[nonliberal]

I know this was written last month but in the wake of the Smith defeat in New Hampshire and the general de-motivation of the conservative base here in Iowa, I thought this might be a good time to post this.

[patriciaruth]

Republicans have never been strictly conservative. In fact, the party was founded on an anti-slavery plank, against the spread of slavery into the North or into new states in the Union. The first Repubican president, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive and held many views about the roll of government that would be considered liberal today.

In the fifties and sixties, the Rockefellers were representative of the liberals in the Republican party. Economic conservatism was the only constant conservatism at that time.

The shift toward across the board conservatism came with Barry Goldwater's nomination as the Repubican candidate in 1964, and he was creamed in the general election by President Johnson.

Since then there has been a struggle between moderates and conservatives in the Republican party. Conservatives sneer at moderates and call them RINO's, and moderates roll their eyes at conservatives feeling they are destroying the electability of the party with their uncompromising stands.

Between the crushing of the GOP by the liberal media and our viability today stood only Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, the internet, and George W. Bush.

When one is standing on a swing bridge that is partly stitched together and holding by the RINO's, one should not be so contemptuous of the role they are playing.

I don't agree with a lot of positions the RINO's take, but I do know that at this point in history we cannot win the Senate without them. And I want to win the Senate and get conservative judges confirmed, as that is the most important thing right now, as important as preventing D.C. from being nuked by terrorists/Saddam by neutralizing Iraq.

[AzJP]

Are they?

No.

Both have prostituted the definition of "liberal" and "conservative".

Not eveyone in Katy has potty mouth.

M

[hole_n_one]

For the gazillionth time......

When you alter the original title, you create havoc, the likes of which are obviously way beyond your comprehension, or you wouldn't have done it in the first place.

[Cindy]

"Are the Republicans still conservative?" (My title)

Are there any CHRISTian Democrats?" (My title)

[ChadGore]

"Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow Republicans"
-- Reagans law

[SirAngus]

Greetings fellow Iowan. Good post.

Yeah, since Smith got beat and not many seem to care....All most Republicans(including a majority on this site it seems) care about is winning. Not conservatism. Conservatism is kinda doing the old Russian "slash and burn" retreat. But the problem is, Conservatism isn't as big as Russia, if you get my meaning.

[Consort]

I know this was written last month....I thought this might be a good time to post this.

No. Have it pulled.

[Darth Sidious]

The Republicans of North Carolina just nominated a RINO for Jesse Helms' old Senate seat. That should tell you something.

[cva66snipe]

It seems a civil debate of politics is no longer the goals to some within this forum. That's a shame. It gives the place a black eye and it makes those who flame rather than debate look like foolish spoiled children.

But then again that goes back to the context of this very article and the prevailing attitude now growing in the GOP itself. Some great conservatives went down this election cycle. Many went down simply because of party politics. We as a nation have survived 225 plus years of heated debate even during our very founding. I don't think having more debates on our nations or even a parties direction will end the United States as we know it nor do it harm.

The truth is debate has not been taking precedent over cloak room deals. In that respect truth and freedom is the looser along with the responsibility to know and understand canidates and elected positions and an approval or dissent thereof.

[WFTR]

I think the author has some good points, but he loses much of his credibility with me when he chooses the farm bill and a steel tariff to criticize President Bush. I don't remember what is in the farm bill, but I'm certain that beyond the usual government grasping, it doesn't represent a new and different kind of attack on our Constitution. Likewise, in spite of what the free-trade-is-my-religion crowd claims, a steel tariff is in perfect keeping with the original spirit of the Constitution.

If the author wants to find a legitimate reason to criticize the president, he should look no further than campaign finance reform. This act is the biggest attack on our Constitution in years. The First Amendment was written specifically to allow us to criticize elected officials and those who aspire to be elected officials. However, this law now makes it illegal to use modern media to do what our Founding Fathers considered one of the most important safeguards of our liberty.

I'm certainly disappointed and discouraged by what is happening in our nation. I'm disappointed and discouraged by the lack of courage that party leaders have shown for the past decade. If the Democrats retaking the Senate does one good thing, I hope it gives us an excuse not to make Trent Lott the majority leader again when we regain control. It is very frustrating to spend hours working for Republican candidates only to have them vote against me on the issues that I had considered most important.

On the other hand, we need to not quit working to better our country. I remember reading an article some time ago that said that Karl Rove expected about 19 million self-professing "religious conservatives" to vote for President Bush in the 2000 election. Instead, the president received only about 15 million of these votes.

Where did the other 4 million go? If they had voted for President Bush, the Florida controversy never would have happened. Even if none of them had voted for President Bush and all had given their votes in some combination to Pat Buchanan and Howard Philips, conservatives in Washington would have a stronger hand. If Pat Buchanan had received 4 million votes, the electoral college would not have changed. However, the popular vote would have shown a majority for conservative candidates. Furthermore, if those 4 million had voted for conservatives in other races, the GOP might still control the US Senate.

In less than 2 months, we will choose our Congressional representatives again. Every House member is running. A third of the Senate is running. If Republicans could retake the Senate and expand their lead in the House, conservatives would have a stronger bargaining position. That should be our current goal.

A Year Later
Bill

[redrock]

Not many.......

..which is sad.

Very sad...since whenever the Republicans CAMPAIGN standing up for conservative issues...they win and win big.

ALA Newt and the boys and Reagan.

redrock

[Anotherpundit]

I think this guys' right, but I think there are some bright spots. Look at "non-traditional" republican candidates that are having or may soon have major success, like Mark Sanford in South Carolina, who's campaign platform is half reform party issues when you get right down to it. I've seen more people motivated to help with his campaign than I have with any other republican running around here, and there's a reason -- sanford's got a clear, solid reputation as an honest to god small government conservative. People want that. We aren't getting enough of it from the mainstream Republican Party. I think that there's a real field for "reagan-style" small government conservatives within the republican party, and I think that small-government conservatives who can convince voters they really mean their small-government stances will win primaries against other republican candidates.

That doesn't "knock republicans," it just acknowledges that, while it's usually good to elect republicans, some republicans are better than others. I think that if people want to win Republican primaries, they'd be well served to hearken back to the rock-roots of the party -- small government, the constitution, etc. Voters want that.

[brat]

No, they are not which is why I re-registered as an Independent. If enough of us do it perhaps they'll get the hint.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

How can an influential grass roots movement toward conservative principles be allowed to germinate and win the hearts and minds of the electorate in a nation held captive by a leftist socialist controlled media and in a world that has embraced the leftist ideology as its creed? How can such a movement take hold if we are not allowed to openly express our dissent over policies that are inconsistent with the principles contained in our Constitution or even with the principles contained in conservative common sense?

The only hope we have to overcome these obstacles rests in the courage of those who dare to speak out against the direction this Country is being taken by their elected representatives. I strongly believe in the concept of government Constitution over party. I think people are perfectly capable of handling the duality of loyalty for the war effort without having to blindly accept leftist socialist dogma.

[exnavy]

I am.

[Commander8]

Parties change ideologies the way people change socks. From the way it looks, I'll be changing my registration to American Independent(California's Constitution Party affiliate.) by the end of the decade unless there is a real effort by conservatives take back the GOP from the Log Cabins, RINOs and neocons.

[truth_seeker]

What is the goal? To have a particular political philosophy dominate a party, however big or small that party is?

Or is the goal to enact conservative measures and policies?

In the long run, it seems to me that the real task is PERSUADING actual voters, of the benefits of conservative policies.

My guess is that, for instance, a Libby Dole would vote for my policy positions, more often than her democrat opponent. She should be a strong candidate, based on name recognition, her resume, etc.

Therefore I get more of my conservative policies passed, with her in office, instead of her democrat opponent.

The debate on FR seems to be ill focused, on party domination, not on actual legislative votes and policies.

I believe in the long run, conservatism will BENEFIT, from working through a single BIG party. Let the debate continue, inside the party. Yell, scream, kick, threaten; but stay in the party. Observe Reagan's Law.

The liberals benefit from having conservatives, spread through several parties. Notice the effect of a Nader/Green party? It benefits conservatives and Republicans; it harms liberals and democrats.

The reverse is also true.