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...

[OldPossum]

Very good column.

In view of what the Republican Party has served up as candidates for 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, I don’t think it deserves any more support from us. The Republican Party no longer represents us. Time to look elsewhere.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, I had some other things to attend to yesterday. I’ll try to respond to everyone now. I have another event this evening, so I may not get to everyone. I will eventually...

[DoughtyOne]

Seems like it doesn’t it...

[DoughtyOne]

This does have to stop. I like your comment about one party and two faces. That’s about it.

[DoughtyOne]

No matter what the real case, he sure isn’t one of us. That’s for sure.

[DoughtyOne]

W. W. Smith, I agree with you. The gray text is what someone said to me. The blue is my response.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you IronJack. Good to see your post. So far, no kevlar briefs needed. I think it’s becoming rather obvious to everyone what’s going on.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your thinking here. I like how you addressed it.

Another way of looking at it is this.

When a Democrat is installed, they put their heart and soul into turning this nation to the Left. They’re not bashful about it. They push with all their might.

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.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Rex. I appreciate the nice comments. I don’t always get it right. I do strive to be above average getting it right. ;^)

Rock bottom? Not really. We merely have to stand up to the Republican party until we can get someone who will reverse our course. Otherwise, there’s no point of supporting their candidates.

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.

I don’t think the leaders and peoples of nation about to fall, are ever abundantly aware of it before it happens. I am not convinced we are any different.

We are living in dangerous times.

[DoughtyOne]

Hope, I have remained a party member in the effort to help select better candidates. I have been strongly tempted to jump ship. Frankly, I think it would be an important message to send to the leadership, if most Republicans would simply change their party affiliation to Independent.

I’m 60 now. I’ve spent the last 42 years in the party. This is what it has led to.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the note of agreement.

The nibbles at our freedoms are quickly becoming big bites. I am inclined to agree with your thoughts.

I’m am not sure some of these candidates even understand what they are. There’s a tendency to downplay the black side of your nature when you do things that are wrong. Romney probably sees himself as some sort of moderate Republican, when he’s really more of a card carrying Leftist.

As long as we can see him for who he is, that’s what matters. I won’t be supporting the guy.

[DoughtyOne]

Well done.  Thank you.

Whomever it was that told you conservatives aren’t in the majority hasn’t seen repeated polling that shows Americans identify themselves, in the main, as center-right. They’re concerned for their families and their well-being, they are concerned that runaway spending is selling them up the river, and they want to feel safe in their homes and the country generally.

That's such an important point.   It's the answer for appealing to not only the public at large, it's also the key to appealing to minorities.  This is the bread and butter message.

The Republican Party refuses with all its being to cater to these people. Instead, they go along to get along, get invited to all the right parties, and ride the gravy train in the seats right behind the engineers in the Democrat Party.

Exactly.

Should Mutt Romney be elected President, we won’t get a chance to even try to nominate a conservative candidate until 2020 — at which time, the Republic may well be either destroyed or damaged beyond repair.

Yep, 2020.  And if he has a beast of a vice-president, it will be hard going in 2020 too.

I’m not going to support that by voting for Romney simply because he has an “R” by his name. I’ll fight like hell for conservatives at every level of the downticket, but Mutt can take a long walk off a short dock.

Bingo!

[DoughtyOne]

Hope you're having a good day Ansel12.

[W. W. SMITH]

conservatives are not good leaders or followers because they just want to be left alone.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Conservatives also tend to think like engineers, they will work hard to fix something and then expect it to remain fixed and not need any further attention. Meanwhile the Democrats, leftists, communists will be like termites attacking the foundations, weakening the entire structure. It is in their very nature, they can not stop chewing at the foundation. This is why when communists consolidate power, their first action is to eliminate their fellow travelers especially the academics, because they can not stop chewing.

[W. W. SMITH]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

I think you are missing one big thing here. A lot of people here may not like it, but it is just my opinion. (I've been considering writing a vanity on this for a while).  Okay, lets see...

Conservatives have failed Reagan. Reagan was not a victorious Conservative because he was a champion of the government fixing problems for Conservatives. On the contrary, he taught us the scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Reagan simply reminded us that the greatness in the United States comes not from the government, but from her people. Reagan said unleash that greatness.  Okay, but so far I'm not getting what I've supposedly missed.  Is this not inherent with a move back to the Right?  It's my take that both of us think it is.

Have we unleashed greatness?  In my opinion, no. Once again, I'm not convinced we're at odds here.  Of course we haven't.  We've been enslaving our citizens to the federal government's whims.  This is something that would be corrected, with a move back toward the right.  Dismantling the encroaching government is the ultimate goal.  Do any of us disagree with this?  What was the ultimate emphasis of my comments at the top of this thread, if not this?

We took a few years of believing in the greatness that Reagan reminded us of and instead of nurturing greatness within ourselves, we kept looking at politicians to help.  That sounds all well and good, but who has the power to strike down Leftist legislation?  Do you?. If so, do it and lets be done with it.  It is our federal elected Representatives that have this power.  And controling who gets access to that power is the perview of the Republican party at present.  Therefore it is our duty to beat it over the head until it gets Conservative religion.  That will serve to unleash what you want to have unleashed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were moments. The Tea Party seemed on the verge of restoring people’s faith in themselves. And while they did stand for Conservative policies, once again they missed the principle; stopping with wanting someone from the government who is here to help. Look, I'm willing to support the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and any other party even the Democrat Party IF that particular party sets it's goal to reduce the size and impositions of our federal government.

Let me run this by you, so you'll understand where I'm coming from.  For the Tea Party to be successful in what you want it to do, it's members will still have to be elected to office in Washington, D. C.  That's because their numbers in sufficint strength would be needed to roll back Leftist legislation.  I hear what you are saying about power in Washington, D. C. vs the general citizen and all, but our government being there, that is where the oppressive federal government must be countered.

Does that start with the grass roots?  Sure.  What are we if not the grass roots?  And where does public opinion begin to change, if not with the voicing of thoughts from people in our midst?  Am I not advocating for the unleashing of our citizens here?

We would not have Obamacare if a majority in this country did not fouind the thought of having their butt wiped by the government appealing.  Pardon my change here.  I think this is what you meant.  I agree with this thought, if this is in fact what you meant.  Once again though, we're looking at Leftist legislation that must be struck down by our Representatives in Washington, D. C.

Do you get what I'm saying?  Either we find a way to change the direction the RNC wants to take us in, or we develop a new party and get their elected officials to do it.  One way or another, this must wind up being addressed federally.

Please don't mistake this as calling for the Federal Government to rescue us.  NO!  It is the exact opposite.  It is demanding that the Federal Government STOP rescuing us.  The Federal Government must get the hell out of our daily lives.  That is the unleashing that Reagan was advocating for.  Let's look at what you said again.

Conservatives have failed Reagan. Reagan was not a victorious Conservative because he was a champion of the government fixing problems for Conservatives. On the contrary, he taught us the scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Reagan simply reminded us that the greatness in the United States comes not from the government, but from her people. Reagan said unleash that greatness.

Who failed Reagan?  Conservatives?  No, not at all.  Liberal Republicans did.  Conservatives have been admonishing the Leftist RNC to get back on track, and the RNC has been telling us to screw off.

No Reagan was not victorious due to being the champion of the government fixing problems for us.  None the less, it was Reagan who tried to put a more Conservative slant on things and thereby did do something to help us.  Please don't confuse demanding the government strike down Leftist legislation and programs, with demanding the government start more of them for us.  Reagan very much did support the government doing things for us.  That's why he got elected.  He ran for public office to END some of the Leftist things the government was doing.  That is something good the government can do for us, and we must demand this.  If he didn't believe in doing that, he wouldn't have run for office.  Should we advocate for the government doing more for us?  Hell no.  That's not what I am advocating for at all.  I am advocating for it to do far less, between 85 and 90% to be exact.

The GOP”e” can’t give us their “e” candidate if it weren’t for millions of individual people voting for that “e” candidate. We can’t even really blame Democrats crossing over. Republicans and Democrats voting for non-Conservative candidates are a failure of Conservatives joining in the cheer of looking for someone from the government who is here to help instead of communicating individual Conservativism.

Once again, Conservatives don't join in to do this.  Leftists do.  Please don't address Conservatives as having a contingent that are Leftists.  That animal DOES NOT exist.  Once you advocate for Leftist candidates or policy, you're a Leftist, NOT a Conservative.  You may be a Leftist Republican, but you are NEVER a Leftist Conservative.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but the way you're wording it, it's not working for me.  I don't think it would work for you either, if you understood what it says to me.

If every private sector person in this nation was Conservative, they could not change our government's legislation.  It will always be the case, that groups of elected officials must join to strike down Leftist legislation.  Demanding government take these corrective measures is not evil.  Ronald Reagan would endorse this 100%.

We ARE NOT asking the government to do more.  We ARE asking it to do far less.  That is good.

We need, for the lack of a better term, a revival. We need an awakening that the answer doesn’t come from the next election or the next politician.

One of these days you need to post a long explanation of what you envision being a stronger better government than the one we have, because you're laying waste to the one we have with your comments here.  We don't need to try to elect good people with an election?  Say what?  Oh yes we do.

The answer comes when 300 million people stand up to 300 politicians and say, enough, we don’t need you. We won’t accept your help or your promises.

We are a Constitutional Republic.  We do need sound federal officials.  Saying we don't is tantamount to saying our Founding Fathers were idiots, and our Founding Documents are worthless pieces of paper.  Do we need Leftist federal officials?  No.  Do we need federal officials that would turn back the Leftist legislation?  Undoubtedly.  Ronald Reagan never advocated for anything more or less.  That's what he was doing.

The only way that will happen is if people start living individual Conservativism in their own homes first. Then, take it to their neighbors, their friends, and their family. In essence, it is a philosophical Going Galt.

Okay, and when we're no longer a Constitutional Republic, then what?

You talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, but how often does politics give us any different. It is the very nature of politics. It attracts people who want to control others. Maybe once in a lifetime we get a statesman who doesn’t fit that mold, but they are so rare, we should never expect it. If you want someone who isn’t a ‘lesser evil’ you won’t find it in DC or wanting any hall of leadership. They are found leading businesses, in operating rooms, raising children, even bagging your groceries. That is the greatness of this country. Not politicians from the government, here to help.

It sounds to me as if what you advocate for in the end, is no government whatsoever.  That is impractical.  The Holy Trinity itself is a form of governance.

I understand your motives, and I'm sure we agree about many things, but disolving our federal government is not one of them.  It has become wicked, but cutting off our nose to spite our face is defeatist.  We must work to get a majority of Conservative minded people elected to public office.  We must get the government out of our lives, the Lefist legislation rolled back, the Leftist give-aways eliminated.  To that end, I have taken the Republican party to task.  I am never going to suggest we don't need any leadership whatsoever, because that is the reality of local, state, and federal communities.

Some form of leadership is required.  It's alway going to be government, no matter what name you chose to call it.

Sadly, I saw someone on this very site, who everyone respects recently say “I am not a leader”. This is the core of our problems. We are looking outward for leaders from the government who is here to help. We need to wake up and realize, we are all leaders. It is our responsibility to make the country Conservative, not some guy from the government who is here to help.

You have just made the case for us not needing a government, and then you lament the fact that one person refuses to think of himself as a leader, as the core of our problem.

You have been advocating for a society with no leaders.  Now you want leaders?  You have been advocating for people to be Conservative, but not advocate for leaders who could help.  LOL, you're all over the map.

So I’m sorry Mr. and Mrs. Conservative. You are a leader, whether you like it or not. Now lead. But lead people away from DC, not to it. D.C. is not the promised land of a future leader, it is our slave-master of Egypt we should get away from.

Horse pucky.

Who do you suggest be in charge of our military, it's generals, when the military will be used, and when that use will be outside our shores, so we don't have to fight here on our soil again and again.

Who do you suggest hold the nuclear football?  Should we just pass the thing around to individual citizens every 45 days?  Who decides which citizen?

Who represents our views overseas?  Do we simply disappear from the international stage, our interests not presented or defended there?

Some form of government is required for these and other important things. 

Reasoned trade policies need to be devised and implemented.  Do we simply contact other governments as individuals, and form 310 million individual trade policies with them?

Do 310 million different voices negotiate individual agreements with people like Kadaffy, the leadership of China, Syria, North Korea and others?

I realize that it is important to read books, and there are a number of excellent ideas presented in Ayn Rands books.  You still can't toss everything overboard and watch 310 million people go postal individually.  In the end you still wind up with local government.  Rather than watch local government go south, you'll have regional government.  Rather than watch those go south, you'll have a federal government.

China lobs five nuclear weapons across the Pacific onto our shores.  Our response?  Wait just a few weeks or months, we need to hold a national vote on what to do.

Fix the government we've got.  End of story.

Until a better government is spelled out in precise deatail, I'm sticking with our Founding Fathers and Founding Documents.

You can build the best steel framework a man can for a new structure.  If the rest of the crew comes along and puts in sub-par plumbing, electrical, dry-wall, cement, and other fixtures, the structure will not last long.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves for not demanding more of our secondary contractors.  Remove them from the job site, and replace them with sound craftsmen.

They'll get the job done right.

If I'm misreading you here, please correct me.

 ::rant off::

[DoughtyOne]

I hear ya...

It’s going to take some Republicans thinking more about the state of our nation than the welfare of one party.

[DoughtyOne]

You’re probably not going to like this, but I did want you to get a chance to see it and disagree.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2874680/posts?page=76#76

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, then never-mind. LOL

I hear ya...

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks SueRae. I look forward to your follow-up.