drunken sailors: part 5 - the wrath of khan

as i continued to read the discussion on Townhall.com's C-Log re: what to do about the Republican party, i ran across this fine set of points from poster "Cavalier". i snip the salient bits here:

The problem is clear. Self-proclaimed conservatives either won't or don't want to get out of the shadow of the GOP. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? Can it be that liberals are willing to challenge their leaders, but conservatives are not? It's possible. We are in denial, folks. And if the comments of the President and Mr. Delay don't cause people to become outraged we have to ask why? Is it because the moment anyone questions this President his mouthpieces suggest you're a liberal or traitor?

...

No, it's the GOP that's the problem. Beware of those who constantly tell you that without the Republicans the country is ruins. It's an excuse for absolute LICENSE! I remind you that 3/4 of the time Bill Clinton was in office Republicans were supposedly up on the Hill defending our interests. Bull!

To restore Conservatism some pretty unconservative methods are going to have to be employed. For those who can tell the difference between limited government and just less-liberal-than-the Democrat it's going to take an end to "Winner-take-all" elections. We don't need any more than two permanent parties, but those that are MUST be distinct from one another and accountable to their electorate. This business of playing to the base then moving to the so-called Center (which remarkably resembles defending everything the Dems have ever created) is the fruit of Winner-take-all. And that includes the eleven liberal Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents compared to 3 who actually do the right thing. (One of those just died.)

And since the Democrats are the reason for this mess in the first place we know this means A Third Party. And if there is only one thing such a party can do that the Reps and Dems can't, it's legitimately revoke all the Campaign laws that do more to protect Incumbents than purify them. Until these happen Conservatism is merely a punchline to a very bad joke.

But to get them done a new movement has to stand for something more than process. People have forgotten what it means to be Conservative and that there are Republicans who just aren't. Liberalism was started when the 16th and 17th Amendments were added to (or rather first repealed) the Constitution. The only time this has been done constitutionally. If Conservatism is to win, it's adherents must not only tackle the Dems they have to take on those who aren't willing to lose one election in order to win two that really matter. The GOP can win the next 8 elections by doing what they're doing. I'd rather split them 4 a apiece if it meant actually tackling the tough choices.

You say a Hurricane flooded your city because you needed to pay for welfare and free-healthcare instead of a new levee, then maybe your city shouldn't be rebuilt at taxpayer expense. In order for a new party to work at-least a third of the country must really believe in a tough-shit stance. I think that's what Americans expected 1994 was gonna be about, but didn't get. If not, then it's already over.

To get Conservatism, Federalism must be returned to the Senate and the Federal Income Tax must be revoked (perhaps creatively). Once limits are reimposed on the politicians then they can fight it out over what is really compassionate and what is playing to their basist instincts in order to win elections.

(And if you give me a line about the difficulty of amending the Constitution then you really aren't getting my drift.)

i love the comment "With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?"