Am I the only one . . .

#1
jamesd1628

jamesd1628

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
1,830
Likes
238
#1
. . . who thinks the Republican party has failed its base once again? Forgive me if I'm rehashing old news, but I can't help it. How long did the so-called conservatives have control of both Congress and the Presidency? 12 years? 16 years? And what do we have to show for it? F-ing nothing. And now, the best the party can muster as a candidate is John McCain? That is a complete failure as a party. What the he!! happened? Idiots. :banghead2:

If Ron Paul wasn't such an @$$candy on the war on terrorism (and such a weirdo), I'd be forced to vote for him. No who am I supposed to vote for?
 
#2
#2
conservatives had control of Congress for about two years, 1994-1996. Once the Democrats and Rinos succeeded in kicking Newt Gingrich out, whatever was left of the Conservative movement in Congress was relegated to a very small, and not very vocal minority.
 
#3
#3
There is not a true conservative in this race. What is more dangerous a wolf in sheeps clothing trying to act conservative, or maverick McCain who is willing to stand on his moderate record?

I am tired of the so called conservatives in the Republican party complaining. Political movements run in cycles. Suck it up. Reagan is dead.

Did it ever occur to anyone that Hannity, Rush and crew will see their ratings soar if Hillary or Obama is elected?
 
#4
#4
jamesd1628 said:
. . . who thinks the Republican party has failed its base once again? Forgive me if I'm rehashing old news, but I can't help it. How long did the so-called conservatives have control of both Congress and the Presidency? 12 years? 16 years? And what do we have to show for it? F-ing nothing. And now, the best the party can muster as a candidate is John McCain? That is a complete failure as a party. What the he!! happened? Idiots. :banghead2:

If Ron Paul wasn't such an @$$candy on the war on terrorism (and such a weirdo), I'd be forced to vote for him. No who am I supposed to vote for?
Click to expand...
He wasn't a candy@ss on the war. Just wanted war performed in a Constitutional manner (Congress declaring war) and he felt we should have also used these tactics...

Letter of marque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But either way, my feeling is this. I didn't choose Paul based on my disdain for the war like some people have (I supported the war, btw, but thought it was improperly executed under Rummy). My major issues were returning to fiscal responsibility, upholding the Constitution, the Mexican border, amending our tax system, and bringing back freedom. What good does it do for us to try to save people in the Middle East that don't want to be saved when we are loosing our rights and freedoms over here in the process? We're liberating Iraq and not securing our border here (an easy pathway for terrorists) and simultaneously letting lawbreaking aliens enter our country. Then, we are seeing our Republic collapse due to crafty monetary policy, runaway spending, runaway taxes, and the increase of collectivist/Marxist ideaology. Most of the other candidates (Romney, Huck, McCain, or Rudy) would not have pushed us in the right direction on any of these goals. Fred would have been a step in the right direction, but he didn't want it. Tancredo and Hunter would have been better alternatives and more conservative than McCain. Yet it is ironic that the most conservative candidates (Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, and Fred) are out and we are left with this crap in Huck and McCain.

If you GOP voters that are complaining would be honest with yourselves, you would look in the mirror, as well and blame yourselves. Instead of voting for candidates that had at least some of the conservative principles that they ran on in 1994, you settled for the "safe" moderate in McCain and Huck...

I blame the GOP in Congress and the GOP electorate for the mess we have right now.

I don't want to hear anymore crying about having to select between these two guys. You all made the bed, now you lie in it. I'll sit this one out and hope Hillary doesn't take our voting rights away by 2012 and wait for the next group of canadidates in the GOP...
 
#5
#5
I still don't buy Paul's Letters of Marque and Reprisal gibberish. Sure, it's a good idea to empower private citizens to hunt down and kill our enemies.
 
#6
#6
My stance can be summed up quite easily...

Politicians - Shenanigans

Politics - Simulated Chess


structure.jpg
 
#7
#7
Lexvol said:
There is not a true conservative in this race. What is more dangerous a wolf in sheeps clothing trying to act conservative, or maverick McCain who is willing to stand on his moderate record?

I am tired of the so called conservatives in the Republican party complaining. Political movements run in cycles. Suck it up. Reagan is dead.

Did it ever occur to anyone that Hannity, Rush and crew will see their ratings soar if Hillary or Obama is elected?
Click to expand...

Reagan is dead, not conservatism... I'm not going to give up my values because RINO's have taken over, nor do I think that's whining... McCain is a lot of things, but a "maverick"? Hardly.

And talk show hosts ratings will go up? Well, hell what am I complaining about? That fixes everything! The reason "we" are complaining is there isn't a whole lot of difference between McCain and Hillary or Obama on a lot of key issues.
 
#9
#9
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you GOP voters that are complaining would be honest with yourselves, you would look in the mirror, as well and blame yourselves. Instead of voting for candidates that had at least some of the conservative principles that they ran on in 1994, you settled for the "safe" moderate in McCain and Huck...

I blame the GOP in Congress and the GOP electorate for the mess we have right now.

I don't want to hear anymore crying about having to select between these two guys. You all made the bed, now you lie in it. I'll sit this one out and hope Hillary doesn't take our voting rights away by 2012 and wait for the next group of canadidates in the GOP...
Click to expand...



That's as crazy as your candidate... how is this my fault? The party got splintered into 3 groups, and the only conservative that ran acted like he didn't give a rat's ass. If they would have a separate party for the actual conservatives, I would join in a heartbeat.


If nothing else, we all need to realize that history is being made before our eyes.. let's see which direction it goes. I hope for the best, but to be honest, I'm worried.
 
#10
#10
It won't matter much come this fall, I think Obama will win the general election and the democrats will have control of both the house and senate again. The republicans have let everyone down.
 
#11
#11
volsforever27 said:
Reagan is dead, not conservatism... I'm not going to give up my values because RINO's have taken over, nor do I think that's whining... McCain is a lot of things, but a "maverick"? Hardly.

And talk show hosts ratings will go up? Well, hell what am I complaining about? That fixes everything! The reason "we" are complaining is there isn't a whole lot of difference between McCain and Hillary or Obama on a lot of key issues.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is not dead and it won't die, but it is in a downward cycle. Hence the lack of a conservative candidates left on the ballot.

Maverick is widely used to describe McCain because of his "compormises" with the Dems.

My point about talk radio is this. Anyone ever think that these pundits who claim to be on the air for america are really there to make a buck? A Dem pres=windfall.

Finally, I am beginning to think that evangelical christian's blind GOP and "conservative" leanings are exactly like the relationship that blacks have with the Dems. All you have to do is a little Christian talk and they are in line at the ballot box.
 
#12
#12
Lexvol said:
Conservatism is not dead and it won't die, but it is in a downward cycle. Hence the lack of a conservative candidates left on the ballot.

Maverick is widely used to describe McCain because of his "compormises" with the Dems.

My point about talk radio is this. Anyone ever think that these pundits who claim to be on the air for america are really there to make a buck? A Dem pres=windfall.

Finally, I am beginning to think that evangelical christian's blind GOP and "conservative" leanings are exactly like the relationship that blacks have with the Dems. All you have to do is a little Christian talk and they are in line at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

They pick their "issue" and follow blindly instead of looking at each candidate comparing each issue by issue and then deciding based on that evaluation. This goes for evangelicals and minorities. My two candidates were out long ago. Now I would have to compromise my beliefs no matter which party I turn too.
 
#13
#13
KB5252 said:
They pick their "issue" and follow blindly instead of looking at each candidate comparing each issue by issue and then deciding based on that evaluation. This goes for evangelicals and minorities. My two candidates were out long ago. Now I would have to compromise my beliefs no matter which party I turn too.
Click to expand...

If you are more than a one issue voter, which I am, you have had to compromise for the last several elections. It is ok. It is the way that politics works historically.
 
#14
#14
I can't help but believe that Bush killed the chances of any conservative this election cycle - thus why you didn't even see anyone trying. I understand that many of you feel that Bush wasn't conservative enough - but that doesn't really matter. You are conservative and you can tell the difference. Everyone left of moderate Republican (including the huge independent population) would not vote for a true conservative candidate after 8 years of Bush, IMO. I'm not shocked that no one really wasted their time....
 
#15
#15
TennTradition said:
I can't help but believe that Bush killed the chances of any conservative this election cycle - thus why you didn't even see anyone trying. I understand that many of you feel that Bush wasn't conservative enough - but that doesn't really matter. You are conservative and you can tell the difference. Everyone left of moderate Republican (including the huge independent population) would not vote for a true conservative candidate after 8 years of Bush, IMO. I'm not shocked that no one really wasted their time....
Click to expand...

He certainly is a factor. How did he do it? By fooling the conservative evangelicals!
 
#16
#16
I love how all these "easy to respond to" political threads get so overblown with in depth analysis on every candidate and their political/social/moral/personal views. It is crazy how many experts are out there.

I'll just answer the question for you James. The Republicans droped the ball and now this is the best they can come up with. I am just as frustrated/surprised/dissappointed as you.
 
#17
#17
the general perception of Bush as a hardcore conservative, albeit a huge misconception, has doomed any true conservative candidate for some time to come. blaming the party is absurd. it's little more than a body of staunch, to the point of stupid, Republicans. Bush was elected, twice, and proceeded to spend money like a trailer resident on payday. end of story conservatives.
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
the general perception of Bush as a hardcore conservative, albeit a huge misconception, has doomed any true conservative candidate for some time to come. blaming the party is absurd. it's little more than a body of staunch, to the point of stupid, Republicans. Bush was elected, twice, and proceeded to spend money like a trailer resident on payday. end of story conservatives.
Click to expand...

No question, Bush has become a damn idiot. He lost his supposedly conservative leanings on about day 2 of his presidency. Ungodly spending, increases in handouts, stance on immigration, etc. He's a moron. The only thing he has arguably done right (after much feeling about in the dark) is fight terrorism. At the very least, he is making an effort on that front. Wait, am I writing about Bush or McCain?
 
#19
#19
Whose to say what the "base" of the Republican party is?

Reagan gets thrown in as the exemplar but he was quite moderate (dare I say liberal) on immigration. His Supreme Court nominees were hardly strict constructionalists.

Conservatism has many facets - Huckabee is viewed as more conservative but he is on social issues but not necessarily on economic issues. Listen to his comments and at times he channels John Edwards.

McCain has as strong a overall conservative voting rating over his career as just about anyone.

In short, McCain as abandoning the "base" - I don't think there is a base.
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
Whose to say what the "base" of the Republican party is?

Reagan gets thrown in as the exemplar but he was quite moderate (dare I say liberal) on immigration. His Supreme Court nominees were hardly strict constructionalists.

Conservatism has many facets - Huckabee is viewed as more conservative but he is on social issues but not necessarily on economic issues. Listen to his comments and at times he channels John Edwards.

McCain has as strong a overall conservative voting rating over his career as just about anyone.

In short, McCain as abandoning the "base" - I don't think there is a base.
Click to expand...

I disagree... conservatives have been the "base"... the problem is there's no one for conservatives to point to as a leader... so you get what happened so far this election... a lot of people floating around not sure who to vote for. Liberals will not tolerate many so called moderates in their party... when you check in with the moveon.org's of the party on a regular basis (i.e. Pelosi, Reid) you don't have room for moderates. Republicans will take anyone with a R beside their name, and now the party is paying the price IMO. Plus, the ones who ran as conservatives seem to change when they get to D.C.
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
Whose to say what the "base" of the Republican party is?

Reagan gets thrown in as the exemplar but he was quite moderate (dare I say liberal) on immigration. His Supreme Court nominees were hardly strict constructionalists.

Conservatism has many facets - Huckabee is viewed as more conservative but he is on social issues but not necessarily on economic issues. Listen to his comments and at times he channels John Edwards.

McCain has as strong a overall conservative voting rating over his career as just about anyone.

In short, McCain as abandoning the "base" - I don't think there is a base.
Click to expand...
my point, but you said it much better.

Blaming the party makes no sense. The party is nothing but a collection of Republicans, all with somewhat differing opinions and beliefs.

The idea that there is this homgenous horde out there that makes decisions for the party is just wrong. The candidates that make it are the ones who sway the most popular votes at the time they're running. The party is doing nothing except picking the least of all the evils available.
 
#22
#22
volsforever27 said:
I disagree... conservatives have been the "base"... the problem is there's no one for conservatives to point to as a leader... so you get what happened so far this election... a lot of people floating around not sure who to vote for. Liberals will not tolerate many so called moderates in their party... when you check in with the moveon.org's of the party on a regular basis (i.e. Pelosi, Reid) you don't have room for moderates. Republicans will take anyone with a R beside their name, and now the party is paying the price IMO. Plus, the ones who ran as conservatives seem to change when they get to D.C.
Click to expand...

My point is that conservatism is too broad a term - when you say conservatives are the base that includes people that espouse very different views of conservatism. I'm fiscally conservative and favor a strong international stand. I'm not in anyway socially conservative though. I see Huckabee as a social conservative but by no means fiscally conservative. So who is more conservative?

As I pointed out - Reagan gets held out as a conservative god but he was moderate to liberal (if McCain is liberal) on many core issues. He appealed to many democrats and they helped him win - they certainly aren't the base.

Romney certainly wasn't a hardcore social conservative. He had some from of mandated health insurance in his state - certainly not a conservative position on that issue.

I simply do not believe in the idea of a base as a monolithic group of people.
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
My point is that conservatism is too broad a term - when you say conservatives are the base that includes people that espouse very different views of conservatism. I'm fiscally conservative and favor a strong international stand. I'm not in anyway socially conservative though. I see Huckabee as a social conservative but by no means fiscally conservative. So who is more conservative?

As I pointed out - Reagan gets held out as a conservative god but he was moderate to liberal (if McCain is liberal) on many core issues. He appealed to many democrats and they helped him win - they certainly aren't the base.

Romney certainly wasn't a hardcore social conservative. He had some from of mandated health insurance in his state - certainly not a conservative position on that issue.

I simply do not believe in the idea of a base as a monolithic group of people.
Click to expand...



I get what you're saying but if you're talking about actual conservatives, it's not that hard to sum up... low taxes, less government, strong military, pro life, pro guns, judges, etc.... now do we expect every politician to meet every criteria? No, but we do expect more than we're getting from the likes of McCain, Graham etc. And while Reagan was in no way perfect, he was a great conservative leader, and comparing him to McCain is way off base.

What makes conservatives mad is McCain gives the party the finger on a regular basis, and makes no bones about it, but now he wants our vote.
 
#24
#24
volsforever27 said:
I get what you're saying but if you're talking about actual conservatives, it's not that hard to sum up... low taxes, less government, strong military, pro life, pro guns, judges, etc.... now do we expect every politician to meet every criteria? No, but we do expect more than we're getting from the likes of McCain, Graham etc. And while Reagan was in no way perfect, he was a great conservative leader, and comparing him to McCain is way off base.

What makes conservatives mad is McCain gives the party the finger on a regular basis, and makes no bones about it, but now he wants our vote.
Click to expand...
fair enough. he doesn't meet enough of your criteria, especially on the social and immigration fronts, so now you can ease your conscience and vote for Obama in November. At least then you'll have no doubt what you're president might think about an issue.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
fair enough. he doesn't meet enough of your criteria, especially on the social and immigration fronts, so now you can ease your conscience and vote for Obama in November. At least then you'll have no doubt what you're president might think about an issue.
Click to expand...

Oh wow you got me, I'll just forget everything I stand for when I enter the booth right? Just because he wins the nomination has no bearing on my opinion of him one way or the other, and for you to suggest I shouldn't express it is ridiculous.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top