Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on January 20, 2010, 03:51:46 PM
-
Just got a phone call on my cell phone with caller ID "Restricted" with a Scott Brown recording, stumping for McCain.
'Tard.
Looking forward to ousting that loser this next year.
And... it tells us how liberal Brown is. If he'd chose an establishment aisle-crosser like McCain over a clean-up Tea Party candidate.
ETA:
Not so much how "liberal" he is... I meant something more along the lines of how devoted he is to the Tea Party movement/concept that put him in office, versus scratching the backs of establishment politicians that might have stumped for him.
I hope he realizes, damned soon, that McCain didn't do a damned thing to put him in office. Voters did. The grass-roots Tea Party did.
Eff McCain.
-
Just got a phone call on my cell phone with caller ID "Restricted" with a Scott Brown recording, stumping for McCain.
'Tard.
Looking forward to ousting that loser this next year.
And... it tells us how liberal Brown is. If he'd chose an establishment aisle-crosser like McCain over a clean-up Tea Party candidate.
I wouldn't mind squishy liberal candidates from the Republicans in places where true conservatives are unlikely to win (e.g. Massachusetts) so long as the Republicans pushed solid conservative candidates in places where they CAN win. They don't seem to do that though.
Instead, we get squishy liberals from liberal areas and moderates from conservative areas. (McCain, Crist, Lindsey Graham, <censored> Specter.)
That ENSURES the Republicans will not fix the problems.
If McCain were from Iowa or Wisconsin or Illinois, I'd be ok with that. Instead we get him from ARIZONA. We lose a solid conservative seat to a freaking moderate. I note Democrats are far better about putting liberals in safe liberal seats and moderates/conservatives ONLY when they have to.
I'm hopeful this year may be different, though.
-
I wouldn't mind squishy liberal candidates from the Republicans in places where true conservatives are unlikely to win (e.g. Massachusetts) so long as the Republicans pushed solid conservative candidates in places where they CAN win. They don't seem to do that though.
Instead, we get squishy liberals from liberal areas and moderates from conservative areas. (McCain, Crist, Lindsey Graham, <censored> Specter.)
That ENSURES the Republicans will not fix the problems.
If McCain were from Iowa or Wisconsin or Illinois, I'd be ok with that. Instead we get him from ARIZONA. We lose a solid conservative seat to a freaking moderate. I note Democrats are far better about putting liberals in safe liberal seats and moderates/conservatives ONLY when they have to.
I'm hopeful this year may be different, though.
That's a good point - my state GOP seems quite against primary challengers as well. I don't get that.
-
That's a good point - my state GOP seems quite against primary challengers as well. I don't get that.
Could it be that the patrician class dislikes challenges to their rightful positions? (Patricians stick together against the plebes.)
Just got a phone call on my cell phone with caller ID "Restricted" with a Scott Brown recording, stumping for McCain.
Brown was stumping for McCain? Bummer. But McCain with his many, varied, and deep flaws is still not as bad as any Democrat. (The recent health care vote put a lie to the myth that there's any such thing as a "moderate" Democrat senator since every last one voted for Obamacare.)
Even though Brown isn't perfect, just remember the murderous lecher he's replacing . . . by comparison, Brown is STILL a mighty big step in the right direction. And far better than the leftist Democratic party apparatchik he was running against.
-
I can't see him as not being better than Kennedy or Coakley.'
That and this -
2008 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2008, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator-elect Brown a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
Sometimes we have to tkae the wins we can get and keep on working for improvements.
-
Just got a phone call on my cell phone with caller ID "Restricted" with a Scott Brown recording, stumping for McCain.
...
Eff McCain.
Likewise. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. McCain is *not* the person with whom I'd choose to associate, were I running on a conservative platform.
-
I can't see him as not being better than Kennedy or Coakley.'
That and this -
Sometimes we have to take the wins we can get and keep on working for improvements.
I am so sick of "taking what we can get". Give me a big old glass of that Ron Paul, libertarian Kool-Aid (metaphorically speaking). Taking what we can get is exactly what got us into this mess.
-
write Brown, & call him.
Tell him & the GOP/RNC.
& dump mcccain
-
I am so sick of "taking what we can get". Give me a big old glass of that Ron Paul, libertarian Kool-Aid (metaphorically speaking). Taking what we can get is exactly what got us into this mess.
Gee, I didn't know Paul was running in that election.
Try a big ole glass of reality kool-aid. It may not be quite as sweet as some of the other brands but it doesn't cloud the mind quite as much. Some times you have to play the cards you are dealt.
-
Is anybody running against McCain in the primary? That is where McCain needs to be beaten.
-
Is anybody running against McCain in the primary? That is where McCain needs to be beaten.
JD Hayworth hasn't announced yet, but McCain is already running attack ads against him... on Hayworth's own radio station (KFYI), on Hayworth's show. ;/
Chris Simcox and Jim Deakin are both 1-2% candidates trying to annoy both of them in the primaries, too.
-
Gee, I didn't know Paul was running in that election.
Try a big ole glass of reality kool-aid. It may not be quite as sweet as some of the other brands but it doesn't cloud the mind quite as much. Some times you have to play the cards you are dealt.
Reality koolaid like this?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm37%2Fjackdanson2%2Fkoolaid.jpg&hash=d9a4b1a50ee6667a369599fc46adcec0cfabf780)
-
I'll be having none of that Reality KoolAid thank you but no thanks! =D I think we've already had enough of that KoolAid and it is what got us B.O. Conservatives win by running and being Conservative. My dog is more conservative than McCain.
As for Paul, note, I said (metaphorically). :P
-
We're gonna get Ross Perot'd all over again, I just know it...
=|
-
We're gonna get Ross Perot'd all over again, I just know it...
=|
What, in 2010, 2012 or...?
-
McCain, is far from perfect, but at his core he believes in America. While I once wrote a blog post entitled "John McCain is the Devil", he was, to loosely quote Cormac McCarthy "nothing compared to what was coming down the pike." Had McCain one(won for the homonym nazi's :laugh: :laugh:) we'd be having a lively time trashing his squsihy centrism, but we wouldn't be doing what we are doing now, waiting for the other shoe that will announce that we are effectively in a larger, temporarily richer, Venezuela. Put him up there again and I'd vote for him again. Scott Brown is not perfect either, but when he is sitting in a chair that the hero of Chappaquidik farted in for 40 years; well then, he looks pretty damn good to me.
-
We're gonna get Ross Perot'd all over again, I just know it...
If the 3rd party people learn to affiliate themselves with either party they can, and maybe, will win. if they run as indepent they can screw things up royally.
Scoot brown ran as an Indepent on the Republican ticket and killed them. According to MSNBC he did NOT advertise heself as a Republican, he just run his campaing as "Sott Brown For Senator."
Instead of running as a 3rd party candidate, run as a Dem or Repub.
-
Boys and Girls, it's time to take off the rose-coloured glasses and see Scott Brown for what he truly is: a McCain Republican. They are idealogical soulmates. Brown is not a Ron Paulian or the second coming of Reagan. He's MA Republican which puts him right about the spot on the ol' Left-Right scale as McCain.
McCain gave Brown support from the beginning and now Brown has to pay-back McCain for that support. And given the fact that they're cut from the same cloth when it comes to policy, well.....
-
I am so sick of "taking what we can get". Give me a big old glass of that Ron Paul, libertarian Kool-Aid (metaphorically speaking). Taking what we can get is exactly what got us into this mess.
Preach it sarge!
Reality koolaid gets us what? Republicans who finally get their power back and do what?
JUMP TO THE LEFT.
Then they piss everyone off and the ball is handed back to the democrats who do what?
SPRINT TO THE LEFT.
But anyone who dares say "Woah, wait a minnit, maybe we can afford to take a couple steps to the right?" gets branded an unelectable kook.
I hate you, reality.
-
Unless the Dem's stubbornly march off a cliff, Brown's win killed Obamacare, and probably killed cap and trade, card check, and who knows what else.
"Vote for the man, not the party" no longer applies, not for the next three years. Not with the levels of bribery and extortion this administration has exhibited. The Democrats cannot be allowed both chambers and the presidency.
I'll gladly take a Brown or a McCain at this point over a Dem.
-
Unless the Dem's stubbornly march off a cliff, Brown's win killed Obamacare, and probably killed cap and trade, card check, and who knows what else.
Trust me, the democrats will run over each other to march off that cliff. They are already doing it.
-
Trust me, the democrats will run over each other to march off that cliff. They are already doing it.
There's been enough coming from "centrist" Democrats warning of a Coakley/Brown redux in November that it's looking less likely they'll march off the cliff. I'm not saying it's impossible for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to use thuggish tactics to get some Dem's to go Kamikaze, but I have to think that there's a dozen or two in the house and senate who value their seats more than loyalty to the leadership.
-
Trust me, the democrats will run over each other to march off that cliff. They are already doing it.
Yep.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxZmJiOGUwMTViYjYxODVjOGYzNGUxOTkzNDcyYWU= (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxZmJiOGUwMTViYjYxODVjOGYzNGUxOTkzNDcyYWU=)
-
We're gonna get Ross Perot'd all over again, I just know it...
=|
And if Ross the Boss hadn't run we would have had what? Four more years of G.H.W. (Voodoo Economics) Bush. Ross didn't lose the election for (Read my lips, no new taxes) Bush, Bush lost the election for Bush. I think Clinton was just about as conservative as he was.
Then we got another Bush, who proceeded to get the country even more in debt, reaching across the aisle, making deals with The Hero of Chappaquidick. Next we had McCain running and losing (cuz let's face it, he just sucks), sho did a reach around on Feingold, which Bush signed, even while stating it was unConstitutional.
Mercifully, that was pretty much gutted by the SCOTUS this week.
For years it's been "OMG! we have to vote for the crappy Republican or the Democrats will win (which they did anyway). When the stupid party did win, they did as much damage as the Democrats.
Every Republican running for President has been progressively worse than the previous one. If Arlen Specter hadn't switched sides got the "R" nomination, we'd just have to vote for him because we can't let a Democrat win, which they probably would anyway.
I know we're not going to get a George Washington but, I think we can do a lot better than we have, if we quit taking whoever we can get, just because we think they might win.
Now there's some reality KoolAid.
-
OK, Sergeant Bob, what's your solution?
-
OK, Sergeant Bob, what's your solution?
I think it's obvious. We should let the failures fail. Yes, the Democrats will advance a few more yards towards their goal - and they're notoriously bad at that - but it will make it easier for us to repeal their laws and cut their taxes later.
-
In case nobody noticed, it hasn't been the Republicans pushing nationalized health care, cap and trade, giving the auto companies to unions with our tax dollars, and establishing a czar to control the salaries of private sector employees.
This president is unlike any other we've had and, in combination with Pelosi and Reid, is more dangerous than we've ever had. Bill Clinton was a pragmatist, going where the votes were. Obama is an ideologue hell-bent on pushing an agenda the public doesn't want.
It's been said here many times: once legislation is passed, it's more difficult to repeal it, especially entitlement programs. Better to elect weak Republicans now and vote them out after 2012 than to "let failures fail" and let the Dem's turn the country into East Germany very, very quickly.
-
In case nobody noticed, it hasn't been the Republicans pushing nationalized health care, cap and trade, giving the auto companies to unions with our tax dollars, and establishing a czar to control the salaries of private sector employees.
This president is unlike any other we've had and, in combination with Pelosi and Reid, is more dangerous than we've ever had. Bill Clinton was a pragmatist, going where the votes were. Obama is an ideologue hell-bent on pushing an agenda the public doesn't want.
It's been said here many times: once legislation is passed, it's more difficult to repeal it, especially entitlement programs. Better to elect weak Republicans now and vote them out after 2012 than to "let failures fail" and let the Dem's turn the country into East Germany very, very quickly.
Fixing problems takes time and effort.
Screwing things up can happen overnight. Thus, like Monkeyleg is saying, we have to play defense because the more things are screwed up the LONGER it takes to fix.
-
Like Sgt Bob was saying, the main problem with electing weak Republicans is that they are only marginally better than the Democrats. They might not be rushing to pass crazy laws like Cap&Tax, but they aren't leading a charge to repeal any of the ridiculous crap that Demos have already gotten through, either.
It's like downshifting in a truck headed directly for a cliff instead of actually changing the direction.
Once the Repubs get in power, they seem to take turns spitting in the faces of the conservatives who got them there. It doesn't take a lot of courage for them to stand up and say "NO" in the face of fairly unpopular legislation like the Healthcare debacle, but it would take some cajones to come to the American people with a better plan even though they are in the minority. Make the Republicans earn power by proving they have better ideas.
-
Like Sgt Bob was saying, the main problem with electing weak Republicans is that they are only marginally better than the Democrats. They might not be rushing to pass crazy laws like Cap&Tax, but they aren't leading a charge to repeal any of the ridiculous crap that Demos have already gotten through, either.
It's like downshifting in a truck headed directly for a cliff instead of actually changing the direction.
Once the Repubs get in power, they seem to take turns spitting in the faces of the conservatives who got them there. It doesn't take a lot of courage for them to stand up and say "NO" in the face of fairly unpopular legislation like the Healthcare debacle, but it would take some cajones to come to the American people with a better plan even though they are in the minority. Make the Republicans earn power by proving they have better ideas.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html
Getting the right people elected is not a win. It's a START.
From there we have to fight and explain to people that Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare is driving us off a cliff. We have to wake people up.
We know socialist policies eventually run out of money. We have to convince the people of that as well. George W. Bush made the first attempt at fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, while he may be the Decider, he's not the Great Communicator.
We need someone who can lead, but also one who can persuade. Congress cannot fix things the majority of people don't think are broken yet.
We need to convince them things are broken or breaking. We need to keep in mind we are fighting against people trying to do the opposite.
The Democrats just proved you can't go against the public.
We have to win the people first, not just the elections, and THEN fix the problems.
-
...the main problem with electing weak Republicans is that they are only marginally better than the Democrats.
When you're being overrun by the enemy, a weak soldier in your foxhole is better than none at all.
Because of this administration, there's a real chance that Israel may attack Iran this year, which could provoke a nuclear war.
We're in a position where we can't deal with China on substantive issues, and are weakened strategically from our excessive borrowing from them. They could turn out our lights overnight by selling off our bonds. Obama has exacerbated the problem and, if left unchecked, will make it far worse.
Our deficits are unparalleled in world history, and Obama seems determined to make them worse. We're technically bankrupt already, but further erosion will make the US functionally bankrupt.
The health care bill, cap and trade, and appointment of a "pay" czar will give the government nearly complete control of private companies and individual citizens. Want a job? Let's see who you voted for in the last election. Every move a company or individual wishes to make can be predicated on how well the company or individual toes the party line.
This isn't about a stained dress, this is scary serious, and the only way to stop it is to have enough members of the opposition party to defeat anything coming from this administration.
-
I think it's obvious. We should let the failures fail. Yes, the Democrats will advance a few more yards towards their goal - and they're notoriously bad at that - but it will make it easier for us to repeal their laws and cut their taxes later.
Fixing problems takes time and effort.
Screwing things up can happen overnight. Thus, like Monkeyleg is saying, we have to play defense because the more things are screwed up the LONGER it takes to fix.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html
Getting the right people elected is not a win. It's a START.
From there we have to fight and explain to people that Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare is driving us off a cliff. We have to wake people up.
We know socialist policies eventually run out of money. We have to convince the people of that as well. George W. Bush made the first attempt at fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, while he may be the Decider, he's not the Great Communicator.
We need someone who can lead, but also one who can persuade. Congress cannot fix things the majority of people don't think are broken yet.
We need to convince them things are broken or breaking. We need to keep in mind we are fighting against people trying to do the opposite.
The Democrats just proved you can't go against the public.
We have to win the people first, not just the elections, and THEN fix the problems.
I don't think I can say it any better than these folks did. Sometimes, things have to get worse before they can get better. I agree that Brown being elected is an improvement, considering the circumstances, and is a win in the short term. But, electing more just like him, McCain, Specter, Snowe, Graham, etc, etc, is not the answer.
They are like a gangrene on the Constitution, slowly festering and rotting it away. If you don't do something about it now, you will end up losing the entire (Constitution) limb.
-
The majority of Americans understand – and poll after poll shows it – that lower taxes and a freer economy is better.
In fact, while the majority of Americans are neither conservative nor liberal, 40% of Americans are conservatives. The base that Republican Presidents will be relying on for conservative reform is far larger.
Besides, the Democrats could have – up until the MA Election – rammed te reform through. Had they'd done this, they could hope – they'd be wrong! - that if it had passed, then those people who benefit would form a big enough voting block as to secure them electoral victories (like they did with Social Security). In effect, the Republicans could do the same, in reverse. It's not necessary to educate the majority of Americans about the intricacies of Austrian economics for us to win.
-
If conservatives really want to win in 2010 and 2012, they're going to need to go back to the fundamentals of conservatism. That's true. They're also going to need someone who can articulate his or her vision in the way that Reagan did. People didn't necessarily agree with Reagan on every issue, but they knew his philosophy and where he stood.
Scott Brown was very effective in doing that, even if he isn't the conservative's conservative.
I'd like to see McCain gone and replaced with a JD Hayworth or other person with real conservative credentials. If that can't happen, I'd rather have a McCain than someone like Napolitano filling his seat or, for that matter, any Democrat. The conservative Democrats fell in lockstep with leadership on the healthcare bill. It's too risky to hope they'll buck the leadership in the future.
-
When you're being overrun by the enemy, a weak soldier in your foxhole is better than none at all.
That is true, however, we are putting weak soldiers in most of our foxholes.
When you're being overrun by the enemy, a weak soldier in your foxhole is better than none at all.
Because of this administration, there's a real chance that Israel may attack Iran this year, which could provoke a nuclear war.
The problem is though, Iran didn't just start seeking nuclear weapons one year ago. Bush didn't do anything about it either.
Clinton helped the North Koreans with their nuclear program, and Bush did nothing about that either.
Every election, we keep electing squishy Repubs, because "we just can't afford to let a Demo win", and every election, the people who were supposed to "save us" contribute to the downward slide.
This shouldn't be about who is to blame, it should be about what needs to be done to return this country to the greatness the Founding Fathers, through their sacrifices gave us. In the immortal words of the great Chief Lone Watie, we must "Endeavor to Persevere". ;)
-
If conservatives really want to win in 2010 and 2012, they're going to need to go back to the fundamentals of conservatism. That's true. They're also going to need someone who can articulate his or her vision in the way that Reagan did. People didn't necessarily agree with Reagan on every issue, but they knew his philosophy and where he stood.
The only answer I have for that statement is this: If conservatives really want to win in 2010 and 2012, they're going to need to go back to the fundamentals of conservatism. That's true. They're also going to need someone who can articulate his or her vision in the way that Reagan did. People didn't necessarily agree with Reagan on every issue, but they knew his philosophy and where he stood. :P =D
-
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The Republicans have fooled me more than twice, unfortunately. I just cannot see going back to the Republican party. As many others have said, I did not leave the party, the party left me.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We keep supporting the Republican party whenever they reach out to us. The party claims, during each election cycle, to be headed back to its "conservative roots", whatever those might be.
Michael Steele, the current RNC chairman, is not a conservative, and yet has been posturing as one because he knows that conservatives form the largest base of party support. Were the Republicans to do well in 2010, perhaps even gain control of both houses, his tune would soon change, and the party would no doubt slide right back into its normal Rockerfeller Republican behavior.
What is the alternative to supporting Republicans? I don't know. I fear that it may be too late for the Republic. The downward spiral is too tight to pull out of, the damage done too extensive to repair.
There is likely insufficient time to form a new truly conservative party. We may have to ride it in.
-
Sounds like a lot of people are itching to use their bug out gear and stockpiled ammo.
That was a real fun party in Argentina back in 2001.
-
Sounds like a lot of people are itching to use their bug out gear and stockpiled ammo.
That was a real fun party in Argentina back in 2001.
I don't have any bug out gear nor do I have stockpiled ammo.
-
I think it's obvious. We should let the failures fail. Yes, the Democrats will advance a few more yards towards their goal - and they're notoriously bad at that - but it will make it easier for us to repeal their laws and cut their taxes later.
Experience shows it's a lot more effective to prevent awful bills from passing than it is to repeal awful bills after they're passed.
-
In case nobody noticed, it hasn't been the Republicans pushing nationalized health care, cap and trade, giving the auto companies to unions with our tax dollars, and establishing a czar to control the salaries of private sector employees.
Bush started the auto bailout with TARP money meant for banks. He had bend the law to do so, so GM's bankruptcy wouldn't happen on his presidency. IMO that act, along with the wasteful spending of his administration, is just as bad as what Obama has so far accomplished.
Republicans expanded Medicare without budgeting, and the total cost of the Iraq War is estimated at over 3 trillion dollars, once one accounts for medical treatment of disabled personnel. Due to the way fiscal year budgets work, much of the spending of FY 09 was planned under Bush.
McCain supports cap and trade, and I am surprised he didn't vote for healthcare. The only other choice we had in our two party system would leave us one step to the right of where we are today.
For the record I voted for McCain in the general election, because I thought Obama would be worse than he has been, and McCain would be marginally better. I have regretted that ever since, because I betrayed my integrety to vote for that man, I wish I would have just stayed at home.
I no longer care who gets elected, both parties will lead us to the same end. Republicans as a party stand for nothing, they just want to be the ones who control the purse strings.
-
Sounds like a lot of people are itching to use their bug out gear and stockpiled ammo.
That was a real fun party in Argentina back in 2001.
That's just crazy talk! :P No, seriously I don't think anyone here is even hinting at that.
George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/19/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-since-lbj/)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft286%2FSergeant_Bob%2F200912_blog_edwards291.jpg&hash=1cf2f1c4b677bb46b94081c8398ca50e36f71f8f)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft286%2FSergeant_Bob%2F200912_blog_edwards281.jpg&hash=67c8ea63381bbff9a5567ed88fac40fad9ef5b4e)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft286%2FSergeant_Bob%2F200912_blog_edwards271.jpg&hash=59663da006c1ad4bbdd878da2c7700f58af0a6b9)
-
That chart is going to have to be a lot wider to include Obama. (BTW, when referring to the percentage of change, what is the baseline?)
Yes, Bush spent too much. The "bailout" (better known as the takeover) of GM was unconstitutional and illegal. But Obama's making him look like a piker. Trying to draw an equivalency between the Bush and Obama administrations is a real stretch.
It's difficult to draw an equivalency between the Obama administration and any previous presidency since we've never had one like this, and what's in store if Obama gets his way is something this country has never experienced.
As for the sensible Democrats, they must be napping. From today's National Review Online:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tellsNational Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare. “They’re meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it,” says Ryan. “I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment, and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.”
If the Democrats pass a health-care bill through reconciliation, it means they would need only 51 votes in the Senate for final passage. To start the process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) would need to bring a new health-care bill to the House Budget Committee with reconciliation instructions, with the Senate doing the same. “They’d have to go back to the beginning of the process,” says Ryan. “They’d need to affix reconciliation instructions to a new bill.” Doing so, he says, wouldn’t be too hard. “There’s nothing we can do to stop this from a technical standpoint, since all they need is a simple majority vote and our ratio on the committee is terrible. What [Republicans] can do on the Budget Committee is pass resolutions for the Rules Committee to insist on certain changes in the bill and create a ‘vote-a-rama’ atmosphere.”
If reconciliation happens, Ryan predicts that the Democrats will still have a hard time pulling it off. “There are Blue Dog Democrats out there who are more survivalist than ideologues. One or two switches could be a game changer. The question is whether Democrats will continue to follow Pelosi off the cliff. After Massachusetts, the Democrats are quickly realizing that even if the president comes in to stump, and you get all the union support you need, it’s still not enough to get you elected.”
-
Democrats will support healthcare to the end. Depending on motives this is either crazy, immoral, or shows integrity.
Republicans hate this bill, but why? This is what I was trying to point out earlier. Republicans have zero problems spending 3 trillion in 8 years. Why fight so hard against 1 trillion in 10 years? They expanded Medicare, clearly they don't have moral issue with national healthcare programs.
Earlier the trench analogy was used, allow me to show my view of the situation:
Yes a weak soldier is better than being alone in the foxhole. But you assume the republicans are a weak soldier. I view them as someone who doesn't have a side. They aren't your enemy, now. They aren't your ally either. It is better to be in the foxhole alone than with someone you can't turn your back on.
-
I don't have any bug out gear nor do I have stockpiled ammo.
Me, neither. One can still read the writing on the wall.
-
It's not about sensing the writing on the wall about bad times coming. It's about the apparent eagerness from some for the bad times to hurry up and get here already.
-
It's not about sensing the writing on the wall about bad times coming. It's about the apparent eagerness from some for the bad times to hurry up and get here already.
Why are some eager for bad times to get here? For many, it's because they want to play with all their toys in a TEOTWAWKI game.
But there are some that can see what is coming and just want to get it over with, maybe with a chance at coming out on the other side relatively intact. It is that simple.
-
Sergeant Bob, et al;
Maybe I missed it while skimming through, but I haven't seen your solution. I saw your platitudes, but the closest thing to a specific plan I found was to "let the failures [I can only assume this means people like Ron Paul, McCain, Badnarik] fail."
I wonder how far we can go with that. We can complain about the ineffectiveness of the Republican Party all we like, but I haven't seen any other party do any better. =(
-
Incumbents have a huge advantage. Elect squishy RINOs now, and you'll not likely vote them out any time soon. And if they do go it'll likely be for a D not another R.
Taking whatever socialist lite the R's chuck at us is the reason we ended up with Obama in the first place. The outrage over Carter put Reagen into office. The outrage over Obama could put another conservative into office, and yet many here will happy vote for McCain or some other %90 liberal just because he's better than Obama. Our side always talks about accepting liberals on our ticket "just for now" then we'll kick them out later. I am not aware of that ever actually happening.
-
I disagree. If we had even one or two more R's *squishy or strong, doesn't matter) Obama wouldn't be nearly the threat he is. Obama and his policies are what you get when you don't have enough R's in office, a fact that Brown demonstrated quite convincingly this week.
An interesting remark I heard the other day: If Dems and Reps are all the same, why does anyone care that Brown won?
-
I don't care all that much that Brown won. The only bill he was needed to filibuster has passed. I don't think the R's could filibuster cap and trade like they tried on healthcare, even with Brown. Too many of them support it.
As far as obamacare is concerned, nearly 50% of the country is already on government healthcare. Once that number climbs above 50%, a nationalized plan is inevitable. The point is there is too much inertia to stop this, it was set in motion a long time ago, and R's didn't really do anything to prevent it when they had the chance. The reason they couldn't is because too many of them are RINO's.
People will follow leaders with integrity. Imagine the world we would be in now if the R's had that, and stuck by the principles of individualism, non-interventionism, and limited government.
That is why electing anyone with a R after their name is bad policy. The party lacks cohesion, they won't even have a platform. How the hell do you get anything done if your party has no unity?
-
I disagree. If we had even one or two more R's *squishy or strong, doesn't matter) Obama wouldn't be nearly the threat he is.
The guy who passed no significant reform in a year of rule is not really the biggest threat to Republic.
-
Why would Obama attempt anything like reform? People like him don't believe in reform. ???
-
Why would Obama attempt anything like reform? People like him don't believe in reform. ???
Eh. By reform I mean his type of reform.
-
Yeah, I know. ;)
-
I don't think I can say it any better than these folks did. Sometimes, things have to get worse before they can get better. I agree that Brown being elected is an improvement, considering the circumstances, and is a win in the short term. But, electing more just like him, McCain, Specter, Snowe, Graham, etc, etc, is not the answer.
Funny, I said exactly that on a local radio show this very morning, and was laughed off the air by the hosts, who explained that people like me are "the reason we lose".
They are like a gangrene on the Constitution, slowly festering and rotting it away. If you don't do something about it now, you will end up losing the entire (Constitution) limb.
Yes. This is something that irks me to no end. If a compromise creates, funds, or grants power to an office or agency, it never, ever goes away. All this crap about bipartisanship, cooperation, etc.(not that any of that is going on) still leads us down the road to destruction.
For the record I voted for McCain in the general election, because I thought Obama would be worse than he has been, and McCain would be marginally better. I have regretted that ever since, because I betrayed my integrety to vote for that man, I wish I would have just stayed at home.
I felt exactly the same, except for the staying home bit. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary; I should've voted for him again in the general election. Felt dirty throwing in for someone I didn't believe in.
Sergeant Bob, et al;
Maybe I missed it while skimming through, but I haven't seen your solution. I saw your platitudes, but the closest thing to a specific plan I found was to "let the failures [I can only assume this means people like Ron Paul, McCain, Badnarik] fail."
I wonder how far we can go with that. We can complain about the ineffectiveness of the Republican Party all we like, but I haven't seen any other party do any better. =(
Fistful, what are you looking for, solution-wise(seriously)? It's already been said above that the solution is reasonably articulate, principled conservative leadership. We presently have none. We have actors who don't want to be put out of work by new talent.
The overarching problem is that most of the current Republican party - which claims to support conservative values - is a joke. Maybe they're scared now and they'll put on a show, but we won't know for sure until they get back into majority. What happens then, when they get back to spending, and regulating, and doing favors again? Will we still be glad that at least we kept those durned ol' corrupt Dems out? Where is a single person I can stand behind?
I don't want a Great Uniter. I want a Great Polarizer. I want someone who will speak so bluntly as to plain the absurdity of today's government. I want transparency from a man who will say what he believes, and do what he says. Anything less is a compromise.
Anyone who pretends he can reconcile the irreconcilable differences between our founding fathers and today's creeping progressive liberalism is either fooling himself, or deceitful and committed to nothing but his own power.
I'll run for office. I'll be the candidate of "no". No bullshit earmarks, no tax increases, no corporate welfare, no, no, no. I can be the Great Divider :lol:
-
I'll run for office. I'll be the candidate of "no". No bullshit earmarks, no tax increases, no corporate welfare, no, no, no. I can be the Great Divider :lol:
Now that I love. A few months ago, they kept saying the Repub's were the party of no. More recently, they've been accusing us/them of obstructionism. But they say it like it's a bad thing. ;/
I don't want a Great Uniter. I want a Great Polarizer.
And that is a very profound truth; that's precisely what is called for.
Fistful, what are you looking for, solution-wise(seriously)? It's already been said above that the solution is reasonably articulate, principled conservative leadership.
For a solution, I want you to tell me how we're going to get that. Most of what I've seen from folks on your side of the discussion is description of the problem and description of the goal. And I agree. But how do we get to that goal? I don't know. I was hoping you would.
-
hmm, Conan is looking for a new job. :O it would be entertaining to saw the least. [popcorn] i can see it now, the master debater bear as VEP. have to be better than joe "the" biden =D
-
Ron Paul already has the "DR No" moniker.
-
I'm not saying we should vote for Ron Paul (I don't think he is the answer, and I am not a wookie suit wearing Cheetos Eater) but we need to keep the pressure on those who "representative" us, most of whom only "act" conservative when there is someone in office who threatens their power.
We need to hold their feet to the fire by letting them know how we feel about their actions, get behind viable candidates (such as J.D. Hayworth) and let them know we are not afraid to make some sacrifices in order to uphold our values.
I don't have the answers but, I know we can not continue an the same path we have been on for so long.
Fear as a motivator only invokes a fight or flee response, and running away is not an option.
-
Solution: stop just electing the incumbent, stop voting for people based on "electability" or who the media likes the most, start voting for actual conservatives.
-
Solution: stop just electing the incumbent
We tried that last time around, and look where it got us. No thanks, personally.
The time to go after an incumbent is in the primaries, not the general election. If you beat him in the primary, great. If you don't, suck it up and vote for the incumbent in the general, because if you don't you get guys like Barry and Nancy running the show.
-
1. I suppose I should've clarified that, but yeah one generally rids oneself of the incumbent in the primaries. We are talking about replacing RINO's like McCain after all.
2. Even poli-critters can learn. Keep voting for anyone who has an R beside their name, and the national leadership sees that. Refusing to let the Grahams and Spectors get elected (even via the dreaded "Perot'ing") sends a message too.
-
Solution: stop just electing the incumbent, stop voting for people based on "electability" or who the media likes the most, start voting for actual conservatives.
'Cause voting for Ron Paul was such a winning strategy.
-
Voting for the RINO didn't exactly work too well either.
-
Voting for RINOs was better than what we have now.
RINO > Marxist
-
Yeah, the world would be a better place if Ford had beat Carter.
Continuing to elect RINO's is why people like Obama get elected to start with. Give the people actual conservatives to vote for and it'll solve both our problems. All politics is local and all that, but while people like Michael Steele are in charge of the GOP we're screwed.
-
Continuing to elect RINO's is why people like Obama get elected to start with. Give the people actual conservatives to vote for and it'll solve both our problems. All politics is local and all that, but while people like Michael Steele are in charge of the GOP we're screwed.
All true, but how do we get these conservative candidates?
-
Voting for RINOs was better than what we have now.
RINO > Marxist
I am getting a lot of lulz out of this stuff. I really do agree with you, turd sandwiches really are better with cheese on'em! =D
Think of it like a business. If you have employees who are willfully and consistently working to destroy your company, you'd fire them. Right?
Well, they are our employees. I used to be flawed in my thinking, the same as a lot of other people. Then after attending re-education camp I figured, "What do I have to lose?". :P
-
OK. Tell us how to fire all these RINO's. And while we're at it, tell us how to fire the Dems, and fill the whole federalist govt. structure (state and national) with freedom-loving, red-blooded American patriots.
We're waiting.
-
OK. Tell us how to fire all these RINO's. And while we're at it, tell us how to fire the Dems, and fill the whole federalist govt. structure (state and national) with freedom-loving, red-blooded American patriots.
We're waiting.
By not doing anything, just give up.
-
Really, you think we should do nothing? Forget voting, or campaigning, or activism?
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft286%2FSergeant_Bob%2Fbeating-a-dead-horse.gif&hash=c5e570871528b9df0a8273a1102916f6845cce53)
-
Indeed.
-
OK. Tell us how to fire all these RINO's. And while we're at it, tell us how to fire the Dems, and fill the whole federalist govt. structure (state and national) with freedom-loving, red-blooded American patriots.
We're waiting.
You first.
Oh wait, you're question has already been answered. We get that result the same way any free market product is arrived at. Refuse to buy the crap that's being sold, hold out for the product you want. We're enabling the R's, much like a parent letting their 30 y/o kid sleep on the couch. If we keep voting for liberal-lite, they'll keep giving it to us.
-
Holding out has sure proven successful, hasn't it? We narrowly averted a disastrous health care nationalization, and card check, cap and trade, and Lord only knows what other bits of Marxist sunshine. If not for electing one more Republican at the last possible moment these abominations would have been reality.
This past week has been a reality check for anyone who cares to see it. We saw in black and white just what kind of difference one more Republican can make. You're strategy of voting out Republicans without regard to consequences is shown to be reckless folly. The only question that remains is if you're going to acknowledge it and act accordingly, or hold on to your knee-jerk anti-Republican biases.
-
HTG, I think that some of these "bring on the end of the world so we can start over" types either didn't live through the Carter years, or forgot about them.
My first mortgage was at 17%. Car loans were going at around 20%. I got raises pretty often, but only because food prices went up so quickly. At least I had a job, though.
If Obama, Reid, Pelosi & Co. are somehow able to push through their health care bill, cap and trade, and other items, the Carter years will look like a walk in the park.
We wouldn't be the first country to have 100% or even 1000% inflation rates. If Obama keeps strangling business and borrowing money, the Russians and the Chinese will convince the rest of the world to abandon the dollar. Then we're in really deep trouble.
Japan and Israel are already making nice with the Russians and the Chinese, and who can blame them? There's a good chance our days of being the economic superpower could end very quickly.
A cleansing of our system won't be invigorating like some shampoo commercial. It will be hell on earth.
The Republicans have some very talented people out front, and it would be advisable for people to listen to them. If you listen to Obama's plans, you're pretty much reading the Communist Manifesto.
-
You first.
Nope. I'm not the one pretending to offer a solution, which turns out to be nothing more than a vague goal with no plan on how to get there.
When it comes to Sergeant Bob's goals, we seem to be on the same page. It's just that I don't confuse the goal with the plan. Where's the plan?
-
How old are you, fistful? It's a serious question, not an attempt to disparage you based on age. But, seriously, how old are you?
-
33
-
33
And, how old do you expect to be once your plan of returning America to her Constitutional roots is complete, assuming your most optimistic view of things? How old do you expect your children to be?
Answer that, and you will understand my viewpoint better.
-
Did I say I had a plan?
How long do you think your plan will take?
-
Did I say I had a plan?
How long do you think your plan will take?
Optimistic view? 1-2 decades.
Pessimistic view? We're going to be free, but I'm going to be old and wheelchair-bound by then. But this assumes my plan isn't accepted by anybody other than a tiny minority, and the world proceeds as it is.
Ultra-pessimistic view? America becomes Sweden with NASCAR.
-
It is way too early to count all those bills dead. Graham and Kerry are supposedly working on a bipartisan cap and trade. Kerry has hinted at more than one R vote.
This will all depend on the reconciliation process. Health care will happen eventually, once the government has more than 50% of the market, which will happen as more baby boomers retire.
If everyone keeps voting for RINOs just to keep Dems out, don't be surprised when you wake up one day to a republican party that is just as progressive as the Democrats.
The republicans helped to add ~6 trillion to the deficit. This doesn't count the healthcare cost for wounded soldiers, which is an unfunded liability I believe. IMO ignoring the republican contribution to resulting inflation is myopic. Obama et al. surely will make it worse. I just don't see any reason why Republicans can be trusted to not make it worse.
When the R's put up Mccain for president, and Steele as the chairman, then I assume that the party now believes in what those two stand for (if anything).
I am not claiming to have a plan, or that people who vote R are evil (or D for that matter). I am simply sharing my reasons why I will not vote for any R that isn't a true conservative, and has a record to stand on.
-
Optimistic view? 1-2 decades.
Pessimistic view? We're going to be free, but I'm going to be old and wheelchair-bound by then. But this assumes my plan isn't accepted by anybody other than a tiny minority, and the world proceeds as it is.
Ultra-pessimistic view? America becomes Sweden with NASCAR.
Well? If you haven't started an MB's Plan thread, pray do so. Or if you have, link please.
-
How can you criticize others for not having a plan when you don't have one either? ???
That being said, you all are looking at the effect and ignoring the cause. Supporting people like McCain and Steele as the face of the Republican party is why so many Dems get elected in the first place.
-
Well? If you haven't started an MB's Plan thread, pray do so. Or if you have, link please.
I've elaborated my plan many times.
In effect it is this:
1. Educate people on alternative policy solutions [freedom]. As a natural effect of more people becoming educated, the political spectrum will shift your way.
2. Support the most freedom-friendly candidates you can, run them for office. In some cases, be ready to lose if it means avoiding a socialist Republican being elected.
3. Incorporate the radical wing of your movement into your movement in some way, train its members to become political activists, precinct captains, etc.
4. Make sure every political campaign, every political effort, becomes an investment. Retain your organization after each campaign to the fullest extent possible, like the Goldwaterites did. It was this method that allowed Nixon and Reagan to be elected.
5. Utilize every legitimate means. Sue. Protest. IF you can find a hero to become a civil disobedient, by all means do so.
-
How can you criticize others for not having a plan when you don't have one either? ???
Fistful is not the one criticizing anybody here.
-
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html
Getting the right people elected is not a win. It's a START.
From there we have to fight and explain to people that Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare is driving us off a cliff. We have to wake people up.
We know socialist policies eventually run out of money. We have to convince the people of that as well. George W. Bush made the first attempt at fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, while he may be the Decider, he's not the Great Communicator.
We need someone who can lead, but also one who can persuade. Congress cannot fix things the majority of people don't think are broken yet.
We need to convince them things are broken or breaking. We need to keep in mind we are fighting against people trying to do the opposite.
The Democrats just proved you can't go against the public.
We have to win the people first, not just the elections, and THEN fix the problems.
I must have missed this the first time around. This is dead on right.
Wonder why things are they way they are? Wonder why certain people get elected, certain policies get pushed, why any of this stuff plays out the way it does? It's mostly because that's what the population wants.
You have to bear in mind that most of the population wants soft pleasant nanny statism. Politicians of any stripe will cater to that, or they won't get elected. Liberty minded folks are a minority.
Times appear to be changing slightly, with opinion polls showing conservativism in an ascendancy. The politicians seem to be reacting to it, some slowly, some more efficiently. Either way, as mak says there won't be a real change in politics until the population as a whole changes its opinions on what government should be. The best we can do until then is hold on to what we've got so that once we've managed to persuade enough people, there'll still something left worth preserving.
-
How can you criticize others for not having a plan when you don't have one either? ???
Then take another look at what I said. I don't claim to have a plan, although I've been thinking along the lines of MicroBalrog's plan, above.
What I object to, is all this rambling on about how bad the Republican party is, or how stupid people are for voting for McCain; yet the grumblers have no clear idea on what to do. They tell us not to vote for RINO"s, but they can't tell us who to vote for. They might tell us to vote for third parties, but this hasn't worked very well, either.
Either way, as mak says there won't be a real change in politics until the population as a whole changes its opinions on what government should be.
I agree with this, which is also the first step in the MB plan. I wish our politicians were all true believers, but the Founders didn't design this to be a nation of followers led by Great Statesmen. Our leaders are supposed to do as we say, kept in constant fear of losing their seats should they displease us. For all I care, every politician on Capitol Hill could be a flaming Communist, so long as they shudder at the wrath of a liberty-loving people.
-
Either way, as mak says there won't be a real change in politics until the population as a whole changes its opinions on what government should be.
I disagree.
A vocal minority can be the impetus for change too - the political process rewards a person who is active and turns out more than it does a person who votes once per election cycle.
-
The vocal minorities comprise part of the sum total of a populations opinions. Their opinions get mixed in with everyone else. Things change when the entire mix reaches a tipping point. Electoral changes follow this tipping, they do not cause it.
-
HTG. I am not sure I understand what you said. Please explain in more detail. I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand at all.
-
I think what HTG is trying to say is that the vocal minorities opinions become part of the total mix of opinions in the population, and are not themselves responsible for change. Things change when the total mix of opinions move in one direction and cause changes in elections.
The tea parties didn't cause the Brown victory, although tea party members' opinions were part of the mix of opinions that moved for change.
There's two ways to change our society: by force, or by making the society want change. Making the society want change demands that you give people a reason to want the change you propose. It can't be a negative. You have to tell them what's in it for them. You have to sell them something.
What are you selling? Our opponents have been selling free stuff for decades. Selling freedom isn't easy because people don't like too much of it, as freedom demands much of an individual.
Reagan was a salesman, Bush was not. Obama is a salesman, but it's looking like the product he's selling isn't what people really want.
-
This is true, but consider this:
In a democratic Republic, social change is a product of different factors. One of them is sheer number of voters, but it is not the only factor. Political power is not just a function of how many people support you, but also how wealthy these people are, how well-positioned they are in society, and how active they are. The fact that public school teachers and college professors, for example, are often liberal, has done a lot for the Left. The fact that libertarians are more active and dedicated to their ideas, and that many of them are educated middle-class people, has allowed that group to box above its weight class and achieve social change.
So I contend that increasing the sheer amount ofp eople on our side is not the only way to victory.
-
I think society as a whole has a body of beliefs. The society's beliefs are the "average" or the "sum" of the individual beliefs held by the members of the society. For the past 20 odd years, American society has believed in such things as soft nanny statism, immediate consumption, and so forth. British society seems to have slightly different opinions. Iranian, Japanese, Brazilian, Russian societies all have differing beliefs still. Etc.
Some people within the society can influence the overall societal beliefs more than others, perhaps due to greater personal prominence or resolve or whatever. I think this is consistent with your idea of the vocal minority.
Where I diverge from you is in the matter of how elections are decided. Elections aren't decided by who has more votes. Elections are decided by whatever force determines who people want to vote for. I think that force is dominated by how well a given candidate mirrors the society's prevailing beliefs at the time of the election. There are sundry other minor factors that are always at play, but for the most part it's a question of which candidates the population as a whole likes and finds comfortable.
Individuals have very little direct influence on this process, vocal or otherwise. The effect of individuals is to influence the societal beliefs, thereby swaying the overall beliefs in one direction or another.
-
The tea parties didn't cause the Brown victory, although tea party members' opinions were part of the mix of opinions that moved for change.
Take it a step further. Tea parties didn't cause brown to win. But there was something that caused the tea parties to occur. Whatever that something is, it's probably also able to cause a man like Brown to win an election.
I suspect that the mysterious something was a change in the society's overall beliefs about government. I can't be sure of this, and I'm willing to entertain other possibilities, but I'm convinced that somewhere deep down there is a root cause, and that it operates on the public consciousness.
There was another significant change in society's overall beliefs a year or two ago. I mentioned earlier that American society for several decades has believed in immediate consumption. This changed a year or two ago, and the implications of that change are significant. This change in societal beliefs is probably even more significant than the change in political beliefs.
-
So I contend that increasing the sheer amount ofp eople on our side is not the only way to victory.
Ok, I'll agree with you that it's not strictly necessary to have a high volume of people. All that's really necessary to influence change is affect things on the margin.
For instance, it wouldn't have taken half of the electorate to influence the last presidential election. In a country of 300 million people, a mere 5 million people switching their votes would have reversed the outcome of the election.
What's more, any factor that could induce 5 million people to change their mind could have altered the outcome. In terms of societal beliefs, you wouldn't have to persuade the entire population ot change their minds. You would just have to drift things one way or enough enough to reach a small tipping point where a small number of people change their minds about who better reflects what they believe.
-
OK. Tell us how to fire all these RINO's. And while we're at it, tell us how to fire the Dems, and fill the whole federalist govt. structure (state and national) with freedom-loving, red-blooded American patriots.
We're waiting.
Sigh. Well, as the resident democrat, I suppose I'm obligated to make a suggestion.
Start with establishing some short and medium goals that are actually reachable and reasonably noncontroversial. Reducing regulation on small businesses, eliminating the double SS tax on self-employed, modest welfare reforms (focus on fraud/waste/abuse), etc.
Win some victories from above. Doesn't have to be much.
Find some sugar daddies and mamas. Secured funding.
Set up a group of professionals dedicated to getting acceptable candidates elected. Professional organizers, lawyers, support staff, IEW experts, logistical staff, sociologists, etc. Support solely contingent on behavior. You break the platform, you are done, period. Not a dime goes to unacceptable candidates. At first, keep the go/no-go list pretty loose. No attacking of RINO, just no funding or support. Pressure them as mildly as possible.
Start making slightly bolder, but still pretty manageable goals.
Rinse, lather, repeat. Once you get enough folks, start striking at the base of support of the opposition. Unions, neoluddite environmentalists, etc. Drain the swamp.
-
As a whole, I see confusion among those who want more liberty, more adherence to the principles of the Founding Fathers. That confusion has to do with the difference between strategy and tactics, and how to use each. Strategy relates to or overall goals and ideal results. Tactics are the "boot on the ground" actions we take to bring about our strategy.
Strategy=use the means at our disposal to remove RINOs from office and replace them with actual conservatives(or what have you).
Tactics=Well, that's a bit more complicated. I believe what Micro has outlined makes sense, but it doesn't go deep enough, and misses the root cause of our current situation. I think seeing the shrinkage of government to acceptable levels within 20 years is wildly optimistic, as we have to first halt the acceleration of socialism, and then reverse the damage it has already done.
What we have to do is change a culture, a nationwide culture. It is stronger in some areas, and weaker in others, but make no mistake, America has become a nation of entitlement. Since at least the 1930s(and some would argue the late 1800s), progressives have worked their agenda to steadily undermine the principles this country was founded upon. Cultural change takes time, and effort, and frequently is less pleasant than beating ones head against a cement wall.
It begins with education. The things our children are taught in school will stay with them their entire lives, barring some life altering revelation or a determined effort by a trusted mentor. We MUST take back the schools to succeed. By that, I don't mean ban the teaching of evolution, or require daily bible study, or clubbing homosexuals in the schoolyard(all of which I have seen suggested in one place or another). I mean we must teach critical thinking, rather than rote memorization of "facts". Man-made global warming/climate change is now taught in schools as fact. The victimization of Africans and Native Americans(not sayingit didn't happen, but I take issue with the myth of the great enlightened savages), Columbus as the first white man in the new world, FDR as the great savior of our country, these things are taught as fact.
Our school system has created generations of drones who believe what they are told by authority figures without question. When they leave home and finish school, who takes the place of teachers as authority figures? All too often it is the media, and we all know how that works. We MUST teach children to think for themselves, with true objectivity, if we are to stop the ruination of our country. Entire generations have been brainwashed to the point where they can not say why they don't like something, but merely repeat what they hear on TV.
Other actions are needed, such as reclaiming state sovereignty and getting the federal fingers out of so many pies, as well as the things micro suggested. There is no quick fix available to us at this time. We have to dig in our heels and get down to work, if we wish to save this country. That requires unpleasant tasks. We may have to run for office ourselves, if we don't see anyone worth voting for locally. We may have to spend time away from family to knock on doors for those candidates we believe in.
RevDisk has some excellent suggestions there, as well.