The Classic Liberal Blog

The extreme pace of Change (tm) is at least having one positive affect, millions of Americans are waking up to the truth about our bloated federal government!  You gotta love those videos with politicians getting questioned and "booed!"

A healthy turn of events indeed ... But what about the elections in 2010 and 2012?  We DO need to win. Right?  How else can we stop the government, from ramming "whatever socialist legislation they want down our throats"?

I've been thinking about this whole idea of "winning" lately (in regards to politics that is), wondering exactly ... What does it really mean, to win?  Here's an example:

In 2000, I found Al Gore to be alarming (to say the least).  Same for Kerry in 2004.  I voted for George W. Bush in both of those elections.  I did so holding my nose, hoping to keep Gore and Kerry out of office.  Since Bush won both times, I won too.  Right?  Yes, at first it appears so, but in taking a closer look, we see the truth of the matter is ... I lost by a landslide!

My want for limited government and natural rights law was not only ignored by the Bush Administration, they delivered the antithesis instead!  A more expansive, intrusive and incredibly more expensive federal government.  This is exactly what I worried we'd end up with, if Gore and/or Kerry been elected.  So yes I lost, because this certainly isn't illustrative of winning in any meaningful sense.

Solutions Anyone?

We have the pseudo-conservatives (RINOs, Rockefeller Republicans, Crunchies, etc.) telling us the party needs to move to the left.  But this is senseless.  To do this means to surrender your beliefs.  Besides, John McCain was their type of "me-too" candidate, but without Sarah Palin, McCain's trouncing would have dwarfed Goldwater!

People want an actual choice, not just 2 similar products.  Think if the auto industry were run this way for a moment, with only 2 cars you can choose from - the Taurus DNC and Taurus RNC. Is this really enough to be considered "choice?" Because outside of a few gadgets and trinkets, both models are virtually the same.

Many of us want an F-350 though, the Taurus simply can't do the same job.  So why not offer people a genuine alternative instead?  Why would anyone assume people just want an even more similar model of Taurus?  How many people stay home from volunteering (and the polls), because they aren't offered a real choice?

There's also the popular "Team GOP" mentality, where people adopt every Republican talking point and defend every position, like pro football smack-talk or something, you know, the "11th commandment" and all that ... The problem here however, is this puts the party ahead of themselves, the individual.

They may be doing this in positive spirit, but it becomes grinding, and sends the wrong market signal to the Republican Party too. This can succeed in empty rhetorical concessions at best, and while doing so, it will build legitimacy (and support) for "me-too" candidates. Another way of putting it is, you get what you cheer for.

What about the idea that government grows "slower" under Republicans, than it does under a Democratic administration?

I question if that's even true, but let's suppose it is ... So what? The government is still growing, right? And it was John McCain who "suspended" his campaign to head off to Washington and twist some arms in favor of the "bailout?" And didn't he want to buy up people's mortgages too?

I guess if we've all agreed to travel the road to Hell-In-A-Handbasket, why bother haggling over the speed?

Next up, Do we leave the party?