Featured Republican Wins

You're exactly right. But there is no one on the near or far horizon who can be elected that is willing to do that. But you are willing to vote "on principle" in a manner that will give the Demo-Marxists the victory. That's just plain stupid, no offense intended. You play for time by giving up space, just as I said, and the only way to do that is to keep electing Republicans that are less than optimal but certainly not socialist in ideology.

And by the way yourself, I don't care what Boehner et al do, the issue is what we as true conservatives can do to forestall the inevitable socialist victory rather than concern ourselves with whether the ideology of those opposing socialism are "perfect" or not. If that means voting for people we have to hold our nose in the voting booth over before punching the button, so be it. Rather have people who won't approve socialism, even if what they do approve is less than ideal from my viewpoint, than to just hand everything over to the socialists.

 

Or the victory will be given over to Marxists by those who refuse to put out true conservatives.

 

Either way, the Marxists win. At least my way, we play for the time we need to organize what we at this point do not have. Your way waves the white flag and says, "Go ahead, take over my country."

 

No, that is what your way says. Your way would be to blame. Not mine.

 

LOL. Now it's my fault.

 

I have an expletive in mind. I'm sure you can imagine which an ol' farm boy like me would come up with to describe it.

America is a two-party system, and as such has only has two viable parties: Democrats and Republicans. As for elections, generally a Democrat or Republican wins, even though we do have grass roots efforts like the Tea Party working within the structure of the two-party system, or the Libertarian Party attempting vainly and uselessly to work outside of it. The problem is these third party candidates do not receive the funding that those of the larger parties do. Since they can not campaign as much, fewer people pay heed to them, know what they represent, are suspcious of their platforms and do not vote for them. A vote for a third part candidate in today's model is pointless.

No matter how "noble" you see yourself in this scenario, you represent the surrender of this country to the Marxists. Live with that if you can. I choose to support even the worst of the anti-Marxists rather than proceed with an endeavor that is certain to give them their goal. Giving a vote to someone who has no hope of winning is nothing less than renunciation of what this country was founded upon, democracy and freedom. We can't afford to be "noble" in the face of a communist onslaught.

Any vote for a hopeless candidate is another nail in the coffin of democracy. I won't be a party to it, nor will I be supportive of anyone who claims nobility at the price of freedom.

 

Any vote for a rino is a nail in the coffin of democracy. There are true conservative Republicans out there like the guy in Fla. We need to fight to bring them up not rinos like McCain, McConnel, or Boehner.

 

There is nothing to work with. Might as well vote Democrat. And there are already 50 to 60 mill "we's"

 

I basically tend to agree with what Old Regular posted in his posts on this thread.

For the most part, it seems to me that during the primary election season, the conservative and/or libertarian wing(s) of the GOP will play to those voters who are willing to at least take the time to vote.

However, as the GOP has experienced over the past several decades, as time draws nearer to the general election in the fall, these conservative and/or liberation candidates tend to face either the outright disrespect of its "Liberal Establishment 'King Makers'" or their overt and ill-advised desire to "throw these candidates 'under the bus.'"

Ever since the early 1900's it seems that this has been the fate of most of the GOP conservative and/or libertarian 'Standard Bearers.'"

The only exception to this that I can recall might be that of the accession of Calvin Coolidge to the Presidency in 1923--and that was only because the weak-kneed and quite sickly incumbent, Warren G. Harding died in office.

Coolidge's successor, Herbert C. Hoover [served as POTUS from 1929 - 1933] was a bit more conservative than his Democrat opponent Al Smith, but not very much.

Hoover never completely divorced himself from the utopian and ill-advised concept of a one-world government where people could depend on their national government(s) to help them "lift themselves up by their 'bootstraps.'"

The 1929 stock market crash and the successive "Great Depression" were the principal factors that led to Hoover's 1932 election defeat.

His successor to the Presidency, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt [who himself was for many years an employee of a New York bank!] for the most part, merely a pawn in the hands of the group of American and European bankers.

His "Great Deal" programs that were "ramrodden" through Congress did very little to relieve the average American worker's bleak economic situation; in fact, it may have actually hurt many members of our nation's workforce.

Some of them were just about to arise out of their financial misery (in large part brought on by the removal of our nation's gold-based banking standard and the rather illegal and outright unconstitutional confiscation of much our nation's individuals' "Gold Certificates.), when the 1937 "Great Slump" practically devastated these poor souls' financial situation.

During that period of time, the GOP promoted a series of "me-too" Presidential candidates such as Al Landon, Wendell Wilkie, and Thomas Dewey. For the most part, all three of them adhered to the very same liberal ideals that were made popular by the very left-leaning works of John Kenneth Galbraith [1908-2006].

Even after Truman managed to squeak by with a narrow election victory in 1948--due primarily by an otherwise very divided Democrat Party--the GOP "Establishment" still favored Gen. Eisenhower over the more conservative Robert Taft ,Jr. [Taft was the son of President Robert Taft {served as POTUS from 1906-1917} and, during the 1920's ,was our nation's Supreme Court Chief Justice.].

Eisenhower tried to pursue a more politically moderate stance in both domestic and foreign policy issues than that of his 1952 and 1956 Presidential rival, Democrat Adlai Stevenson--but not by very much.

The 1960 POTUS race saw GOP Richard Nixon go down in defeat (by a very narrow margin) in many states. Nixon's policies were, for the most part, much the same as Eisenhower's were.

In 1964 the Democrats won by a considerable margin in both the POTUS race and in both houses in Congress. Much of that was because Lyndon Johnson played to the voters' sympathies over the loss of JFK by assassination--something that hadn't happened to a sitting President in 62 years.

Moreover, in 1964 most of the GOP "Establishment" distanced themselves from the national Goldwater-Miller ticket. In many states, the "Establishment" failed to support their candidacy with much-needed financial and personnel support.

In 1968, Nixon achieved a narrow victory over Democrat Hubert Humphrey because: [1] The Democrats were again divided; and [2] Most of the nation was tired of LJB's "no-win" war policies that he implemented in the various military conflicts in South East Asia.

During his 1968 campaign, Nixon claimed to have developed a so-called "Secret Policy" to finally end the Vietnam Conflict. Whatever that mysterious policy might have been (if, in fact, there every actually was one in the first place!), he never seemed to be able to successfully put it into practice.

When Nixon resigned in August, 1974, he was replaced by Gerald Ford. While Ford tried his best to put a stop to the galloping increase in our nation's rate of monetary inflation (due primarily to Nixon's poorly-advised system of wage- and price-controls that were placed on just about every form of economic goods and/or services), he was never very successful at it.

Then, too, Americans in general were tired of the seemingly never-ending series of armed conflicts that were never resolved--even after more than 20 years of our nation's involvement.

Ford, and his running-mate Governor Nelson Rockefeller, never overcame the sense of (as President Carter once called it) "malaise," that the US economy felt, due mostly to very high interest rates on consumer and business loans and a corresponding low rate of savings by our nation's wage earners (thus creating a sort of "Catch-22" situation that made it nearly impossible for our financial institutions to even make loans in the first place!).

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, and even help the GOP recover a slim majority in the US Senate (something that hadn't happened for over 25 years!).

But it took over two whole years for our economy to regain a more optimistic outlook, and, in many cases, what jobs were created were not the high-paying ones that we had long hoped for.

In 1984 and 1988, George H.W. Bush served as President, but he was much more of an "Internationalist" than he first admitted to being. (Remember the "New-World Order" he announced had been formed just prior to the "First Gulf War" in 1990?)

Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 primarily due to both the downturn in the economy and (in the eyes of most conservative and/or libertarian voters) a "gnawing distrust" of "Bush Senior."

The GOP miserably failed in the Presidential elections of 1996 and 2008 because, for the voting populace as a whole, we never got very excited over the haphazard and rather poorly coordinated campaigns of Robert Dole or John McCain.

Our current "Dictator-In-Chief" tried to present a more optimistic alternative with his notions of "Hope and Change." Although he did manage to win in both 2008 and 2012, we really haven't seen much hope as a result of his very socialist policies, which, IMHO, only leaves us poor folks with an increasing desire for real change!!

Whether or not we manage to reverse the tide of "Gloom and Doom" here in America, only time will tell.

For my part, I certainly hope that real change will come about sooner rather than later!!

I'm quite sure that most of us out here in "BB Land" would agree with me on that!!

 

We can't refuse to vote for "not Democrats" while doing so, or we will lose the war trying to fight the battle. Your insistence on avoiding "not conservatives in the truest sense of the word' results in total failure before we even get to the battle. It's ridiculous.

As I said, be as noble as you want. Just don't blame me or anyone else when the system goes Marxist before your eyes.