AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

If the GOP Wants to Win, it Needs to Stand for Something and to Inspire

I seem to get into this same argument with the blog authors at Ace of Spades HQ about once per month over the past 10 months. No more. This will be last that I waste my time on that website, when none of them have the will to do what it takes to persuade people to Conservative values.

95 2. The Republicans nominate someone to the left of McCain. I like most of you held my nose and voted McCain, howver that is as far to the left as I can go.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2009 05:36 PM

Well, as many have told me, that makes you a traitor and means you’re handing the reigns of this nation to the Democrats. blah blah blah

See, for you, McCain is as far left as you can go. For many others last election cycle, McCain was past their limit for as far Left as they would go. YET, they were demonized as being traitors to the nation, since they decided to vote 3rd Party.

Thus, I can see you being treated for this opinion in the same way many other conservatives were treated last year for deciding they were not voting for McCain.

As far as I can tell, there is no liberal Candidate that the Republicans can put up that conservative-leaning blogs will accept is too far and will endorse 3rd Party. If we had Hillary switch parties and win the Republican nomination in 2012 against Obama, I would bet anything that 99% of conservative-leaning blogs would say “vote for Hillary or else”.

And this is what happens when you just keep up with the “lesser of two evils” nonsense. You get the Democrat Party moving further and further Left, and then anyone barely to the right of them is seen as the “lesser of two evils”.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:57 PM

*************************************************************

120 I would remind all that the disintegration of the GOP was really kicked off by the Shamnesty debacle, which McShame and Co. tried to ram down our throats (not unlike what the dems are doing now with their zombie health care legislation – though the dems have supercharged the ramming mentality by orders of magnitude) which was what really tore the GOP apart and lowered the trust that people have in the party down to near zero. Nothing has been done by the GOP, since then, to gain back that trust, and there is little left to do (as we are in the end game of the US, for those who don’t realize it) but make the GOP aware that they have to stop pandering to dems and start toeing the line of conservativism. This is not purity, but trust and honesty.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 31, 2009 05:39 PM

Exactly. That’s when I left the GOP, was over the Amnesty ‘debate’. And I also lost all respect for “conservatives” who said we should still support Republicans even if they supported Amnesty. Told me right there that there was no issue over which these so-called conservatives would throw away their principles for the sake of “party unity”.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 06:04 PM

*****************************************************

163 57 Very inspiring.
Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 05:36 PM

Breaking news: The goal is not to inspire. It’s to win so that you may can peruse the right policy.

Inspiring is a tool to that end but so is hard core numbers crunching.

If you want to be inspired rent Miracle.

Out in the real world it’s about winning elections

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:44 PM

You miss my point entirely.

You want to win elections? You need GOTV efforts. You want GOTV efforts? You need people like me. When people like me are not inspired, you’re not winning jack shit, because people like me inform, educate and inspire LOTS of other people to (1) also join the GOTV effort (2) spread the word on a candidate/candidates by word of mouth to friends/family/coworkers/associates or (3) simply go vote.

Now, if I have no reason to be inspired about a Party, a candidate, an ideology, do you think I am going to bother to put in the work to support that cause? Nope.

And that means all those probably hundreds of people I could have brought to the cause (through word of mouth and GOTV efforts with people, who turn around and spread the word to their inner circles, who turn around and spread the word, etc) will not be brought to the cause.

You know why Obama won? People were inspired for a cause. Yeah, sure the cause was bullshit, but the fact remains people were inspired for a cause.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are not dumbass sheep like Obama-voters and will not be inspired by bullshit. We also are not inspired by “our goal is not principles, it’s simply to get a majority by any means possible”.

You say in the real world, the goal is to win elections. I’m telling you exactly how to do that: inspire people. McCain inspired jack f’ing squat. Sarah Palin inspired people. Without her, McCain loses in landslide proportions.

If the GOP wants to win, it needs to stand for something and to inspire. After that, winning is easy. But if you stand for nothing except whatever it takes to win, you inspire no one. Period.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 06:16 PM

*****************************************************

206 She’s not acceptle to base voters and a Republican district but I’d prefer to have her than say Eliot Engle or John Hall.

If you’d rather a D than a liberal R in those kinds of districts, you are profoundly unserious about how politics works in the real world.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2009 05:52 PM

What good has it done us to have liberal Republican Senators when they vote on quite a few big issues with Democrats? Snowe, Collins, Gramnesty. On what key issues have their votes helped conservative causes? On what key issues have their votes helped socialist causes?

I don’t get how a socialist Republican is somehow better than a socialist Democrat. Especially since when I try to convince people that the Republican Party is not as bad as the Democrat Party and people point to all the liberals in the Republican Party and I have no defense/response for them.

So yeah, if a vote is going to be a liberal/socialist vote, then I’d rather that vote come from a Democrat than a Republican.

People always like to throw out the “I’d rather have a Republican voting 60% with me than a Democrat who votes only 10%”. Yeah, well, if those 4 out of 10 issues on which the Republican votes with the Democrats are on fiscal matters, Amnesty, Cap and Tax and Obamacare, then explain to me how having that person a Republican does any damn good whatsoever.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 06:34 PM

*****************************************************

288 Sorry to bash you, eman, but some of us are speaking about the world as it is, and you and others are speaking of the world as you *hope it might be.*

When that world comes around, I will gladly support your candidates.

But it’s premature to pretend that world exists now.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 06:04 PM

No, we are speaking of the world we WANT to be. And we are going out to do what needs to be done to see that it becomes that world.

Meanwhile, you and DrewM keep saying “stop living in fantasy-land”, “you can’t persuade people” so don’t even bother trying.

Other than to make money, ace, why do you bother with this blog? Is it just to see your words on a website? Or do you really hope that you can eventually persuade people with your opinion?

Seriously, why, other than money, do you bother to blog about politics? And if you believe people cannot be persuaded, then why bother replying in the comments here? If we’re not going to be persuaded to your opinion, why bother?

In JAN 2009, many of us “hoped he failed” and did not back down from that statement. In the face of being called racists, bigots, hatemongers, un-American, etc, we stood tall and continued to point out day after day after day that Obama was an America-hating radical hell-bent on destroying this nation from within through his policies. At the time, the nation was not in the mood to hear that. 60-70% of the nation was truly ‘in love’ with Obama. But that did not stop us. We did not say “well, this is the world as it is, better not bother trying to persuade people otherwise”.

No, instead, we saw America as we wanted it to be and went out there to do what we could to see that that America came to be. 9 months later, here we are.

Had we just bent over and accepted America as it was, an America which would just accept everything that Obama wanted to do, we’d be stuck with Obamacare by now. But we’re not.

Because instead of accepting the world as it is, we did something to change the world to what we wanted it to be.

You can go ahead and sit back and do nothing and accept everything as it is. That’s fine. But if you’re going to also make fun of those of us who are not accepting and are working to get America back to how it should be, you should expect some harsh blowback for that.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 07:06 PM

*****************************************************

331 What ultimately happens is that the Republican brand no longer means anything. The only ideology is WIN elections. This is what the incumbents already worship.

I for one am sick of that shit and will no longer vote based on who I think will WIN.

I think the rest of the conservatives in the U.S. are also heartily sick of this shit as well. This is what got the tea party movement started. I guess you missed Rasmussen on TV this morning. He gave a strong warning to the Republican Party.

Its wakeup time.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2009 06:28 PM

+100

Exactly. 100% agreed.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 07:28 PM

*****************************************************

393 It’s pretty sad though that the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail on the big issues all this year but it’s still not doing enough. Taking the One down to 50% in less than a year and turning Congress into Vietnam isn’t good enough?

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 06:34 PM

The GOP hasn’t done jack sh!t.

Those who were pounding away at Obama from Day one were Rush, Beck and Palin and then the Tea Parties. Coincidentally, all of those earned the wrath of the White House goons. The GOP, not at all. Michael Steele? Nope. Any GOP leader? Nope.

We have Rush, Beck, Palin and the Tea Parties to thank for fighting back. And the Tea Parties happened BECAUSE the GOP refused to fight back. The Tea Parties were a result of people realizing that we don’t have representation in the GOP to fight for us.

No, the GOP deserves no f’ing thanks for anything. Michael Steele… worthless. GOP leadership… gives us Scozzo. Newt… tells conservatives to back Scozzo.

Yeah, some GOP.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 07:51 PM

*****************************************************

433 Either way, you are getting someone who reflects the 65% consensus in these areas that abortion is a right and without it we’d have, I don’t know, sexual anarchy.

We on the “Pro Good RINO” side are saying, and only say, that in such areas, if you get a *fiscal* conservative like Chris Dodd, that’s to the good. Because your choice there is either a pro-choice fiscal liberal or pro-choice fiscal conservative (or moderate, anyway).

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2009 06:44 PM

Again, you’re assuming things are static. I just don’t understand this mentality whatsoever.

I had someone admit to me that before she became a mother, she was 100% pro-choice. Afterwards, she analyzed the whole issue and now is pro-life.

Also, it seems that a lot of people who believe abortion is a right, also believe that health care is a right. Therefore, you end up with a “pro-choice Republican” who votes for Obamacare. So you end up thinking you voted for a “fiscal conservative”, when, in the end, social liberalism trumps fiscal conservatism.

Wonderful.

Again, I say, if a socialist is going to vote for socialist policies, let it be a Democrat doing it.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 08:03 PM

*****************************************************

440 Willful blindness? Didn’t DrewM. write about this an hour ago? Quoting:

“98 What is the difference between a D and a Liberal R?

Posted by: eman at October 31, 2009 05:56 PM

Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner

Majority Leader Harry Reid or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Big enough difference?”

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 31, 2009 06:46 PM

Yeah, and didn’t someone also address the response to that ealier? Providing the example of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid having their leadership positions, but not able to get jack shit done, because they have a majority in name only? They got their majority with “Blue Dogs”, and now they are the ones keeping them from pushing through their socialist agenda.

The same exact thing happens the other way. Who gives a shit if the GOP has the majority if 1/3 is Conservative, 1/3 is 50-50 vote for Democrats and 1/3 are the equivalent of “Blue Dogs”? You end up with conservative leadership who can’t get shit done, because the “RINOs” vote with Democrats.

So again, explain the difference between having a Democrat in office and having a liberal Republican who will vote against the conservative GOP leadership.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 08:10 PM

*****************************************************

482 293 I mean if Democrats are smart enough to not run pro-choice candidates in places like Texas I hope the GOP is smart enough to not run pro-life candidates in places like New Jersey.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 07:08 PM

So then the GOP should also run big government racists in places like SE Michigan too then, right? Not the pro-life conservative in Thaddeus McCotter we have now?

Seriously, why doesn’t the GOP just give up ALL its principles to get a “majority”!

Where people believe in global warming, run on global warming!

Where people believe in taxing the rich to subsidize welfare, run on taxing the rich!

Where people believe 9/11 was an inside job, let’s run Alex Jones!

See how easy it is to win a majority!

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 08:40 PM

*****************************************************

537 Well it’s hard to develop a viable plan to get where you’d like to be when you can’t agree on where you’re at. And it does have to be a viable plan based on some kind of empirical evidence. Hope is not a strategy.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 07:41 PM

Well, I don’t know of anyone who is arguing with ace and DrewM over “what is”. What most of us are arguing with them over is their “never gonna happen”, everything is static, ‘you live in fantasy land if you think you can persuade people’ attitude.

Ace and DrewM seem to look at things as they are, assume that’s how they will always be and so decide it’s pointless to do anything to get things where we want them to be, so just give the people what they want.

I look at things as they are, want them to be different and then work to figure out what I must do, how I must do it, what I must say, how I must say it in order to persuade people to my point of view.

I would say that ace and DrewM have the strategy of ‘hope’. They ‘hope’ that by electing liberal Republicans and getting a Republican majority that these liberal Republicans will then suddenly do a 180 and vote with the conservative Republican leadership.

I look at what is and what has happened in history to know that’s living in ‘fantasy land’ thinking that’s going to happen.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 09:12 PM

*****************************************************

578 So when people here are saying f*ck the RINOs, I don’t even know who we’re talking about.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2009 08:00 PM

Well, supposedly, there is a Republican platform of where the GOP stands on issues. As a Political Party, the GOP is Pro-Life. Thus, if a Republican is “pro-choice/abortion”, they are going against the Party platform.

That’s one vote in favor of “RINO”.

For some, that is a key issue. Not respecting the sanctity of human life, for some, is as big as supporting socialism. So, to them, going against the Party platform on abortion makes them a “RINO”.

And, technically, that is true.

But, for others, a Republican must vote against the Party platform on numerous issues in order to be considered a “RINO”.

Then again, there are some single-issue voters (fiscal, national security, 2nd Amendment) who will call Republicans “RINOs” if they vote against their single issue.

In all cases, “RINO” is technically true. If you are voting against the Party platform, you are not behaving like a Republican.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 09:41 PM

*****************************************************

588 Hold on there, ahhh, lil’ goyl. Some say there’s, ah, shennanigans going on in our primaries on account of them being open to anyone in some states. So maybe it’s not quite accurate to say, for example, Crist, got the plurality of (R) votes in the primary, if that should happen.

Posted by: Tweet Bunker at October 31, 2009 08:00 PM

Exactly. Think about it…

The GOP leaderships WANTS open primaries. That way, they keep out conservatives by allowing liberals and Democrats to vote for their liberal candidates.

Then they can huff and puff and say “see! there was a conservative option and the GOP-voters rejected it! So now you must vote for our communist Republican!”

Which is bullshit.

That is exactly what happened with McCain last year. The GOP leadership WANTED a squish like McCain and they know damn well they got him because of the open primaries.

So those who keep saying “vote for the GOP candidate after the primary” are not dealing in reality. The reality is that the open primaries f’ck any conservative candidate.

So there’s no way to know if the conservative lost or not in an open primary.

Close the primaries. Then, if a conservative loses, we’ll know it was legit.

But you know what? This is exactly the reason why the GOP leadership will NOT close the primaries.

Thus, running the Conservative in the general as 3rd party is the way to go. Until they close the primaries.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 09:46 PM

*****************************************************

607 Take a look at this chart of abortion support over the last 30 years. There’s no clear trend and basically support levels are within 3-4 points of where they were back in 1973.

So in this case the situation has remained essentially static. So if you claim that things are are going to break the pro-life way, the onus is on you to come up with some actual statistical evidence.

Posted by: Mætenloch at October 31, 2009 08:13 PM

How long was slavery with us? We eliminated that.

I just don’t get why so many conservatives like the “never” mentality.

I thought America was about the possible, was about the land of opportunity.

From reading this blog the past year, it seems that conservatism is simply about the ideology of “it never has happened and it never will so don’t bother trying”.

If that’s the case, then I guess I’m going to stop calling myself a conservative.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 10:02 PM

*****************************************************

611 I’ve heard that before, and its not the only issue. Basically, liberal/progressive are children. They want to do what they want to do and demand, in the face of all logic and precedent, that there be no consequences for their actions.

Getting married, having children, paying bills and getting anchored to the future makes more conservatives than all the politics in the world.

Posted by: toby928 at October 31, 2009 08:17 PM

So basically what you are saying is that the coasts are made up of children. heh

Also, there’s also a moronette here who admitted that a year ago she was a liberal… until she met her current man. He persuaded her of conservatism while they’ve been dating and now she’s a conservative moronette.

So I don’t buy this BS that things are static, nothing is going to change, no one can be persuaded.

That’s only ‘reality’ if you don’t even bother trying.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 10:06 PM

*****************************************************

630 You know it may hurt your craw to accept it, but there is a real difference between doubling the national debt in eight years and doubling it in eight months. There really is. The one is a party that lost its way. The other is a party behaving exactly as its principles say it should.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:38 PM

Yes, there is a difference. Doing is slowly, people don’t pay attention and just allow it to happen. Were people out there protesting spending during the Bush years? Nope. They sure the f’ck are out there now, though, and they’re not going to take it anymore.

Maybe I should have said the *attempt* at socialism quickly is much better than the attempt at socialism slowly over a period of time.

Obama and the Democrats’ attempts at Cap and Tax, Health Care and running up the deficit to historical amounts have woken up the public. Had they just done it little by little over his 4 years of his 1st term… probably would have given him a 2nd term.

But, since they’ve done it in 9 months, people have woken from their slumber and now we are looking as possible victories for the GOP in 2010 and possible good chance to vote him out of office in 2012. Back just 6-9 months ago, no one, absolutely NO ONE, would have imagined that.

Quick woke people up. The little by little approach is what Norman Thomas said would succeed.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 10:24 PM

*****************************************************

644 If people like you are the ones who are going to be trying to do the convincing, Ace is unfortunately correct. Of course he didn’t mean that, you’re just on your strawman gig.

Posted by: chaos at October 31, 2009 08:58 PM

Yeah, he’s so correct. Which is why I convinced my office (granted, only 15 people) to vote McCain. Even had an Obama supporter change to being not just a McCain voter, but also shared with his wife and friends what I told him about Obama and McCain and was then trying to convince them to vote McCain. That was just one person (me) who influenced 15 people, who then went out and influenced who knows how many.

So yeah, ace is dead on that persuading doesn’t work.

And yeah, I’m a bit of an @sshole here sometimes. But I get a bit f’ing pissed off when I keep reading “never”, “fantasy land”, “not gonna happen”, “persuading doesn’t work” and other such defeatist bullsh!t.

I was not like that last year when I was persuading people who weren’t defeatist doucheb@gs.

And I did this in Michigan. In Detroit. So don’t f’ing tell me that people can’t be persuaded. They can. If people bother to f’ing try.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 31, 2009 10:43 PM

Advertisements

November 2, 2009 , 3:14PM - Posted by | Conservatism, Republicans

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: