Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/1/2009 3:02:03 AM EST
Forgive me if this has been discussed already. First off I am registered on the Republican Party. But with the ineptness of the Republican Party leadership lately I'm thinking of voting via the Conservative line. Thoughts? Will this perhaps send a message to the party if enough of us do this?
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 9:47:09 PM EST
I think many of us are faced with this same dilemma. If you're voting in a Republican primary, the answer is easy: vote for the candidate who most closely represents your views.

If you're voting in a general election, the choice can often be much tougher. I'm a registered Republican and consider myself a conservative-leaning Liberarian, but living in liberal northern Illinois, I often find myself facing these choices:

(a) Liberal Democrat candidate
(b) Liberal Republican candidate (RINO)
(c) Underdog conservative or Libertarian candidate

My choices are essentially to vote AGAINST (a) by voting for (b), or to vote FOR (c) and risk "throwing away" my vote and allowing (a) to win.

There's no good answer. I make up my mind by weighing the differences between (a) and (b). If they are essentially the same, I vote (c). If (a) is significantly worse than (b), I vote (b), but this has its downside –– it encourages Republican candidates to be RINOs.

Link Posted: 11/1/2009 9:54:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2009 9:54:43 PM EST by Dave_A]
218 Rs to unseat Pelosi
51 Rs to unseat Reid

That's all that matters for 2010....

But the 218 more than the 51...

Get to 218, and Obama's agenda is DONE....
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 5:57:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By NonDescript:
I think many of us are faced with this same dilemma. If you're voting in a Republican primary, the answer is easy: vote for the candidate who most closely represents your views.

If you're voting in a general election, the choice can often be much tougher. I'm a registered Republican and consider myself a conservative-leaning Liberarian, but living in liberal northern Illinois, I often find myself facing these choices:

(a) Liberal Democrat candidate
(b) Liberal Republican candidate (RINO)
(c) Underdog conservative or Libertarian candidate

My choices are essentially to vote AGAINST (a) by voting for (b), or to vote FOR (c) and risk "throwing away" my vote and allowing (a) to win.

There's no good answer. I make up my mind by weighing the differences between (a) and (b). If they are essentially the same, I vote (c). If (a) is significantly worse than (b), I vote (b), but this has its downside –– it encourages Republican candidates to be RINOs.



More often then not the Republican candidate is also running on the Conservative line as well here, so I'd really be voting for the same person just not on the "R" line. My thinking is that maybe they'll tend to buck the establishment more knowing they have the conservative's support.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 6:01:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By DancingBear:
Forgive me if this has been discussed already. First off I am registered on the Republican Party. But with the ineptness of the Republican Party leadership lately I'm thinking of voting via the Conservative line. Thoughts? Will this perhaps send a message to the party if enough of us do this?


All replies in this thread are good. In my opinion, it basically never makes sense to vote for a third party, but if you happen to be in the 23 district of NY, this is the rare exception to that rule. The big difference in that election is that there was no primary, and the Conservative party candidate actually has a chance of winning. In this case, it makes perfect sense to vote third party. 99% of the time however, a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote. And yes, this will be a rare chance to send a message to all those Republicans who supported Dede.

Of course after the news of this past weekend the choice is clear. Scozzafava tucked tail and dropped out of the race, so Hoffman should have an even better chance of winning. She also has made an even bigger mockery of the few Republicans in the national spotlight who supported her (I think Newt was about the only one) by putting all her support behind the Dem. What an embarrassment.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 12:30:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 12:31:51 PM EST by BTurgidson]
pole-cat,

You and I have debated the current state of the Republican Party before, but I think this NY 23 story has exposed what is wrong, and what has been wrong with the Republican Party for many years. Now, more than ever, it is my belief that the Republican Party has been infiltrated and in many ways control has been commandeered by radical liberals cloaked in "moderate" Progressive" clothes. Dede was not a new, unknown quantity. She has been around for years. They knew who she was before the "Party Leaders" anointed her as the candidate. Steele knew who she was, and what her views were, as did Newt. The NRCC gave her over $1 million knowing full well who she was. What did we get? An endorsement for the remaining candidate that she was most closely aligned. The DEMOCRAT! This is not the first time this has happened. Arlen Specter certainly comes to mind. I truly believe this has been part of the Liberal Marxist plan for years. So, while some will continue to do so, voting for someone because they have an "R" behind their name is a mistake.

On January 10th 1963 the Goals of Communist Party of the United States was read into the Congressional Record. Goal #15 : Take control of one or both political parties. The more I see, the more I am convinced that this is what has happened to some degree.

Now I know some will argue strongly that not all RINO's or moderates are "Communists" and I'll give you that to a point, but they are LIBERALS and todays liberals have embraced the Marxist ideology to varying degrees. So this nonsense of a Big Tent approach has got to be put to bed once and for all. If the Republican Party , as a matter of platform, does not draw a significant distinction between what they stand for and what the Democrats stand for, then the Party will fade away.

As a conservative, I do not want to hear that the Marxists, I mean Democrats have some good ideas and we need to meet them in the middle. We need to ask our selves, why don't they ever meet us in the middle?
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 1:07:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 6:13:19 AM EST by PraesulPresul1]
To help fix politics:

1. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has term limits
2. 4 - 5 parties hold the power not two
3. No campaigning prior to a year from the election
4. Abolish the Electoral College

Chance of any of this.......none
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 1:08:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 1:16:42 PM EST by SilentType]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
218 Rs to unseat Pelosi
51 Rs to unseat Reid

That's all that matters for 2010....

But the 218 more than the 51...

Get to 218, and Obama's agenda is DONE....


That's not all that matters, because what also matters if not more is 2012 and we will not beat an incumbent unless we can clearly contrast ourselves with him and his party.

We have no "contract with America."

We have no Gingrich leading the party.

We therefore need at least a party that stays on a solid conservative platform.

We need people to COUNTER the Democrats NOT join with them in votes. If we get liberal Republicans who will vote for more Democratic positions we'll get crushed in 2012. Beating an incumbent is VERY difficult. We can't afford to have Obama remain in the White House our national security interests are in grave danger with that idiot.

It's hard enough with the Collins and Snowes we have already we don't need more of them.

Look beyond the "R" next to their name and if they again and again take liberal progressive positions on key issues than you know you're not voting for a Republican you're voting for a RINO. Perfect candidates are hard to find, but don't just fold like a cheap suit because you figure it's better to send a liberal with an R to Washington than a liberal with a D to Washington.

I don't buy the argument that some areas of the country aren't going to vote for a real Conservative and you know why?



Enough said.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:46:31 PM EST
Originally Posted By PraesulPresul1:
To help fix politics:

1. Everyone and I mean everyone has term limits
2. 4 - 5 parties hold the power not two

Chance of any of this.......none


The term limits thing has my support, but 4 to 5 parties would mean that the country would have to adopt a Parliamentary style of government. That would be nothing short of chaotic. Look at countries like Israel. Every time they turn around there is a "No confidence vote" and new elections are called. Then no one gets a majority, so coalitions must be formed to select someone to be PM. Then the whole cycle starts again. Philosophies must be diluted in order to form a consensus, resulting in an incoherent agenda. Similar to the Democratic Party right now. It is primarily made up of a bunch of radical special interest groups to which the Dem politicians must pander. So we end up with a Green, Big Labor, Animal Rights, Pro-Choice, Anti-Gun, Open Borders, Anti-Free Market mishmash that we must all suffer through for the next 4 years.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 8:53:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By SilentType:

I don't buy the argument that some areas of the country aren't going to vote for a real Conservative and you know why?

Enough said.


That's a very convincing argument. Makes me feel a lot better about our chances for taking back the country in 2012. I just hope we can find solid candidates and leadership to do it.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:06:18 PM EST
for now it is always better to have an R than a D. In NY 23 you have a rare opportunity wherether R is the same as a D allowing a third party to win.

AFTER we replace the Ds with Rs is when the people must continue. Last time we took congress we started out good but let the fire below their feet go out. You have to understand that our representatives resond to one thing. WINNING ELECTIONS. If they are winning elections they fell the people are behind them and are essentially doing their job.

In some areas now we may need to get an R in the spot if a conservative third part cant win.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is what happens after we get the R in office. We need to continue the pressure and continue to care as if our fate of not caring is complete slavery, We need to let these republicans know that the majority wants traditional american values and our constitution supported. If we keep the pressure on them to be REAL REPUBLICANS after they win they will continue to make choices in office that benefit this country and will continue to gainmore support because we all know that conservative ewuals win if applied. When they stop being conservative things all tfall to shit and liberals hold them to blame and we reverse course.

We just need to get republicans in office then give them the support and pressure they need to be conservative and not forget about them after the election like we did last time around.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 3:38:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By victorgonzales:
[violet]for now it is always better to have an R than a D. In NY 23 you have a rare opportunity wherether R is the same as a D allowing a third party to win.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is what happens after we get the R in office.
[/violet]


If we elect a liberal just because they have an R behind their name, we gain nothing and can be accused of hypocrisy. I can hear it now, " Yes, he voted with the Democrats for Obamacare and Cap & Tax, but hey, the Republicans elected him!" This is what the primary process is for. We DO NOT have to settle for a RINO just because they are a Republican. What they stand for and how they conduct themselves in Congress should be the only thing that matters. Voting for the liberal R and then diluting ourselves with the notion that we can somehow control how they vote is not a sound strategy. My point is if you support a candidate that is likely to support legislation that is going to be detrimental to our country and way of life, as in supporting most of the Democrat initiatives to socialize the country, then why not just vote for the Democrat? Voting for a RINO only perpetuates the current problem for those of us who consider themselves conservatives. We will continue to be disappointed.

The current problem with the Republican Party is that they have alienated many conservatives. How? By convincing us that by supporting liberals running as Republicans, that we would maintain control of Congress. What happened? They tried to out-liberal liberals and now we are all paying for it. The key is to appeal to conservatives, not moderates, not liberals.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:08:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By PraesulPresul1:
To help fix politics:

1. Everyone and I mean everyone has term limits
2. 4 - 5 parties hold the power not two

Chance of any of this.......none


I don't think we need either of these things. The two party system is not broken IMO, but I've debated that on here enough for a while.

I'm not sure term limits will really solve anything. I know the idea is to prevent the "career politician" from setting up shop and never getting voted out, but I don't know if term limits are the answer to that. First of all, with term limits we will also be forcing out some voices that we do need in Congress. I know Ron Paul has alot of support on this site, and while I don't agree with him much of the time, he is an asset to our cause and serves to shake things up. He has also served nearly every year since 76. The notion of getting a "regular citizen" to serve in congress is silly because it is a full time job and takes a large amount of personal wealth. Term limits won't change that.

One thing I think we do need to get rid of some of the long time liberal politicians is reapportionment. The reason alot of these clowns stay in forever is because the districts are carved up very carefully to allow only one time of constituency. This means there are some areas a conservative simply can never win. Get rid of that and many of the undesirables will get voted out.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:16:34 AM EST
Originally Posted By BTurgidson:
pole-cat,

You and I have debated the current state of the Republican Party before, but I think this NY 23 story has exposed what is wrong, and what has been wrong with the Republican Party for many years. Now, more than ever, it is my belief that the Republican Party has been infiltrated and in many ways control has been commandeered by radical liberals cloaked in "moderate" Progressive" clothes. Dede was not a new, unknown quantity. She has been around for years. They knew who she was before the "Party Leaders" anointed her as the candidate. Steele knew who she was, and what her views were, as did Newt. The NRCC gave her over $1 million knowing full well who she was. What did we get? An endorsement for the remaining candidate that she was most closely aligned. The DEMOCRAT! This is not the first time this has happened. Arlen Specter certainly comes to mind. I truly believe this has been part of the Liberal Marxist plan for years. So, while some will continue to do so, voting for someone because they have an "R" behind their name is a mistake.

On January 10th 1963 the Goals of Communist Party of the United States was read into the Congressional Record. Goal #15 : Take control of one or both political parties. The more I see, the more I am convinced that this is what has happened to some degree.

Now I know some will argue strongly that not all RINO's or moderates are "Communists" and I'll give you that to a point, but they are LIBERALS and todays liberals have embraced the Marxist ideology to varying degrees. So this nonsense of a Big Tent approach has got to be put to bed once and for all. If the Republican Party , as a matter of platform, does not draw a significant distinction between what they stand for and what the Democrats stand for, then the Party will fade away.

As a conservative, I do not want to hear that the Marxists, I mean Democrats have some good ideas and we need to meet them in the middle. We need to ask our selves, why don't they ever meet us in the middle?


Don't you also think that NY-23 shows that the Republican party isn't totally lost? Almost all Republicans on the national stage have backed Hoffman with the exception of Newt.

I do agree that Communism is a big problem in our country. As far as inside our borders goes, I think its a bigger problem today than it was during the Cold War. They have just cleverly gave it other names. Its now disguised as "social justice", the "green movement" or labor issues but it is much more organized now than it ever was then. Oh, and they have the presidency now.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:10:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By BTurgidson:
Originally Posted By PraesulPresul1:
To help fix politics:

1. Everyone and I mean everyone has term limits
2. 4 - 5 parties hold the power not two

Chance of any of this.......none


The term limits thing has my support, but 4 to 5 parties would mean that the country would have to adopt a Parliamentary style of government. That would be nothing short of chaotic. Look at countries like Israel. Every time they turn around there is a "No confidence vote" and new elections are called. Then no one gets a majority, so coalitions must be formed to select someone to be PM. Then the whole cycle starts again. Philosophies must be diluted in order to form a consensus, resulting in an incoherent agenda. Similar to the Democratic Party right now. It is primarily made up of a bunch of radical special interest groups to which the Dem politicians must pander. So we end up with a Green, Big Labor, Animal Rights, Pro-Choice, Anti-Gun, Open Borders, Anti-Free Market mishmash that we must all suffer through for the next 4 years.



I have to respectfully disagree on the multiple party as I am really implying the Constitution party, Libertarian party, etc rise to more power and can truthfully put a possible candidate in the Whitehouse. I do see your concerns however. Let me add I edited my first post - no more Electoral College to really make this happen as the current electoral is either D or R. Had this been the case in the last election, Obama would not have won and McCain would not have been the nominee

If you study the other parties, many are conservative leaning to varying degrees. Will the liberals divide off too like into the Green party? Hard to say.

One final thing is the special interest groups will have to divide as there will be multiple targets in an election and make them less of a foe.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:20:01 AM EST
One additional point - abolish the Electoral College and watch campaigning change. How? Instead of avoiding states that are a sure thing for my election, I might emphasize them in an effort to win 80 - 90% of the popular vote to help my total. Then the opponent will try to campaign in a sure loss state to minimize the damage. States like CA, NY, TX and FL will still be important but it will force candidates to hit almost all states some and lessen the impact of extreme campaigning in swing states and cause more voters to cast votes based on candidate's stance on key issues not maximized face time.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:54:03 AM EST
The Electoral College serves an important purpose. It was design to ensure that every State had a viable say in who became President , not just the most populated ones.

I feel that the only thing the abolition of the Electoral College will achieve is to silence the voices of those of us who live in 'Fly-over" country. If the popular vote is adopted, i.e. turning our Republic into a Democracy, then a candidate only need focus on the Big City population centers and more populous States. People living in Nebraska, Idaho, etc will be ignored and their votes will matter little. Personally I don't want the citizens of NYC or LA having absolute power over the way I choose to live my life. An yes, when the country is as divided as this one is at this time in History, Candidates are pretty much focusing all of their attention on the "swing " states, but that is better than allowing all of the power to be ceded to the Cities.

By the way, my opinion was formed by watching elections in other countries where this approach is prominent. The provincial areas have little representation as almost all of the candidates are selected from the Capitol region because of "name recognition". It really ends up making those who live in the country have to suffer through legislation design for a metropolitan area. But I am getting into a topic best left for another discussion....
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 7:00:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By pole-cat:

Don't you also think that NY-23 shows that the Republican party isn't totally lost? Almost all Republicans on the national stage have backed Hoffman with the exception of Newt.

I do agree that Communism is a big problem in our country. As far as inside our borders goes, I think its a bigger problem today than it was during the Cold War. They have just cleverly gave it other names. Its now disguised as "social justice", the "green movement" or labor issues but it is much more organized now than it ever was then. Oh, and they have the presidency now.


I'm not so sure. I think it better reflects the reality that "Conservatism" is an ideology and that the Republican Party is just that a political party. Remember, it was conservatives like Fred Thompson, and Sarah Palin who endorsed Hoffman whilst the Republican apparatus continued to back Dede up until the point she dropped out. Then and only then did the Republican Party get behind Hoffman. Seems a bit too "opportunistic" to me. Perhaps they will get the message and start backing conservative candidates, but I will not believe it until I actually see it, as right now all of the promises and talk is just that. Just talk.

We shall see. Should be interesting.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 8:25:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By BTurgidson:
It really ends up making those who live in the country have to suffer through legislation design for a metropolitan area. But I am getting into a topic best left for another discussion....


I really think we are already at that point in the U.S. unfortunately.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 10:50:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 10:52:40 AM EST by SilentType]
Problem is that local congressional districts have their own political landscape. Let's be honest not every politician is a member of their party because they believe in the party's platform. This goes both ways with Democrats and Republicans. Many simple fall into a party where it is easier for them to rise in the ranks within, because of family or personal connections.

So you end up with primary races in places where you've got some very entrenched and ambitious individual using the party to rise to power who a true Conservative with less connections can't really beat in the primary process. Name recognition and seniority as well as personal wealth can trump pure Conservative values.

The National Party just wants to get the majority back to control the agenda again and run the committees. They're willing to tolerate victory at any cost, because a moderate Republican that goes along with you only 50% of the time while giving you a majority is better than a Blue Dog Democrat who goes along with you 50% of the time, but costs you the majority.

Conservative voters though aren't necessarily involved directly with the party and yet they provide the donations and votes necessary to win. Now with the Tea Party movement you've got the ability to take down these powerful entrenched RINOs without having to spend years fighting them inside the local party.

Top Top