| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
What If The Southern States GOP Seceded from the RNC?
Why not? Maybe it is time for the southern states GOP party to finally say enough with the national Republican party? It has already become apparent that when it comes to launching any sort of attack of the Messiah apparent Obama that it is the southern states GOP committees that are carrying the water. Whether it was the ad in North Carolina or Tennessee, it has been the state GOP groups who have done it only to be criticized by McCain and his campaign group.
It is said the GOP can't win without the south, and so far the national party seems to have turned not only a deaf ear but even turned it's back on the very part of the country they consider to have in the bag. Now with the announcement of Bob Barr launching a presidential bid there are even nasty rumors that Georgia may be in play.
I think it is time for the southern states, whom are supposed to be so important to the Republicans winning, not only spoke up more but started demanding that the the national organization start listening to us.
The southern states have the clout and in fact they could even turn the GOP convention into an uproar by not only not having their electorates cast their votes for McCain but even put forth a different candidate. I know what everybody is saying, the primary elections are over and everybody has voted. Everybody has voted but nobody is listening. They allowed Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone. Here are the primary results for the southern states when we had a full slate of candidates. Source is the Fox News Political Tracker.
GA
Huckabee 326,069
McCain 303,639
Romney 289,737
SC
McCain 143,224
Huckabee 128,908
Thompson 67,897
Romney 64,970
AL
Huckabee 230,608
McCain 210,989
Romney 103,295
TN
Huckabee 189,443
McCain 174,763
Romney 129,722
MO
McCain 194,304
Huckabee 185,627
Romney 172,564
If you add it all up Huckabee comes out the winner. I did not include all the southern states merely because candidates were dropping out and the poll results reflect that skewing along with lower turnouts for the Republicans as the list of candidates got smaller.
Let me say from the outset that Huckabee was not my man either, but rather Thompson was, however out of the final 3, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, I would be in the Romney camp. Support for Huckabee would be difficult, in my opinion, because he ran too much as a pastor and not enough as a politician concerned about the issues.
So while it sounds like I ain't happy about none of the contenders on the Republican side, I do think the southern states would be better representated by somebody other then McCain.
What I am proposing however, is that instead of our continual whining about how the Republican party no longer represents our values and views on issues, let's do something. The southern states have enough pull to make McCain come back to the right.
It might be time to send him a message that he can't ignore by raining on his parade at the convention. Does he still have enough delegates in his pocket to pull off the nomination? Of course, but by expressing a very open and public display of discontent in the way the Republican party is moving it just might make other folks take notice.
People in this country who also feel the Republican politicians no longer speak for them and might be motivated to look into their local races and instead of continuing to send the same old tired hacks back to congress get some fresh blood in there. Conservatives of all stripes may be uplifted enough to make their voices heard.
The south may indeed have to do it again, secede, but this time from the party who claims to need us so much but return so little to us. I don't mean earmarks, either.
Originally posted on Jammie Wearing Fool


Comments
Robert E. Lee is dead
and so is Strom Thurmond. Look up how much the Dixiecrat movement succeeded in moving the Democrats in that direction.
Cheap shot
He made a valid suggestion for how McCain might be dragged slightly back to the right. It's almost as if you don't want that to happen.
When you make a bizarre proposal in my humble opinion
well, I feel compelled to respond in kind.
Maybe the Blue State Republicans ought to quit over the damage the Bush adminstration has done to our prospects. I would argue there's a better case on that score.
bizarre proposal
Well, you probably have not noticed, bring caught up in some fantasy in which Bush is a true blue conservative doing the bidding of the southern Bible thumping so-cons, but the policies Bush has engaged in which have done such damage to our prospects have been Blue state north-eastern policies. Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy, Lincoln Chafee policies. I'm afraid people like Tancredo and Sessions are not very influential in the Bush WH, to put it mildly.
Bush has governed as a Blue State President, and McCain has made it clear that he'll do the same. Why should the Red states support these people?
"some fantasy in which Bush is a true blue conservative"
Like it or not that is what a large majority of voters north of the Rappahanock , west of the Sierras and Cascades, and in the larger Midwestern metro areas believe. Perhaps we ought to pretend that is not what they believe if it makes you feel better. Ignoring this problem doesn;t address it. But addressing problems isn;t your agenda. You can;t sell a new window until the old one is shattered beyond repair I presume. So what if people get cut with flying glass
What people think
It matters not a whit to me that people north of the Rappahanock hear somebody say "nukular" and immediately jump to all sorts of odd conclusions. Their unthinking bigotry is not my problem.
But addressing problems isn;t your agenda.
Not so. Addressing your problems is not my agenda. Addressing the problem of how to arrest the GOP's march to the left - that is my agenda.
"Their unthinking bigotry is not my problem."
OK ,we can just win elections when 45-48% of the country is conceded to the opposition. You obviously were not a math major, were you?
Maybe not, but I was, and I'm
Maybe not, but I was, and I'm with Sandor. It frankly doesn't much matter how much we "concede" to the opposition if we've effectively become the opposition.
Neither were you
if you think math majors worry much about ethics or sociology.
You don't really disagree that their opinion of Bush being a conservative is all down to his accent, you just don't think it matters. How is that different from what I'm saying?
The way to not conceed 48% of the country to the opposition is to not allow failed liberal policies to be passed off as conservatism. That problem will still be there with McCain. Liberalism won't magically start to work because he is in charge, and we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, will be stuck with the blame.
Opposition doesn't mean sneering at people
Like it or not, we lose elections at a variety of levels because Bush is associated with conservatism. And let's not kid ourselves, he is perceived as very much a social conservative. And perchance, why is that an inaccurate perception?.
And is his image as pro-military unwarranted? Or favoring tax relief on investment income? Perhaps the voters missed the boat on this
The fact that is whether he was too conservative for you or me, he was perceived as too conservative for half of the country.
So if we are going to be an effective opposition force, we would be foolhardy to try and run as "more conservative" than Bush. We would need to be "better conservatives" to get their time and attention. And sneering at them is sorta not how to do it, folks.
You need 50.1% of the two party vote to win an American election, folks. And that truth is way more inconvenient than anything Al Gore is peddling.
No?
Then why do you do it?
And let's not kid ourselves, he is perceived as very much a social conservative. And perchance, why is that an inaccurate perception?.
I dunno. Because he's not one? What the heck does "social conservative" mean to you anyway, other than "people I don't like"? Is Jimmy Carter a social conservative?
he was perceived as too conservative for half of the country.
Nonsense. The people saying that don't mean they they disagree with policy A,B and C. They mean that Bush is not their sort of person, for reasons having nothing to do with his political philosophy. A good comparison is Nixon, one of the most liberal presidents ever. Why was he hated by the liberals with an undying passion? For establishing the EPA? Price controls? It's tribal, nothing else. Nixon and Bush were not of their tribe, so they hated them as if it were their duty. Mere policy never entered into it, and it rarely enters into it. Most voters have only the haziest ideas of what policies their candidate favors, let alone any understanding of the actual policies themselves.
For a person involved in politics, you display a curious lack of understanding of the matter.
Why don't you try a brand new tactic instead?
Now I know this is so revolutionary as to be branded heresy in the GOP, but they don't call me Rebel for nothin'.
Instead of running around trashing Barack Obama and all the Democratic down ballot candidates, how about telling your constituents what your candidates' plans are to help improve the lives of the citizens of your communities?
I know. It's hard, isn't it? It's so much cheaper and easier to throw a 15 second video of Reverend Wright up on the screen than it is to come up with solutions to real problems that help real people. But seriously, voters are saturated to the point of being really sick and tired of the negative campaign messages. If you've followed Frank Luntz on Fox, you know how serious this is. It's time for a real change, which means rolling sleeves up and getting to work. Same-old same-old may be a very high risk solution for you in 2008.
As for secession, aren't we over that? When the going gets tough, do the tough secede? I think not. Think positive, not negative. You really might be amazed at the results.
No Huckabee for me
Sorry, Grunt.
Most of the conservatives I know aren't just about to elect another southern baptist preacher as president.
We had Jimmy Carter once and once was enough. Ugh.
If the Huckster is the future of the Republican Party then I will change my affiliation.
And we call the democrats out for identity politics
The rediculous level of anti-preacher bigotry and bias on display in a community that is supposedly anchored in Judeo-Christian ideology is astounding.
Some of our most effective leaders/presidents were deeply religious... their governance was clearly influenced by their faith in God. Why is it different if said president is a teacher rather than a hearer only of those lessons. I woulld think the positives would only be magnified.
There is no evidence that Huckabee established a 'theocracy' in Arkansas, and our system of checks and balances wouldn't allow him to do so as president. to compare him to a far left democrat pacifist, when he is at the very least, right of center is a straw man argument.
I can only come to the conclusion that bias against a 'preacher' (who was a governor longer than he was a preacher) is bias against Godly authority, period.
You can run from God, but you cannot hide...and it is not fair to deprive an entire nation of wise governance because seeing someone so overtly submitted to Christ terrifies you.
The Two Kingdoms
Rensen -
I will presume that we are brothers in Christ and will further presume by offering some brotherly advice: No one has ever been argued into Heaven.
Your initial paragraphs are well reasoned and make your point re "identity politics". Had you left off the last two paras, all would have been well, but your ad hominem close, including "bias against Godly authority", will convince no one and is almost certain to alienate others.
We're called to be light and salt, brother. They disinfect and preserve, but neither is unpleasant while doing so.
Blessings.
Wow, J
That is just about the best reply I've read to anyone about anything, ever. That was really nice (and helpful). I'm not a social conservative, but I endeavor to be quick to see where religious people are right.
Holy moly
Maybe I'm mistaken, but last I checked presumptive self-righteousness and unabashed judgmentalism were not among of the fruits of the Spirit. Perhaps my NT is out of date.
Christians are human too
Even the disciple Peter cursed at people in the courtyard and denied Christ because he was angry and afraid. Christians get angry too. Thank God for his forgiveness.
I'm watching the secularization of American happen right before my eyes and it terrifies and angers me.
I apologized for the petty comment... I haven't seen aybody apologize for bashing Huckabee for being a preacher.
When I bash Huck for being
When I bash Huck for being called to the ministry, I'll be certain to apologize. I only criticized him for certain of his comments which I feel can only alienate others from both his ministry and his campaign. Because of those comments, and the prejudices that you allude to, I don't think he'd be the ideal candidate for McCain.
Re: And we call the democrats out for identity politics
Fine Christian assumptions you made there, Rensen. No doubt you've convinced many to follow Mike Huckabee.
I'm not voting for a national pastor. Sorry. But you do make a good point about how little time he spent as a preacher. Interesting that he depends so heavily on that blip on his resume to further his political ambitions.
It's not very Christian to accuse other posters of being biased against God because they don't like Mike Huckabee. The two are not synonymous in my mind.
I was delighted that George Bush is a committed Christian. I'm sure his faith helped him and our country through some very difficult times. I believe strong faith is important in a leader. Bush is genuine in his expressions of his faith and he doesn't use it to advance himself as Huckabee has. He also realizes that he isn't pastor-in-chief, but instead is president of all Americans, not just Christian Americans.
There is a reason so many of us refer to Mike Huckabee as the Huckster. He would have fit in really well in the days of travelling preachers and medicine men. I don't see anything approaching the same genuineness in him that I see in Bush on matters of faith. Instead, I see a man who was all too willing to ride faith as far as it would take him. Obviously, you see something very different and that's fine. I won't insult you for it as you have insulted me.
But first, before his religion, there is his stand on the most important issues of the day. I'm not for increasing government spending for charity, raising taxes or open borders. Beyond that this is no time for a president with no experience in foreign policy.
Reagan proved that spiritual people don't always go to church
Two questions conservatives often ask are "what would Jesus do?" and "what would Reagan do?". I know one thing about Reagan - like me, he was baptized as a Christian at birth but he was not "born again" and was a very infrequent churchgoer as an adult. He had his own spiritual path that did not require belonging to a specific denomination or congregation. Some people have a relationship with their Maker who aren't "joiners". And yet there's no doubt that Reagan had a very Christian center and a strong moral compass.
Interestingly, there are a lot of atheists who call themselves conservatives. My husband happens to be one of them. He hates Michael Nudow's self-righteous campaign against Christians and distances himself from those he feels use atheism as if it were another kind of religious orthodoxy to bludgeon "non-non-believers". He's one of the most ethical, honest, generous, morally centered people I know and yet he's completely shunned by socially conservative Republicans who don't feel he's qualified to belong to "their" kind of Republican club.
And this is why I think it's so much more important for us to focus on what we have in common than what we don't. Rensen showed a lot of humility by recanting, and I respect anyone who's able to say "it was wrong of me to say/do thus-and-such". Something tells me that Reagan and Jesus would have both agreed.
sigh..
You are right.. but I can't STAND the 'preacher' bashing anymore...really..enough already.
And I'd be your sister in Christ.
I shall edit out the adhominem.
Re: new
I'm sorry you see it as preacher bashing.
When a preacher enters the political arena he becomes a politician. Frankly, I'm not sure the two are compatible in any way. But even if they are I don't see why having been a preacher should elevate a candidate beyond the expression of honest opinions.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me that preachers may not make the best presidents for very obvious reasons.
Huck made one ad referencing his ministry
The media were the ones who insisted on introducing Mike as 'former baptist minister' every time they interviewed. It was a concerted effort to delegitimize him as a politician.
In his stump speeches and in most of his advertizing, he refered to his political platform and former governatorial achievements.
In Iowa he ran the christian leader ad to target his core constituency. No one had a problem when McCain's every ad had pics of him in the POW camps, or Mitt ran ads that demonstrated his economic wizardry with the olymics and other private sector fields.
But people recoil in horror and accuse Mike of being a huckster for advertizing something that would inspire his base, just because it was about religion. I don't get the double standard.
Mike's record is one of good, pragmatic government that improved the lives of his state's citizens. He may have governed less 'conservatively' than some would have liked, but to jump from that to a character judgement of him being a huckster or snake oil salesman, when EVERY indicator is that he has genuinely cared for people his entire carreer, is uncalled for.
I didn't mean for this to
I didn't mean for this to turn into condemnation of Huckabees religion, in fact I only mentioned him in one line in my post and that was to say he relied too much on his religious credentials rather then his political credentials when he was running.
The real point of the post is suggest a radical approach to get the McCain camp to recognize the conservatives, not just in the south, but in the Republican party as a whole, and I was suggesting that strong contingent of delegates led by the southern states would be just such a force to bring about that recognition.
Above everything else politicians pander to who they think can deliver them the votes to win. If they think the large urban metro areas are the ones to address or the people of CA, because of their large representation in the electoral college , then that is exactly who they are going to tailor their stump speeches, sound bites, and platform to. I was proposing an equal and opposite force to act upon the McCain camp.
No offense to the more religious folks who are in the party, but I don't think politics and religion should mix. I feel it is important for a person to have some sort of Judeo-Christian belief to guide their life, I don't think they should make it an issue worthy of addressing in every speech. Religion is just another one of the many facets that make up our character, and may help guide a politician in making some decisions on tough issues.
I am sorry my main point was missed, and I will take the blame for that and work to improve my writing style.
Just to be clear. I wanted the southern states, as a block, to put forth a list of common sense, conservative answers and solutions to the current problems facing American in an effort to act as a counter weight to the pull and attraction of so many of the left leaning portions of this country which are determining the path of politicians of both major parties. The amount of influence they exert varies, but it is only the voices of the left that seem to be heard.
Re: I didn't mean for this to
Just one thing....I didn't condemn Huckabee's religion. What I disliked was the way he used it to further his political career.
Sounds good to me.
Pickett's Charge failed, and so will this.
Look, we're a national party. Reagan succeeded everywhere because his politics and policies were good for the country.
Right now, Republican politicians in Washington have been ignoring Reaganites like Mike Pence, Bobby Jindal and others. So, they have reaped the whirlwind.
It's time for Republican voters to carry out the trash, restore hard money and lower the cost of raising risk capital, and put up candidates to run for election who will restore fiscal sanity to Washington.
Even Robert E. Lee couldn't argue with that!
I don't get it
It's time for Republican voters to carry out the trash, restore hard money and lower the cost of raising risk capital, and put up candidates to run for election who will restore fiscal sanity to Washington.
So, you agree with what should be done. But .. you don't agree that what was proposed would accomplish it? Then what is your suggestion? Voting for McCain?
Links of London - This
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings.
Links of London - This
Links of London - This exquisite range is available from our online shop as well as free delivery on all orders– Visit us now! Links of London, Pandora and Links of London is one of the best online jewelry stores. A wide selection of fine quality gold, silver and diamond Links london Online shopping for quality Links of London jewelry in the Jewelry store; the latest fashions in engagement rings, earrings, pendants, lockets Links of Bracelets links of london Charms links of london sweetie Charms Links of london Necklaces Tiffany