Why Gingrich Could Win

I keep hearing people talking about Conservatives who threaten to “sit out the election”, where exactly are these Conservatives?

I have not missed an election local or national since I turned 18, that was 28 years ago.

I do not know a single Conservative who would “stay home” because 1 office does not have a viable candidate to vote for, considering all the references to these mysterious Conservatives I wonder if anyone can name one?

I will vote for every single issue and office on the ballot in every election regardless of whether the GOP puts up a candidate that I can vote for or not. I live in California so offices that do not have a palatable option for Conservatives are quite common, I simply write in a candidate (dead or alive) that will let my State GOP know I refuse to vote for extremist liberals anymore. I also send them a letter via snail mail each time to let them know why my vote will not be reliable if they push Liberal candidates.

I am sick of the RINO premise that “Conservatives will have to hold their nose and accommodate us”, from now on the RINO’s will have to “hold their nose and accommodate Conservatives” or they can accept permanent minority status.

I am tired of voting and losing whether the candidate I chose wins or not.

Sitting out the election RET means sitting out the PRESIDENTIAL election and giving it to Obama. I’ve stated many times that I will hold my nose and vote for a Soc-Con if that is our nominee. I would expect So-Cons to do the same if Romney or Gingrich is the nominee. Anyone who doesn’t is as Sway says…“Terminally Obtuse”

And what Conservative on this forum or anywhere else has said they would “sit out” the Presidential election under any circumstances?

I am fully aware that the RINO’s will not hesitate to vote for a Conservative candidate because RINO’s have no political soul, the Conservatives have been asked to do this in violation of everything we believe since Dole and every time we do the promised “moderate vote” never materializes.

We just get to watch our Nation head further down the Statist toilet.

RINO’s were giddy over McCain because he did not “scare the moderates with Christianity” and had a “good relationship history with Demoncrat’s”. He also got fewer votes than any GOP candidate not in a 3 way race since the 1940’s.

The GOP will either become a legitimate alternative to the Demoncrat Party or a new Party will be formed that will assume that mantle. Those of us that are in our 3rd decade of having this compromise crap shoved down our throat have had enough.

I won’t sit out the election but I stand a good chance of voting 3rd party.
I know the argument.
You will elect Obama again.
Straw argument.
Don’t buy it and I’m tired of holding my nose.

It’s the resonsibility of other voters to do the right thing.
Their failing to be responsible is not my fault.

Excuse me for asserting that, in a republic, it is your fault. You’d not only be fully justified and correct to do as you say, were we operating under a parliamentary system, but we’re not. Under such systems, your third party candidate would then become a potential part of a ruling coalition, hopefully. In a republic, you have the choice between one party or the other, and a third party vote invariably weakens the vote for the party most similar to the third party in ambitions. You might as well sit home.

It is mere hubris to think that voting third party is the making of a statement, other than within the voter’s own mind. There is, and never will be, a third party candidate who has ever had an effect on the party closest to his beliefs going forward. Ross Perot changed nothing in the Republican party, no differently than John Anderson did the Democrat party. Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t carry it off. In a republic, third party election losers get ignored and are rarely heard from again. Political parties, within a republic, effect change from within.

You don’t have to like the argument. And, I certainly identify strongly with the displeasure, if not anger, of having to hold one’s nose. But, in actuality, it’s not even an argument; it’s reality. And I’m sure you know what they say about that gal, reality. (g)

I know the third party attraction and thinking. But, there ain’t gonna be no revolution, no matter what the boys down to the coffee shop say. To paraphrase Churchill, the American people will inevitably do the right thing, but only after they’ve exhausted all other options. And so, we wait, and we vote…for the best candidate capable of winning.

Ross Perot was in NO WAY a Conservative champion, the votes he gleaned were the “Moderates” or as I like to call them “The people who are naive and too lazy to invest enough time to pick a side”.

Lincoln was the last clear, principled alternative “3rd Party choice” who embraced mostly ideas that the populace respected but that were lacking in the established Parties.

In the GOP the Conservatives probably make up a good 75 percent of the Party, in the general population the Conservative agenda polls over 50 percent support across the board.

The GOP has baggage that prevents the populace from trusting us to actually act in accordance with the things we claim at election time precisely because we coddle the 25 percent of our Party that embraces the RINO position.

This was the condition when the Republican Party was originally formed as a group and their embrace of those majority positions propelled the GOP to success in a short time.

If Conservatives actually take a stand this would occur again today, there are far more of us than there are “Demoncrat Lite” members. The strategy of coddling this RINO minority prevents “Blue Dog” Demoncrat’s from taking us seriously and clouds the differences between the two Parties driving philosophies, Conservatism versus Socialism.

I think the GOP knows darn good and well that this is true, that is why ALL the candidates try so hard to convince us that they are “true Conservatives” in every Primary and every general election. That is also why Demoncrat’s try so hard to convince voters that they ARE NOT Leftist’s in every election.

If a genuine Conservative Party arose (embracing all these commonly known popular Conservative positions) it would attract the current GOP Conservatives and many of the “Moderates” and “Blue Dog Democrat’s” that agree with these ideas but have no capacity for respect when it comes to the GOP.

We have destroyed the movement that Reagan started, the “Reagan Democrat’s” are still out there (meaning Conservatives who are not GOP members) but the GOP has lost almost all of its credibility as a Party that champions Conservative ideas.

Picking and electing another RINO will do NOTHING to correct our current course and probably be the last nail in the coffin for the GOP as far as Americans in general are concerned.

It may be true that voting for a clear Conservative third option will not effect the GOP hierarchy’s thinking or actions at all. It is false however to claim that such a concept cannot translate into a genuinely viable Party that is founded on the Conservative principles that most Americans embrace and end up leaving the Socialist’s to coalesce within the Demoncrat Party.

That is all I want, a CLEAR ALTERNATIVE to the Demoncrat’s philosophy.
Not a watered down version of the Demoncrat’s philosophy.
Not a slower version of the Demoncrat’s philosophy.
Not a cheaper version of the Demoncrat’s philosophy.

I want an ALTERNATIVE to the Demoncrat’s philosophy.

I have been hearing this minority in the GOP play the "hey, were not quite as bad as that guy so hold your nose and vote for us or you will be handing (enter evil Liberal candidate here) the election" card for 3 decades.

Can anyone make the case that the GOP has a better reputation today as a home for Conservative thought than we had 3 decades ago? If so I would like to hear this argument.

All we have accomplished with our efforts to resurrect the “Blue Bloods” as our defining leaders is cause many Americans to conclude that there is no appreciable difference between the GOP and The Jackass Party.

I will not help the GOP in this destructive agenda any longer, if Conservatism is so distasteful to GOP leaders then why on earth would I want to support them?

[quote=“Sway, post:25, topic:32459”]
It is mere hubris to think that voting third party is the making of a statement, other than within the voter’s own mind. There is, and never will be, a third party candidate who has ever had an effect on the party closest to his beliefs going forward. Ross Perot changed nothing in the Republican party, no differently than John Anderson did the Democrat party. Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t carry it off. In a republic, third party election losers get ignored and are rarely heard from again. Political parties, within a republic, effect change from within.
[/quote]Well said, my sentiments exactly.

I will consider Gingrich as my second choice. I am pleased he has become well aware of the Federal Reserve and Agenda 21.

RINO’s have no political soul

What arrogance. RINOs are more concerned about the future of this country than radicals like you are. Hell, you’d rather see this country suffer another four years of Obama than support someone who doesn’t share your peculiar prejudices.

“Moderates” or as I like to call them “The people who are naive and too lazy to invest enough time to pick a side”.

Bullspit. We’ve picked a side alright - we are steadfast against your brand of religious bigotry crapping on the civil rights of others and making a mockery of the party of Lincoln.

Erm, my Dad isn’t a moderate by any means, but he voted for Perot… He didn’t like GHWB as he felt he was taking the party back to the NE model. Which he did.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:29, topic:32459”]
What arrogance. RINOs are more concerned about the future of this country than radicals like you are. Hell, you’d rather see this country suffer another four years of Obama than support someone who doesn’t share your peculiar prejudices.

Bullspit. We’ve picked a side alright - we are steadfast against your brand of religious bigotry crapping on the civil rights of others and making a mockery of the party of Lincoln.
[/quote]Hogwash. RINOs are all about reelection. Just like the rest of the political spectrum. Picked a side? Yeah, the topside…of the fence you sit on. Appeasement is your ally, not conservatism.

My objection to your radicalism, Tiny, has nothing to do with “appeasement”, although I am fully aware that social “conservatism” is why so many independents fear and decline to support the GOP.

Conservatism means support for LIMITED government. Social “conservatism” is nothing of the sort - it is the radical use of the state to impose religious-based moral behavor on others.

Why are we limited to only 2 parties?

And why these 2?

It is becoming clearer to me that neither represent us

People fear and decline support for the GOP because they are as corrupt as Democrats. :yes:
Now, I want the whole forum to take notice of this. Jazzhead, I want you to back up that claim, that I want to impose my religious based morals, on you, or anyone. I have listened to your lies long enough. You show me where I have advocated Gooberment intrusion on anything. :no:
You wish the government to redefine marriage,to appease the gay community, to get their votes.
You support the government’s protecting the mother’s destruction of unborn life, while claiming to be pro-life.
You want the gooberment to keep religion on the “down low”.
You are the statist, not the SoCons. You are merely a prejudice Northerner, who hates the Country Folk of the South. You’d support ANYTHING that opposes social conservatism.

I hardly dislike the “country folk of the South”. I bet I have a better working knowledge of country music than you do. My sister lives in North Carolina and loves it there.

I have nothing against anyone who is socially conservative. I am socially conservative myself - I am rather boring, have few vices other than a good tumbler of bourbon, and have been married to the same woman for almost thirty-five years now. I object to the POLITICS of the social “conservative” movement, and that movement’s advocacy of government policies that contradict the kind of limited-government conservatism that I favor.

I say that I am pro-life because I am pro-life. However, unlike you, I believe the better approach is to use moral persuasion, and the use of alternatives such as adoption, rather than to criminalize abortion and throw women in jail. Why are you so afraid that moral persuasion cannot work? Why must you enlist the state to deprive women of their civil rights?

I AM a social conservative myself.
I strongly oppose gay marriage.
I strongly oppose drug and alcohol use.
I strongly support teaching the Bible.
Nobody can say I am not a social conservative.
But there are some differences I have with say, the mainstream social conservative movement.
I don’t believe the government should be involved with gay marriage, I also don’t believe it should be involved in marriage period. It should be returned to the churches to handle, the only legitimate marriage.
And with harmful substances, I believe criminalization makes problems worse and doesn’t address the key moral issues at hand.
When it comes to the Bible and schools, I do not want it to be taught. Because I would not trust a teacher to correctly teach the Bible to my children or other peoples children.

The part of religious involvement in government is tricky, and this is my position: Individuals who are part of the government should be able to say or believe whatever they want without being censored. As government policy, religion has no need to be involved. I do not need the government to decide what is the Christian thing that needs to be done, to decide if I am a Christian, etc.

Abortion is not a social issue. It is a rights issue. If a human life cannot be protected, with that being the main function of government, then government is failing.

We are not limited to two Party’s.

The reason these two Party’s have more success than any of the others is because the others either embrace deal breaker level positions with most people or are so focused on an individual issue that they cannot gain adherence from serious voters who understand the long term consequences of elections and the broad way that all issues connect to one another.

The Democrat Party platform Party Platform | Democrats.org embraces Socialism/Communism almost entirely, those who believe these concepts are superior align with Demoncrat’s in spite of some of their members not being entirely “on board” with the Demoncrat Platform.

The Republican Party Platform http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/ embraces Market Based solutions and A Strict Constructionist position on the U.S. Constitution for the most part, those who embrace these concepts align themselves with the GOP in spite of the fact that some members are not entirely “on board” with the GOP Platform.

The “Platforms” are the best indicator of where the majority of the Party’s members stand philosophically.

Conservatism is still most at home in the GOP using this gauge, the Conservatives beat out the RINO’s each time the Platform is renewed (although they have made some inroads)

For a third Party to excel it would have to Capitalize on one of these two Parties unwillingness to honor their Platform because these two Platforms do a pretty good job of articulating the positions of most voters.

Third Parties fail to do this, they usually embrace elements that are attractive to many voters but they also ignore many issues voters feel strongly about or that are opposite of what voters think would benefit America. Also, most Americans understand (even in our public school environment) that Presidents are not “Kings” and Congress operates on a majority rule system, they know that choosing a Candidate from a Party that has very little support Nationally just means that their Candidate will have to caucus with one of the two other Party’s to accomplish anything.

The problem is not that “Both Parties don’t get it”, these two Platforms reveal that the two primary philosophies of governance that oppose one another and that represent the opinions of most Americans are pretty well outlined and covered in the GOP and Democrat Party Platforms.

Third Party’s succeed when one of the Party’s is home to a very popular philosophy but refuses to honor that philosophy in practice. That is how the GOP came into existence and that may be how the GOP ends up on the scrap heap of history.

The two primary economic concepts (Socialism and Market Capitalism) are in direct conflict with one another, the same is true for the ideas surrounding the proper role of government (Statist/Nanny State versus Rugged Individualism/self reliance). In order for a Party to survive it MUST represent one side of these debates or the other because they are in complete conflict with each other.

When one or both Parties decide to mix and match the concepts too much in an effort to glean the votes of those who cannot make up their mind where they stand (as opposed to convincing them with a compelling argument to the Parties position) then the Party’s core members get angry and will eventually leave if the condition persists.

We are ripe for a genuine Conservative Party to rise, there is a clear majority of Americans who consistently poll in support of most all of the Conservative positions, these same polls show very little respect for the GOP amongst a clear majority of Americans.

**If a particular Party Platform and most of that same Parties members hold positions that are also inline with a Majority of Americans opinions on most issues but that SAME Party is the lowest ranked in popularity it is because that Party is *IGNORING ITS PLATFORM AND BASE. ***

I understand why RINO’s reject this explanation, they are on the side that has very little luck when the Platform is drafted and they are the ones who find themselves in the minority from their fellow members and the public on most issues.

But I do not understand how anyone else cannot see this. Every election the GOP Candidate fights to convince America that he is more Conservative than he really is and every Demoncrat tries to convince America that he is not the Leftist that his Party and record would indicate.

Demoncrat’s embrace their base in how they govern while claiming at election time that they don’t.
Republican’s ignore their base when governing while claiming at election time that they are “one of us”.

We do not need to “get along” or “find common ground”.
We need to pick a side, make our case to America and let them choose what philosophy will best serve America going forward.

The GOP would win this in a landslide if they honored their base but so far they have refused to do that. If this condition continues, a 3rd Party with widespread support is not only very possible it is likely.

This new Party will not be a current Party that has yet to “catch fire” because the people who make up political party base members already know what they believe, they are looking to coalesce with enough others to make what they believe happen.

It is the 15 or so percent who drift between philosophical ideas depending on who they heard speak the last that are the potential members of existing “3rd Parties”. These Parties rarely place their leaders in a position to be challenged on what they believe so they can win the adherence of the weak minded, but major Party base members will never embrace concepts that cannot stand up to a legitimate challenge.

It is wrong to use our current “niche” 3rd Party’s as a basis for thinking no 3rd Party will ever rise to prominence, history shows us that sooner or later the Parties that embrace well one of these opposing concepts will thrive.

Broadly speaking, as expressed by their respective party platforms, the GOP is socially conservative and economically conservative. The Dems, meanwhile, are socially liberal and economically liberal.

Based on the foregoing, neither party represents the considerable number of voters who are (i) socially liberal and (ii) economically conservative. This position is neither wishy-washy nor indicative of citizens without a “political soul”. To the contrary, it reflects the instincts of many who want the government out of BOTH the bedroom AND the boardroom. That is a coherent philosophy of LIMITED government that is betrayed both by the Dems’ socialism and the GOP’s social “conservatism”. It is the philosophy that, properly articulated, could be the foundation for a true third party that can win elections and attain political power on the basis of respect for individual LIBERTY.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:35, topic:32459”]
I hardly dislike the “country folk of the South”. I bet I have a better working knowledge of country music than you do. My sister lives in North Carolina and loves it there.

I have nothing against anyone who is socially conservative. I am socially conservative myself - I am rather boring, have few vices other than a good tumbler of bourbon, and have been married to the same woman for almost thirty-five years now. I object to the POLITICS of the social “conservative” movement, and that movement’s advocacy of government policies that contradict the kind of limited-government conservatism that I favor.

I say that I am pro-life because I am pro-life. However, unlike you, I believe the better approach is to use moral persuasion, and the use of alternatives such as adoption, rather than to criminalize abortion and throw women in jail. Why are you so afraid that moral persuasion cannot work? Why must you enlist the state to deprive women of their civil rights?
[/quote]You have a perverse opinion of what “Southern”, means.
My Dad was a Country Music DJ. I was in a Country Radio station at age 9. I worked for some Country artists, as a bodyguard. I like Bluegrass, since most modern country, is Rock or Blues.
Why not come on down and let’s go fishing. We could hunt up some grub. When was the last time you went to a pig pickin’, and how strong was your last shot of corn squeezin’s. Been to a Barn Raisin? Ever Square Dance? I have,and I was born in San Diego. But,unlike you, I love the South,and the people who live here. You referred to us as Rednecks.
You are not pro life. You are not for the life of the child. Heck, you won’t watch “Silent Scream”. You believe in a mother’s choice, before you believe in the life of the child. Indisputable, since you, yourself, said it.
You are not a Social Conservative. You insult SoCons, with vigor. You are mostly like a Democrat. You claim untrue positions, and fight to win votes, instead of doing the “right” thing, and you are more about Party than position. In fact,you are my Social Barometer. I look at what you believe, and do the opposite.
*Do you believe that abortion is murder?
*Should murder be prosecuted?
If you answer “NO” to either question, you cannot be pro life.

*Do you want the Government to redefine marriage?
*Do you believe in Gay Marriage?
If you answer “YES”, you are not Socially Conservative.
I can refute you, all day long, but the pitiful thing is, that, no matter how well I spell it out, you deny it, and obfuscate.

You’re right, Tiny, I am not, POLITICALLY, a “Social Conservative”, as you define it. My morals are conservative, but where we differ is I do not seek to impose my morality, by force of law, on others. I will seek to persuade others, but unlike you within the context of a Constitution that guarantees individual liberty and self-determination to women as well as to men, to gays as well as to straights.

So who are your favorite country artists? Mine include such folks as Bob Wills (who’s still, as Waylon sang, the king), Jerry Jeff Walker, Doug Sahm, Merle Haggard, Moe Bandy and similar adherents to the old-time honky tonk sound, Hank Thompson and, of course, Hank Williams.