, but not having more power than, its sub-national states (state government).

In my view, Republicanism is founded on Federalism, and libertarianism is rooted more-so in anti-Federalism.


Both have pro's and con's.
But both require states that are willing to exercize their powers and stand up to the federal government if/when necessary.

Whether we're in a Federalist or anti-Federalist society - - if the states don't hold fast to their rights....their rights they will lose.

[Shooterman]

First, Miss Talis, I fail to see exactly where you addressed my description of the roots of the Republican Party.

The original two parties were the Jeffersonian Democrats, ( nothing on earth like the current crop of Snivelers that assail us daily with their incessant screeching ) and the Whigs, of which such a notable as Alexander Hamilton was a member. Predominantly the split was between the manufacturing North ( actually Northeast ) and the agrarian South.

Hamilton, at heart, was a monarchist, even advocating at one time a President for life, and a Senate appointed basically by the President. Almost everyone of his ideas were slammed down pretty handily at the Constitutional Convention ( basically convened under false pretenses to start with ) because primarily the Revolution from the Monarch had been just a few scant years removed. Those truly supporting republicanism, note please the small L, used to denote a form of governing from what arose as The Party, a scant 60 years or so later when the Republican Party was elected as a regional party, truly believed in a very small government dedicated to only those duties as defined. The Whigs, nee The Republicans, did not advocate such.

The justification for the conquest and continued subjugation of the South, had to be driven by a bastardization of the principles of what those that believed in a federated form of republicanism had established at the Constitutional Convention; Lincoln as The Great Orator advocated the Nation State as being founded in the annals of the early Continental Congress and steeped in the DOI.

[Talismen]

First, Miss Talis, I fail to see exactly where you addressed my description of the roots of the Republican Party.

Well, here's how I see it....
One either believes the Republican party is rooted in federalism, or anti-federalism. There is NO middle-ground. Obviously, you believe it ISN'T rooted in anti-federalism. But, IMO, I think you are basing your belief on what the Republican party has become. Not how it originated, or how it was originally intended to work.

The original two parties were the Jeffersonian Democrats, ( nothing on earth like the current crop of Snivelers that assail us daily with their incessant screeching ) and the Whigs, of which such a notable as Alexander Hamilton was a member. Predominantly the split was between the manufacturing North ( actually Northeast ) and the agrarian South.

Hamilton, at heart, was a monarchist, even advocating at one time a President for life, and a Senate appointed basically by the President. Almost everyone of his ideas were slammed down pretty handily at the Constitutional Convention ( basically convened under false pretenses to start with ) because primarily the Revolution from the Monarch had been just a few scant years removed. Those truly supporting republicanism, note please the small L, used to denote a form of governing from what arose as The Party, a scant 60 years or so later when the Republican Party was elected as a regional party, truly believed in a very small government dedicated to only those duties as defined. The Whigs, nee The Republicans, did not advocate such.

The justification for the conquest and continued subjugation of the South, had to be driven by a bastardization of the principles of what those that believed in a federated form of republicanism had established at the Constitutional Convention; Lincoln as The Great Orator advocated the Nation State as being founded in the annals of the early Continental Congress and steeped in the DOI.

That's all well and good.
I just think you are whole-heartedly against what the Republican party has become.

And frankly...Who wouldn't be.

[Shooterman]

Well, here's how I see it....
One either believes the Republican party is rooted in federalism, or anti-federalism. There is NO middle-ground. Obviously, you believe it ISN'T rooted in anti-federalism. But, IMO, I think you are basing your belief on what the Republican party has become. Not how it originated, or how it was originally intended to work.



That's all well and good.
I just think you are whole-heartedly against what the Republican party has become.

And frankly...Who wouldn't be.

I am guilty of that, for sure, but I am also quite confidant that what it has become is actually full circle from its origins. That is, if it changed at all and did not just give the appearance of change. For sure, and of course, you may disagree, but it certainly did not start out as the party of people, but a party of conquest and nation state. It remained this way for a long while, at least through Reconstruction ( the solidification of its power, and through the Conquest of the West and enslavement of the aboriginines we call the Plains Indians.

We quit being a federated republic many years ago and have simply become a democracy, which in my estimation will be our downfall.

[NosferatusCoffin]

Frankly, I could give a damn about what the GOP was 100 years ago, the Whigs 200 years ago etc. That is neither here nor there as to what the hell is going on today. What needs to be done and is slowly being done via the Tea Party, is what Reagan realized back in the 70's and succeeded in doing. And that is to take over the GOP and give it back it's conservative message and policies. That means running candidates, putting together funding mechanisms outside the RNC and it's attendant proxies and using the party itself as a platform for those policies. It is the only way to reverse the Marxist tide that has infested the government and many other aspects of society at most every level.

The Hard Left took over the Democratic party starting in 1972 and after nearly 40 years, now have a total death-grip on it. The same needs to be done with the GOP and there are encouraging early signs as many non-RNC backed candidates are winning primaries and have good chances in the generals. That is how you build a team and a message. Not really that much different from a baseball team putting together a good farm system that will soon be ready for the majors.

If you want third parties, knock yourself out. But do not expect any help from those who are trying to get the conservative message out and make it a consistent, working formula.

[Cam]

+1 Nos...my feelings exactly.

FWIW...there is a long article today in the American Spectator that postulates that the REAL divide in the nation is between the RULING ELITE...composed of the political and business and media & academia across party lines... and the COUNTRY...composed of those who believe in individual rights, small gov't, etc. ...This is an interesting idea and the long article does a wonderful job of detailing the charges made. Well worth the reading.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
The question in the article is how does the COUNTRY take back America. I do believe the answer is by co-opting the Republican Party at every level over the course of several election cycles.

[Talismen]

I only got party way thru that article, and got lost. I only got like 4hrs sleep lastnight, due to a bad case of reflux, and I'm "not firing on all thrusters"

It DOES look like an interesting angle on the whole issue though.

I'm not sure if "co-opting" the Republican Party is the right course though.
I think reformation of the party is what is needed. If a conservative reformation takes place, and takes hold, those RINOs and "elitists" will leave, via attrition, and of their own free will.

It reminds me of an episode of "Star Trek - The Next Generation", when this creature (fairly tame) attached itself to the hull of the ship, and as the episode unfolded, the crew tried to figure out how to fix the situation. What eventually worked (and my explanation won't be word-for-word or in the right STNG "lingo") was they essentially "poisoned" the "taste" of the ship, rendering it "unattractive" to the creature.

Ok - so...follow along.
If we "poison" the GOP, rendering it "unattractive" to RINOs and "elitists", they'll willingly leave.


Then we'll only have to worry about the decades-old dilemma of "social" cons vs "everything-else cons".

[Cam]

What I mean by coopting is bringing a firm commitment to TEA PARTY principles ... small government, fiscal prudence & support of capitalism (not crony capitalism) and a strong defense. If we can make THAT the only requirement that applies to ALL republican candidates, then individual candidates can run on THAT PLUS whatever social principles they support. Candidates for a nomination can then fight it out in their districts, states etc. on the social issues and the nominee should reflect the choice of his/her constituents in that regard. There would be no NATIONAL litmus test in the party platform on social issues...but of course, the voters will decide what they find acceptable.
I believe that the loss of the elites would be more than made up for by the influx of independents who support tea party principles but do not support the social cons positions in many places.

[Talismen]

What I mean by coopting is bringing a firm commitment to TEA PARTY principles ... small government, fiscal prudence & support of capitalism (not crony capitalism) and a strong defense. If we can make THAT the only requirement that applies to ALL republican candidates, then individual candidates can run on THAT PLUS whatever social principles they support. Candidates for a nomination can then fight it out in their districts, states etc. on the social issues and the nominee should reflect the choice of his/her constituents in that regard. There would be no NATIONAL litmus test in the party platform on social issues...but of course, the voters will decide what they find acceptable.
I believe that the loss of the elites would be more than made up for by the influx of independents who support tea party principles but do not support the social cons positions in many places.

Oh ok...now I get it
Yes, I also agree as well.