Response to Republican Party Officials

[georgiaboy]

We've learned, the hard way, that our vote is our only real voice.

We learned that in order to really make our vote count, we must clearly vote for small government candidates we can trust, period.

To vote for someone who says pretty things but then legislates and votes for increasing government is a proven failure.

Over time, as our votes reflect our true values, candidates will emerge who reflect and will support those values. This has already been proven in just a few short years.

We've learned the secret sauce -- vote your principles, always, and you can truly affect change. Sometimes this means abstaining or voting no, but that's what really works.

 

[CaptUSA]

Actually, after reading his response, I can see the fear in his tone. He's encouraging you to stick with the GOP, regardless of the outcome. He does his best at flattery.

It's funny how they think we will be cajoled by the same tricks they've used on their party members for years.


This seems more like a call to not go 3rd party, than it is to decide which candidate the GOP should pick.

 

[kathy88]

Actually, after reading his response, I can see the fear in his tone. He's encouraging you to stick with the GOP, regardless of the outcome. He does his best at flattery.

It's funny how they think we will be cajoled by the same tricks they've used on their party members for years.


This seems more like a call to not go 3rd party, than it is to decide which candidate the GOP should pick.

It was rather ass-kissy. You're a leader. Play with us. We'll give you stuff. That's how I read it.

 

[socal]

are any of the remaining Republicans better than President Obama? You bet they all are!

I would question this.

I would urge him to appreciate this.

Remind him that "The Party" did not achieve these changes. Ron Paul and his supporters did. "The Party", for all its rhetoric, has a record of diminishing conservatism and liberty in the U.S. As he points out, Ron Paul and his supporters have a record of restoring these important republican principles. He is absolutely right in what he says about the effect that Ron Paul is having on the country. This is the effect republican conservatives are supposed to have. Has Romney had an effect like this? or Santorum? are they likely to?

What more evidence does he need that Ron Paul is his man, than his own correct observations?

Santorum and Gingrich could never beat Obama, so it comes down to Romney. He could even be worse than Obama because he seems more hawkish on foreign policy, and could get us in more unnecessary wars (although so could Obama).

On domestic policy, both Obama and Romney support the status quo: inflationary monetary policy, huge government deficits because of a lack or real spending cuts, crony capitalism (bailouts), and continued erosion of civil liberties.

And Romney could be even more charismatic than Obama, so that could mean more of his destructive policies being implemented. At least Obama has been thoroughly discredited over the last 4 years, whereas it would take a while for that to happen to Romney.

 

[JS4Pat]

Some thoughts:

Broken record.

Please clearly understand this -- it is the GOP's failure to police itself that has forced us into this position.

GOP, we've tried it your way in the past, voted for your candidates, whoever they were, whatever they promised, because you told us that they were "infinitely" better than the other guy. R's, any R's, were infinitely better than the D's, and would bring us smaller government, constitutional principles, etc. and so on.

Didn't work. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. We're ending the insanity.

We tried it your way. Now you've forced us to try a different way.

We will vote for trusted proven principled candidates who adhere to their oath of office, the constitution, and small government Republican principles, and who actually vote for and legislate to reduce the size of the federal government to its constitutionally bound limits.

This cycle, for president, the record clearly shows there's only one candidate who fits this description. All the others fail to keep their oath of office, and grow the government, regardless of what letter is beside their name, or what they've promised with their hand on the Bible.

The differences between Obama and the other candidates are not "infinite", they are insignificant; they will all continue to grow the size of the federal government. They've done so in the past on many occasions, AS REPUBLICANS. They voted against the party platform, and they violated their oath of office. Why would anyone, especially REPUBLICANS, trust them or what they say this time around, especially during a competitive election season?

We are not taking our ball and going home, because this isn't a game.

We are doing what we thought we were doing all along -- voting for small gov't candidates who can be trusted to actually reduce the size of the government. It's that simple. All other candidates do not deserve our vote, nor the vote of any honest conservative.

Excellent response. (Thank You)
Hope you don't mind me using some/most of this verbiage in my response.

 

[georgiaboy]

Excellent response. (Thank You)
Hope you don't mind me using some/most of this verbiage in my response.

feel free. glad to help.

 

[Matthanuf06]

I don't disagree with their response. All of the Rs would be better than Obama. Paul by a lot, the rest by not so much. The question for all of us is: is the marginal increase of having a better POTUS worth you voting for a candidate you disagree with on a host of issues and is still going to be a net negative?

It is a personal choice; is Obama THAT bad, or can you not stomach going against your ideology? There is no right answer.

 

[jointhefightforfreedom]

I would reply,

I will only vote for and support the only person who honors his oath of office and has a proven track record of such!

Those who have violated my lady liberty shall be run out of town!

 

[jointhefightforfreedom]

I don't disagree with their response. All of the Rs would be better than Obama. Paul by a lot, the rest by not so much. The question for all of us is: is the marginal increase of having a better POTUS worth you voting for a candidate you disagree with on a host of issues and is still going to be a net negative?

It is a personal choice; is Obama THAT bad, or can you not stomach going against your ideology? There is no right answer.

Why don't we take a lesson from Dr. Paul and vote principle like our candidate has for over 30 years!

 

[jolynna]

It is a personal choice; is Obama THAT bad, or can you not stomach going against your ideology? There is no right answer.

It isn't about voting for "Obama" or "something else".

There is NO "something else". Every candidate except for Ron Paul IS Obama or WORSE.

Voters think — wrongly — that the two political parties are wedded to a fixed set of political principles. That's not what the two parties are. They're far more akin to products: specifically, brands. Recall that Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year award in 2008 — chosen by the nation's "brand builders" — went to the Obama campaign team for its excellence in branding its product. When ordinary products begin to fail on the market, they are simply rebranded: a car company associated with obsolete or clunky designs revises its image into a newer, sleeker version of itself.

When a political party begins to fail competitively, as the G.O.P. is clearly doing now, it, too, simply rebrands itself. Recall that in 2008, the G.O.P. was assumed by pundits to be dead for a generation because of the profound, historic unpopularity of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But the G.O.P. simply re-invented itself with a new brand identity (the Tea Party) and swamped the Democrats a mere two years later.

Romney is George W. Bush revamped. He has the same 23 foreign advisers that Bush had. He's into the SAME or WORSE imperialism http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/AnAmericanCentury-WhitePaper_0.pdf.

I don't know if Obama will go to war with Iran or not. If Romney becomes POTUS, war with Iran is assured.

In case everybody has forgotten how Bush was treated by the press, most of it deserved (but not all), be assured that the media will have the public foaming at the mouth with rage over "Romney's" war and his being on the "banker's side" <which he will have to do because BANKERS funded him> should the economy collapse. The media won't give Romney the pass they've given Obama. Romney will be lucky if he loses, because if he wins he will be the most HATED president ever.

In my opinion.

 

[jolynna]

Why don't we take a lesson from Dr. Paul and vote principle like our candidate has for over 30 years!

THIS.

Whoever ends up being POTUS is going to be in for 4 tough years no matter who wins the election.

Maybe the U.S. has to hit rock bottom (the way alcoholics do) before voters will be ready to listen to reason?

If Romney gets elected he will continue with Obama's way of doing things the way Obama followed in Bush's footsteps. The results of electing Romney will give us the SAME outcome as 4 more years of Obama. Only with the press being nastier when the Republican does it.

In my opinion.

 

[UK4Paul]

1 picture, 1000 words et al

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Party non-sense is so USSR. I wonder if they ever stop and realize they are the machine they so proclaim against. Cognitive dissonance, thine name is thee.

 

[Tudo]

I've been down that road, and now I'm swinging back around to "it's time to take over the GOP by being more involved than ever before."

Ha, Good luck. Those traitors will never see me again. The ONLY reason they saw me this time was because of the stinking rotten florida primaries where I had to change back. That will never happen again.

Far as your "take back" statement, the gop was NEVER a smaller Constitutional political party. Heck man who the heck was the very first GOP candidate? He did a great job destroying the Constitution which made all of today possible.

So as far as "taking back" anything, that's not going to happen with the republican or democrat party as neither one of them have ever followed the Constitution and if this election didn't wake you up nothing will.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

i just don't understand... what report did he read that said Congress "is more conservative than at any time in the last 40 years"??

i suppose that must account for the 9% approval rating.

that response could have easily been crafted by a democrat with "Bush" replacing "Obama" back in the 2004 season and it would have had the same effect.

one coin: two sides.

i don't think i'm going to stick it out with the GOP after this election cycle.

until people get this, until "leaders" and laypeople alike get over their own blindness towards their own party's inability to hold fast to any sort of principle besides moneymaking and death-grip-tyrannical-politics, the fraud will continue.

Great post, +rep. I feel exactly the way you do. The GOP is running out of choices in this election, and as far as the party as a whole is concerned.

 

[tbone717]

Ha, Good luck. Those traitors will never see me again. The ONLY reason they saw me this time was because of the stinking rotten florida primaries where I had to change back. That will never happen again.

Far as your "take back" statement, the gop was NEVER a smaller Constitutional political party. Heck man who the heck was the very first GOP candidate? He did a great job destroying the Constitution which made all of today possible.

So as far as "taking back" anything, that's not going to happen with the republican or democrat party as neither one of them have ever followed the Constitution and if this election didn't wake you up nothing will.

I understand your frustration, but tell me this. From where have all the great libertarian-conservatives that have held and are currently holding elected office at the state and national come from? They certainly aren't from a third party, because the LP and CP are an abysmal failure when it comes to winning elections. So if you want to see things in this country turn around then you will have to look to the only place that elects libertarian-conservatives to office. And whether you like it or not, that is the GOP. Our movement within the party is growing, we have more elected official this year than we have in recent years. These upcoming elections we are likely to have more. Your help to grow this movement from within is appreciated, but if you plan on sitting on the sidelines then honestly you will little to no effect on what goes on in your state or this country.

 

[Lymeade-Lady]

I think that we need to pick a nominee that will rally the people. And I would also comment to this person that "while I may later consider rallying behind the GOP candidate besides my first choice, that now is not the time for that." (Note: Since I was small, I was always told I was a good diplomat. It's not a lack of support for RP--Besides like RP said, who knows--maybe he can convert them!) "Now is the time to push for the candidate who is best suited to beat Obama and who is the most conservative. Aren't we fortunate that we don't have to choose between these 2 things? It's just one man who is both!"

 

[Tudo]

El Gonzo

 

[jolynna]

T-Bone,

I am pretty involved in local politics. All of my family is. Stressful, but feels good when you make progress.

 

[kathy88]

THIS.

Whoever ends up being POTUS is going to be in for 4 tough years no matter who wins the election.

Maybe the U.S. has to hit rock bottom (the way alcoholics do) before voters will be ready to listen to reason?

If Romney gets elected he will continue with Obama's way of doing things the way Obama followed in Bush's footsteps. The results of electing Romney will give us the SAME outcome as 4 more years of Obama. Only with the press being nastier when the Republican does it.

In my opinion.

Excellent point about hitting bottom