Republicans Begin To Defect

[HeadlessRoland]

Rino's are rampant in Washington! It is like two wings of the same party. Where, oh where, are we gonna find the next Reagan? Does one even exist? Can the country be saved or are we well past the tipping point and resigned to our fate and the eventual collapse of this once great country? Moderates are not gonna cut it.

Reagan sold us out with the Illegal Amnesty and Hughes Amendment to FOPA.

 

[jbombelli]

Reagan sold us out with the Illegal Amnesty and Hughes Amendment to FOPA.

Rangel and the Democrats put the Hughes Amendment in the FOPA as a poison pill to defeat it. If Reagan didn't sign the bill, we wouldn't have everything else the FOPA actually did FOR us. Reagan was between a rock and a hard place - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. So he signed it. I don't blame Reagan for that. I blame the Democrats - if not for them and their anti-gun position the Hughes Amendment wouldn't have been in there at all.

And at the time, well all thought the Hughes Amendment would surely be challenged, and would surely be overturned and go down in flames. None of us thought it would ever be around after just a couple of years. And yet here we are.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It looks like the conservatives are more likely to just stay home than go elsewhere. At least that is what has been happening in recent history.

Why do you think that is?

Here's a couple of thoughts of what I'd think are possible reasons:

I bet is you asked the "average" likely voter out there, the vast majority wouldn't even be able to tell you the names of any 3rd party. So, name recognition is one of the problems whether you're a LPer, a Constitution Party, or Green Party supporter. At least the Green party selects "interesting" candidates. The LP has, at least recently, promoted yawners and odd-balls. So far, none of the 3rds have put up somebody to grab the attention and attract wide-spread support.

What do the other parties even stand for? Maybe it's just the news sources I choose to rely upon but the only 3rd parties I hear much about is the LP and the Greens. I think to many, that have even heard of them, the LP has marketed itself, not as a pro-constitution, small government party but a party that wants smaller government so people can smoke dope, abort babies, homosexual marriage, pro-illegal immigration, anti-religion, etc. that also wants to reduce taxes.

I don't know how many of these defectors I speak for but I'd like to see a mind your own business; taking responsibility is the key to reducing government interference and maximizing freedom; original intent of the Constitution is THE law; allow states to govern themselves; fiscally responsible party. I'm just not sure there is one out there.

 

[jamil]

No one really wants Ronnie back; they just want the deified version of him they've been worshipping for the past quarter century.





Virulent extremism doesn't qualify as a "new idea." Allowing the TP to further hijack the GOP is a surefire path to a stronger Democratic party. What the Republican party needs is a more moderate Republican party that takes a less hardline stance on losing social issues. The alternative is the alienation of young voters, which is ultimately a losing strategy.

"Virulent extremism" is just vitriolic spin and you know it.

I don't know your age, and I may be wrong about this as you may just be an old Carter lefty. But I suspect more that if you were around at all during the Reagan admin, you were probably still ****ting in your pants.

The nation has moved considerably to the left over the past decade, and especially the last 5 years, so if you've spent the majority of your adulthood in this century, while soaking up all that pop culture and 21st century education can teach you, I don't doubt that you'll find the tea party repugnant. I'll give you that the Tea Party has strayed from its original mission, but "virulent extremism" is flat out intellectually dishonest.

You're also wrong about what the Republican Party needs to win. They ran two moderates in the last two elections, unsuccessfully. They lost because conservative and libertarian minded people either voted 3rd party, or stayed home.

Republicans are at a crossroad and need to decide what they are. If they want to double down on moderate pussies like McCain, Boehner, McConnell, they will become irrelevant.

When did a movement based on smaller government and fewer taxes become associated with being all about social issues?

When? I'd say as the campaigning began for the 2012 elections, as candidates threw their pet social issues on the back of the Tea Party bandwagon. I'll throw in my support when it goes back to the "Taxed Enough Already" party.

 

[Jerchap2]

Rangel and the Democrats put the Hughes Amendment in the FOPA as a poison pill to defeat it. If Reagan didn't sign the bill, we wouldn't have everything else the FOPA actually did FOR us. Reagan was between a rock and a hard place - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. So he signed it. I don't blame Reagan for that. I blame the Democrats - if not for them and their anti-gun position the Hughes Amendment wouldn't have been in there at all.

And at the time, well all thought the Hughes Amendment would surely be challenged, and would surely be overturned and go down in flames. None of us thought it would ever be around after just a couple of years. And yet here we are.

Well said.

 

[jamil]

Rangel and the Democrats put the Hughes Amendment in the FOPA as a poison pill to defeat it. If Reagan didn't sign the bill, we wouldn't have everything else the FOPA actually did FOR us. Reagan was between a rock and a hard place - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. So he signed it. I don't blame Reagan for that. I blame the Democrats - if not for them and their anti-gun position the Hughes Amendment wouldn't have been in there at all.

And at the time, well all thought the Hughes Amendment would surely be challenged, and would surely be overturned and go down in flames. None of us thought it would ever be around after just a couple of years. And yet here we are.

+1 (vertual rep)

 

[MCgrease08]

Bull Moose party 2016

 

[hooky]

Bull Moose party 2016

We already a lot of what the Bull Moose party stood for in effect and most of the rest resides in the democratic party of today.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Rangel and the Democrats put the Hughes Amendment in the FOPA as a poison pill to defeat it. If Reagan didn't sign the bill, we wouldn't have everything else the FOPA actually did FOR us. Reagan was between a rock and a hard place - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. So he signed it. I don't blame Reagan for that. I blame the Democrats - if not for them and their anti-gun position the Hughes Amendment wouldn't have been in there at all.

And at the time, well all thought the Hughes Amendment would surely be challenged, and would surely be overturned and go down in flames. None of us thought it would ever be around after just a couple of years. And yet here we are.

Whoa, would not have expected this sort of tortuous backbending to defend such from you of all people. You know precisely how badly we got ****** with Hughes even if it did modify some of the GCA, I'd rather stick with the lesser of the two demons. I've written every single State and Congressional legislator in Indiana with the demand - not a plea, not a request, but a demand - that they repeal the NFA, GCA, and FOPA, and of the few who responded, every single one was a form statement. Not a single personalized response or rationale between the Statehouse or the Congress. They don't give two hells about us or our rights, whatsoever. Not a one. Not Jim Tomes. Not Marlin Stutzman. Not Dan Coats. No one cares. So let's not foist this off and say "Oh well, Reagan bla bla bla." He. Sold. Us. Out. Twice. Three times if you count the marginal tax rate hike. Bringing down the Berlin Wall and weakening the Soviet Union, sure, I'll give the man credit. Legalizing six million illegal immigrants? He gets credit for that too. Signing into law the prohibition for civilian ownership of fully-automatic weaponry manufactured after 05/19/1986? That's on him too. He could have vetoed and sent it back and in the light of day good luck getting enough votes to override it. Your response surprises me. Reagan was not a saint: he was simply less worse than his predecessors or post-cessors. (Don't think post-cessors is a word, but there we are.)

 

[indiucky]

I love to read revisionist history posts about Ronald Reagan that were posted by what I suspect are kiddies too young to have any memories of that era.

I was going to respond to some of that expat but you handled it quite nicely...The LA Times...???? First Liberals and Moderates hated Reagan, then called him stupid and senile...And now after history has proven how right he was they are trying to claim he as their own...What a hoot!!!!

 

[jbombelli]

Whoa, would not have expected this sort of tortuous backbending to defend such from you of all people. You know precisely how badly we got ****** with Hughes even if it did modify some of the GCA, I'd rather stick with the lesser of the two demons. I've written every single State and Congressional legislator in Indiana with the demand - not a plea, not a request, but a demand - that they repeal the NFA, GCA, and FOPA, and of the few who responded, every single one was a form statement. Not a single personalized response or rationale between the Statehouse or the Congress. They don't give two hells about us or our rights, whatsoever. Not a one. Not Jim Tomes. Not Marlin Stutzman. Not Dan Coats. No one cares. So let's not foist this off and say "Oh well, Reagan bla bla bla." He. Sold. Us. Out. Twice. Three times if you count the marginal tax rate hike. Bringing down the Berlin Wall and weakening the Soviet Union, sure, I'll give the man credit. Legalizing six million illegal immigrants? He gets credit for that too. Signing into law the prohibition for civilian ownership of fully-automatic weaponry manufactured after 05/19/1986? That's on him too. He could have vetoed and sent it back and in the light of day good luck getting enough votes to override it. Your response surprises me. Reagan was not a saint: he was simply less worse than his predecessors or post-cessors. (Don't think post-cessors is a word, but there we are.)

I have too. I've been fighting to get the Hughes Amendment repealed since it passed. I just understand how it came to be. I watched it happen. I can flat guarantee you if Reagan didn't sign that, and we never got the FOPA, most of the people crucifying Reagan over the Hughes Amendment would be right here crucifying Reagan for not signing the FOPA.

I don't put Reagan up on a pedestal like a lot of others, and I agree with you on the amnesty and tax rate issues. But I also know why he's on that pedestal because I lived through it. He's on it because he inspired us to love being Americans again. After Nixon, Ford, Carter... everybody was ashamed of our country. Reagan came along and inspired patriotism; he got us to love being Americans again. And the Strategic Defense Initiative bankrupted the USSR. These are the real reasons he is on that pedestal.

 

[TopDog]

Don't worry. No matter how miserably the team is playing, the fans still but tickets. The few that defect will be called fair weather fans. Just look at the Cubs.

Being called a traitor has happened to me more than once. But after the crap that was pulled at the RNC Convention all I could do was shake my head and walk away. Now when asked, when I fill out any paperwork I am an Independent. The fools that you refer to, the ones that vote party instead of candidate will never change. Believing in a party blinding is a grave sin as far as I am concerned.

Oh yeah I almost forgot, Anyone But Hilliary...

 

[KLB]

When? I'd say as the campaigning began for the 2012 elections, as candidates threw their pet social issues on the back of the Tea Party bandwagon.

The media played a part in it to. I heard a lot of demonizing of candidates and office holders as Tea Party extremists.

I'll throw in my support when it goes back to the "Taxed Enough Already" party.

Agreed.

 

[MCgrease08]

I was going to respond to some of that expat but you handled it quite nicely...The LA Times...???? First Liberals and Moderates hated Reagan, then called him stupid and senile...And now after history has proven how right he was they are trying to claim he as their own...What a hoot!!!!

This isn't a case of democrats trying to claim Reagan as their own, it's about calling out the GOP for their selective memory. As for the LA Times, you don't like the source, but that doesn't change the facts. The quote came from one of Reagan's long time advisors.


Face it, the GOP has taken a hard turn to the right and put many of their eggs in the basket of Evangelicals those focused on social issues and the ridiculous notion of purity and ideology. That's just not who Reagan was.

 

[jbombelli]

This isn't a case of democrats trying to claim Reagan as their own, it's about calling out the GOP for their selective memory. As for the LA Times, you don't like the source, but that doesn't change the facts. The quote came from one of Reagan's long time advisors.


Face it, the GOP has taken a hard turn to the right and put many of their eggs in the basket of Evangelicals those focused on social issues and the ridiculous notion of purity and ideology. That's just not who Reagan was.

I don't know where you guys come up with the "...GOP took a hard turn to the right..." but it's simply not true. I was a Republican from Reagan on through Bush Jr., and I can tell you this: Both parties have taken a hard turn to the left. Today's Republican makes Ronald Reagan look like Edmund Burke, and today's Democrat makes FDR look like Milton Friedman. The GOP took a turn toward religion, but that's not a turn to the right. That's a turn to religion. And before you say religion=right wing, a lot of evangelicals, and religious people support welfare, medicare/medicaid, social security, Obamacare, gun control, etc., but they're against legalization of weed, gay marriage, and they want religion taught in public schools. That's not right wing, that's not left wing. That's religion-wing.

 

[Dauvis]

The real problem, IMHO, is that a third party has never won a presidential election, and voting third party just siphons votes from the Republicans and ensures that Democrats continue to win. I am not saying not to vote your conscience, but I am saying that a third party candidate has never won. We have to take back the Republican party. Easier said than done, granted. But I do not realistically see any other way. I think that if Ted Cruz or Rand Paul can stay solidly conservative as the next election cycle gets underway, they could have a very good chance to get the nomination and win the election. I am convinced that conservative principles, effectively communicated, will resonate with a majority of the voters. Reagan had to fight the establishment country club conservatives tooth and nail to get the nomination, and continued to fight once he got into office, only to be succeeded by Bush 41 who was an establishment Republican, who lurched left. If he had had the Reagan principles, character and persona, and continued on the path Reagan set, things would have gone differently, I think.

Lincoln would disagree. Heck, he wasn't even on the ballots in the south.

Quoting the ultra-liberal LA Times is not convincing. Their bias and revisionist history reeks. I stand by may statement that "Reagan had to fight the establishment country club conservatives tooth and nail to get the nomination, and continued to fight once he got into office, only to be succeeded by Bush 41 who was an establishment Republican, who lurched left." Bush 41 tried to derail Reagan. He and his son were moderate Republicans, even liberal Republicans. Reagan was not as conservative as Goldwater, but conservative nonetheless, even by today's standards. Reagan never had both houses of Congress, and sure he had to cut some deals. The deficits were not what he wanted, but had to compromise, and they were paltry by today's standards in adjusted dollars. He also shut down the government several times during budget deals. But his policies ushered in two decades of prosperity. No candidate it perfect, but Reagan, IMHO, was the third best president we have had, after Washington and Lincoln.

“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left,... He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes.” -- Michael Reagan

You said a third party has never won a presidential election. That's not the case. Lincoln ran and won as a Republican.

I think that the debt will be what coalesces enough people to vote for a third party candidate. In the early 90's Perot made a big impact in the election and pulled almost 19% of the popular vote. Balancing the budget was a major policy point for his candidacy.

When the Republican party apparatus slobbers all over the likes of Christie, McCain, Boehner, etc... as leaders instead of embracing agents of change who have grass roots following, a third party that will continue to gain strength is inevitable. The country needs an opposition party, not just two parties that are two sides of the same coin, each biding time until they can give enough stuff away to gain the necessary votes to be in power again. The Republican party is on life support and it will pull the plug on itself if it continues to act as it is.

Perot made a big splash which is why shortly after, the media and lawmakers made some changes to ensure that never happens again. It was one of those changes that prevented Gary Johnson from being in the debates.

 

[Expat]

Why do you think that is?

Here's a couple of thoughts of what I'd think are possible reasons:

I bet is you asked the "average" likely voter out there, the vast majority wouldn't even be able to tell you the names of any 3rd party. So, name recognition is one of the problems whether you're a LPer, a Constitution Party, or Green Party supporter. At least the Green party selects "interesting" candidates. The LP has, at least recently, promoted yawners and odd-balls. So far, none of the 3rds have put up somebody to grab the attention and attract wide-spread support.

What do the other parties even stand for? Maybe it's just the news sources I choose to rely upon but the only 3rd parties I hear much about is the LP and the Greens. I think to many, that have even heard of them, the LP has marketed itself, not as a pro-constitution, small government party but a party that wants smaller government so people can smoke dope, abort babies, homosexual marriage, pro-illegal immigration, anti-religion, etc. that also wants to reduce taxes.

I don't know how many of these defectors I speak for but I'd like to see a mind your own business; taking responsibility is the key to reducing government interference and maximizing freedom; original intent of the Constitution is THE law; allow states to govern themselves; fiscally responsible party. I'm just not sure there is one out there.

I think most people look at it as a two horse race. So why bother? The LP didn't even crack 1% last election. I doubt most voters have a clue what any of those other parties believe in. They barely know what the two main parties stand for... Hell, I am not sure what they stand for at times.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hell, I am not sure what they stand for at times.

 

[ATM]

I think most people look at it as a two horse race. So why bother? The LP didn't even crack 1% last election. I doubt most voters have a clue what any of those other parties believe in. They barely know what the two main parties stand for... Hell, I am not sure what they stand for at times.

The conditioning of the American electorate has worked out better than either party could have ever dreamed.

They get the uneducated and emotional to cast their consent while convincing the disgusted and apathetic that it's pointless to even turn out.

The lesser of only two evils "strategy" serves its timeless purpose of maintaining the monopoly for these 2 useless horses. Since they are the only 2 horses "allowed" on the parade track, the "race" never goes to the swift or the strong - each continues to simply take their turn "winning".

This is how it will continue until the electorate wake up and withhold their consent from a party that no longer even tries to represent us or secure our Liberty.

 

[Redhorse]

The conditioning of the American electorate has worked out better than either party could have ever dreamed.

They get the uneducated and emotional to cast their consent while convincing the disgusted and apathetic that it's pointless to even turn out.

The lesser of only two evils "strategy" serves its timeless purpose of maintaining the monopoly for these 2 useless horses. Since they are the only 2 horses "allowed" on the parade track, the "race" never goes to the swift or the strong - each continues to simply take their turn "winning".

This is how it will continue until the electorate wake up and withhold their consent from a party that no longer even tries to represent us or secure our Liberty.

Thank you, I've been saying this for a long time.