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]

In consideration of that, I am declaring that I won’t vote for Obama either.

Thinking people will obviously see this as a vote for Romney.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Nea. I can’t say it’s going to be pleasant heading into another general election where I can’t support either presidential candidate. It stinks.

[DoughtyOne]

I have to go out now, so it will likely be tomorrow before I can follow up more.

Sorry.

[af_vet_rr]

The MSM wanted Mitt so bad because he is such an obvious loser against Obama. That is why they have not attacked him in the primaries, they are waiting for the general.

Agreed. The MSM has just tossed a few softballs towards Romney. When you look at what they did to Bachmann, Cain, Perry, and tried to do to Gingrich, and you look at all of Romney's baggage, it's very clear they want Romney in the general, because Romney's campaign would have been easy to sink before now. Romney gave them plenty of debate gaffes, and they still went easy on him.

It's depressing how easy it will be for the MSM to destroy Romney.

[af_vet_rr]

When a Republican is installed, they put their heart and soul into keeping the nation in place. Oh they may talk about some good moves, but they rarely do anything to make them become a reality. Instead they even propose Leftist gems and put them into law.

Until we get some presidents in there who will push for rolling back Leftist legislation with all their might, we going nowhere. Strike that, we’re going to lurch and slip to the Left just like we have been.

The thing that bothers me is that some people are okay with somebody like Romney, but they fail to realize that we are running out of time, and that if we don't get people in there who will actively oppose the leftist legislation and try and roll back that legislation and roll back the size of the government, we're finished.

We're driving towards a cliff called "Socialism". Obama wants to floor it. Romney wants to go there at a slower pace, and it's exasperating that many Republicans are okay with that. They don't understand that whether you go off the cliff at 70mph with Obama at the wheel, or you go off the cliff at 10mph with Romney at the wheel, you're still going off the cliff.

[No One Special]

That’s interesting. I had always wondered why the purges. That maks a lot of sense. Perhaps a corollary is they want a static world, one with no change and no hope. How ironic. How Big Lieish. Or perhap they’re just power loving narcissists.

[No One Special]

There’s a reason the libs are more politically active. It’s because they get paid for it: teachers, Acorn, Planned Parenthood, etc. Conservatives have nothing like this. Conservatives have REAL jobs. REAL jobs do not include political activism in the job description. REAL jobs are not subsidized by tax dollars. But the consevative idea of government incorporates a solution for this problem. Just cut the size and scope of government.

Return to the founder’s Constitution while laughing at the silly libs.

[COBOL2Java]

You make a great point about the next election. If Romney wins this one we have Romney as the choice for eight years as.prez..

I'm not so sure. If Romney wins, then at 12:01pm on January 20th, the DemocRATs will declare "It's Romney's economy now!" and the media will begin blaming Romney for the state of affairs. Our economy will sink like the Titanic, and in 2016 the DemocRATs will come roaring back with the message "We TOLD you SO!" Hey, maybe Obama will run in 2016!

[SueRae]

I’ll be voting downticket and supporting conservative candidates with my dwindling $$ in whatever capacity I can. More like Allen West, Tim Scott, Sam Rohrer, these are the guys who will generate the pieces of legislation. We need the Senate in addition to holding the house. Repeal 0bamacare, reverse the Bush tax cut expiration and quit the overspending a get a real plan on the table. I’m with the candidates that will do that. If Romney is to be the candidate, he can do it without my support...but if we have majorities in both houses, he wil go along with that. I’m backing Newt in Tuesday’s Pa. primary. And I’m curious as to why Romney showed up with him here in Lancaster...is Romney considering him for VP??? It was a curious move. I like Rubio but he has to serve at east one term in the Senate. Same for West in the House. Newt would be a good fit if he doesn’t have a chance at the top spot. I’m still not convinced that he’s through. I suppose we’ll knw more after Tuesday...

[SueRae]

You must have read (or have always been reading) an article posted on FR a few days ago. A very good read from what seems ike an eternity ago. Posting here again for those who may have missed it..

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-popular-conservatives

[gunsequalfreedom]

Here I thought I was so smart and then you come up with another perfectly plausible other possibility. Guess that is what this forum is all about, an exchange of ideas.

[DoughtyOne]

To those of you who responded to me and haven’t been addressed yet, I apologize. I’ve been much busier than I thought I was going to be, thanks to my wife, so please accept my apology. I will try to respond to as many of you as I can right now.

First of all, thank you for your responses and patience.

[DoughtyOne]

"is there life after the Leftists take over?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[DoughtyOne]

That was a nice presentation. It must have been presented a long time ago, because today he would be shouted down before he could present his thoughts to the students.

Reagan, presentations like this, there are far too few of them. And there actually being a party that is supposed to believe in this, I have to ask why?

[DoughtyOne]

Well, then you and I sat that last one out together.

I wish I could tell you there was a great third party out there. I believe the Constitution party might be worth your study, but I don’t want you to see this as an endorsement.

Frankly, the third parties being so remote from having a chance, I don’t study them much.

[DoughtyOne]

BTW: Thanks for the compliment.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks SJB. Sorry to have been so tardy with my response.

Yes, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a Republican actually tout who and what we are. Imagine having to lament the lack of it. It’s just plain crazy that we don’t see it routinely.

[DoughtyOne]

I will come back to this. I don’t have thirty minutes right now, and I’d like to view the whole clip.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you CodeToad. I know a lot of people share your view on this, but I’m not one of them. If it did come down to Newt, I would vote for him.

[DoughtyOne]

Actually, he is for another amnesty, not an amnesty.

Not interested. If he wants to hand our nation over to 100 million new foreign immigrants in under 20 years, he’ll do it without my support.