PDA

View Full Version : Travis Rowley: Conservatives Who Hate the GOP




tbone717
07-19-2012, 05:29 AM
Three years past the advent of the Tea Party movement there are still some conservative activists failing to participate in the most potent strategy for reversing government growth and ostracizing the progressive philosophy. Simply, that strategy is the infiltration of the Republican Party by every libertarian and conservative activist.

While many Tea Partiers have naturally drifted into the political party that still possesses a platform of limited government – albeit has greatly failed to live up to it – there still remains a good number of devoted conservatives who can’t get past their disdain for the GOP and its shortcomings.
These people can most often be found on the steps of the State House and on internet blogs, complaining about government growth, the horrors of collectivism, and the erosion of traditional American life. They say all the right things, but ultimately draw a conclusion that is just as dangerously delusional as any of the countless political and economic myths advanced by liberals – that is, that “both major political parties are the same.”

While sympathetic to their frustration, and understanding as to the root of their assertion, theirs is still a dramatically false proclamation – a falsehood that only helps to delay the restoration of the principles they so value.

The rest of the article is here (http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/tra1/)

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 08:36 AM
Yes, let's blindly march behind whatever candidate is given to us by the party that also gave us the war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.

What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

tbone717
07-19-2012, 08:44 AM
Yes, let's blindly march behind whatever candidate is given to us by the party that also gave us the war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.

What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

I didn't see anything in the article that suggested people should "blindly march behind whatever candidate is given to us by the party".

Was there something specific that the author stated where you disagree?

Carlybee
07-19-2012, 09:15 AM
Did you not read the first thing on his blog? The quote from Andrew Breitbart? This kid sounds about as establishment as you can get. Then again nothing that Liberty Lite people post shocks me.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 09:24 AM
I didn't see anything in the article that suggested people should "blindly march behind whatever candidate is given to us by the party".

Opening paragraph:

“I will march behind whoever our candidate is. Because if we don’t, we lose. There are two paths…One is America. And the other one is [the Occupy Movement]…If you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you. You’re on the other side.” – Andrew Breitbart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isW3xvQS8e8)



Was there something specific that the author stated where you disagree?

Yes!

I disagree with him when he says:



They say all the right things, but ultimately draw a conclusion that is just as dangerously delusional as any of the countless political and economic myths advanced by liberals – that is, that “both major political parties are the same.”


Both political parties ARE the same. They will root for their "team" before looking closely at the issue to determine what is best for our country. It's as though they look at what the other is doing and just say "they're wrong, we're going to oppose that." Then they get elected and keep doing the same damned thing they criticized.



Without Republicans in Washington, the Democrats’ tax hikes would most certainly be in effect. Without Republicans in Washington, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be sitting on the Supreme Court. And without Republicans in Washington, ObamaCare will likely become a permanent national fixture.


Is this supposed to be comedy? Yeah, thank God for John Roberts!! Woo-hoo!!! Let me know when ObamaCare is going to be overturned by Republicans. I won't hold my breath.



The fact of the matter is that, while there is cause for activism outside the realm of the party system, many of these conservatives are less concerned with achieving political victories than they are with retaining their elite status – that is, their ability to travel the blogosphere and inform everyone of how correct they are, and how correct they’ve always been. The nation may founder under big-government progressivism. But nobody will ever be able to say that it was their fault. They were never a “Republican.”Not only are these conservatives irrationally obsessed over a mere word, they’re also highly self-absorbed – more concerned with maintaining their political innocence than anything else. Many of them are, in fact, a bunch of narcissistic cowards.
I'm not concerned with retaining "elite status" (whatever that's supposed to mean, but I get that people tend to hurl ad hominem attacks when their argument is weak). But he's right; I'm less concerned with political so-called "victories" than I am in political ideological purity of liberty candidates. See, freedom is like being pregnant...you either are or you aren't, there's no in-between with either. Either a candidate supports liberty all the time, without exception (and does not throw his/her name behind someone who doesn't) or they're not a liberty candidate at all.

georgiaboy
07-19-2012, 09:25 AM
this article exactly describes what Ron Paul has been asking us to do, and we've been doing with lots of successes, since 2007.


Did you not read the first thing on his blog? The quote from Andrew Breitbart? This kid sounds about as establishment as you can get. Then again nothing that Liberty Lite people post shocks me.

Except for this part^ :)

Not blindly supporting any R on the ticket has been the big lesson I've learned over the years. In order for Republicans to stay conservative, we not only must participate as conservatives, but we must only vote for conservatives. ergo, sorry Mitt.

tbone717
07-19-2012, 09:26 AM
Did you not read the first thing on his blog? The quote from Andrew Breitbart? This kid sounds about as establishment as you can get. Then again nothing that Liberty Lite people post shocks me.

Do you get paid to troll every thread that is about the Liberty Movement's involvement in the GOP? Cause in all seriousness you do it like it is your job, and you honestly offer nothing of substance.

It is getting to the point where I am just simply going to ignore whatever you post, because it really is irrelevant.

If you have solutions and plans then feel free to coordinate with those who agree with you and develop a strategy, otherwise just stop pissing all over the hard work that so many people are doing out there. It really is counterproductive.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 09:27 AM
this article exactly describes what Ron Paul has been asking us to do, and we've been doing with lots of successes, since 2007.Ron Paul asked us to "march behind whoever our candidate is. Because if we don’t, we lose"???

I guess I missed that memo...could you provide the link?

When the opening paragraph of an article is something that makes me almost want to vomit, I can pretty much guess where the rest of it is going to go.


Edit to add: My response came before the edit of your post.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 09:28 AM
Do you get paid to troll every thread that is about the Liberty Movement's involvement in the GOP? Cause in all seriousness you do it like it is your job, and you honestly offer nothing of substance.

It is getting to the point where I am just simply going to ignore whatever you post, because it really is irrelevant.Do YOU get paid to troll the Ron Paul forum, with an agenda to ask the membership to support the GOP candidate no. matter. what. ??

tbone717
07-19-2012, 09:33 AM
Do YOU get paid to troll the Ron Paul forum, with an agenda to ask the membership to support the GOP candidate no. matter. what. ??

If your read my posts in the "working in the GOP" thread, I always emphasize that the goal is to be able to get liberty candidates elected to local, state and federal offices.

You should run yourself and see how you do. I am sure there are many positions in local government that are up for grabs over the next couple of years.

georgiaboy
07-19-2012, 09:34 AM
Ron Paul asked us to "march behind whoever our candidate is. Because if we don’t, we lose"???

I guess I missed that memo...could you provide the link?

When the opening paragraph of an article is something that makes me almost want to vomit, I can pretty much guess where the rest of it is going to go.

Yeah, no, sorry, I stand corrected. The article does better than the Breitbart quote. Ron Paul's message has always been to become active in the Republican Party, which is the major thrust of the article.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 09:35 AM
If your read my posts in the "working in the GOP" thread, I always emphasize that the goal is to be able to get liberty candidates elected to local, state and federal offices.

You should run yourself and see how you do. I am sure there are many positions in local government that are up for grabs over the next couple of years.I'm not candidate material; I'm very content to be a foot soldier in the fight for Liberty. And if the GOP gives us such a candidate, he/she will have my support, my money, and my time to do whatever I can.

sailingaway
07-19-2012, 09:38 AM
I don't find it persuasive and I agree that setting the tone with the notion that we should 'march blindly behind whomever 'our' candidate is' is nausea inducing to me. However, it is the common thread of the establishment types who want us to not rock the boat further than they want us too, essentially, that I think is evoking the response. I agree the writer hardly sounds like one of us.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 09:43 AM
I don't find it persuasive and I agree that setting the tone with the notion that we should 'march blindly behind whomever 'our' candidate is' is nausea inducing to me. However, it is the common thread of the establishment types who want us to not rock the boat further than they want us too, essentially, that I think is evoking the response. I agree the writer hardly sounds like one of us.+rep!

georgiaboy
07-19-2012, 09:52 AM
I don't find it persuasive and I agree that setting the tone with the notion that we should 'march blindly behind whomever 'our' candidate is' is nausea inducing to me. However, it is the common thread of the establishment types who want us to not rock the boat further than they want us too, essentially, that I think is evoking the response. I agree the writer hardly sounds like one of us.

Agreed, although the author's main thrust for conservatives to get involved is correct, he's not gonna attract them this way, by belittling or shaming them into joining up, and by plastering that Breitbart quote at the top. This guy is basically venting.


His point
When these conservative activists condescendingly taunt Republicans by asking what the difference is between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, this is the appropriate response: The political constituencies that they’re beholden to.
made me chuckle also. Ahem, who are the major donors to both of these two candidates?

Carlybee
07-19-2012, 09:52 AM
Do you get paid to troll every thread that is about the Liberty Movement's involvement in the GOP? Cause in all seriousness you do it like it is your job, and you honestly offer nothing of substance.

It is getting to the point where I am just simply going to ignore whatever you post, because it really is irrelevant.

If you have solutions and plans then feel free to coordinate with those who agree with you and develop a strategy, otherwise just stop pissing all over the hard work that so many people are doing out there. It really is counterproductive.

Right back atcha Sparky. You do not represent everyone on this forum nor do you represent Ron Paul supporters as a whole. I'm beginning to wonder if you work for the establishment GOP rather than the RLC.

sailingaway
07-19-2012, 09:54 AM
Agreed, although the author's main thrust for conservatives to get involved is correct, he's not gonna attract them this way, by belittling or shaming them into joining up, and by plastering that Breitbart quote at the top. This guy is basically venting.


His point
made me chuckle also. Ahem, who are the major donors to both of these two candidates?

Yeah, exactly. I'm not saying getting involved is the wrong thing if you have decent candidates to work for, or just to move into a position of influence, but this guy is hardly the one to inspire our sort to do it.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 10:04 AM
When these conservative activists condescendingly taunt Republicans by asking what the difference is between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, this is the appropriate response: The political constituencies that they’re beholden to.

Differences:

Romney's constituents want to go to war with everyone who doesn't look like them
Obama's wants everyone to share everything we earn with everyone else...and for those who have to pay for everything that those who don't, want.

Similarities:

Both excuse their own candidate for doing exactly what the opposition was doing in the previous administration.
Both are good at only seeing the blame on the other side, while refusing to see how their side also adds to the problem.
Both are hopeless sheep, just wearing the team uniform and doing whatever the "team" wants.
Both want government to grow, just in different ways.
Neither side wants to decrease spending; they only want to spend on different agendas.

LibertyEagle
07-19-2012, 10:19 AM
I think this was the point that he was trying to make.


If conservatives wish to force every shred of liberalism from the Republican Party, their best option is to become active Republicans.

And that is exactly what we are doing, along with using the party to get our liberty candidates elected.

I share people's concerns that we do not become sucked up and forget what we stand for, but if we have any backbone at all, I don't see that happening.

Political parties are just tools. They do not define me.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 10:27 AM
You may be successful in driving those people out of the GOP, but they still vote! Where will they go?

In my state, when the current neocons were all registered as Democrats, the GOP didn't exist for us.

The socialist/progressive Dems were successful in driving out those voters too. It definitely gave the Dems the base they wanted, but it didn't help them to win elections. Now, you can hardly find a Democrat to run for office in this state. In fact, just this morning Dead Pelican reported: La. Democrats may not challenge all GOP incumbents in fall House elections


(http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/la_democrats_may_not_challenge.html)

tbone717
07-19-2012, 10:32 AM
You may be successful in driving those people out of the GOP, but they still vote! Where will they go?

No one is trying to drive registered voters out of the party, we are trying to win the elected offices within the party. For example, nearly ever electoral district has a committeeman, that is one single person that we are trying to unseat and replace with someone who is a liberty candidate. I think you are failing to understand the influence that the committeemen and the county GOP have over the electorate.

LibertyEagle
07-19-2012, 10:35 AM
Yes, but at the same time, the liberal progressives might go home to whence they came. It's their choice.

But, there are a ton of just regular people in the Republican Party, who have been brainwashed. Those are the people who we stand a good chance of winning over. Regardless, most elections belong to the people who show up. And we know very few people actually vote these days. Especially for leadership positions in the GOP or for offices other than President.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 10:37 AM
No one is trying to drive registered voters out of the party, we are trying to win the elected offices within the party. For example, nearly ever electoral district has a committeeman, that is one single person that we are trying to unseat and replace with someone who is a liberty candidate. I think you are failing to understand the influence that the committeemen and the county GOP have over the electorate.*sigh*

But if you fill those seats with people who will then endorse candidates who are not to the liking of the voters, the voters will leave. Unless said endorsed liberty candidate is prepared to do some compromising on principles, of course. If those voters wanted what Ron Paul was offering, he would be the nominee now!

Those committeemen and county GOP people have much less influence than Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity on the average GOP voter. If you don't have them on board with what you're doing, you're wasting resources and time.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 10:39 AM
Yes, but at the same time, the liberal progressives might go home to whence they came. It's their choice.Liberal progressives aren't the issue here...they're already in the Democratic Party. The current neocons who used to be Democrats were never what we now call progressive.

tbone717
07-19-2012, 10:42 AM
*sigh*

But if you fill those seats with people who will then endorse candidates who are not to the liking of the voters, the voters will leave. Unless said endorsed liberty candidate is prepared to do some compromising on principles, of course. If those voters wanted what Ron Paul was offering, he would be the nominee now!

Those committeemen and county GOP people have much less influence than Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity on the average GOP voter. If you don't have them on board with what you're doing, you're wasting resources and time.

Incorrect. Personal endorsements are much more effective than what radio hosts say. And honestly, with the exception of the major Senate races and the presidential election the radio hosts don't get involved in the other contests.

Take my ward for example. Our committeeman endorsed and supported Sam Rohrer for Senate and Frank Pinto for Aud Gen. The state GOP endorsed Welch and Maher for the same offices. Take a guess which candidates won our ward?

In all honesty, you seem to find a million reasons to not do something - when there are tons of us out here that are doing something. The "but what ifs" are getting old. Come up with your own plan and solutions, organize your people and put that plan into action to see if you are successful. Stop trying to piss on the work that everyone else is doing.

AuH20
07-19-2012, 10:46 AM
*sigh*

But if you fill those seats with people who will then endorse candidates who are not to the liking of the voters, the voters will leave. Unless said endorsed liberty candidate is prepared to do some compromising on principles, of course. If those voters wanted what Ron Paul was offering, he would be the nominee now! Those committeemen and county GOP people have much less influence than Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity on the average GOP voter. If you don't have them on board with what you're doing, you're wasting resources and time.

Ron Paul is a very poor communicator. I think we can win GOP voters very easily but we need to modulate our message like Rand Paul has. This modulation has very little to do with compromising principles.

sailingaway
07-19-2012, 10:51 AM
Liberal progressives aren't the issue here...they're already in the Democratic Party. The current neocons who used to be Democrats were never what we now call progressive.

they are absolutely progressive. what made Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt progressive? What were they pushing that these trotskyite neoconservatives aren't?

sailingaway
07-19-2012, 10:53 AM
Ron Paul is a very poor communicator. I think we can win GOP voters very easily but we need to modulate our message like Rand Paul has. This modulation has very little to do with compromising principles.

I guess that is in the ear of the listener. Ron speaks to me, and red meat Rand often uses sometimes makes me cringe.

However, speaking style isn't what I'm after. We have a great speaker in office right now.

AuH20
07-19-2012, 10:57 AM
I guess that is in the ear of the listener. Ron speaks to me, and red meat Rand often uses makes me cringe.

However, speaking style isn't what I'm after. We have a great speaker in office right now.

Ron has a habit of insulting GOP primary voters consistently and I don't think he even knows that he's doing it. That was one of his main problems besides being blackballed by the media. So a candidate insults his audience inadvertently and then is surprised when they don't vote for him?? Rand on the other hand runs away from anything that can be misconstrued as an insult. He often shies away from the predictable talk radio nonsense whether it's Palestine or whatever. He's really on the ball in that respect bridging the message divide.

cajuncocoa
07-19-2012, 01:21 PM
they are absolutely progressive. what made Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt progressive? What were they pushing that these trotskyite neoconservatives aren't?I wasn't speaking of the definition of "progressive" in the historical sense...I was referring to what self-described "progressives" would consider progressivism to be today. Social justice, socialism, etc.

LibertyEagle
07-19-2012, 03:06 PM
Liberal progressives aren't the issue here...they're already in the Democratic Party. The current neocons who used to be Democrats were never what we now call progressive.

Yeah, they are. There isn't a shred of difference, besides maybe the neocons are more out front about their desire for warmongering. This morning, CSPAN had a democratic congressman on as a guest. He would have fit in with the neocons perfectly. There is really no difference.

Barrex
07-19-2012, 07:53 PM
I feel obligated to say:I am with tbone717 and am sad to see him being banned. His arguments are logical and correct. cajuncocoa & Carlybee I dont like you and I dont like your tactic. I should probable get a ban to for responding to your comments the way I did. You started with insults, patronizing and aggresive things and you dont offer any viable alternative except complaining and moaning. That being said I am not going to take part in this "discussion" because you offer nothing like I allready stated before. I hope tbone717 will be back soon.

Badger Paul
07-20-2012, 09:48 AM
(Sigh)... So young and already a company man.

I owe Republican Party no loyalty nor does it own me any either. Since the parties have conspire to rig the game in their favor, then my along with many others no choice but to take them over and steer them in the direction we wish them to follow. It's that simple. Barry Goldwater did this for the conservative movement back in 1964, George McGovern did the same for the New Left in 1972 on down to Reagan and Bill Clinton, it's the same thing. The parties exist to service us and not them. It is the only way to preserve our independence in the reality of modern election law and ballot access.

erowe1
07-20-2012, 09:50 AM
Liberal progressives aren't the issue here...they're already in the Democratic Party. The current neocons who used to be Democrats were never what we now call progressive.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The GOP is, on the whole, liberal progressive, at least among those who hold elected office. And there are plenty who do not hold elected office who are also liberal progressives, especially among the neoconservatives.

Athan
07-20-2012, 10:00 AM
Yes, let's blindly march behind whatever candidate is given to us by the party that also gave us the war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.

What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:
Your lack of understanding of the political process is what causes you to say that. We are talking about cacusing and conventions. Not blindly voting and giving lip service.