Posted on 07/15/2008 11:42:11 AM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
RFFM.org Commentary
In 1994 Republicans steam-rolled their way into national Congressional power behind the ideals of moral certainty, fiscal responsibility and a promise to change the way things were done in Washington, D.C. However, it didn't take long for the trappings of political intrigue to ensnare many of those who were swept into power by the 1994 Republican Revolution and, by the year 2000, it was hard to tell a Republican from a Democrat.
Using the state of Illinois for an example, conservative members of the GOP probably reached their zenith of influence right around the time the national Party was becoming used to the trappings of power...
(Excerpt) Read more at rffm.typepad.com ...
What about the big issue — cutting back Big Government interference and bringing taxes/spending under control?
Bit of wishfull thinking, imo. The demise of the Republican Party in Illinois occured simultaneously with the 1994 “revolution” in Congress, instead of occurring after it.
It's more correct to say they were allured by the seduction of politcal power and compromised their professed priniples for personal gain.
I've just about come to the conclusion that conservative government is a concept that sounds great in theory but, given human weakness in general and the type of self-aggrandizing individuals that are drawn into politics in specific, there will never be a political body so altruistic that it will divest itself of significant power amd privilege for the good of the masses and future generations-- not without being forced to do so with "little revolution now and then," as Jefferson prescribed. The 1994 "Bloodless Coup" eventually confirmed that truth, which is why America is too disgusted with the GOP to support it for the foreseeable future.
The demise of the IL GOP happened after 1994. 1998 was the only year, during the past 20 years, during which Illinois elected a Republican to the U.S. senate and a Republican to be governor, during the same election. Those candidates were Peter Fitzgerald and George Ryan, respectively. Conservatives must have lost power before that election, since Ryan is pro-choice and pro-gun control.
I think the rot began to set-in well before that, and is directly related to the duration of the Thompson administration. The Repubs simply became soft.
In 2006, the voters confirmed it and the Dems were restored to control of both houses of Congress. To date, the status remains quo.
In 1998, one gubernatorial candidate favored reduced spending and concealed carry, and was pro-life. The other candidate was an anti-gun big-spender who claimed to be pro-life but didn't have the record to back it up.
The Republican won!?
Yes, the Republican won. The liberal, who had an R by his name, won.
How many legs would a horse have, if you call a tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
By what definition, other than his self-identification and his ability to deceive others, was King George a Republican?
No definition. I agree with you about George Ryan. He’s similar to Rep. Mark Kirk, my congressman. Kirk is a Republican who is pro-spending increases, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge. I think that he should run as a Democrat. I emailed, him four times, and asked why he’s a Republican, but I haven’t received a response. I emailed three of his aides and asked why he’s a Republican, but I haven’t received a response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.