Topic: Time to Move On From the GOP?

[Libertas]

The only hope is changing the GOP from within.

Tried that, failed

Then try again, and get it right next time.

Listen son, I am not sure how old you aren't, but I've been at this game going on my 4th decade...we have been trying since 1988 and it's been downhill ever since Reagan left office...a brief hiccup when Newt captured the House in '94, but then he went all limp and starting playing pattycake with Slick Willie and became a Big Govt type GOPer like the rest of the Ruling Class/RINO/Country Club elites.  So don't lecture me about trying boy, I put in my time!  I have waaaaaaay better things to do with my time than to waste it thinking "Yeah, this time they'll pull their butts out for sure, yeah, this is it!" so stick a sock in it!  You want to get jerked off by the GOP, go for it, but stow the attitude!

[Libertas]

The majority of your fellow citizens believe they have the right to hire the government to rifle through your pocketbook and bank accounts for their own benefit. This time, we finally reached the point where there were enough of them to outvote us. With each coming election the margin will only be bigger because they are aggressively pursuing a policy of "demographic cleansing".

If the GOP were to bear any fruits for this nascent movement at halting the decline of our civilization, it was to be this November. For better or worse, it failed. The political avenue is closed. In truth, it was closed before this election. This election merely served as a dramatic fullstop.

Now it is time for the country to reap the fruits of empowering the most divisive president in its history. I hope you have a strong stomach because you are about to witness a most unseemly buffet, as all the vultures and other carrion eaters divvy up the carcass of the American Republic. They will, for a brief while, remain fat and sleek on their ill gotten gain. But theirs is a meal that can only be had once, and that is when the real fun begins.

They're time runneth out quickly...

[ToddF]

The only hope is changing the GOP from within.

It's the American People.  There is no longer hope of taking our ideas against Chicago and winning the minds of American People.  That's why I just say stand back and let SCoaMF get what he wants.  With me it's now preservation and a Sweedish level taxation (which is what it would take to fund Obama's America) would at least let me keep what I have, without losing it to hyperinflation. 

It would suck if you're young, and you haven't accumulated anything, yet, but that's what you voted for.  Blame your parents for you having a crappy education.

Yes, America would quicken it's decline, but we have to go there anyway.  The United Piglets of America need to have it bashed over their heads, good and hard, before we can ever recover.  Maybe when I'm  the cycle will complete.  After all we just revisited Canada's dark days of Trudeau in another thread.  Took 30 years to get past that fail.

[Glock32]

In all fairness, I don't think CatholicCrusader meant anything but to try and encourage that the fight must go on. I don't take offense to it. But I will point out my reasons for thinking it is now, at long last, well and truly futile.

It is futile mainly for the things MNHawk mentions above. It's the American people themselves that are the problem. We've been saying it since Obama was first elected: the nation can survive a President Obama, what it can't survive is a population that would (re!) elect him.

As for the Swedish comparison, at least with Swedish level taxation you get to live in a country of attractive Swedish women. What do I get here for high taxes? The Obama Phone Lady.

[Libertas]

I dunno G, seemed like I was being a bit chastised, right/wrong/indifferent I don't care if others want to tarry on, all I am saying is my tarrying time for these AINOs is over.

Love the Obama Phone Lady quip!

 

And hey, we got Swede's here in Minnie...and yeah they liberal as Hell and twice as stupid...and they all don't look like Malin Åkerman, if ya get my drift...

[CatholicCrusader]

The only hope is changing the GOP from within.

Tried that, failed

Then try again, and get it right next time.

Listen son, I am not sure how old you aren't, but I've been at this game going on my 4th decade...we have been trying since 1988 and it's been downhill ever since Reagan left office...a brief hiccup when Newt captured the House in '94, but then he went all limp and starting playing pattycake with Slick Willie and became a Big Govt type GOPer like the rest of the Ruling Class/RINO/Country Club elites.  So don't lecture me about trying boy, I put in my time!  I have waaaaaaay better things to do with my time than to waste it thinking "Yeah, this time they'll pull their butts out for sure, yeah, this is it!" so stick a sock in it!  You want to get jerked off by the GOP, go for it, but stow the attitude!

Its no attitude. And for the record, I voted for Reagan in 1980 and have voted solid Republican ever since. I am 50 years old, and definitely not your "son".

This is very simple: We have a 2-party system, and barring some unforseen cataclysmic event, its going to stay that way. You don't want to vote Republican in 2016? Fine. That's just one more vote for the Democrats. That's a plain and simple fact of life, and all the threads to the contrary will not change it.

[Libertas]

The only hope is changing the GOP from within.

Tried that, failed

Then try again, and get it right next time.

Listen son, I am not sure how old you aren't, but I've been at this game going on my 4th decade...we have been trying since 1988 and it's been downhill ever since Reagan left office...a brief hiccup when Newt captured the House in '94, but then he went all limp and starting playing pattycake with Slick Willie and became a Big Govt type GOPer like the rest of the Ruling Class/RINO/Country Club elites.  So don't lecture me about trying boy, I put in my time!  I have waaaaaaay better things to do with my time than to waste it thinking "Yeah, this time they'll pull their butts out for sure, yeah, this is it!" so stick a sock in it!  You want to get jerked off by the GOP, go for it, but stow the attitude!

Its no attitude. And for the record, I voted for Reagan in 1980 and have voted solid Republican ever since. I am 50 years old, and definitely not your "son".

This is very simple: We have a 2-party system, and barring some unforseen cataclysmic event, its going to stay that way. You don't want to vote Republican moderate Big Govrnment Democrats in 2016? Fine. That's just one more vote for the openly visible Big Government Democrats. That's a plain and simple fact of life, and all the threads to the contrary will not change it.

FIFY!

 

[IronDioPriest]

...This is very simple: We have a 2-party system, and barring some unforseen cataclysmic event, its going to stay that way...

I think what people are saying is that the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama IS that cataclysmic event. The two-party system has failed to uphold constitutional ideals, and fatally so.

[Alphabet Soup]

When it looked inevitable that Romney was going to be the candidate I agonized over my ultimate decision. Would I sit it out? I never had before - even though I came close out of disgust at wasting my vote on mccain. Would I take a "principled stand" and for for someone more ideologically aligned as myself, knowing that my vote would be lost among the fringe edges of the election? The simple truth is that there was no one that fit that definition for me. Or maybe go ahead and vote for Øbongo and the notion of bringing ruin now rather than later? I've never knowingly voted for a dhimmicrat and couldn't bring myself to do so now.

In the end I gritted my teeth, swallowed my pride, and voted for Romney. I harbored no illusions about who I was voting for. I knew that he was a moderate~to~liberal Republican who wouldn't have any problems finding compromise (read:capitulation) with the dhimmicrats. I also knew that with Romney we at least stood a chance of keeping a recognizable republic.

In a sense we got the "vote for oblivion" choice. A 2nd term of disaster with the SCoaMF. A party dedicated to the ruination of America. I didn't vote this way and would have preferred salvation, but that isn't the hand we are dealt.

Now, post-election little pukes like jindal are lecturing us that we need to be more pandering if we want people to like us. F him. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and Krauthammer are telling us that our priorities are wrong and we need to change. Screw them too. If this is to be the completion of the GOP then count me out. Frankly I think that it is largely a moot point because frankly I believe that the GOP has rendered itself irrelevant.

As I see it the GOP can remain as-is, bad-mouthing and generally dismissing the TEA party and continuing to lose elections, become the democrat-lite party and continue to lose elections, or be consumed and redirected by the TEA partiers and take a chance on winning back America. The problem is that we have too many passives on our team. They sit and bitch about their lots in life but how many got off their humps and campaigned for their team this last time around? I can tell you that in my state they were damned few.

[CatholicCrusader]

...This is very simple: We have a 2-party system, and barring some unforseen cataclysmic event, its going to stay that way...

I think what people are saying is that the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama IS that cataclysmic event. The two-party system has failed to uphold constitutional ideals, and fatally so.

Well, THAT I do agree with it. But let us not discount the sheer ignorance and stupidity of a HUGE segment of the populace. They are idiots, they vote for idiots, and that's what we get.

But I have a question for you guys: Were you this angry with the GOP when Reagan was president? Because Ronald Reagan - God love him and God rest his soul - grew government, cut deals with Tip O'Neil, and did slip in some slick tax increases after his big tax cuts. Government grew under Reagan. He was not a purist, but he did know that half a loaf is better than none.

At least with the GOP today, you get half a loaf. With the Democrats you get none. So you guys had better go vote in 2016 for your half of loaf or you will end up with a sh*t sandwich.

And in the meantime, work to change from within. As I said earlier, these things take time. The Tea Party has only been a force for 4 years. The GOP is 170 years old for Pete's sake. The kind of change we want will take longer than a couple of election cycles. IronDioPriest, you admitted that the Tea Party movement was successful in large measure moving the GOP to the Right. Thats just in four years. Give them 8 or 12 more. Don't throw in the towel so quickly.

[Libertas]

Sure, 8-12 years...

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[IronDioPriest]

...This is very simple: We have a 2-party system, and barring some unforseen cataclysmic event, its going to stay that way...

I think what people are saying is that the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama IS that cataclysmic event. The two-party system has failed to uphold constitutional ideals, and fatally so.

Well, THAT I do agree with it. But let us not discount the sheer ignorance and stupidity of a HUGE segment of the populace. They are idiots, they vote for idiots, and that's what we get.

But I have a question for you guys: Were you this angry with the GOP when Reagan was president? Because Ronald Reagan - God love him and God rest his soul - grew government, cut deals with Tip O'Neil, and did slip in some slick tax increases after his big tax cuts. Government grew under Reagan. He was not a purist, but he did know that half a loaf is better than none.

At least with the GOP today, you get half a loaf. With the Democrats you get none. So you guys had better go vote in 2016 for your half of loaf or you will end up with a sh*t sandwich.

And in the meantime, work to change from within. As I said earlier, these things take time. The Tea Party has only been a force for 4 years. The GOP is 170 years old for Pete's sake. The kind of change we want will take longer than a couple of election cycles. IronDioPriest, you admitted that the Tea Party movement was successful in large measure moving the GOP to the Right. Thats just in four years. Give them 8 or 12 more. Don't throw in the towel so quickly.

This are all fair points CC. But as I said earlier (or in another thread, I can't remember), my definition of conservatism and my demands of politicians to uphold it has been changed by the dire circumstances in which the country finds itself. I suspect that the same is true for many people. As I said earlier, people we would have considered rock-ribbed conservatives only a decade or two ago are now widely panned as RiNO capitulators. Some of that may be unfair, but much of it is not - they've brought it upon themselves.

The time for the GOP to rally around the constitution was now - this election cycle.

My deep fear (and what I believe now to be a foregone conclusion) is that the nation doesn't have 8-12 more years for the GOP to rally around the constitution. I believe the time for them to have done so and have a meaningful impact has come and gone in 2012.

[Glock32]

During the Reagan administration I was in elementary school, so I wasn't particularly concerned with politics. But I don't think people were angry with the GOP then for a few reasons. Most importantly, the country was doing very well economically and militarily, so people were still in the mindset that the country could afford missteps here and there in terms of policy compromises with the Democrats. The debt grew under Reagan, but so did GDP, and by a huge amount.

It's also true that there was a different class of Democrat back then. The party was still largely that of the "old school" Democrats. It was not under total ownership of radical leftists, heavily informed by Marxist theory, like it is now. Further, I would say that there was a certain naivete in play then. People were still willing to believe the Democrats would be good faith negotiators so, you know, go along with them on this tax policy and they'll agree to spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. How many times now has Lucy yanked that football away?

Think back to all those times earlier in life where you heard different variations of the warning that went something like "if things keep going like this". Those were warnings uttered in the assumption that any consequences were still comfortably in the future, some other generation's problem, and surely the course will have been corrected before things get that urgent anyway. Well, we are now at that moment. There's no more "if things keep going like this", no, things did keep going like that. We are now at that unknown destination in uncharted territory.

At this point, what could possibly be done politically to avert disaster? Can we even appreciate the scale of what would have to be done? We would have to wholesale eliminate entire cabinet departments, eliminate entitlement programs, and so on. The voters of this country are like the screaming toddler in the store -- no matter how many times Mommy says no or even tries to explain that the coveted toy is too expensive, all our infantile population knows is that it wants this, it wants that, and it doesn't care or even comprehend why it shouldn't.

[trapeze]

Re: Reagan's mistakes...

Did any of you see this?

That was one of his mistakes. A big one.

The other one was this:

The concept of starving the beast was older than the phrase. An earlier metaphor involved unruly children. In a 1980 presidential debate, Reagan scoffed at the idea that Congress would have to cut federal spending before it cut taxes.

“If you’ve got a kid that’s extravagant, you can lecture him all you want about his extravagance,” said Reagan. “Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same result much quicker.”

Milton Friedman liked the metaphor too.

“How can we ever cut government down to size?” he wrote. “I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, by cutting their allowance. For government this means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be . . . the only effective restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.”

Niskanen’s explanation for the failure of STB was straightforward, a conjecture based on standard economics: When you cut the price of something, demand for it will increase. Lowering taxes without lowering benefits meant that taxpayers were getting the benefits at a discount. The government made up the true cost with borrowed dollars that future taxpayers would have to repay. There was a big difference, Niskanen said, between a kid on an allowance and the federal government: The government has a credit card with no debt limit.

And there you have it. Like a drug addict, the country is going to end up in one of two scenarios: Dead in the gutter or, after bottoming out, in rehab.

You can vote whatever way you like but until everyone pays taxes and feels the actual pain of the runaway spending there is zero hope for recovery.

Be sure to click on both links.

[Predator Don]

...This is very simple: We have a 2-party system, and barring some unforseen cataclysmic event, its going to stay that way...

I think what people are saying is that the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama IS that cataclysmic event. The two-party system has failed to uphold constitutional ideals, and fatally so.

Well, THAT I do agree with it. But let us not discount the sheer ignorance and stupidity of a HUGE segment of the populace. They are idiots, they vote for idiots, and that's what we get.

But I have a question for you guys: Were you this angry with the GOP when Reagan was president? Because Ronald Reagan - God love him and God rest his soul - grew government, cut deals with Tip O'Neil, and did slip in some slick tax increases after his big tax cuts. Government grew under Reagan. He was not a purist, but he did know that half a loaf is better than none.

At least with the GOP today, you get half a loaf. With the Democrats you get none. So you guys had better go vote in 2016 for your half of loaf or you will end up with a sh*t sandwich.

And in the meantime, work to change from within. As I said earlier, these things take time. The Tea Party has only been a force for 4 years. The GOP is 170 years old for Pete's sake. The kind of change we want will take longer than a couple of election cycles. IronDioPriest, you admitted that the Tea Party movement was successful in large measure moving the GOP to the Right. Thats just in four years. Give them 8 or 12 more. Don't throw in the towel so quickly.

I didn't like the illegals deal during Reagan or the tax increases, but some Oneill dealmaking becomes more palatible when the same guy grows the economy to record levels. Today, we are not making deals, we are bending over and grabbing our ankles.

I'm sure, if Romney was elected and grew the economy, i'd say the same thing, but he didn't get elected so the point of "making deals" is moot with me. This is not the time to make a deal, this is a time for the republican party to dig in thier collective heels. We are not getting half the loaf, we are not even getting the crumbs in the bottom of the toaster. Every democratic idea has destruction labeled all over it. They have no interest working with us.

So I've become a conservative first and a republican second. I want conservative candidates, conservative ideals and I don't want to settle for less. My hope is the tea party can continue to gain numbers...but with that all said, I simply have no tolerance with working with libs today.

[Pandora]

Re: Reagan's mistakes...

Did any of you see this?

That was one of his mistakes. A big one.

The other one was this:

The concept of starving the beast was older than the phrase. An earlier metaphor involved unruly children. In a 1980 presidential debate, Reagan scoffed at the idea that Congress would have to cut federal spending before it cut taxes.

“If you’ve got a kid that’s extravagant, you can lecture him all you want about his extravagance,” said Reagan. “Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same result much quicker.”

Milton Friedman liked the metaphor too.

“How can we ever cut government down to size?” he wrote. “I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, by cutting their allowance. For government this means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be . . . the only effective restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.”

Niskanen’s explanation for the failure of STB was straightforward, a conjecture based on standard economics: When you cut the price of something, demand for it will increase. Lowering taxes without lowering benefits meant that taxpayers were getting the benefits at a discount. The government made up the true cost with borrowed dollars that future taxpayers would have to repay. There was a big difference, Niskanen said, between a kid on an allowance and the federal government: The government has a credit card with no debt limit.

And there you have it. Like a drug addict, the country is going to end up in one of two scenarios: Dead in the gutter or, after bottoming out, in rehab.

You can vote whatever way you like but until everyone pays taxes and feels the actual pain of the runaway spending there is zero hope for recovery.

Be sure to click on both links.

Read both, thanks, trap.

HW Bush was pushed on Reagan by the same E-GOP that hates the TEA Party, its candidates and everything about us, and misunderestimated Ronnie as well.  Brewer is absolutely right about that being Reagan's worst mistake.  And now the guy's grandson wants his turn stirring the pot, this time with an authentic "hispanic" flavoring.

As for increased taxes, you're on the money and so is the author of *that* piece; the gimme gartners don't pay Federal income taxes and until they do, they won't feel anything like a pinch until the EBT cards stop working.

[charlesoakwood]

"This is not the time to make a deal, this is a time for the republican party to dig in thier collective heels."  

That's the argument; the Pubby's aren't digging in their
heels, they are bending over and we don't believe there will be any relief.

[Alphabet Soup]

They should rename Ace of Spades to "Insufficiently Conservative" to more accurately describe the prevailing POV of their readership.

[IronDioPriest]

Looking back to GOP transgressions of years past and comparing our reaction then to our reaction now is mental masturbation. The reality is that during the Reagan years, the Bush years, the Clinton years, or the Bush years, America was not faced with the reality of an existential crisis. In retrospect, the seeds were being sewn and cultivated all along, but the country as a whole was blissfully unaware.

I say this with all seriousness and with some shame: in my mind, threat to the existence of the United States of America was inconceivable to me until the past four years. The idea that the Democrat party was populated by people who literally hate this country never crossed my mind until about a year after 9/11/01.

My conservative ideals; my knowledge of conservative principles; my expectations of satisfactory politicians; my perception of the various crises; and my view on the endurance of the American spirit - all these things have been honed and shaped in me over the past decade.

I was raised being told that conservatives and liberals all want the same basic things, but have differing opinions as to how to arrive at that basic common vision for the country. I believed it to be a fundamental American trait - that we could differ and then settle those differences at the ballot box, which would obligate the citizenry to abide for at least two years until the next election.

I now see that that was never, ever true. It was a lie all along. But I, (like many others I suspect) believed it. So now my view is completely different than it was in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years. My expectations of the Republican party were that they would be shaken into remembering the constitution, and their role as defenders of it. My expectations were dashed, and I just have very little hope that there is another chance for them to get it right, or that they would get it right if they were given the chance.

The two-party system has failed the people. George Washington warned us of exactly this result. Party politics - particularly two-party politics - is an extra-constitutional add-on that was never accounted for in the founding documents. It is now apparent that the document has buckled under the two-party system.

[Weisshaupt]

The two-party system has failed the people. George Washington warned us of exactly this result. Party politics - particularly two-party politics - is an extra-constitutional add-on that was never accounted for in the founding documents. It is now apparent that the document has buckled under the two-party system.

Madison. Federalist 10. On the Benefits of Factions.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

Sadly that is exactly what the Liberals wish to do - eliminate factions by eliminating liberty.


(Re)Read the whole thing. You know the liberals never did.