BASIC PROBLEMS WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Within the media, on the 'net waves and within the latest movements designed to work towards restoring our Republic back to the people, we encounter continuous arguments regarding "Independents'" effects on the Republican Party. We also hear continuous arguments as to how the difference between moderates and conservatives are leading to a deleterious affect on the Republican Party. Those who know my views should recognize that I am an independent philosopher of politics who supports our Constitutional principles as designed by our Founding Fathers. For the sake of argument, allow me to focus on the problems within the Republican Party with a few points of opinion:
1. Senator McCain lost the 2008 election because of his "compromising" approach towards resolving legislative issues during his political career. This is a definition of a moderate Republican and this approach is what disenfranchised so many conservative voters who chose not to vote for McCain. His campaign's mismanagement of Palin's conservative voice led to the same problems with conservative voters. Despite her immediate attraction to conservatives following the VP announcement, the McCain campaign staff became just as guilty of degrading Palin as the liberals, because she was not a compromiser. Check out your political history and you'll see this same mistake of those moderate/compromising Presidents (regardless of partY)of the past.
2. Everyone must clearly define their principles and values of either small government, constitutional principles as written and designed, and defined morals and Christian ethics or those principles of large government involvement, spending policies that leave the country in continuous debt, disregard of constitutional rights and mandates, and lack of Christian ethics (in other words, liberal approaches). There is no longer any room for compromising between the two approaches.
3. The current Republican National Committee is undergoing internal issues as to where their real platform is aimed towards. Moderate thinkers (who haven't been listening lately anymore than liberal thinkers) are in conflict with conservative thinkers in establishing a clear policy and platform. Michael Steele has his hands full in establishing a viable and believable platform for the party. This has been recognized by the RGA (Republican Governors Association) in particular.
4. As We, the People, it is well past time to get past arguing about moderates vs. conservatives. We, the People now have the opportunity to work together in selecting, campaigning and electing candidates on the local, state and federal levels of government who believe in the American spirit and ability, reflects principles and values, morals and Christian ethics that you believe in, supports our Constitutional rights as granted to us, and are running for office not because they want to be or are a politician but because they desire to represent their electorate rightfully, yet have some reluctance to run for office. When you have someone who is reluctant to run for office, you have a true Patriot who sees the need to have honorable men and women to represent We, the People in their applicable areas.
Tags: discourse, republic, republican
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric H. on -
I would say voting in favor of one's principles is not necessarily the best course of action, unless one's principles are completely consistent with the Constitution. Take, for example, the stereotypical conservative Republican, who may want lower taxes and no socialized medicine (both constitutional positions) but who may also want federal anti-abortion legislation and federal anti-gay marriage legislation (both unconstitutional positions). If this person votes for and elects a Congressperson or President that reflects those same principles, the result is no better than G.W. Bush or Obama, since that official has promised policies that, when necessary to achieve the goals of social conservatism, violate the Constitution.
No. I think the better course of action is to vote for candidates who promise to respect the entire Constitution, and demonstrate understanding of what that means. If that candidate, for example, is still a social conservative and wants to enact a socially conservative agenda (e.g., anti-gay marriage) then that candidate should demonstrate his or her respect for the Constitution by proclaiming that the federal government does not have the power to legislate the issue of gay marriage, but he or she will support a constitutional amendment granting such power to the federal government.
Anything less is, by definition, unprincipled and despotic.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Conant on -
I am in complete agreement with you, Eric. However, I would approach your concern regarding the socially conservative agenda where a candidate would "support a constitutional amendment granting such power" (e.g., anti-gay marriage) "to the federal government" in a more appropriate constitutional manner. Per the Constitution, the legislative branch is limited to the powers and duties that it is empowered to follow. As you have said, these powers do not include social issues. My approach is for the states to address the social issues (abortion and gay marriage issues; your examples) as granted by the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). In other words, "hands off, feds; these issues are to be determined within the individual states and their citizens".
Thanks for your comments,
Bill
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on -
Eric I agree with your assessment to a point. What confuses me about all of these dialogues is that we forget the main principle of the Constitution , That we re endowed with certain rights unalienable by any one, and these rights are life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. That all men and women are created equal.
I think that we cannot keep moving the meter from dead center whenever we feel when it's not meeting some ethical structure that was based on a misguided illusion of what the worlds perfection should be.
Nature is perfect, equal is exactly that equal. We must learn to look at Nature as the basis that is life. Any other way just upsets the balance. We must come to the understanding that Nature encompasses everything, even the very core of our spirituality.
We must be honest and true, and we must learn that your liberty ends where mine begins, and vise-verse. We must learn to read both sides of the coin, and be strong enough to walk to the other side and take a look at what your fellow citizen is looking at . Only then, when we can muster the courage to understand this , we may begin the long road back to being civilized , for right know we are very far from that .
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Green on
-
I agree...finding a true Constitutional candidate in the GOP will be tough. If you want somone whose principles are completely consistent wtih the Constitution, we need to look outside of the GOP. Look at the Libertarian candidate Lex Green. He is running for Governor of Illinois and everything about his platform is based on the US and/or Illinois State Consitution. He is a true Patriot.
Free and Equal Gubernatorial Debate at the University of Chicago
http://freedom.tv/freeandequal.html
(Part 1...click on the link below the video for part 2)
Most recent radio interview at WJBC in Bloomington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnZKzuXDax4
Website
http://www.electlex.com
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Conant on
-
Assuming that you read the original post, you know that I agree with you completely.
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
I have a problem with your evocation of christian ethics. What about Jewish ethics, Hindu ethics, moslem ethics,exct.
I do not see where Christian ethics has done anything for humanity in the last 1000 years, except indulge in a Holier than thou attitude that has created nothing but chaos and misery for humanity. Unless other ethical organizations are included your argument falls on deaf ears. The Tea party organization should encompass every American . Do you know what that means?
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
Tony,
It took approx. 2 hours in decicding whether or not to post this.
My decision, as your can see, is yes.
When I told you about this web site, I asked you to read all the different areas on this site. I explained that there were positions you wouldn't like and that I didn't agree with everything either.
You are an intelligent, well read Human being that, in my opinion has a lot positive ideas to contribute. That is why I referred you to the site.
The people on this site have the same goals you have.
In my opinion they are the same as the Founders. Weren't there a lot of differences between the Founders in their approach to their same goal? Anti- Federalist vs. Federalist, among other disagreements. The same thing is going on here.
These people come from all walks of life. Christains, Jews, African, Irish, Spanish, Republican, Democrat, all with different points of view and solutions. However they all have the same thing in common with each other and you. To bring back to this Country the tenants of the Constitution and make the relevant again.
You received a lot of applause on your positition in the discussion you started. Not everyone is going to agree entirely. Not everyone is going to agree with how you came to your conclusions.
This is what this site is all about, a discusion of differences and ideas. Nothing more. That does not mean that some of the ideas, including yours, won't be heard and picked up and maybe incorporated into the Tea Party's own Articles by one of the delegates.(however it works)
And finally, You can do or say what you want, but you shouln't trash anybody's religion or beliefs, even if you position is founded in some truth. I am not fond of the church myself, but that's me.
See Ya, Smitty
p.s. I have no idea where your anger is coming from?
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
I'm not trashing any ones religion where do you get that. I 'm simply stating that the gentleman that posted the discussion is actually ignoring all other religions by evoking only Christian ethics. The anger is not anger but frustration with those that do not recognize that America is made up of all different religions. I'm tired of people looking at only two parties as the panacea for what ails them. I agree with the gentleman that said we need to screen the aspirants to government. If you would have been brought up in my culture you would have learned that Cuba was lost because of divisions that where detrimental to the advancement of the country , and that's why Castro was able to mount a Revolution so murderous and void of any plans to better the country. I don't think you should make any comments to me about what I'm writing or not writing . I'm a big boy now and I say what 's on my mind. Maybe the author is trashing my religion. Did you think of that?? STOP LECTURING !
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
Smitty
I get it very well! It seems to me that every one else doesn't get it. Americans are one ! They all sleep under the same sky that encompasses the universe. If you are going to make a comment about me getting it or not getting it , then expalain your self.
If you are going to use the phrase God Bless, which God do you mean, The Christian God, The Hebrew God, the Hindu God, or any other God for that matter. Which God are you talking about? You are the one that does not gat it!
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
I did not prescribe my God, it is your preception of god that is real. I never said my God is absolute.
It is what you believe.
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
Smitty
We are talking about Christian ethics. I pointed out that if i where a Hebrew or a Moslem, or a Hindu. I would feel left out. It has nothing to do with you making that sarcastic comment , About me not getting it God Bless! What kind of nonsense is that . I have a legitimate concern about how these comments can bring about schisms in a fragile Religious community. You sit there and tell me I don't get it. That's why you are still on the program, every time you open your mouth you prove it.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
About
© 2010 Created by Eric Odom on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
