Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Neocon Nuttery
See other Neocon Nuttery Articles

Title: Republicans in a Nutshell
Source: AltRight
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 3, 2011
Author: Richard Spencer
Post Date: 2011-01-04 12:33:26 by Prefrontal Vortex
Keywords: None
Views: 277
Comments: 6

Republicans in a Nutshell

By Richard Spencer

Take a glimpse into the minds of the superior individuals who are vying to become Chairman of the Republican National Committee. (This selection comes from National Review Online, so you can be sure it's not a parody.)

The candidates had some interesting answers to the question of what their favorite book was. In order, their answers were:

  • Ryan Strevis: The Reagan Diaries.

  • Ann Wagner: “My kitchen table.” (When told that the question was “favorite book,” not “favorite bar,” she amended her answer to George W. Bush’s Decision Points.)

  • Saul Anuzis: The Law.

  • Maria Cino: To Kill a Mockingbird.

  • Michael Steele: War and Peace. (He then said, oddly, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” — which is, of course, from A Tale of Two Cities.)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#0)

Pitiful.

"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson

Turtle  posted on  2011-01-04   12:34:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Turtle (#1)

"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson

We got reform.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform,.

A Paul for President!
Whites need to be shown darkie won't vote for him.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2011-01-04   12:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Turtle (#1)

Why I pick on Republicans
12
Post Date: 2011-01-03 07:43:04 by Happy2BMe-OnLP
14 Comments
Why I Pick on Republicans So, the Republicans are back in control of the Congress again. Ho-hum. Time to start writing about the Republicans again. I haven’t always picked on Republicans. In fact, I used to be one, faithfully voting for all the Republicans on the ballot to keep those evil Democrats out of office. As a conservative who had never been exposed to libertarianism, I was a Republican by default. Oh, the political ignorance of youth! I remember taking a political survey in seventh or eighth grade in which I scored, I think, an 8 out of 10, with 1 being extreme liberal and 10 being extreme conservative. Obviously, it wasn’t the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. I ...

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2011-01-04   12:43:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#0)

May 09, 2008

John Hawkins The Republican Party's Real Problem In A Nutshell

It goes without saying that the GOP is taking a dreadful thrashing right now. Conservatives are unmotivated, Democrats are obliterating Republicans in the fundraising arena, and the GOP's poll numbers have dropped off a cliff.

George Bush, the face of the Republican Party, has an approval rating of 30% and according to Rasmussen Reports, one of the best polling agencies in the business, 41.4% of Americans consider themselves to be Democrats while only 31.4% say they are Republicans. Worse yet, voters trust the Democrats more than Republicans on the economy, government ethics, the war in Iraq, health care, Social Security, education, immigration, and abortion. Yes, the GOP still has an edge on taxes and national security, but how are Republicans going to compete in 2008 if they cede all those other issues to the Dems?

That's something Republicans in Congress are just going to have to figure out. How do you win elections when your supporters are unenthusiastic, people are sick of your political party, and money is in short supply? Unfortunately, in 2006, the answer was, "You don't."

In 2006, Republicans lost 6 seats in the Senate and 30 seats in the House. Although it's far too early to say for sure, judging by the direction the political winds are blowing, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the GOP loses another 4-6 seats in the Senate and an additional 10-15 House seats this time around.

So, why does the GOP seem to be trapped in this recurring political nightmare?

There are a plethora of different reasons for it: the war in Iraq, gas prices, a soft economy, George Bush's lack of communication skills, corruption scandals, the illegal immigration brouhaha, nominee John McCain, out-of-control spending -- you can go on and on.

However, there is one overriding problem that dwarfs all the others, a problem that few people in the leadership of the Republican Party seem to have come to grips with. That problem is that conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, no longer believe that the GOP has their best interests at heart.

That's not to say that there's no difference between the two parties -- because there is. That's not to say that the country would be better off if John McCain loses; it most certainly wouldn't be. That's not to say that the Republican Party isn't more conservative than the Democratic Party; without question, it is.

That being said, does the Republican Party adequately represent conservative interests? No. Do George Bush and John McCain's values and beliefs match up well with those of the average conservative in the Party? No, they do not. Does the machinery of the Republican Party -- the RNC, the NRCC, NSCC -- treat conservatives fairly and do a good job of representing conservative interests? Not at all.

In other words, to many conservatives, the Republican Party has ceased to be an organization that serves their interests and has become merely an allied organization that shares many, but not all, of the same critical goals.

That may seem like a small distinction, but it's an important one. Conservatives will stay up late volunteering for a campaign, give until it hurts, and crawl over broken glass to put candidates in Washington who're "on their side."
However, it's a totally different ball game when we're talking about mere allies. Why give money and spend precious time volunteering on the campaigns of people who are going to turn right around and cut you off at the knees on spending and illegal immigration once they get to DC?

In other words, the attitude towards the GOP has become, "He may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he's my son-of-a-b*tch." That's what today's Republican Party is to most conservatives: our sons-of-b*tches.

........Which brings us, as conversations of this sort usually do, back to Reagan. Why did conservatives love Reagan? Certainly, he was a great President, but he departed from the conservative orthodoxy on more than a few occasions. Reagan signed an abortion bill when he was governor of California, the debt exploded under his watch, he raised taxes, he signed an amnesty bill, and Iran-Contra was certainly a big scandal. Yet conservatives, who were just as serious about their principles back then as they are today, supported him ferociously when he was in office and revere the man's memory.

Why?

Simple: because there was never the slightest doubt in the minds of conservatives that Ronald Reagan shared their values and was doing everything within his power to use conservative principles to make our country a better place. So, when Reagan did something that conservatives disagreed with, they figured he was just doing what he had to do for the sake of politics and didn't hold it against him.

Republicans today don't have that luxury because the assumptions that conservatives made about Reagan have been reversed. If a Republican does something that pleases conservatives, they often assume that it is being done for political purposes while deviations from the conservative norm represent what Republicans really want to do.


Until the Republicans can repair that breach of faith and convince conservatives that the GOP has the same goals as conservatives do on issues like spending, the size of government, and illegal immigration, the Party may win some battles, but it's going to slowly, but surely lose the war for the future of our country.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2011-01-04   12:45:21 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#4)

Why?

Simple: because there was never the slightest doubt in the minds of conservatives that Ronald Reagan shared their values and was doing everything within his power to use conservative principles to make our country a better place. So, when Reagan did something that conservatives disagreed with, they figured he was just doing what he had to do for the sake of politics and didn't hold it against him.

While he screwed up big time, Reagan was probably the last prominent Republican who didn't apologize for being white.

Reagan seemed LOYAL.

People who are LOYAL to each other can disagree about a few things.

A Paul for President!
Whites need to be shown darkie won't vote for him.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2011-01-04   12:52:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#5)

I agree with you on Reagan. He was also the last president having any resemblance of being an America-First Patriot.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2011-01-04   13:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest