Dear President Ronald Wilson Reagan, My Party Left Me Too...

My Own Thoughts | 04/20/2012 | DoughtyOne

[DoughtyOne]

...is there life after the Leftists take over?

We have been operating under the rule of "Lesser of Two Evils" for decades.  I have agreed with it.  I now stop to ask folks who have been doing the same thing, has our nation grown stronger over those decades?  At some point we have to be honest with ourselves.  For me, the answer is a clear, "No."  I can't answer for you, but there are many people out there who understand exactly where I'm coming from?

Instead of saying people who continue to do this are wrong, I want to give them something to think about.  Perhaps it will help them see things a little differently.

What we have been trying hasn't worked.  We slide farther left every single year.  At some point this has to stop, or we lose the nation we love no matter which party is in power.  Take a good look at Mitt Romney.  On just one topic alone, I can't vote for him.  He's a gun control advocate.  Once our guns are gone, they're gone.  Bad as that is, it runs much deeper.  I don't need to tell you about all of it.  You know what I'm talking about.  Romney is a blithering idiot when it comes to Conservatism.  Some would say he's lying his ass off.  It would be hard to argue otherwise.

Carter was universally scorned in 1980.  Obama, arguably much worse, isn't.  He is still wildly popular with the Left.  Has our nation changed?  It's my take that it is undeniably worse and in danger of cratering if we don't change direction.  And where is the voice of the loyal opposition?  That's right... crickets.

For this reason, I simply cannot fall back on the lesser of two evils rule of thumb we have always fallen back on.  I say this because IT IS NOT a change of direction.  If that hasn't worked, and it clearly hasn't, what reasoned argument is there for doing it again now?  Well, to my way of thinking there is no reasoned argument other than the ones that have always been used to advocate for it.  And that tactic having failed, the arguments in support of it are unsustainable.

We have tried this and failed.  So now we must come up with something different.  I, for one, will not sit by and continue play the business as usual game.  The Republican party must be made aware that it cannot continue to thumb it's nose at it's core base.

Here's the political spectrum we should be operating under.

1780 [L---------c---------R]

This is the political spectrum that would reveal us to be adhering to our Founding Father's vision and our Founding Documents.  This is precisely what the goal of Conservatives should be, to return to this model, and to do it as rapidly as possible.  Are we trending back toward that model?

I see something like this.

1980 [L---d---r-c---------R] *
1984 [L--d----r-c---------R] *
1988 [L--d---r--c---------R] *
1992 [L--d---r--c---------R]
1996 [L--d---r--c---------R]
2000 [L--d--r---c---------R] *
2004 [L-d--r----c---------R] *
2008 [Ld--r-----c---------R]
2012 [Ld--r-----c---------R]

The sad fact is, we are trending away from Conservatism.  That's why many of us are livid at our nominee this year.  AGAIN!!!!

Here is where we are headed folks.

2016 [Ld--r-----c---------R]
2020 [Ld-r------c---------R]
2024 [Ldr-------c---------R]

Does that look enticing?

With the exception of Ronald Reagan in 1980 - 1988, we have been spoon fed our candidates.  I'm not saying they spoon fed us the exact candidate, but they did take advantage of trends to make sure what types of candidates would get the nomination.  How did the RNC manage that?  It allowed it's primaries to be held under conditions that made it possible for Democrats to participate in the Republican nomination process.  Did anyone think that was going to give us more Conservative candidates?  No, it was a given that we were going to get more Leftists.  And more Leftists we got.

The RNC also continually talked up our more Leftist candidates, and made it clear they frowned on our more Conservative ones.  Look what took place this year.  Rove, Card, other party officials and office holders pushed Romney as hard as they could.

Why would the Republican Party do this?  For some time the leadership has been convinced that the nation was heading Left, and it didn't see any possibility of Conservatives being elected.  Rather than look at our rich history and notice that our widest victories were realized when we played on our differences with Leftist policy, they decided to adopt more Leftist policy in an attempt to look more appealing.  And as this took place, the information dispensed to the public heralding Conservatism ceased.  And as the push for Conservatism ceased, the nation moved farther left.

We are now at the point where our Constitution, Capitalism, and other tenets of a sound Constitutional Republic are scorned.

Look at the graph above, and see how that worked out for us.  Ronald Reagan was our last president who won with a large margin of victory.  Starting with the elder Bush, that margin either disappeared completely or was so razor thin that we had a public perception of a Constitutional crises arise in the aftermath of two elections.

Moving to the Left only assured us that the real Democrats would get support.  Why vote for a moderate Leftist when you can vote for the real thing?  Did the RNC learn anything from McCain?  No.  Here we go again with Rove, Card, and the usual suspects trashing better candidates and singing praises to Romney from the get-go.  What is our hope for the future, with the business as usual approach?  Think of our elections since 1988.

And so we have come to the point in our nation's history, where the Republican party is now willing to promote people who don't give a damn about our sovereignty, our Founding Documents, the sanctity of life, our Second Amendment Rights, and more.  At what point do we admit we have full blown Leftists running for office in our party, and refuse to play along any longer?

If Romney were running as a Democrat there isn't even the remotest of chances that you would vote for the man.  But now, because he's running against Obama, some entertain the thought.  And what happens in 2016, when a member of Hamas runs as a Democrat and The Republican is only as bad as Obama?  Do we then vote for the mirror image of him? 

Look folks, at some point we have to let the (R) party know, that they have jumped the shark, and we can no longer support what they want us to.  You see, if we don't, we'll forever be voting for McCains, Romneys, and worse of their ilk. 

If they can get a Leftist like Romney elected, it's effectively the end of Conservatism.  No Conservative will ever get the nomination again.  Should that be our goal?  No.

Why do I say that there will never be another Conservative nominee in the future?  Take a look at this election cycle, and realize it only gets worse from here if Romney can get elected without the Conservative vote.

I hope you'll join me in sending a message to the Republican party.  That message states these things...

1. I will not vote for Leftists(R)
2. I will no longer support the perpetual movement of this nation to the Left
3. I will no longer remain an active member of the Republican Party as long as it fails to support a return to Constitutional governance
4. If you want my support and the support of other Constitutional Conservatives, you'll talk up people who share our ideals, and criticize those who do not share them
5. You will seek to change rules and tighten up processes thus enabling more Constitutional Conservatives to win elections
6. Failing that, adios...

[DoughtyOne]

Good night folks...

[CodeToad]

So is Romney and most politicians the RNC/DNC do not support running. Those that are against amnesty, by any name, are actively discouraged by both parties from running.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” When Reagan left office, I honestly thought this nation was on course to be safe for another fifty years. To say I’m socked to see it slide so rapidly is a vast understatement.”

The Bush 1 went straight to the New World Order....almost overnight.

[DoughtyOne]

The moment he said that, I knew we were in deep deep trouble.

That one slip of the tongue revealed a multitude of problems we would soon face.

I’ll bet he got his arse chewed out big-time for that one. Of course by that time they had just about what they wanted anyway, so it didn’t matter much.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” The moment he said that, I knew we were in deep deep trouble.”

Same here, and we were both correct.

[DoughtyOne]

I remember saying to my wife, that this was an ominous series of comments from him. I thought it was a breath-taking moment in time.

Yes we were correct. We’re in a world of hurt too.

[stephenjohnbanker]

I was sitting with my dad in my living room. We looked at each other. My dad...a decorated WW2 Navy Corpsman, said “ This guy is a globalist, socialist SOB. He will undo everything Reagan has done for America” I’m glad my dad isn’t around to see this.

[DoughtyOne]

I understand your thoughts on your dad, and him not having to see this. The sad thing is, my family members can see it, but they don’t exhibit the outrage that I harbor at it.

When I address outrage, I’m actually referencing ‘righteous indignation’, a very justifiable take on things right now.

Where is the open ‘political’ revolt against Obama? Where is the Republican open rebellion with regard to Romney?

It’s sortof like one of those dreams where you have a real threat chasing you, and you’re moving in slow motion.

The opposition to Obama and Leftists in general, is in a gear somewhere between neutral and first, just moving us at about one mile per hour, on an over-sized treadmill going five miles an hour in the opposite direction.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” The opposition to Obama and Leftists in general, is in a gear somewhere between neutral and first, just moving us at about one mile per hour, on an over-sized treadmill going five miles an hour in the opposite direction.”

Yeah.....forget my dad...It is M E that doesn’t want to see this.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, yeah it’s all about you now huh. I hear ya. I think I’m guilty of that too in this instance.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” LOL, yeah it’s all about you now huh. I hear ya. I think I’m guilty of that too in this instance.”

Nah... it is all about US...we are still on earth, and we have to live with the aftermath.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, we sure do. Wait until it dawns on the rest of the planet, the golden goose is gone.

Who are they going to blame for everything then?

Al, Jessie, the DNC, university professors, the MSM at large, it sure is going to be a tough time for them, no Conservatives to blame everything on.

We opposed every bit of this.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yes, we opposed it. Sad...no leadership. I could have fixed this mess in 4 years...or corrected it for posterity.

Nobody in power cares.

[DoughtyOne]

Look at that dufus in charge of the House. The guy has been missing in action for the last two years. We have the worst president in the nation’s history, and crickets.

[Ron C.]

DoughtyOne, please read below in indents for context...

---

Yeah, but it's mighty oppressive. Truly, today there isn't a 'dimes worth of difference between a Democrat and a Republican.'  I will say that at the very least, you sure have to look fairly hard for the differences.

But I lay the blame for that squarely on the 98.5 percent of those who call themselves 'conservative' that have never once attended a local district GOP meeting, much less their county or state meetings - or even a local politically active conservative club meeting.  I think you're being charitable.  I'd peg it more like 99.75%, but why quibble?  I've read down below and see that this is touched on one or more times below.  I'll address it here.

I don't think you're off base for addressing this.  I understand what motivates you and think that to admirable.  None the less, I have found this to be an iffy at best suggestion.  Having said that, I want you to know that I am a big offender here.  Let me explain why.

I have talked to some older long term Republican people who have been active in the California Republican Party.  I have talked to people who are active today.  Their stories make it rather clear that their efforts were not appreciated, and that Conservative advancement was thwarted at the local chapter all the way up to the state level, and even from beyond if need be.

As I understand it, the rank and file are fairly solidly Conservative.  It's the leadership that sucks.  I am told that at one point some years back, the California leadership was changed to include a good solid Conservative at the helm.  When this was achieved, the RNC sent out a team to reorganize the state party, ejecting the Conservative from the helm.

So what do we do about that?  You are more in tune with these local Republican groups.  What has your experience been?

I have seen Pete Wilson go out and court people like Schwarzenegger.  I've seen Meg Whitman courted.  I've seen the California leadership stab people like Gubenatoral Candidate Simon in the back.

Is it worth my time to get involved?  It's a serious issue for me.

I would actually like to hear you provide some positive reinforcement for getting more involved.  I'm certainly not completely against it.  I just see some problems there too.  Convince me I'm wrong.

"You are more in tune with these local Republican groups.  What has your experience been?"

First, let me say I really appreciate your time to write, and your thoughts - and please accept my apology for such slow response! I'll take a little time here to talk about CA politics, but a longer post on how to shake the rafters might better serve - I'll have to work on that soon...

There are conservative Republican groups and liberal ones that you should stay away from. The best is the CA Republican Assembly, (locally for me, the San Fernando Valley Republican Club, and a favorite, the Southern California Republican Women and Men) and many asso Young Republican groups - the worst is the CA Congress of Republicans, the Log Cabin groups and the Republican Liberty Caucus (libertarian.) Note, it was the conservative CRA that most contributed to Wilson's defeat.

My experience has shown that when conservatives work harder and longer than liberals, we can win. But winning takes money - and no one gives any to you. We had to spend a lot to beat Pete Wilson, but we spent a great deal less than he did. We simply worked the conventions much harder than the liberals did. ~grin~

But, more than that, I also blame 'Christians' that attend a church regularly where political issues are rarely if ever mentioned - and active participation in political activism is often openly discouraged.  From my perspective, Christian churches have in many cases become non-judgemental to the point of standing for not much of anything.  Homosexuality, once the bain of any Christian congregation, has now in many instances been allowed to exist in the midst of the "the faithful".  I mention this one tenet not because it's the worst thing that can happen, but because it ranks right up there and is a fairly reasoned marker that documents the existance of or lack of moral slide.  This isn't an attempt to state something positive or negative about homosexuals.  It is an attempt to address the change in morality, even in our religious institutions.

So as we look at what is taking place in religion, the moral decay if you will, we shouldn't be surprised that other stands are not taken, specifically with regard to political matters.

I do agree with your observations, and your take on institutional malfeasance, if you will.

Somehow I think that God blesses political effort that looks to uphold His Word. We never leave Him out of our battle plans, and I'm thoroughly convinced that this helps a great deal.

W. W. SMITH says, "and when they are not prodded into thinking about the difference between parties will end up voting stupid" - which assumes a verifiable and significant difference, which has existed more starkly in the not distant past - but which has faded with the lack of interest in keeping that difference alive at the local district level.  I agree here.

Los Angeles CA has a lot of registered Republican voters, many who claim to be 'very conservative' - but, less than .001 percent of them darken the doors of the many GOP county meetings that take place monthly.  I don't doubt you're fairly accurate here.  I'm still not convinced that's why we wind up with Richard Reardons or our old friends Huffington, Schwarzenegger, or Whitman.

You're right about that. We can have the most conservative state GOP organization, and still lose - because too often a rich man (or woman) simply buys an election. But, if we do our job on a continual basis, we can, even in this liberal state, often slow or even eliminate much of the damage they do by taking care of business in our own state legislature. We did that once, and it might be possible to do it again in the not distant future... simply because voters are getting really angry again.

Recently of those 'Republicans' that do show up, near half of them are liberal, and they verge on being able to outvote the slim conservative majority.  Tell you what.  You're out of my district, but I'll gladly attend a few meetings with you, so that I can observe what goes on there.  After that I'll start attending my own local meetings, perhaps some others outside my area.  I'm tired of what is taking place in this fine state.  I'd like to see it change.  I would like to invite anyone who would like to, to join me in attending these meetings.

THAT is an exciting commitment, sir! I commit to finding a way to plug you in! Trouble is, I can't do it myself because I have to work noon to 8:30PM now and I miss a great number of meetings. But, we'll exchange FR-mail, to get you started - it is much better to go with someone that knows the ropes than to walk in cold. But note too, I'm of necessity, I'm going to be a bit slow on that FR-mail.

Hence, I must take strong exception to much of what is said on this forum by many. They've not fought for conservatism themselves - posting here doesn't cut-the-mustard. You know, I see this said fairly often on the forum.  I understand what motivates some folks to say this, but there isn't one chance out of a million I will play down the importance of voicing sound policy in public.  Seeing sound policy, others realize they are not alone with their own thoughts.  I think it's admirable to encourage others to become physically active with meetings, but I don't see value in talking negatively about folks who share your views.  And if they don't, then it's your duty to reason with them and explain how they are wrong.

You're right, of course. I too often let my frustration result in less than helpful prose... like the following...

They need to get out of the house and go fight for a conservative GOP where they live. If they won't, they haven't a leg to stand on when they complain here.  As someone who complains here, I have two legs and the U. S. Constitution to stand on.

The better to walk into the fray to take the GOP away from liberal pretenders, is my fond hope.

It might be of some benefit to you, to study up on our nation's founding, where written communications preceded any formal action on our patriot's part.  Is it your contention that our Founding Fathers didn't have a leg to stand on either, prior to the rebillion?

Not at all. I have extensively studied the founding, and following eras. It is a return to how this nation once conducted it's political activities that I contend needs greater public attention. We once relied on our clergy and civic leadership to choose who was most worthy to stand for election. Once chosen, the candidate wasn't even allowed to 'get on the stump.' If he did, he was considered unworthy, and promptly was dismissed as someone to vote for. Of course, we can't return to those days, or such a demand today. But, what we can do is learn more from the founding era, and listen to the great men that were part of that founding.

Here's a bit of wisdom from Samuel Langdon that is a favorite of mine - that I'm sure you probably have seen before, but I fear all too many would ignore these days.

From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives, and all the higher powers of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding, and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God, and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish the public welfare.

Beware of such as are cunning rather than wise; who prefer their own interest to every thing; whose judgment is partial, or fickle; and whom you would not willingly trust with your own private interests.

When meetings are called for the choice of your rulers, do not carelessly neglect them, or give your votes with indifference, just as any party may persuade, or a sordid treat tempt you; but act with serious deliberation and judgment, as in a most important matter, and let the faithful of the land serve you.

Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators; for how can you expect good laws to be made by men who have no fear of God before their eyes, and who boldly trample on the authority of his commands?

And will not the example of their impiety and immorality defeat the efficacy of the best laws which can be made in favour of religion and virtue? If the legislative body are corrupt, you will soon have bad men for counsellors, corrupt judges, unqualified justices, and officers in every department who will dishonor their stations; the consequence of which will be murmurs and complaints from every quarter.

[DoughtyOne]

Ron, I liked your response. Rather than touch on everything you said, I’ll simply say that I look forward to you contacting me.

Please don’t put yourself out. If your schedule is hectic, I don’t want to add to that one bit.

I’ll nose around and start attending some meetings. I’m not shy. It won’t be a problem for me.