Question from Trent
15 Comments so far
Leave a comment
November 6, 2008, 10:13 pm
Filed under: Question & Answer
Filed under: Question & Answer
What do you think should be done about rebuilding the Republican Party? What would you suggest as a strategy for 2012? Who do you think can/should run?
Rasmussen reports:
“When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year — Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.
Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.”
Thoughts?
15 Comments so far
Leave a comment
This might not be an especially popular sentiment among this crowd, but the party cannot rebuild around Sarah Palin. The partisanship and arrogance she displayed on the campaign trail is emblematic of everything the country has come to hate about the party in the Bush years. She has become the poster child for a party that moderates and independents view as uninformed, uneducated, and inarticulate, a party that has devolved into a cult of personality and ideology. The GOP brand has lost both its bully pulpit and its moral authority, which severely cripples Palin’s “my way or the highway” modus operandi. There won’t be any “With us or against us” moments, quite simply because most of the country is against us. Change will have to come through concession. Ideology must be traded in for nuance and suasion. Sarah Palin can fire up the base, sure, but she alienates independents (the 10% of the country who shifted camps between September and November weren’t Republicans, after all) and democrats, and it’s at the margin, not the base, where the party will begin to rebuild.
I think it’s far too premature to start identifying potential presidential candidates the week after the election. Let’s not forget our president-elect was a senator-elect just four years ago. Romney, Pawlenty, Crist, etc are all popular now because they have been players over the past few months, but who knew anything about those guys when Bush was reelected? Not to say none of those guys will be in the running, but I think there will be a lot of candidates in the running we don’t see coming.
Moreover, and more importantly, the party can’t wait four years to rebuild around another presidential candidate, especially around a candidate in a race they are almost sure to lose. “What would you suggest as a strategy for 2012?,” I would, suggest is the wrong question. I’m more concerned about our strategy for 2008 and beyond. Conveniently, our hope to fix the party lies at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
The best kept and more promising secret in Washington is that the best, brightest, and most articulate young members of Congress are Republicans. The leadership structure in the House next year is likely to be John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mike Pence. Boehner has been working hard (and quite successfully) to repair the post-Hastert party; Cantor is an absolute star and should be the future of the party; Mike Pence is one of the leading conservative voices in the House and former chair of the fiscal hawk Republican Study Committee. These three, along with outside of leadership guys like Adam Putnam and Paul Ryan, can present a far more compelling case than the Pelosi-Hoyer-Frank triumbrant across the aisle. They will make earmark reform and domestic energy exploration an issue in the 111th Congress. They might not have the votes to get anything done, but they do have the voice and the arguments to build a national consensus around their plans.
Like Gingrich and Co. in 1994 (and Pelosi and Partners in 2006), a rise to power almost always occurs first (and most dramatically) in the House because it is more responsive to the people. The Senate is usually next (or, if it occurs at the same time, it is less dramatic). And then finally, the reform party takes back the White House. It is highly unlikely that we will be able to win back the WH if we’re still bleeding House and Senate seats.
This is a crisis point for the party. I think we have the right guys in the right places to return to the ideals we still claim to have, but change needs to begin at the bottom and work its way up. The congressional races this year indicate that, while the country (for good reason) is sick of the Republican Party, it is still a center-right nation. If Republicans begin acting like Republicans and conservatives like conservatives, I think we can win back the People’s House in the next four years.
Comment by Daniel November 7, 2008 @ 4:44 pmHey Dan, you are quite safe expressing your opinion here, even if it isn’t popular.
The fact that a lot of excellent amendments and questions were passed by various states (including South Carolina! Yay!!) proves that the country is not as leftist as the election of Obama would seem to indicate. It just means that the majority of folks didn’t vote values when it came to the Presidential election.
What that means is that Obama did a good job deceiving, and McCain did a lousy job undeceiving. He was too bound by his “honor” to point out Obama’s deceptions and falsehoods for what they were. Also, the American people, as usual, voted pocketbook first, rather than values first.
Conservatism always wins when it’s presented unapologetically. Did you notice that Obama sugar-coated his Marxist policies in conservative terms? How many times did you shout at the tv “That is a big fat LIE! That’s not what you’re going to do and you know it!!”? And unfortunately, the American people bought it.
Daniel, if the moderates and independents were really the people we need to worry about attracting, McCain would have won. He was the ultimate moderate fence-straddler. His whole campaign was built to attract those very folks. I know you point to Sarah Palin as the reason he didn’t do so well, but remember what his campaign was like before she joined. He was in trouble, and especially so when you contrast him with Obama. This was the year of the Moderates, they had their dream candidate, and he didn’t fly.
Do you remember the excitement when Sarah Palin was chosen? Everybody loved her, and the base suddenly became energized, in stark contrast to the lethargy that had gripped the conservatives since the primaries. You say she turned people off. Well, maybe she did, but look at the crowds that came to hear her. She’s the only one who could approach Obama’s charisma. Why? Was it her looks and dynamic personality? That may have had something to do with it, but the main reason was that finally there was someone speaking for the conservative cause.
The problem is and always has been that we have left the principles that have made our country great. When conservatives run as moderates, they lose. When liberals run as conservatives, they win. This has happened time and time again. If the majority of voters were not conservative in values, Prop 8 (congratulations Trent, Ashley, and all you other conservative Californians!) and all the other excellent measures would never have passed. We need to get back to the basics and start speaking out unapologetically for conservatism and countering liberalism. We need to do this on every level, from city council and up. And when we start recruiting and supporting conservative, effective candidates for local and state offices, then we’ll have a fighting chance at reclaiming our country. Remember, the councilmen of today are the Sarah Palins of tomorrow. And yes, I do think she’ll play a major role in the next Reagan revolution.
Comment by Hannah November 8, 2008 @ 10:10 amI understand that figuring out who should or shouldn’t run in 2012 is not going to “fix it”. I just wanted to hear what peoples thoughts were (and, so far, they are definitely interesting!).
I completely agree about the focus on what we can do now.
We need to remind people what conservative principles are and how they work (I think the modern definition of conservative is “a bunch of people who don’t like change”).
By the way Hannah, not that it matters, but… I live in Texas – it’s Chad Zissos and Paulo Sibaja, besides Ashley, who live in California. I join with you in congratulating them for their work in California. Great job y’all!
Comment by Trent Williams November 10, 2008 @ 1:52 pmDitto for Paulo, Chad, and Ashley. Recently, there’s been a “groundswell” for Bobby Jindal (although obviously a lot can happen in 4 years).
Comment by Paul Hastings November 13, 2008 @ 3:51 amHannah, I appreciate our acceptance of me despite what must appear to be my liberal, northeast, ivy league views. I swear I’m none of those
I’m going to try to keep my comments brief, but that’s always been a struggle for me. I have to disagree that, if this election were about moderates and independents, McCain would have won for the simple reason that this election was decided by mods and indys but McCain still lost. If you look at the polls, Obama won independents something like 52-44. Those numbers are even more dire in the swing states, where Obama was bringing in around 56-58% while McCain under performed Bush’s ’04 numbers with “fence straddlers.” In “McCain’s Waterloo” of Pennsylvania, for example, he only got something like 39% of independent voters.
Let’s take the national figure out of the abstract for a minute. Independents account for roughly 1/3 of the voters in this country. That means, of the 125 million Americans who voted, approximately 41.6 million were independents, with 21.6 million voting for Obama, 18.3 million for McCain. There was a difference between Obama and McCain of 3.3 million independent voters, a difference that did not exist before Palin entered the race.
Now, let’s imagine that ratio was simply reversed, with McCain winning independents 52-44 – not at all incomprehensible and entirely expected when the most liberal member of the Senate runs against one of the least partisan. That would result in a swing of votes that would bring McCain within .015% of the lead nationally. This isn’t even taking into account the conservative dems who are only independents because they were disenfranchised by the Bush GOP, and it includes the northeast independents who are only independent because the democratic party isn’t liberal enough (i.e. people not in swing states). When this arithmetic is applied to independent voters in the swing states, it’s hard to say that it wasn’t the independents who gave the election to Obama. Maybe choosing someone other than Palin wouldn’t have clinched a win – maybe a win was just impossible this year – but she definitely didn’t help.
The fact that independents abandoned McCain is incomprehensible. McCain has incensed his party and risked his political future several times throughout his career by reaching out across the aisle. (Which, might I add, was bipartisan heresy by the right.) Now Hannah, you rightly point out that after the Palin pick, McCain surged in the polls, but here are a few things worth keeping in mind. (1) The VP pick always results in a polling surge. Obama got a Biden bump, too. (2) The convention also always results in a polling bump. (3) It’s important to look at where the poll movement occurred. Most of the people who jumped on board after the Palin pick were either value-voting Republicans (who would have voted for McCain, regardless of their tough talk) and independents swayed by her reform record (who quickly jumped back to undecided when it became obvious her record isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be). The movement away from McCain was made up of independents who felt betrayed by the way McCain ran his campaign and who were scared off by Palin’s highly partisan demagoging. In short, Palin won votes McCain would have gotten regardless and cost him the votes that would have out him over the top in some swing states.
Palin reminded independents of why they left the GOP. She’s charismatic, yes, but let’s be honest: she’s a terrible speaker. She does things to the English language I didn’t know were possible. She spoke for the conservative cause, yes, but she did so in sound bites and talking points. Her view of the world was entirely unnuanced and unable to persuade any one who didn’t already agree with her. She’s a great fundraiser and a great motivator, but a terrible persuader. She was partisan in a year where people craved unity. She came off as uninformed about foreign and monetary policy when both pose existential threats to our national security. She spoke down to people, assuming that they need to be reasoned with at their lowest common denominator. (I don’t know about you, but I am insulted to think that all Americans have to be reached on a Joe Six Pack sentence-fragment level.) Say what you want about Obama’s eggheadedness, but he projected depth and nuance. It was obvious – to his own undoing at times – that he was putting great thought into every side of every issue, and not just figuring out what would be most appealing to What-Would-Reagan-Do Republicans.
I agree that we need to start defending conservatism and countering liberalism again, but the country deserves more than the far right seems willing to give. The nation deserves a true, honest debate over political systems. The nation requires compromise. This incessant demagoging and fear mongering – boiling every Democrat policy down to a Marx quote and equating liberal foreign policy with inviting terrorism – is both dishonest and wrong, and the country rejected these tactics over the past two elections.
PS – Trent, to answer your original question, here are a few guys no one is talking about, but I think at least a few will become household names after the midterm elections. Don’t say i didn’t tell you so in four years
:
-John Thune: young, articulate, charismatic senator with a record and a personality the heartland will love; I hear the ladies like him too
-Mitch Daniels: governor of a red-to-blue state (Indiana); won reelection with 57%(!) of the vote despite the fact that Obama carried the state; former OMB director
-Mark Sanford: popular, pork-fighting southern governor; has some detractors, though, and said that his reelection as governor would be his last campaign
-Haley Barbour: was the “Giuliani of Katrina,” one of the few public officials who seemed adept in the aftermath of the hurricane
-John Huntsman: could help stop the bleeding in the west
Jindal and Newt (decided not to run for RNC chair…does he have other plans in the next four years?) are also possibilities. If the Romney-regret much of the GOP is currently feeling holds over until 2012, there’s always the chance he’ll make a play for it.
Comment by Daniel November 15, 2008 @ 1:45 amSorry Trent, I think I was getting you mixed up with Paulo…so sorry!
Daniel, if McCain was going to get those evangelical votes anyway, how come they helped create a bump in the polls when he chose Palin? From my own observation, his support among the base was wavering. I really do think that McCain was the real drag on the ticket. I disagree that the nation craved unity; I think the nation craved principle. Really, every time a Republican reaches across the aisle it means the Republican gave and the Democrat took. Unless it’s someone like Lieberman, you never hear about liberals “reaching across the aisle”. And we wonder why they’re so much more effective about turning their agenda into reality. And GOPers are sick of it! I really don’t hear any mourning for McCain personally at all, but the energy Palin created is still there. And when we see her doing great things for the party in the future, don’t say I didn’t tell you so.
As far as other potential leaders go, Mark Sanford is our Governor, and is greatly beloved in SC. He would really make a great leader on the national stage if we can persuade him to.
I really think we’re going to hear from Huckabee too. He has what it takes and I can’t wait to see where he goes.
As far as Romney is concerned, America needs to know what he did in Massachusetts. Did you know that he TOOK THE INITIATIVE to help the gay agenda along in that state? Took the initiative! I did not know that till recently.
“The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state’s marriage licenses to say “Party A and Party B” and order officials to perform same-sex “weddings” if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.”
http://americansfortruth.com/news/what-gay-marriage-has-done-to-massachusetts.html#more-2357
The Wallbuilders website recently linked to this article on the home page. Until then I didn’t know this about Romney. I really think that if we are serious about the fight for traditional marriage, we need to forget about Romney.
Comment by Hannah November 15, 2008 @ 8:21 amExcellent points on both sides (good job Hannah and Daniel). I think that Sarah Palin should run in 2016 (unless there is somebody better by then).
The media played a big part in this election and they really blew out of proportion “Palin problems” (I know we can’t blame the mainstream media for everything – too bad). Also, she was the running mate. Comparing her to Obama is a good comparison, but she was on the bottom of the ticket – not the top. McCain wouldn’t do his job questioning his opponent and so Palin had to. Either she felt she had slash Obama or she was told to. McCain wasn’t partisan so she had to be, or so she thought. If we are honest, we will see that she would have run the campaign very differently if she was in charge and on top of the ticket. If she runs in 2016 (for more on this see my blog: http://www.williamsforrep.blogspot.com ) the nation will, hopefully, have mostly forgotten the misconstrued image of Palin the media (mainstream, of course) has promoted.
Hannah, no problem – it’s actually a complement to be mixed up with Paulo. I think you are right about Huckabee too.
Dan, thanks for the names – good info – I appreciate it. I don’t think Romney would be a good standard-barer of the party (besides other things he is seen as being “slick” with his political dealings in the past).
Comment by Trent Williams November 15, 2008 @ 12:30 pmI absolutely love Sarah. I’d be one of those women with a “We love you Sarah” sign at an event. (I didn’t get a chance to go to one.) I think she really would have to change her speaking style, change her image, and re-create herself. Even though I love her dearly, she has to prove that she can win. I do not like Romney. That he put so much money into his own campaign just looks… tacky. He just looks like a tacky person now… like the representation of a person who is “slick” like Trent says. “Slick” “rich”…. just not a good image at all for the party. Especially since the base wants to go populist. Personally, I hope the whole nation splits via Constitutional secession anyway by 2012. Obama makes me want to constitutionally secede and just leave America and start over with a new conservative nation of states by constitutional secession. That would be my #1 pick – constitutional secession. But if that doesn’t happen, then I’d be open to look at other candidates. Not Mike Huckabee. I just don’t like how he comes across at all. He’s not populist – he’s something else. Him being religious just seems uncomfortable. I’m open to a new candidate – but not Romney for certain. I’d be done with the Republican Party, as would a lot of people, if Romney was nominated. I’d want to split and present a 3rd Party candidate. Not a fringe 3rd Party candidate… a person who could take the base from the Republican Party (many of us conservatives would be angry enough – especially after how Sarah was treated)… and perhaps Reagan Democrats. I don’t know who could do that yet – but I’d be completely open. The 2012 top of the ticket nominee MUST be conservative, NOT moderate… or I believe the Republican Party will split.
Just my opinion.
Comment by laura November 15, 2008 @ 4:25 pmNewt is finished. It’s appalling that anyone would even bring him up. He’s not coming back into the good graces, politically, of conservatives. I’m sorry. I definitely want a new 3rd Party if Newt is presented because it destroys the “brand” of the Republican Party for Newt to run for National office. On a personal level, I don’t judge him, but on a professional level – as a politician, he cannot recreate himself. Everyone will just be further disgusted by politics. You see, Obama (though he was a fakester) gave people something they could believe in. People want that. Palin did, too. Newt just muddies the waters and makes us want to go home and just be disgusted by politics. That’s why he can never come back. We need a hero. Not a messiah. Not a savior. But we do need someone who has excellency of character that makes us energized like Sarah did. That’s one person’s opinion.
Comment by laura November 15, 2008 @ 4:32 pmWelcome to the discussion Mrs. Ciscomani!
I am a little confused on one thing that you said about Mike Huckabee: “Him being religious just seems uncomfortable” – could you explain a little more in depth? I don’t want to argue or anything just interested on your thoughts on him and his chances as a candidate.
Secession?
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God…”
I take that as saying that God works in goverment and that we should “render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s” – obey our rulers, since God placed them over us, and stay under their authority (of course we should not do things God expressly forbids us to do even if commanded to). So no, I don’t agree that we should secede.
MY CANDIDATE SUGGESTION:
So far, all the suggestions have been for GOP presidential candidates. I would like to suggest a democrat candidate, if he doesn’t join the republicans before then, my suggestion is Joe Lieberman (of Connecticut). He is my choice for the democratic primaries.
I would love to here everyone’s thoughts on this!
Comment by Trent Williams November 16, 2008 @ 9:11 pmI personally had problems when Palin explained in the debate what she thought about what a vice president should do. She began with something like:
“I’m very happy that the founders incorporated such flexibility into the constitution.”
If Palin is going to be a president, she can’t just make pretty conservative speeches. She has to be flexible enough to compromise small matters of policy. BUT: she should NEVER compromise fundamental principles such as UNWAVERING constitutional restrictions.
Just my 2c.
I would really like to have someone totally new take over the GOP. I think the GOP doesn’t need a dusting, it needs a spring cleaning!
> Brian
Comment by Brian November 17, 2008 @ 12:10 amSecession… wow. I guess I’m not the only one after all.
Tennessee and Alabama. Right there in the Bible Belt, coastline, conservative, resources… I’m liking it.
Comment by Paul Hastings November 17, 2008 @ 3:57 pmTrent,
Could I please ask you to think through some principles and some applications of those principles?? Because often it requires greater consideration in depth to just really think it through and consider the greater principles and the whole counsel of God.
Every 4th of July we all celebrate secession. In the Declaration of Independence, that is when the founding fathers set forth the principle that God has given us inalienable rights dissolve the bonds of government and to establish others. In fact, this is state by them to be a responsibility.
They gave their reasons for secession, stated they seceded by the Divine Providence of God in His will.
Are you opposed to the Declaration of Indpendence on the basis of a unilateral principle??
Do you believe the founding fathers had no God-given inalienable rights to secede from England and would you have sided, on the basis of those scriptures, to be on the side of the Tories?? And would you consider, therefore, the revolutionary founding fathers who gave us this land of republican democratic freedom to have been acting against the Word of God?
The scriptures that you are stating are not intended to be unilateral and without judgment regarding the establishment of governments in order to throw off despotic tyranny.
Israel formed a new nation. Each one of those persons changed their identification to establish a new nation.
Were you opposed to the formation of the nation of Israel on the same principle and it’s application??
Also, consider when we here in the United States of America receive refugees. Should refugees stay in their nation irrespective of tyranny in order to be subject to God by being subject to the higher authorities?? And are they disobeying God in order to come out from under the authority of the rulers of their nations in order to find refuge in the US and to defect from their former nations in order to form a new union with the United States as new citizens?? Should all immigration cease on the basis of the principle that you are stating in application to those cases??
What of Texas?? Texas seceded from Mexico in the 1840′s I believe, because the people of Texas willed to secede. Mexico did not want to recognize their right to secede. Then Texas turned from Mexico, after having been an independent Nation via secession, and then turned and became a new state in the US. Do you believe that Texas had no right to secede from Mexico and to become a US state in becoming a member state of a new nation: the United STates of America. The US fought and won a war with Mexico to grant freedom to the Texans to exercise their free wills as a people because the people wanted to join the US. How would you apply the same principle to Texas?? And the US?? And Mexico?? And that war??
Do you believe that people have a right to self-government, or do you accept socialism??
Do you believe that Cubans should submit to Castro, or should they fight for democracy??
What of Hitler?? Should we have stated that Hitler had a right to kill the Jews as the leader of his nation?? And should the Germans have surrendered the Jews to Hitler rather than hiding many and smuggling them out of their nation over which Hitler ruled. Were they disobeying God?? Is there no “give” to this principle according to the Bible?? Is it unilateral irrespective of circumstances, tyranny, oppression, injustice, and the free will of a people as they desire to serve God in liberty and freedom according to how the Lord leads them in their own spirits as His children??
What of Egypt?? It was GOD who called the Israelites to secede as a people out of Egypt… though they were citizens of Egypt and under the authority of Pharoah. Did God violate His Word by calling His people out of Egypt and rejecting slavery and refusing to remain a part of that nation and to leave and to form their own nation?? Were they in disobedience or obedience to God when God told them to conquer peoples and take hte land as the “Promised Land” that He had given to them.
What of history?? What of practical examples?? What of biblical examples??
There are many times in the Bible where God has called a people to throw off despotic tyranny by various means as they leave and declare that they are a nation and God has so directed His people in the Bible.
I just think that it takes time to truly process the larger dynamics and see from Scripture – as well as history – that God does indeed change the formation of nations in accordance with His own will and people are in obedience to God to separate.
I invite you to read Revelation 18. The people are in a nation… and God calls His people OUT of that nation and they do form, imo, a new nation by secession. When God calls people out of a nation, He is giving a call to create a new nation just as He called the Jews out of Egypt and they created Israel in God’s will.
I do not believe that it can be stated that people who leave a nation, secede, and form a new nation are disobeying either God or the Bible when it is God, actually, who is leading and guiding them and it is the Lord who has effected this secession, exodus, and creation of a new nation.
If it was wrong, that the United States of America has no biblical right to be a nation and didn’t justly throw off despotic tyranny by God-given inalienable rights as our Christian founding fathers testified. If they could not create democracy and reject monarchy and it’s refusal to recognize their rights to self-government, then democracy has no biblical basis and they were completely wrong… and we have no God-given inalienable rights to freedom and liberty and democracy and self-government as human beings endowed by our Creator with such human rights.
I just invite you to consider greater principles, the entire matter, and the whole counsel of God… because I do believe it is the Lord in Revelation 18 who calls His people out of a specific nation that is marked for judgment and destruction from the Lord for it’s sin. Those people create a new nation… just as the Jews came out of Egypt and created Israel as a new nation. So we know that it was not just in the past that God stated in His Word by example that this precedence exists in His will by His command. God issues the same command to Christians as they the enter the end times or before times… and we just see in history all around us God moving and new nations being created.
Do you oppose Georgia being a Sovereign Nation State having seceded from the USSR… and do you believe Russia has rights to invade Georgia and bring her back against her will into the USSR by military occupation??
There’s just a lot to think about, Trent. And I pray you will consider the whole counsel of God, historical precedence, and even the founding of our nation as well as the war we had with Mexico to empower Texas to secede from Mexico and exercise the will of the people of Texas to join themselves to a new nation.
I believe in the principles of self-government and our founding fathers stated that these God-given inalienable rights were derived from God and they were obeying God and God was with them in their just cause of secession from England.
And we celebrate that every 4th of July.
I do so with clear conscience believing I am celebrating what God has done for Christians who obeyed Him and established a new nation by secession.
Independence = secession.
Last thing, the States, Trent, did not make a unilateral agreement to join the US giving up all rights to secede. Historically, it is a matter of contractual agreement that the States stated they had the right and retained the right to secede at will. Therefore, the Federal Government did not honor a contractual agreement when it selfishly refused to honor freedom, liberty, the contract, the Constitution and refused to allow the Southern to peacefully secede according to the democratic votes and free will of the peoples thereof.
There’s much more to this, Trent, than one scripture or even two taken outside the context of the whole of counsel of God, history, and precedence, and the principles of human rights that are inalienable given by God, self-government, government by the consent of the people, etc.
To believe things as you have stated is to believe in dictatorship with no human rights, and to believe in centralization of power with no human rights, to believe in socialism with no individual rights, and to believe in principle in things we know are not of God and against which God gives us rights, and responsibilities to stand.
Just more thoughts to consider.
Grace to you.
God bless,
Laura
Comment by laura November 19, 2008 @ 9:17 pmI believe in secession if it is in the case of government without representation (which I believe covers all of the examples you have mentioned – except the South splitting from the Union, they did have representation). I don’t believe that you should secede just because the people of America elect someone you don’t like. Therefore there was no justifiable cause for the southern states to secede. Accusing Lincoln, who ran the Government, of being greedy and selfish during the Civil War is rather humorous. Honest Abe was working in the best interest of the nation he was working for both sides, and he believed constitutionally. The fact that the South attacked Fort Sumter (owned by the North), in itself, completely justifies the War Between The States. Also,
“The[ Supreme Court has] repudiate[d] emphatically the mischievous heresy that the union of the states under the constitution is a mere league or compact, from which a state, or any number of states, may withdraw at pleasure, not only without the consent of the other states, but against their will.”
That’s my thought (if a little late in coming).
God Bless,
Trent
Comment by Trent Williams November 22, 2008 @ 12:12 pmGreetings. I realize this thread hasn’t had activity in a while, but I continue to find encouragement and “hope” in the intellectual exchanges from, and simply the existence of, Patriot Academy. And since the weariness and shock of the election season has passed a little bit…
That said, I was only disappointed in the width of Obama’s win, but not surprised in the win. I’ve seen an attitude of “It is simpler to push blame on a single person (Bush)” and therefore a slingshot reaction to the turn of the economy and reputation of America. I shudder when I heard the thought that to bring this country back toward the center, you have to aim far Left. (I’d be curious to the distribution at PA of the political spectrum – moderate Democrats to conservative Republicans?). Though I do not pray, as some, for Obama to “fail”, I want him only to succeed as far as minimizing the downturn. The state of the economy MAY be the one thing to prevent an overly liberal “change as much as we can” event.
I only learned anything about Palin via the strength of attacks against her (which endeared me TO her) but the players change too fast to believe who will be the main players in 3 years when the circus starts again. My concern, for the Party, is to admit mistakes, prove gained knowledge, and establish a new credibility. I think a “show of listening to the people” would be accomplished by embracing a revamping of the voting structure to Instant Run-off Voting that would give people more power in where their vote goes if their candidate drops out.
Aside from short term accomplishment goals, I don’t see that the definition of issues/platform has been given enough thought. Issues are rarely fully independent of other issues. Without getting into the merit or methods to solve immigration and security issues, I think poor wording hurt the conservative perspective. From my view, the Left was able to imply a desire of dictatorial “closing” of borders by the Republicans when talking about Border Security, when we should have emphasized that a “wall” has gates meant to control, not prevent border crossings. To move into the immigration issue, we need to focus on complimenting the type of workers we are trying to protect from abuse as an illegal work force, while desiring to keep out destructive elements that hurt the reputation of those honest hard workers. And from there, segway to the portion of unemployed/welfare that want to be independent how these objectives will help their chances to have and be proud of re-entering the workforce. Point being, the tag-lines and news-flashes are not effective against the criticism and distrust from past campaign promises.
McCain simply failed to “attack with honor”. A blue collar family can easily understand that a tax cut or stimulus only puts more money in your pocket until you have to buy something from a business Obama wants to raise taxes on, and their income is only protected by their company not shipping jobs elsewhere. I would even go with a paraphrased “It is not what your country can do for you. It is what you can do for yourselves.” to teach this country the pride and working attitude we used to have.
I grew up in Illinois and am a minority by being conservative, evangelical (and moving to Texas). I think states are way to dependent on each other now to secede, and no one should kid themselves on big of a change seceding would cause. BUT, if it happens I won’t hesitate to say goodbye to the state that went from Lincoln to Obama/Blago. I do think that there would be more of a “civil” war the next time it happens. If one state is on the brink of seceding, others would quickly follow behind it (or on the other side).
Whew! I’m glad I’m not the only one with a lot on their mind.
Comment by Sanity January 6, 2009 @ 2:01 pm