Republican Moderates Abandon Party

I am a former Republican Moderate who left the party. I joined because they spouted that they would fight the abortion issue among other conservative issues. I left because they only spouted those issues in election years. They actually did little or nothing to move the issues in between election years.

However, when I left, I did NOT join the Demorcrat party nor would I ever.

I patiently await my American Brothers and Sisters awakening to realize that we all need another party that represents us, the regular working stiffs rather than special interests or corporate giants that regularly buy our politicians.

Originally posted by zappafan1

REPLY: Sounds like a definition of the Founders. A good thing.

Nope. Doesn't sound like them at all. The founding Fathers were not warmongers, they were revolutionaries. Big difference. They did not go around starting wars just to generate income and flex their muscles. In fact, after the war of independance, they were pretty anti-war and avoided it, instead, they were isolationist.

REPLY: Explain, please.

Like Bush's attempts to add an ammendment to the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Their focus on morality and laws and regulations to try and legislate morality. Their focus on abortion, gay rights, and many others things that the government has no business getting involved in.

REPLY: Actually, we have, we are, and we're trying to undo all the damage from almost 50 years of Liberalistic/Democratic control of all three branches, and the Supreme Court.

Boy, where have you been? For the last 50 years? Don't make me laugh. Republicans controlled all three branches in the 80's, controlled congress in the 90's. And of course, the neo-cons are swinging the opposite way. Not only are they "undoing the damae" of liberals, they are creating a load of damage that will have to be undone by a liberal government just to get us back in balance. The neo-cons arent fixing anything. They are simply taking us to the opposite extreme, which is no better than the liberal mess they think they are clearing.

REPLY:"Neoconservatism" Noun; Def: "Political ideology of the US new conservatives, favoring hawkish views on foreign policy, minimal government regulation and little emphasis on social issues."

Yup. VERY un-American if you ask me. Hawkish foreign policy is damaging to our country in many ways, and the claims of "minimal government" are laughable. The neo-cons have increased the government size with adding the Department of Homeland security and other related agencies. The DEA was created by a conservative government too. And little emphasis on social issues? This administration, when its not making threats to start wars with every tinpot dictator has stuck its nose in almost every single social issue trying to regulate things such as sexuality.

Sounds like we ARE returning to our "former self"; we're returning to the ideals this country was founded upon; and The Constitution, too. All good things for this country. Gee...... I guess I AM a Neocon. THANKS!

What country are you living in? We are actually moving FAR and away from our original selves, become a totalitarian country under surveilance. This country wasn't founded to start wars and go tear-assing across the globe fighting everyone who doesn't agree with us. WE were founded on principles of Liberty, Isolationism, and human dignity, all things the neo-cons are doing their best to destroy.

Zappafan...there are no more socialists in American politics than there are protestants at the vatican. the left NEVER had a chance in this country politically....read your history from the red scare in the late teens to the maccarthy years to the systematic destruction of the leftist groups that came out of the 60's...they never had a chance. as for tax reduction....give me a bloody break....thats what a tax cut is....AND it has not benefitted everybody...the vast majority of it went to the wealthist top few % of the of the population. You live in a fantesy land and have no idea what you are saying.

The trouble is that its the religious votes that get them into power and the not so bright see those issues above all else.

Good on these guys for doing what they think is right rather than just blindly following the party line like so many on here seem to do.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by intrepid
The people WANT the Checks and Balances.

That's what's been missing.

From another thread:

Anti-Bush is Anti-American?
So it seems that there is MORE than 50% of the American public that don't support this president. Doing the math I figure it at about 65-68%. That's 2 out of every 3. Are those 2 un-American? That makes no sense to me. Only 1/3 of the population is pro-American? What kind of logic is that?

I think that it was pointed out in that other thread that the numbers were speaking to job approval rating, not support for the president. Two entirely different things.

So you're saying that people would vote for what they don't approve of? That doesn't make any sense and the #'s are showing that the support IS leaving.

quotes from grover

there are no more socialists in American politics than there are protestants at the vatican.

REPLY: Boy.... do you need to do some research.

the left NEVER had a chance in this country politically

REPLY: Except for a few years in the 80's, and since the mid-90's, they controlled every branch and the Supreme court.

read your history from the red scare in the late teens to the maccarthy years

REPLY: McCarthy was correct, as there was a very organized intelligence organization that spanned coast to coast.

to the systematic destruction of the leftist groups that came out of the 60's"

REPLY: Unfortunately, many of them have survived, and their members are now on the Left in the House and Senate. What you may not know is that the anti-war movement on colleges campuses was started by Communist infiltrators, and we know that from formerly secret documents released to us after the fall of the wall.

as for tax reduction....give me a bloody break....thats what a tax cut is....AND it has not benefitted everybody...the vast majority of it went to the wealthist top few % of the of the population.

REPLY: You have no clue, and I'm the one who, after studying economics and politics for almost 40 years, doesn't know what I'm talking about.

1st- Tax cuts are not the same as reductions.
2nd- The wealthiest people received more money only if you look at the "amount", not the percentage, besides, they EARNED it... they're getting their own money back, not taking it from anyone else.

Look, lowering the cost of doing anything results in more of that activity. Your local grocery store (or any store/business) don't have sales to lose money. As it is, the top 5% of "the rich" pay 85% of our taxes.
Tax rate reductions are NOT a political strategy, it's a monetary strategy, and it's worked every time it's been used; When Queen Elizebeth did it, when Kennedy did it, and also Reagan, and now Bush. More tax money (mostly from "the rich") is now flowing into Gov't coffers than since the late 80's.

The founding Fathers were not warmongers, they were revolutionaries. Big difference. They did not go around starting wars just to generate income and flex their muscles. In fact, after the war of independance, they were pretty anti-war and avoided it, instead, they were isolationist.

REPLY: I'd say that bringing liberty and freedon to many other countries is a very revolutionary idea, and no other country is going to do it because no other country knows as much about it as we do. That wars generate money is not a surprise; no-one is going to make and produce anything for free. Do you work for free?
Isolationism was not an option, as all things at the time pretty much dictated that it be so. Would The Founders agree with everything we've done? No. But I'm sure leaving our shores and saving most of Europe from Communism et-al is something they would admire, and do if they were here.

"....attempts to add an ammendment to the constitution to prohibit gay marriage"

REPLY: A president agreeing with something that falls under his moral beliefs is not new, and there's nothing wrong with it. There's no such thing as homosexual marriage, those two words are mutually exclusive. If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing.

Their focus on abortion, gay rights, and many others things that the government has no business getting involved in.

REPLY: Roe V: Wade was bad law, and does not give one a right to commit abortion. In just 35 years over 40 MILLION children have been eliminated. I believe the "right to life and liberty" should come into play there, somewhere.
There's no such thing as "homosexual rights"... I just looked at my trusty pocket Constitution. And, I choose to use the correct term, obviously. However, you are correct, as I believe tose issues should be voted on by the ppeople of the individual states.

"....its the religious votes that get them into power and the not so bright see those issues above all else.

REPLY: Sooooo, by your logic (not), that makes an atheist a member of MENSA?

Originally posted by zappafan1

While it's sad they chose to become Democrats instead of say....Libertarians...."

REPLY: No thanks; we have enough people in the two parties we have that are against the Constitution, and are for Marxism/Socialism. Mostly on the Left, but it's in both parties just the same.

If you think Libertarians are against the consitution then you are very misinformed.

REPLY: A president agreeing with something that falls under his moral beliefs is not new, and there's nothing wrong with it. There's no such thing as homosexual marriage, those two words are mutually exclusive. If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing.

There was once a time in our country when conservatives were saying "there is no such thing as a marriage between a black man and a white woman or between a white man and a black woman; there is no such thing as interracial marriage."

The justifications for it then were the same as they are now:

In the 19th century, interracial marriage was illegal in most states. As the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in a brief in a New Jersey case, "by the 1960s, at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes." The arguments mounted against interracial marriage also had a familiar ring. Fact and God played heavily in the judgments.

The Georgia Supreme Court in 1869 based its interracial marriage ban on natural law, observing that "the God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it." Hear the 1871 Indiana Supreme Court quoting an 1867 Pennsylvania decision: Racial separation is enacted not because of "prejudice, nor caste, nor injustice of any kind, but simply to suffer men to follow the law of races established by the Creator himself, and not to compel them to intermix contrary to their instincts."

The North Carolina Supreme Court in 1869 upheld the state's anti-race mixing law, stating that "the policy of prohibiting the intermarriage of the two races is so well established, and the wishes of both races so well known." A host of state anti-miscegenation laws -- strongly backed by white public sentiment -- were upheld in state courts well into the 20th century. The reasoning was simple and absolute: Marriage between the races defied the natural order; intermarriage bans had legitimate historical roots and were based on a "divinely ordained" scheme. Conclusion: Government had the right to define marriage as a union of two persons of the same race.

Colbert I. King in The Washington Post

[edit on 2-7-2006 by ShakyaHeir]

Originally posted by zappafan1
quotes from grover

there are no more socialists in American politics than there are protestants at the vatican.

REPLY: Boy.... do you need to do some research.

the left NEVER had a chance in this country politically

REPLY: Except for a few years in the 80's, and since the mid-90's, they controlled every branch and the Supreme court.

REPLY: Who are these Socialists?

*Waits with baited breath*

BTW, I've been a student of politics for many decades.

Ready to rumble?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that it was pointed out in that other thread that the numbers were speaking to job approval rating, not support for the president. Two entirely different things.

So you're saying that people would vote for what they don't approve of? That doesn't make any sense and the #'s are showing that the support IS leaving.

I read the article explaining several aspects of the polls. And yes, people are disappointed with the way the job is being done (thus the low job approval rating) but still supportive of the party principles in general (thus the higher personal approval rating).

But you are right; support is slipping, mainly due to the fact that principles are being ignored, such as reduced spending, etc.

I knew it....the republicans in control of all three branches of government are closet socialists. thnaks for enlightening me zappa. I bet george is too ignorant to know he's one either. yeah right. more right wing fantesies.

This is the way I see things.

My best advice is to not stereotype anyone.

I think the idea of conservative and liberal have been twisted, trying to lump individuals into a certain group.

Liberal meaning that you are in favor of allowing people the Freedom to make their own personal informed decisions,
where conservative has now unfortunately come to mean those who wish to have their views forced on everyone.

So if you're following me here, liberals are thought of as free thinkers, where conservatives are generally thought of as those who abide by the laws of the land and promote strong Christian values.

In my view, a true political conservative "should be" someone who strongly defends the protections of our U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Someone who is strongly opposed to corruption in our leadership.
Someone who believes in undeniable accuracy of our elections.
Someone who puts America first and then tries to help others if we are able.
Someone who understands the importance of the separation of powers and the separation of church and state.
And someone who believes in full accountability in our system of government.

So I guess you have to ask yourself if you are a political conservative or simply a social conservative?

I'm not sure where you would then fit Christian Conservatives since they
are generally thought of as those who prefer that everyone follows their personal interpretation of Christian values.

If we allow any one group or faction to force their ideology on everyone, are we not then
being extremely liberal with our own freedoms.?

excellent post fallen, excellent post.

If we allow any one group or faction to force their ideology on everyone, are we not then being extremely liberal with our own freedoms.?

Good point fallen.

I'd like to tell a story about forcing ideology on people....

Many years ago when picketing abortion clinics was all the rage, I was one who enlisted. One day while picketing I saw a young girl about 18 or so drive up and head into the clinic. One of the other picketers who was with us proceeded to intercept her and lecture her about all the wrongs that she was doing. Something just didn't set right about seeing a person forcing their opinions upon someone else without offering an option to them. I was under the impression that we were there to let those driving by know that this was an abortion clinic...and that alone.

At that time I began to realize that the best way to stop an abortion would not be to intercept them at the door when they've already made up their minds, but rather to let young women know that there are options. A primary option is to enter into a home for young pregnant girls, give birth and give up the baby for adoption. Over the years I have had the opportunity to help persuade young women to opt for adoption rather than abortion. Most of us will have that opportunity once or twice in a lifetime. If each of us who wants to stop abortion helped a young mom get into the adoption option once in a lifetime, then we could do away with about half of the abortions.

My point here is....faith is what exists inwardly. Action is the demostration of our inward faith. For those of us of faith to force the outward action upon those who do not have the inward faith is WRONG. A man of faith has no right to force a man without faith, rather he has an obligation to persuade him by his demonstration of faith.

Therefore, as a man of faith I say that we must not dictate morality with the law, but rather to effect the hearts of men and women everywhere and then their morality will change. I cannot support a party that dictates morality...it is the opposite of grace and good faith.

Originally posted by Nygdan
So you are saying that all moderate republicans are leaving the party because they feel that it is doomed?

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. If a person votes for the party, and the party looses, what would they have gained by voting for the opposition?

The Republicans are going the Democratic way. The majority of Republicans that are changing there stance is because many other Republicans are ruling on Gay marriage, abortion, and other mute points and losing all there battles. Yet, not focusing on the important issues, like a failure of a war, and such.

The Republicans keep throwing National Security in our faces, and ammending our constitution til it looks like what offices do to important paper not needed. (Does shredding come to mind?)


So, the Republicans are starting to realize there party is totally incapable of getting anything positive done, and I reckon are pretty tired of trying to steer American attention from what really needs to be done. We're not blind, and there starting to realize that.

The Presidents approval rating is at 35% now, and after this Guantanimo bay ruling, we've heard two Bin Ladin tapes. That's to sway the American public again from the real issues at hand. That hearing actually affects the fact that Bush, on down can be tried for breaking the Geneva convention from the 96 rulings. Well, the Republicans are getting very worried as they should be.


Then you have Gonzalez written on January 25, 2002, he warned that the Third Geneva Convention as a part of the U.S. criminal code in 1996 made violation of the convention a "war crime," which he said was defined as "any grave breach" of the Third Convention such as "outrages against personal dignity." He noted that this law applied whether or not a detained person qualified for POW status, and added that punishment for violation of the law "include the death penalty."


Now, we all know that it wasn't just Taliban from Afghanistan that were in Guantanimo. Iraqi's were also there. So, Iraqi's are from a state, which the Geneva Convention covers. "Any state"

Now, why are the Republicans bailing???? Becuase they don't want to go down with the ship. Especially when elections come.

Nuff said.