Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to me that in every election both parties pander to the Independents. Can't take this position or that position because it might upset the Independents. Can't do this or that - the Independents won't like it. Here's an idea. Let them start their own stinkin' party with their own wishy washy candidates. I suggest The Humpty Dumpty Party for people who sit on the wall. I don't want to hear anymore "We can't do that, we need the Independents' vote. They wouldn't like it." Why are we in the business of pleasing these people in both parties so that we compromise what we believe in and wind up with squishy half-as*ed laws that nobody wants?
I still think the Republican Party and the Democrat Party have outlived their usefulness and the two parties should go away and two new parties emerge as Conservative and Liberal so you know what you are supposed to be doing when you run for office and the voters know exactly what they are getting when they vote. That means no more RINOs and no more Blue Dogs. The RINOs can go to the Liberal Party and the Blue Dogs can go to the Conservative Party or they can join the Humpty Dumptys if they sway in the breeze.
Right now, the Republican northeast (which includes the news media, by the way) treats the Republican southeast like its ugly stepsister, preferring instead the arms of the Independents. Meanwhile, the big city Democrats (which includes the news media, by the way) are culling out their rural and lunch pail blue dogs preferring instead to court the Independents.
If I get another request for campaign donations from the party (as opposed to individual candidates), I'm going to write on it "Go ask the stinkin' Independents to cough up some dough since you are all about pleasing/wooing them," and mail it back to them.
That is why Ron Paul does the best when put head to head against Obama.
Take out the media establishment, biased status quo, and Ron Paul pulls votes from all demographics.
Extremists are the most insistent on orthodoxy. But ask yourself, in a "Liberal" party, how liberal is liberal enough? How conservative is conservative enough for a Conservative Party?
As a Virginia liberal, I'd probably have some differences with West Coast liberals, for instance. So am I not liberal?
May I suggest that rather than attempt to ignore moderates and independents from within the mainstream parties, you and your fellow "pure" and "genuine" conservatives branch off and form your own party. You could give it a name hearkening to tradition... like... The Tea Party. I'm certain it would have wild and lasting success!
This attitude and line of thinking..."let's just tell everyone who is not as extreme as we are to kiss off" is exactly what is wrong with the Repubican party today.
Here is an idea though, why not start your own party? You seem to be the minority, not those who like some balance.
Exactly, the Republicans can't win a national election with only the hard right conservative extremist voters. The GOP leadership also knows that people like the OP may rant and rave but come election time they will still vote straight ticket Republican. Conservative extremists are a captive audience for the GOP, it is only during the primaries and on talk radio that anybody acts like they actually care what they think.
The Center Holds. If anything the GOP, including Romney, is pandering to the Right Wing. That may play well in the Primaries, but not in the General Election. I am sure that Romney will eventually prevail, but his shift to the right will hurt him. Yes he has changed positions often, but he will have a tough time convincing voters to ignore what he said before the nomination.
Gallup does this little survey every month, as you can readily see. In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat or an Independent?
The latest results?
43% said they were Independents
29% said they were Democrats
27% said they were Republicans
This is something that didn't exist 32 years ago when Ronald Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter. The political landscape of America has changed dramatically over the past three decades and the two big parties have completely failed to keep up. You have two chances of victory come election day:
A.) Win the Independents over.
B.) You and your opponent somehow manage to get that overwhelming 43% of America to stay home and not vote on election day. (Good luck getting that to happen.)
Santorum is doomed in the general election because he cannot hope to appeal to the Independents. Gingrich is doomed for the same reason. Romney started out with a lot of appeal for Independents, but Gingrich and Santorum are doing their level best to destroy it completely in the now futile hope that they will surge ahead of Romney and win the nomination.
Paul still has tremendous Independent appeal, but that ship's been torpedoed, set on fire and sunk by the GOP faithful.
Bingo, dixiegirl7, "This attitude and line of thinking..."let's just tell everyone who is not as extreme as we are to kiss off" is exactly what is wrong with the Repubican party today. "
Joe Scarborough said it best, As a fiscal conservative, he hated RINOS at first, and grew to respect them immensely, for he realized, he would be in the MINORITY party w/o them, and his votes would not count.
All polls indicate about 190 electoral votes for each party safely locked almost every election. That leaves 160 and change deciding it all, and they are largely like MOST of America, purple states. That is one with large populations of red and blue offsetting each other ALMOST, as a swingable portion of red or blue decides those states.
Our founding fathers were not like the OP, It wasn't an AMEN corner; there were major disagreements, but like true adults, via compromise on the finer points, positions of importance evolved around consensus.
In contrast, about 80 years ago, a society of "purists" came to power, known for swastikas and goosesteps. Still want "purity", OP?
Wrong wrong wrong. We need to stop thinking about the PARTY and think about the country. Instead of blindly following a party and voting for a party for the simple reason that I am a member of that party we need to listen to the platform of the candidate.
What else is new
But he's considered a liberal now because of his non-incendiary rhetoric and Huntsmanesque moderate style. This is all in spite of the fact that he had easily one of the most staunchly conservative records of any House member.
Quote:
As a fiscal conservative, he hated RINOS at first, and grew to respect them immensely, for he realized, he would be in the MINORITY party w/o them, and his votes would not count.
I wish people would get that. A third party would arise if both parties didn't get it. But as long as we're in a world in which the Democrats get it and the GOP doesn't, we will be doomed to subpar electoral performances. We can still win in November, but it would be a breeze to run against Obama's record without any of this infighting over conservative purity. Do we need to wait until another strong Democratic year comes around to learn our lesson the hard way? I hope not.
As the conservative party, we need our candidate to be a Conservative. But we need a conservative in the mold of a Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Bob McDonnell, etc. Not a conservative like Santorum, Palin, Bachmann, etc.
tmsterp, I agree with you fully, and fear, it may take a few cycles of TP caused debacles to erase having the inmates (aka the TP) running the asylum. Since they reject math, they cannot recognize they are a minority in the smallest voting block of the 3 blocks (those not registered to party-1st (largest), Dems-2nd, GOP-3rd (smallest)). If they understood math, they would understand the GOP requires MORE support from those not registered as Republicans, than Dems require from those not registered as Democrats.
Don't fall off your high horse by calling me childish. I'm not impressed. I don't want independent voters in my proposed Conservative Party and I think the Liberals feel the same. We want to know what we are getting when we vote Liberal or Conservative. You guys that sway in the breeze can nominate your own candidates, and donate your own money,for the Humpty Dumpty Party ticket (or whatever you want to call yourselves) and be what you want to be.
Independents don't need their own party. They know that the Reps and Dems will always pander to them because it is the independent vote that decides elections. So why form your own party when you can usually get what you want from the Big Two.
It is registered Dems and Reps that get screwed because your parties take your vote for granted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
