TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

jmra wrote:Seems to me a lot of people are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Isn't it unfortunate that GOP leadership can't figure that out?

I'm not sure who the "baby" jrma is referring to, but it works both ways. The establishment Republicans dumping the conservatives or vice versa. Either way is a shame IMHO.

anygunanywhere wrote:

G26ster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: It's a shame too, because all that the elites would have to do is say "OK, we'll try it once your way" to the party's conservatives.

TAM, I think they did in '64 when Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 presidential election to Lyndon Johnson by "one of the largest landslides in history." And back then, the country was far more conservative than it is now.

I still would like to know where the conservatives were in the latest election for Speaker. Only 25 votes against? If conservatives wanted a change, they had a great chance. Seems to me almost everyone was protecting - themselves. The opportunity to send a strong message was lost.

They didn't want to lose their positions of power. Power means everything in DC.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton

However, there are a heck of a lot more conservatives in congress who are not in positions of power. Where were their votes? And what does that say about the people whose views we agree with now when they are not in power, when we elect them to positions of power?

The Annoyed Man wrote: It's a shame too, because all that the elites would have to do is say "OK, we'll try it once your way" to the party's conservatives.

TAM, I think they did in '64 when Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 presidential election to Lyndon Johnson by "one of the largest landslides in history." And back then, the country was far more conservative than it is now.

I still would like to know where the conservatives were in the latest election for Speaker. Only 25 votes against? If conservatives wanted a change, they had a great chance. Seems to me almost everyone was protecting - themselves. The opportunity to send a strong message was lost.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G26ster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:This article perfectly sums up what's going on, and the GOP ignores the signs at their peril. The party is on the precipice of collapsing. It won't take much to tip the balance. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then, yes, at the national level you will have Democrats for a LONG time. If that's what you want, push a Christie, Romney or Bush and tell conservatives to take their medicine. It ain't happenin. Not this time. Not after the betrayal of 2014.

In 2013 he wrote, "The Palin/Bush pairing (which works either way) would see the rifts in the GOP healed over, a united team with massive resources in finance, manpower and credibility, and a very real path to Electoral College victory -- an historic compromise for the restoration of a conservative America."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... hance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like he likes Bush.

That's not entirely true. What he said was:

I [meaning Joseph Sheppard, the author] wrote [previously] that possibly the GOP's best and only chance would be a Palin/Bush (in any combination) ticket, as that would be the only way to heal the breech and keep the party together. A true conservative Virginia gentleman and strong Palin supporter advised that he is against that "because it is the only thing that will save the GOP, and it is beyond saving."

Such is the plight the Establishment has visited on the party. They will pay the price if it goes the way of the Whigs. Perhaps the old gentleman is right.

The author seems to like the words, "possibly," and "perhaps." Not exactly definitive statements IMHO. It also appears the "old Virginia gentleman" doesn't want to save the GOP by any means, and from what I've read lately here, many agree with him.

baldeagle wrote:This article perfectly sums up what's going on, and the GOP ignores the signs at their peril. The party is on the precipice of collapsing. It won't take much to tip the balance. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then, yes, at the national level you will have Democrats for a LONG time. If that's what you want, push a Christie, Romney or Bush and tell conservatives to take their medicine. It ain't happenin. Not this time. Not after the betrayal of 2014.

In 2013 he wrote, "The Palin/Bush pairing (which works either way) would see the rifts in the GOP healed over, a united team with massive resources in finance, manpower and credibility, and a very real path to Electoral College victory -- an historic compromise for the restoration of a conservative America."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... hance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like he likes Bush.

baldeagle wrote: Here's you display a naivete about the nomination process. If the GOP really wanted the nominee to be chosen by the voters, they would stay out of the primaries entirely and let the voters decide. But they don't do that. They rig the rules to give their chosen candidates an unfair advantage and spend significant political capital denigrating all the candidates they prefer not to see represent the party.

Don't think I'm naive at all. Both parties attempt to get their "chosen" candidate nominated by using those tactics. You don't think there's immense pressure from the Dem "powers that be" for Elizabeth Warren to stay out of Hillary's way?

I guess the GOP forgot to put their thumb on the scales for Romney in Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, which Romney did not win.

If the GOP is destroyed, it will be the Dems in control for generations, IMHO. Parties lose elections when their base stays home and/or alienate the Independants. To me, it is easier to work from within to change party leadership, than it is to split into adversary groups with a "my way or the highway" approach. That's a losing strategy. And, as far a party leadership, there are well over 60 Tea party affiliated members of the House, yet only 25 House members voted against the Speaker this week. What does that say about the conservative wing of the party?

baldeagle wrote:[ From your side, the GOP should nominate someone, and then the voters should support that nominee. The other side of that coin is the GOP should let the voters decide who the nominee should be and then support that nominee.

Where did you get the idea that I objected to what Cruz did? I have no big arguments on what Cruz did. As reported, Harry Reid would have got the nominations in anyway.

But, you have my side of the coin reversed. It seems to me that the "voters" in the primaries selected Romney as the candidate, not the party. After that, Romney had the support of the GOP. As TAM said, "The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences." Simply put, the "my way or the highway" stance from either the RINOs or the Conservatives is what will destroy the GOP. My point is that it is better to have a POTUS that is NOT a Democrat, even if it means that the GOP candidate is not as conservative as I'd like and is not in lock step with me. I am no big fan of the current GOP leadership, but destroying the GOP will give us Democrats in control forever. And sorry, I do not equate the Dems and the GOP equally bad.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm with Charles on this, I too like Sen. Cruz. But sometimes the seemingly most important legislative debates bury the actually most important details and/or consequences that will be affected by the outcomes. Ideologically speaking, I stand with Tea Party and libertarian candidates over issues (I know that sounds conflicting, but it really isn't); but I worry that in their zeal to pursue proper (from my perspective) ideological principles, these politicians will overlook the political realities, and we'll end up with unexpected outcomes. More truthfully, those outcomes should be expected, but zeal blinds people to them.

The Annoyed Man wrote: And #2 is pretty worthless if that president is not conservative enough, because our "conservative" Speaker has shown little interest in behaving conservatively. But the flip side of that is the party's zealots are all too willing to behave conservatively without giving any thought to the consequences. The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences.

TAM

Substitute the words "republican voter" for the words "politicians and zealots", and you have the reason we have the current POTUS. They stayed home because Romney wasn't conservative enough for them. The Republican House and Senate do not elect the President. The voters do (actually, Independents do). As long as they (to use your words) "are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences" we will have a Democrat in the White House. How many times, on this forum and other places have I read, "If the Republicans don't get a presidential candidate I can get behind, and agrees with my principals, I will not..." If you want the republican politicians to wake up, so too need the Republican "voters." Just MHO.