A recent newscast had the audacity to state that the Republicans need to “reach out to a more diverse segment of the population”.. Since “change fever” is still apparently gripping both the nation and the “impartial” media, I have but one question to ask of those enthusiastically imbibing the elixir of “change for change’s sake”. Just how many conservative principles are you willing to pervert, jettison or “change” in order to diversify the Republican portfolio?
The mistake in logic here is that the belief that the “reason” the Republicans lost the election has more to do with a lack of “interior decorating” than with the “biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen” (Thanks, Bill..) hoodwinking the mentally deficient. For the sake of argument we shall define “interior decorating” as how many people of “color” call themselves either Republican or conservative. I would like to submit for the record that white is a color..
The politics of “racial recognition” seem to trump the dissemination of ideas. The “priorities of pigmentationalism” are of greater concern than the ideals that you espouse. Should we have gone out and tried to find as many figureheads, (careful with how you spell that one..) straw men and minorities as possible in order to compete and to complete the illusion? In other words, should we have resorted to the same shallow snake oil salesman or lawyer tactics as the liberals?
I have long advocated for the “change” in “political consonant identification”. Now the milquetoasty RINO Republicans are proving that the letter “C” or “L” is of greater importance than the letters “R” or “D”. The first set of letters bases their work on their principles (in the case of the “L’s”, it is a lack of principles that propels them.) and the second set of letters bases their work on the acquisition of power alone.
“Converts” to the cause of conservatism should be enticed by the ethos of conservatism alone. If the tenets of conservatism are altered or varied solely to increase an amorphous “head count”, you prove that the acquisition of power is your primary concern. The power of ideas wins individuals away from the cancer of liberalism.
We should never try to be more like them. No one has ever been impressed by “liberalism-lite” as witnessed by the last presidential election.
Is the urge to “diversify” so strong that we should “reconsider” the liberal “principles” of higher taxation? Should we sign on to the “welfare mentality” and the policies of “victimology” espoused by the left? Should we embrace the “philosophy of failure” proposed by the Socialists for the last fifty years? Would it be a good idea to revisit the whole Rowe v. Wade pogrom so that we can swing a few more strays from the party of Mengele and Kevorkian?
Shouldn’t the “more diverse segment of the population” be the ones reaching out to us? One would hope that after sixty years of indoctrination into the quicksand of liberalism, those so imprisoned would be clamoring for real and genuine “change”..
When it comes to the “War on Liberalism”, we reach out to the “diverse segment of the population” every day. They have just chosen (discriminated) for generations now, to follow the path of least intellectual resistance. What should we do to counter that, make concessions to our principles and standards? Should we become as fond of appeasement and non-confrontation as the Democrats? Should we water down the watered down liberal Socialism a bit more, repackage and regurgitate it with a refreshing ebony spokesperson or two?
After generations have fought and died to end the subjugation of their fellow man, a group of dystrophic followers generations later are enthusiastically reapplying the chains of Democratic slavery to each other. Why go out and work for a living when you can be promised enough “federal assistance” to keep you sufficiently mired in the lowest class? Should we try to recruit these Democrats by offering more and better-redistributed governmental stipends? This is the only language the Socialist serfs seem to understand and respond to.
The question then becomes who wouldn’t want to escape from the bondage of liberal slavery? If the totals from the last election are any indication, it would seem that there are vast numbers of Democratic lemmings who aren’t that concerned about “change” after all..
The Democrats have succeeded in raising generations of disciples who are so intellectually disjointed that they are addicted to the government telling them their every move to make and when to make it. The liberals who used to abhor the idea of “Big Brother” as a governmental overseer were just upset at the fact that they weren’t the ones doing the overseeing. Once in power, the left wants government to be as intrusive and oppressive as possible because “they know what is best for you” and they will give it to you and take it away from us with both barrels.. Should we join in with the “me-too” liberalism of a typical Democratic Leviathan government?
Illusion and fantasy are always more important than substance and fact. Liberals abhor the ideas and facts that must be a part of the confrontation between beliefs systems. They quickly came to the conclusion that the reason they lost in both 2000 and 2004 was because they simply didn’t tell big enough lies. The audience for the 2008 campaign of the fairy tale “Brothers Dim” was totally receptive to their ridiculous bedtime stories and sermons.
Should the conservatives “change” to this type of nonsense? Isn’t it more important to reiterate the conservative nomenclature with firm consistency as opposed to molding the shape of your beliefs from the liberal mortar of malleability?
It has been said recently that the conservatives need to become more “mainstream.” By that I believe that they mean the conservatives should morph into “intellectual liberals” in order to “reach out to a more diverse segment of the population”.. If today’s Republican Party ever decides to make the move to the “mainstream”, where the undertow of liberal stupidity has ruthlessly drowned generations of intellectually challenged Americans, then I say that it is time for us to begin to change the shape of the river..