Home
About the site...
Email the site...
Take Mark's Quiz
buBlog Entries & Articles!
Grassroots Platform
Mark's Grass Roots Speech
Declaration of Independence
The Federalist Papers
The U.S. Constitution
The Bill of Rights
The United States Code
Code of Federal Regulations
State Constitutions
States' Laws and Codes
History of U.S. Tax System
History of Social Security
Sign the Fairtax Petition
Find Your Public Servants
|
|
buSpeak!
Add Comments to Blog (1 comments)
|
|
How we can win in the future
November 16, 2006 01:25PM
|
Winning as a conservative can be very easy. Electing enough fundamentalists
(as in fundamental law) isn't even that difficult. It is a matter of
changing the mindset of two party rule (or party affiliation altogether),
and weeding out the kooks, for lack of a better term, the wasdin types...
meaning the conspiracy nuts, the anarcho-nuts... you know what I mean. they
are the ones that get on tickets and say things like 9/11 was an inside job.
Anyway... of 435 House Seats and two parties with no clear majority, all it
would take is to get 60 fundamentalists elected.
If we use the election results from November 7th. Those sixty seats are
found in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California,
Kentucky, Texas, Florida and Connecticut (for starters).
We could look at about 40 more House Races that were close (pundits used the 50 most vulnerable
seats, but there are more). The two Georgia Seats are also in play.
So, instead of taking back the entire party, concentrate on 60 vulnerable seats and
get fundamentalists on the tickets in those seats. Their agenda is
constitutional spending and border control, and nothing more. 60 would be
enough to bottleneck andy bad legislation as long as both Democrat and
Republican seats are picked off. If there is any truth to the statement
that most of the newly elected democrats are conservatives, maybe the number
isn't 60. If there are any more Pences, Shaddeggs and Pauls in the
republican house, the number becomes even smaller. It then becomes a
numbers game against the two party rule. Here's why:
If these new so-called blue dog democrats are really conservative but they
think they have to vote with the liberal democrats in order to be property
funded for re-election, then they have a dilemma and that would be .. "am I
loyal to the people who put me here because I ran as a conservative, or am I
loyal to the people who funded me?" Well, if the experts are right and
conservatism won then they better listen to their constituents because what
we saw was nothing short of a toilet flushing on election day
As long as their is no "big party" majority and the landscape looks
something like: 190 R 185 D and 60 F, there will never be a majority on a
bad spending bill unless you get of these 30 Rs or Ds working in a bi-partisan (or better yet they were bought out) manner to produce the bad legislation, and I can't see that happening anytime soon.
These fundamentalists need to be well funded and networked in order to make
waves. I told you last week, the grass roots revolution has started and the
next step is to find candidates and get funding and networking. Looking at
the house races, I could imagine house candidates in these states could need
a couple million dollars a piece to break in. I can't imagine that there
isn't 200 million dollars out there ready to spent on preserving
fundamentalism.
The magic number is 60. Not 435. In the senate, it's 14. 7 from each
side... yes, I am talking about a new Gang of 14.
The biggest drawback to this is the two-party rule mentality. Well that and
the incumbent protection act known as McCain-Feingold.
markbureau
mark@markbureau.us
http://markbureau.us
|
|
Comments
|
From Mark Bureau posted on Nov 21, 2006
This is a test
|
|
"The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone."
~ H.L. Mencken ~
Maybe THIS will refresh your memory.
|
