Abandon the Republican Ship!
In 1979 I attended a graphic artist conference in Tampa, Florida. The speakers from government, academia and business were trying to describe to us the future of mass communications in America.
They told us the time was coming when a person would be able to sit down in their home at a computer terminal attached to a keyboard and send letters and correspondence anywhere in the world at the speed of light. They even said it was theoretically possible for a new dimension in communication where information about practically anything would be accessible from anywhere in an instant. That some of the communications medium portrayed in Star Wars, or Star Trek were actually realizable in a decade. It all seemed unbelievable.
Some there were skeptical. When it came time for a marketing executive from IBM to speak he said what many of us were thinking at the time. He said, "IBM changed mass communication in this country with the invention of the Selectric Typewriter. The question for us at IBM is not are these new devices possible, but are they marketable. Our research shows there is little interest in these devices in the current market place. IBM IS STAKING THE FUTURE OF ITS BUSINESS ON OUR CONVICTION THAT A GRANDMOTHER WILL NEVER BE SITTING IN FRONT OF A COMPUTER SCREEN SENDING MESSAGES TO HER GRANDCHILDREN! The technology will require extensive space in the home, and it will be difficult for an aging generation to learn to use these things. Our founder Thomas Watson characterizes our attitude toward computers in 1943 when he said, 'I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.' "
Or consider this
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." -- Lee DeForest, inventor.
"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" -- Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer.
Organization or people that are unprepared for the future will be overcome by it.
The Republican Party has for the last thirty years been so focused on polls and punditry that they have failed to see that the world is leaving them behind. The conservative base and organizations like the TEA party have responded to our times in ways that could lead the Republican Party to dominance in American politics for the foreseeable future, and all the party has done is feared the repeat of battles lost (such as the 1964 election and Watergate). They have no mission or agenda for the future. They have neither insight or vision regarding the condition or the hope of our Republic. After Thursday's vote in favor of the so called Cromnibus budget bill, I am convinced that the Republican party has abandoned it's mission and has no vision for the future.
The nomination and subsequent defeat of Mitt Romney revealed clearly why the Republican Party must go. Please do not misunderstand me Mitt Romney is a magnanimous and patriotic man, who would have made a great President. During the Republican nomination process Mitt was declared as "the only electable candidate." The same was said about Mc Cain in 2008, who lost, Bush in 2000, who won by less than 1000 votes, Dole before him who lost. The philosophy which has lead to narrow victories and losses is that moderates are the most likely winners of elections and they win by appealing to moderates. In others words, say nothing or do nothing that is controversial. People will rally in droves, they believe, to politicians who offer them the status quo. One would think the losses or narrow recent Republican victoirous Presidential elections would lead one to question the premises upon which they had been built, since they have only resulted in failures or narrow victories. The reason these premises have remained unquestioned for so many years is fear.
In the last two landslide mid term elections within 4 years where the conservative base has delivered formidable historic once in a century victories for Republicans in both Congress and the state houses. How can a reasonable person conclude that conservatives and TEA party people are hurting the party? When people focus on polls and research they draw the conclusion that gramma will never use email, or that the country will vote against people just because they are uncivil. It makes as much since as saying a visiting football team can't defeat the home team if the crowd is cheering against them. It's how you play the game or market the product or campaign that determines winners not the machinations of public opinion. Leaders change opinion.They persuade.
I am now convinced that our republic can only be saved if conservatives abandon ship. The Republican party no longer stands in opposition to the socialist agenda of the Democratic party. They have completely embraced it. Electing them is just destroying our liberty gradually. Now I understand what many conservatives are going to say. We've got to stay with the Republican party. It's the alternative, albeit a bad one. I used to argue that myself but after last week, though I can no longer continue. Some in the Republican leadership are trying to sell the lie that we need to gain the White House in 2016 before something can be done. If recent history is any proof that is as big a lie as "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." I don't like my party, therefore, why should I be forced to stick with it. The last time the Republicans had control of both houses they spurned conservatism and passed the largest entitlement since the Great Society, and very nearly passed amnesty.
I have worked or advocated for Republicans on local state and national level in every election since 1972. I and my ilk have been maligned and spurned by the party for 40 years. Instead of embracing the conservative victories of 1980, 1984, 1982 2000, 2004, 2010 and 2014 the Republican leadership maligns and disenfranchises the very people responsible for their victory. How can a party survive if it wins the largest electoral landslide in a century twice, then shuns the voters responsible for it? Instead of celebrating and embracing their victory the Republicans are passionately embracing the destructive, the dysfunctional and the losers?
Am I being extreme? Look at the recent electoral history. Primary rules were changed in the 2012 primaries and at the state caucuses and state and national conventions to control the agenda and exclude conservatives specifically to prevent Gingrich, Santorum or Cain from getting the nomination. The Republican national committee ran ads in opposition to Santorum, Gingrich and Cain in the primaries, because they were viewed as pariah. In 2010, and 12 despite an overwhelming victory in house and senate and state houses Republican leaders wrung their hands over a few public losses, rather than congratulating and celebrating the greatest electoral success in a generation. In 2014 they had no unexpected losses. but the the NRC ran ads to defeat the most conservative candidates, so they could be sure that the very policies and programs they were going to be elected to advance would fail. They act like a wide receiver who caught a difficult pass then ran 90 yards down the field, only to cross the other teams goal line and then says "Give me the ball again; I;ll run the right direction next time." The guy should be benched! The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that Republican leadership understand they must advocate conservative principles to win their base and win election, but believe those principles to be red herrings. The party leadership is actually liberal. They actually favor socialized medicine and amnesty. They opposed conservative agenda deeming candidates who would actually vote that way as unelectable, which is simply code for undesirable. Instead of embracing conservatives as constituents who sent them to office, they ignore them. Being a conservative at a Republican event is like being the third cousin who shows up for Thanksgiving dinner; the conversation is awkward as long as you are there. No one can really say what they think of your side of the family.
The Republican leadership embraces liberalism because they have a false view of history. I recently heard Republican establishment professor, Larry Sabato, who reminds me of Joe Biden in that his predictions are always wrong, state that Ronald Reagan left the party weaker than when he came in because of the party lost seats in both midterm elections. Really, Mr Sabato! Do you really believe that is the lesson of history? Mr Reagan was the first President in 150 years to have his Vice President elected to succeed him. Bush, lost re-election, because he abandoned Reagan's conservative principles of reducing taxes to bring economic growth. The Republican's who lost seats in the midterms in Reagan years were the moderates who were never comfortable with Reagan. Reagan economic and foreign policy successes created a climate for the conservative leadership to take over the House in 1994 and empowered the Contract with America conservatives to reign in a liberal President's agenda.When they fought hard for a conservative vision of liberty and responsibility they eventually won. Democracy dies where there is no vociferous debate.
American democracy thrives on vociferous debate. It was the assertion of minority views and the willingness to debate the issues in the public square that brought about the compromises and bipartisanship of the 90's. Those who would advocate we need civility and acquiescence must realize compromise and bipartisanship cannot exist without two dichotomous position beings asserted as the starting point of the debate. Compromise is essential to a republic but compromise is not capitulation. Civility is an enemy of liberty.
Party leadership seems to be afraid of the fight. They treat Conservatives as as distant relatives to put up with at dinner. After the Clinton years Gingrich, so many Republicans chose appeasement rather than risking the fight with democrats and the media. Seeing the destruction of lives and reputations that the Democratic Party traffics leaves some politicians unwilling to risk what they may have to lose to defend their principles. Democrats have never practiced civility or bipartisanship They engage in all out assault on conservatives. Remember the nuclear exploding daisy in the 60's or the Paul-Ryan-look-like throwing grandmother off a cliff. They seek not only to win their offices but to destroy their lives, families and reputations of their opponents. Once politicians are in office many Republicans are afraid to risk becoming collateral damage in the fight. They think with more Republicans in office the battle will get easier. It will never get easier. The enemy will never give up, and they will never play nice or by the rules, which is why civility in politics fails. But, it is now obvious the Republican party has proved they will never learn and will not embrace tough conservative politics. I am left with one conclusion. There is no place for conservatism in either of the American political parties. Conservatives need to abandon ship let the Republican party fade away into oblivion and start a new party built on conservative principles.
I am not talking about a third party. I am talking about shutting off the life support to a dying family member. The conservative base has continued the support of a dying Republican party for the past fifty years. I say. Let it die. Abandon the sinking ship. For that matter euthanize it. This is hard for me to say. I have had the experience of shutting off life support to a family member. It is not easy. I am a lifelong Republican. I love the heroes of the Republican Party. Heck, I even liked Nixon. For years the Republican party embraced both liberals and conservatives. Richard Nixon campaigned incessantly for Barry Goldwater. Mark Hatfield embraced Reagan. After his confirmation to be Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was asked why he a life long liberal had remained a Republican. He said, Republicans were both conservative and liberals committed to fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense, and democrats were committed to neither. Liberal or conservative Republicans have united around liberty, fiscal and moral responsibility, traditional family values and assertive leadership in the world. In the 21st Century the Republican Party has jettisoned everyone of its principles to take the easy road, to be nice, to avoid the fight. When an organization abandons its mission it goes the way of Univac business machines, Kodak or Polaroid cameras, IBM typewriters, Curtis Mathis Television or American Motors. The Party is brain dead. It's time to shut down the machine that is keeping it alive.
It's time for a new American Conservative party.Here's what I think needs to happen. It can not happen from the outside. If an outsider like Sarah Palin, Mark Levin or Ben Carson attempted to run for President under the name of something other than Republican it would simply be seen as a third party bid. Third parties don't win Presidential elections. The most popular President in American History, Theodore Roosevelt, ran for a third, non-consecutive term, as a third party candidate and lost. I can describe in two words why a 3d party candidate cannot win: electoral college. However a a mass abandonment of Republican Party could turn into a new party.
If prominent Senate and House conservative caucuses joined together as one caucus and put up alternative officers when the new congress convenes , refused to vote for the party leadership unless they were guaranteed conservative legislative agenda. Having the leadership and chairmanship make no difference, if that leadership embraces the other sides agenda. Conservatives lose with moderates in leadership. We only win if we win.If the leadership refuses to advance a conservative agenda, the people have a right to know. Leadership must either enact conservative legislation or get out of the way.
Conservative office holders should hold an alternate convention if rules are used to prevent conservatives from effecting the platform or caucusing. . Against the rules you say. In the last primaries the leadership changed the rules saying, they were a private club, they could do what they want. So why can't the members. These actions would force the leadership to show their hand. They would either have to go along with the conservatives or join the democrats. I believe most would swallow hard and join the conservatives, because most had been elect by constituents who thought they were conservative. I am sure we would lose some committed moderates to the democratic party, which would reveal who they were anyway.
Second, as risky as it seems Republicans who run in primaries should refuse to support candidates, incumbent or otherwise, who are financed by the national republican committee should they lose to them. The Republican committee should not chose winners, the electorate should. They should stay out of primaries. Of course, that would mean the democrat would probably win. When a Republican only advance the democratic agenda, whose the winner then. Not the Republicans. While some might consider this a violation of party loyalty isn't the disloyal person the person who abandons the principles on which the party was founded and which wins elections. In cases where moderate candidates win , where the party has not sought to designate a winner in advance they should support the winners. When the people speak we listen; when the party pours in money, we refuse to be bought.
Third, the legislators in predominantly conservative states should adopt laws defining when and how caucus and convention rules can be changed, so that last minute sell out of conservatives would be illegal. Conservative office holders should have organization in place to hold alternate caucuses and conventions should they be shut out. In other words, if the party is determined to nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Cristie conservative should hold an alternate convention and nominate a conservative. In such a scenario the Republican Party would be denuded. Bush and Cristie would be the third party candidates and would have to decide whether to hold firm to their liberal agenda or to embrace the people's candidate. While there is no guarantee that such a scenario would win the 2016 election, it would provide a viable opposition to whomever was nominated by the democratic party. While being in the opposition is not as desirable as winning. A true opposition party that is willing to say no, and do battle can prevent the other side from accomplishing much of their agenda.
I'm tired of conservatism being the elephant in the room. I'm tired of being seen as the dysfunctional third cousin I want more than a place at the table. I want to be included in the discussion. It is time to recognize that the Republican leadership will never give in. The ship is on a collision course with destiny It's time to abandon the Republican ship. The only hope for a conservative agenda is to abandon the Republicanship and get on a new state of the art ship. A new conservative party. Let Freedom Reign.
They told us the time was coming when a person would be able to sit down in their home at a computer terminal attached to a keyboard and send letters and correspondence anywhere in the world at the speed of light. They even said it was theoretically possible for a new dimension in communication where information about practically anything would be accessible from anywhere in an instant. That some of the communications medium portrayed in Star Wars, or Star Trek were actually realizable in a decade. It all seemed unbelievable.
Some there were skeptical. When it came time for a marketing executive from IBM to speak he said what many of us were thinking at the time. He said, "IBM changed mass communication in this country with the invention of the Selectric Typewriter. The question for us at IBM is not are these new devices possible, but are they marketable. Our research shows there is little interest in these devices in the current market place. IBM IS STAKING THE FUTURE OF ITS BUSINESS ON OUR CONVICTION THAT A GRANDMOTHER WILL NEVER BE SITTING IN FRONT OF A COMPUTER SCREEN SENDING MESSAGES TO HER GRANDCHILDREN! The technology will require extensive space in the home, and it will be difficult for an aging generation to learn to use these things. Our founder Thomas Watson characterizes our attitude toward computers in 1943 when he said, 'I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.' "
Or consider this
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." -- Lee DeForest, inventor.
"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" -- Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer.
Organization or people that are unprepared for the future will be overcome by it.
The Republican Party has for the last thirty years been so focused on polls and punditry that they have failed to see that the world is leaving them behind. The conservative base and organizations like the TEA party have responded to our times in ways that could lead the Republican Party to dominance in American politics for the foreseeable future, and all the party has done is feared the repeat of battles lost (such as the 1964 election and Watergate). They have no mission or agenda for the future. They have neither insight or vision regarding the condition or the hope of our Republic. After Thursday's vote in favor of the so called Cromnibus budget bill, I am convinced that the Republican party has abandoned it's mission and has no vision for the future.
The nomination and subsequent defeat of Mitt Romney revealed clearly why the Republican Party must go. Please do not misunderstand me Mitt Romney is a magnanimous and patriotic man, who would have made a great President. During the Republican nomination process Mitt was declared as "the only electable candidate." The same was said about Mc Cain in 2008, who lost, Bush in 2000, who won by less than 1000 votes, Dole before him who lost. The philosophy which has lead to narrow victories and losses is that moderates are the most likely winners of elections and they win by appealing to moderates. In others words, say nothing or do nothing that is controversial. People will rally in droves, they believe, to politicians who offer them the status quo. One would think the losses or narrow recent Republican victoirous Presidential elections would lead one to question the premises upon which they had been built, since they have only resulted in failures or narrow victories. The reason these premises have remained unquestioned for so many years is fear.
In the last two landslide mid term elections within 4 years where the conservative base has delivered formidable historic once in a century victories for Republicans in both Congress and the state houses. How can a reasonable person conclude that conservatives and TEA party people are hurting the party? When people focus on polls and research they draw the conclusion that gramma will never use email, or that the country will vote against people just because they are uncivil. It makes as much since as saying a visiting football team can't defeat the home team if the crowd is cheering against them. It's how you play the game or market the product or campaign that determines winners not the machinations of public opinion. Leaders change opinion.They persuade.
I am now convinced that our republic can only be saved if conservatives abandon ship. The Republican party no longer stands in opposition to the socialist agenda of the Democratic party. They have completely embraced it. Electing them is just destroying our liberty gradually. Now I understand what many conservatives are going to say. We've got to stay with the Republican party. It's the alternative, albeit a bad one. I used to argue that myself but after last week, though I can no longer continue. Some in the Republican leadership are trying to sell the lie that we need to gain the White House in 2016 before something can be done. If recent history is any proof that is as big a lie as "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." I don't like my party, therefore, why should I be forced to stick with it. The last time the Republicans had control of both houses they spurned conservatism and passed the largest entitlement since the Great Society, and very nearly passed amnesty.
I have worked or advocated for Republicans on local state and national level in every election since 1972. I and my ilk have been maligned and spurned by the party for 40 years. Instead of embracing the conservative victories of 1980, 1984, 1982 2000, 2004, 2010 and 2014 the Republican leadership maligns and disenfranchises the very people responsible for their victory. How can a party survive if it wins the largest electoral landslide in a century twice, then shuns the voters responsible for it? Instead of celebrating and embracing their victory the Republicans are passionately embracing the destructive, the dysfunctional and the losers?
Am I being extreme? Look at the recent electoral history. Primary rules were changed in the 2012 primaries and at the state caucuses and state and national conventions to control the agenda and exclude conservatives specifically to prevent Gingrich, Santorum or Cain from getting the nomination. The Republican national committee ran ads in opposition to Santorum, Gingrich and Cain in the primaries, because they were viewed as pariah. In 2010, and 12 despite an overwhelming victory in house and senate and state houses Republican leaders wrung their hands over a few public losses, rather than congratulating and celebrating the greatest electoral success in a generation. In 2014 they had no unexpected losses. but the the NRC ran ads to defeat the most conservative candidates, so they could be sure that the very policies and programs they were going to be elected to advance would fail. They act like a wide receiver who caught a difficult pass then ran 90 yards down the field, only to cross the other teams goal line and then says "Give me the ball again; I;ll run the right direction next time." The guy should be benched! The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that Republican leadership understand they must advocate conservative principles to win their base and win election, but believe those principles to be red herrings. The party leadership is actually liberal. They actually favor socialized medicine and amnesty. They opposed conservative agenda deeming candidates who would actually vote that way as unelectable, which is simply code for undesirable. Instead of embracing conservatives as constituents who sent them to office, they ignore them. Being a conservative at a Republican event is like being the third cousin who shows up for Thanksgiving dinner; the conversation is awkward as long as you are there. No one can really say what they think of your side of the family.
The Republican leadership embraces liberalism because they have a false view of history. I recently heard Republican establishment professor, Larry Sabato, who reminds me of Joe Biden in that his predictions are always wrong, state that Ronald Reagan left the party weaker than when he came in because of the party lost seats in both midterm elections. Really, Mr Sabato! Do you really believe that is the lesson of history? Mr Reagan was the first President in 150 years to have his Vice President elected to succeed him. Bush, lost re-election, because he abandoned Reagan's conservative principles of reducing taxes to bring economic growth. The Republican's who lost seats in the midterms in Reagan years were the moderates who were never comfortable with Reagan. Reagan economic and foreign policy successes created a climate for the conservative leadership to take over the House in 1994 and empowered the Contract with America conservatives to reign in a liberal President's agenda.When they fought hard for a conservative vision of liberty and responsibility they eventually won. Democracy dies where there is no vociferous debate.
American democracy thrives on vociferous debate. It was the assertion of minority views and the willingness to debate the issues in the public square that brought about the compromises and bipartisanship of the 90's. Those who would advocate we need civility and acquiescence must realize compromise and bipartisanship cannot exist without two dichotomous position beings asserted as the starting point of the debate. Compromise is essential to a republic but compromise is not capitulation. Civility is an enemy of liberty.
Party leadership seems to be afraid of the fight. They treat Conservatives as as distant relatives to put up with at dinner. After the Clinton years Gingrich, so many Republicans chose appeasement rather than risking the fight with democrats and the media. Seeing the destruction of lives and reputations that the Democratic Party traffics leaves some politicians unwilling to risk what they may have to lose to defend their principles. Democrats have never practiced civility or bipartisanship They engage in all out assault on conservatives. Remember the nuclear exploding daisy in the 60's or the Paul-Ryan-look-like throwing grandmother off a cliff. They seek not only to win their offices but to destroy their lives, families and reputations of their opponents. Once politicians are in office many Republicans are afraid to risk becoming collateral damage in the fight. They think with more Republicans in office the battle will get easier. It will never get easier. The enemy will never give up, and they will never play nice or by the rules, which is why civility in politics fails. But, it is now obvious the Republican party has proved they will never learn and will not embrace tough conservative politics. I am left with one conclusion. There is no place for conservatism in either of the American political parties. Conservatives need to abandon ship let the Republican party fade away into oblivion and start a new party built on conservative principles.
I am not talking about a third party. I am talking about shutting off the life support to a dying family member. The conservative base has continued the support of a dying Republican party for the past fifty years. I say. Let it die. Abandon the sinking ship. For that matter euthanize it. This is hard for me to say. I have had the experience of shutting off life support to a family member. It is not easy. I am a lifelong Republican. I love the heroes of the Republican Party. Heck, I even liked Nixon. For years the Republican party embraced both liberals and conservatives. Richard Nixon campaigned incessantly for Barry Goldwater. Mark Hatfield embraced Reagan. After his confirmation to be Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was asked why he a life long liberal had remained a Republican. He said, Republicans were both conservative and liberals committed to fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense, and democrats were committed to neither. Liberal or conservative Republicans have united around liberty, fiscal and moral responsibility, traditional family values and assertive leadership in the world. In the 21st Century the Republican Party has jettisoned everyone of its principles to take the easy road, to be nice, to avoid the fight. When an organization abandons its mission it goes the way of Univac business machines, Kodak or Polaroid cameras, IBM typewriters, Curtis Mathis Television or American Motors. The Party is brain dead. It's time to shut down the machine that is keeping it alive.
It's time for a new American Conservative party.Here's what I think needs to happen. It can not happen from the outside. If an outsider like Sarah Palin, Mark Levin or Ben Carson attempted to run for President under the name of something other than Republican it would simply be seen as a third party bid. Third parties don't win Presidential elections. The most popular President in American History, Theodore Roosevelt, ran for a third, non-consecutive term, as a third party candidate and lost. I can describe in two words why a 3d party candidate cannot win: electoral college. However a a mass abandonment of Republican Party could turn into a new party.
If prominent Senate and House conservative caucuses joined together as one caucus and put up alternative officers when the new congress convenes , refused to vote for the party leadership unless they were guaranteed conservative legislative agenda. Having the leadership and chairmanship make no difference, if that leadership embraces the other sides agenda. Conservatives lose with moderates in leadership. We only win if we win.If the leadership refuses to advance a conservative agenda, the people have a right to know. Leadership must either enact conservative legislation or get out of the way.
Conservative office holders should hold an alternate convention if rules are used to prevent conservatives from effecting the platform or caucusing. . Against the rules you say. In the last primaries the leadership changed the rules saying, they were a private club, they could do what they want. So why can't the members. These actions would force the leadership to show their hand. They would either have to go along with the conservatives or join the democrats. I believe most would swallow hard and join the conservatives, because most had been elect by constituents who thought they were conservative. I am sure we would lose some committed moderates to the democratic party, which would reveal who they were anyway.
Second, as risky as it seems Republicans who run in primaries should refuse to support candidates, incumbent or otherwise, who are financed by the national republican committee should they lose to them. The Republican committee should not chose winners, the electorate should. They should stay out of primaries. Of course, that would mean the democrat would probably win. When a Republican only advance the democratic agenda, whose the winner then. Not the Republicans. While some might consider this a violation of party loyalty isn't the disloyal person the person who abandons the principles on which the party was founded and which wins elections. In cases where moderate candidates win , where the party has not sought to designate a winner in advance they should support the winners. When the people speak we listen; when the party pours in money, we refuse to be bought.
Third, the legislators in predominantly conservative states should adopt laws defining when and how caucus and convention rules can be changed, so that last minute sell out of conservatives would be illegal. Conservative office holders should have organization in place to hold alternate caucuses and conventions should they be shut out. In other words, if the party is determined to nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Cristie conservative should hold an alternate convention and nominate a conservative. In such a scenario the Republican Party would be denuded. Bush and Cristie would be the third party candidates and would have to decide whether to hold firm to their liberal agenda or to embrace the people's candidate. While there is no guarantee that such a scenario would win the 2016 election, it would provide a viable opposition to whomever was nominated by the democratic party. While being in the opposition is not as desirable as winning. A true opposition party that is willing to say no, and do battle can prevent the other side from accomplishing much of their agenda.
I'm tired of conservatism being the elephant in the room. I'm tired of being seen as the dysfunctional third cousin I want more than a place at the table. I want to be included in the discussion. It is time to recognize that the Republican leadership will never give in. The ship is on a collision course with destiny It's time to abandon the Republican ship. The only hope for a conservative agenda is to abandon the Republicanship and get on a new state of the art ship. A new conservative party. Let Freedom Reign.
Comments
Post a Comment