Uniting the Conservative Movement

Brothers and sisters in arms within the conservative movement are dealing body blows to each other, and the four-decade surge conservatism had enjoyed is now suffering accordingly.

Until recently, the raucous sibling factions held their tongues and kept their political differences largely under wraps. But the disputes between the various factions of the conservative movement are becoming increasingly more public and counterproductive.

Sparring within a family isn't always a bad thing. In my own family, my brother, sister and I fought like bobcats chasing after a raccoon at midnight, but the rivalries were just as important a part of our family bonding as the more tender times we shared.

And should anyone from the outside take aim at one of us, you could count on us to watch each other's back and form a united front.

The different sibling sects of conservatism have much more in common than what divides us, although it's hard to remember that right now with the rank smell of cordite in the air from liberal attacks.

1) Economic conservatives who believe in free markets and reduced/limited government intervention and regulation.

2) Social conservatives who want to preserve a culture of Judeo-Christian values where the institution of family is cherished as the cocoon that nurtures our children with the values of decency, honesty, justice and compassion.

3) Cultural conservatives who are fighting to maintain an American identity based on democratic principles and the Melting Pot model that takes the best immigrants have to offer and making it part of the American ideal.

4) National security conservatives who helped propel the Reagan revolution with the cause of "Peace Through Strength." They are anti-communist, and non-appeasers who today advance a similar message as it relates to the threats from Islamofacism.

These four branches were not always united, and it took the ideological firepower of William F. Buckley to make the compelling case that conservatives needed to unite.

Despite noble attempts to keep these various conservative factions working together, such as the gatherings at the American Conservative Union's CPAC convention, the conservative movement is today in danger of a crackup.

For example, how is it that one of the basic tenets of conservatism, fiscal responsibility, could be the area our movement has most noticeably jumped the tracks?

After decades of liberal Democrat rule in Congress that showcased massive big-government spending and stifling tax increases, things were supposed to change with the 1990's political revolution that brought fiscally conservative Republicans to power.

But today's Republican members of Congress make the liberal Democrat drunken sailors of the past look sober by comparison.

What's worse is that the Bush White House has not only gone along with the program by refusing to veto congressional spending increases, but also helping to promote new big-government programs such as the prescription-drug plan fiasco and No Child Left Behind.

Meanwhile, the American identity is in danger of being hijacked by those who believe America should have no borders.

The La Raza crowd has taken to the streets demanding amnesty for those who break our laws and enter our nation illegally. And they believe that American taxpayers should provide them unlimited benefits.

For over 25 years, we have looked the other way when it came to securing our borders, just so corporations could enjoy a quick fix of cheap labor, even as the associated social-welfare costs bankrupted our communities.

What is most disturbing has been to watch as some conservatives are bowing to the threats of political retribution from the illegal-alien crowd. These spineless politicians are more concerned about the ramifications at the voting booth than the American principle of rule of law.

Constitutionalists and libertarians, who are abandoning the war on terrorism because they don't want to do any of the heavy lifting, must also share some of the blame for the fraying of conservatism.

When the government tried to crack down on the activities of terrorists already operating in the United States with the Patriot Act, civil libertarians screamed that this was George Orwell's "1984" Big Brother totalitarianism coming to control our lives.

Despite their predictions that private content on people's computers would be exposed or that government agents would be listening in to intimate chats with their sexual partners, there has not been a mass pattern of government misconduct and abuse. Except for those Middle Eastern members of Islamic Jihad who are here on expired visas – planning to bomb a nightclub in New York – these people have probably had their phones tapped.

The libertarians and constitutionalists have been little better in their stance on the war on terrorism on foreign shores. In spite of the incontrovertible evidence of Saddam Hussein's funding and harboring of terrorist organizations and the newly released evidence of additional ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, "conservative" opponents of the war effort have nonetheless continued their cries of protest against Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The National Libertarian Party website goes so far as to equate President Bush with Osama bin Laden. Unlike the Peace Through Strength model that many Libertarians supported in the Cold War, today the official Libertarian Party website says, "problems are solved by peaceful cooperation." Unless of course the people you are supposed to be cooperating with wish to behead you and blow up the school your children attend.

If you are going to have a values-neutral approach that equates terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism with the democratic freedoms of the West, then you will never have anything worth preserving or defending.

We can't deny that it's hot, sticky and steamy under the Big Tent of conservatism these days. Tempers are flaring, and a lot of people are smokin' mad.

But we've got to find a way to reach a broad consensus on how to move the conservative agenda forward.

On Sept. 11, 1960, conservative leaders brainstormed at William F Buckley Jr.'s estate in Sharon, Conn. The end result was pure genius in the form of a document called the "Sharon Statement," which outlined the core principles of a new conservative movement that would lead to the formation of Young Americans for Freedom.

The "Sharon Statement" outlined the conservative principles that would guide a generation of activists. Those campus activists grew up and captured the attention of a nation for their ideas and beliefs that eventually led to conservative electoral success.

Ronald Reagan's presidency provided a Shining City on a Hill that these disparate conservative groups could together take shelter in.

Now it's time for a new "Sharon Statement." The grown-ups in the conservative movement can put an end to the circular gunfire, and sketch out a path for America's future. Instead of shooting at each other, let's start taking aim at the banshees on the Left like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Chuckie Schumer and Howard Dean.

If we don't get our acts together, these raccoons will be running the country. Isn't it time our family of bobcats worked out our differences to make sure this never happens?

Melanie Morgan is chairman of the conservative, pro-troop non-profit organization Move America Forward and is co-host of the "Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show" on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco.

Dan Dan Dan, this is an easy one.

The only reason anyone's confused is because some people who weren't involved early on have tried to rewrite history. Here's how this one went:

* January, 2003 - Melanie Morgan and Shawn Steel are having a discussion about Gray Davis and his lies about the size of the state budget deficit. Melanie is asking what they can do about Davis and Steel suggests maybe we ought to recall him and Melanie gets excited and asks if they can really do that.

* Melanie and Steel then seriously look into this and the details and get the details wrong the first few times.

* Steel talks to a number of people about this including Ted Costa, Pat Cadell, Mark Abernathy, etc...

* Howard Kaloogian and Sal Russo have heard Melanie Morgan talking about this on the air. They realize that the GOP will never get behind this and it will only work if it's done from the outside. Russo and Kaloogian also have the whole Bill Simon network they can access and Russo talks to Democrat insiders who say "please, go for it, we'll help with it behind the scenes."

* We (Kaloogian-Russo-later Melanie Morgan) retain the website www.RecallGrayDavis.com in late January and build it in a few days. * Steel goes back to CPAC I believe to try to rally support for the fledging recall drive.

* Ted Costa has decided he will launch the recall himself. He's not very competent, his previous efforts came about because other people gave him money. But he thinks he can do this. Problem is, he doesn't have a plan that anyone thinks will work.

* The day that we launch RecallGrayDavis.com to sign up petition circulators, Costa produces Notice of Intent to Recall petition and goes on Eric Hogue show to get signatures for this initial recall document. This now officially starts the clock ticking. Costa then goes on Mark Williams Show which generates more people getting involved with Costa's recall group. And this is what generates the controversy between Hogue and Williams. Hogue was clearly ahead of Williams in jumping on board but Williams sees his station as relevant and Hogue's not relevant and so he believes his people jumping on board made the difference. I'll let everyone decide for themselves who to sympathize with on this as it's a nasty fight I don't want to be in the middle of.

* Costa goes to the media with Steel to boast about his recall drive. He has no website. No telephone number. He has his People's Advocate send out a questionnaire to his members asking "Should we launch a recall or do something else?"

* We step up our efforts and pretty soon the Recall Gray Davis Committee is seen by most people as the official recall committee. They don't realize Costa has a separate committee (it took him over a week to even reserve a recall website). People presume Kaloogian, Costa, Morgan, Hogue are all in the same group.

* Despite being called endless names by the Costa group we realize we have to bite our tongues and not have a public rift in the recall. We agree to use Costa's recall petition even though it is rejected more than 5 TIMES by the Secretary of State's office and the staff are telling us what a disaster Costa's operation is and how he can't get the basic elements of the petition right.

* We go to announce 100,000 signatures collected after we hand over 40,000 signatures to Costa's group (who we backed down to and allowed him to be the official proponent which means ONLY HE can turn in signatures... if we had done our own recall petition he had told us he would still go forward with his own separate one... the 2 separate recall petitions circulating which could not be added up together would have meant an end to the entire recall drive). We are supposed to meet Costa for the press conference and his people are supposed to bring the signatures. Costa at the last minute backs out. He says he cannot bring the 100,000 signatures, that it would be a security risk. We had wanted a UPS truck to meet us at the press conference so we could load up the boxes and have that visual of the signatures on their way to the county registrars office throughout the state. Instead Costa has us look like an idiot with empty boxes. We find out weeks later when the signatures finally arrive in TRICKLES to the registrars office that Costa never had 60,000 - he hardly ANY signatures. Since he had no website, no telephone number or separate recall committee in the early days, and no paid signature collecters, the ONLY people who had gotten signatures were the volunteer activists who in those early days signed up to www.RecallGrayDavis.com (the Kaloogian group). Costa is forced to get a website called DavisRecall.com and files papers providing notice of the launch of his political committee well after Kaloogian's Recall Gray Davis committee was up and running.

* Later Costa has the nerve to tell Darrell Issa and Dave Gilliard that we manufactured a fake press event with empty boxes and that Kaloogian can't be trusted. We are dumbfounded. But, again, we bite our tongues even after Costa is complaining he's not getting credit for the recall. Hint: Kaloogian would organize all of the Recall rallies for the campaign (the February one to launch it, the June one when it qualified, the one right before the election to get people to vote YES) and we'd collect the vast majority of the volunteer-collected signatures. Melanie Morgan recognizes Costa doesn't have his act together and begins telling her listeners to go to Kaloogian's RecallGrayDavis.com website. Soon almost every other talk radio host in the state is following suit and we put out a regular FAX/email flier called Radio Recall with updates/progress on the recall effort.

* Dave Gilliard and Darrell Issa came aboard late. But, without them there never would have been a Special Election. We couldn't have qualified that quickly. However, we would have qualified for the June primary election the next year. That would have meant it would have been harder to pass the recall (more Demo voters) but it also means McClintock would have been the GOP nominee for the replacement election.

That's your story. We (Kaloogian's group) ended up raising $900,000+ and collected over 600,000 signatures. Howard was on CNN, in George Will's column, was on Fox News Channel, MSNBC, etc.. etc...

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.