Posted on 05/22/2006 10:21:56 PM PDT by FairOpinion
What’s really stunning is this absolute certainty of angry conservatives that A) Republicans will learn the right lessons from the defeat, and not, say, respond in a panic by embracing their inner RINO and flailing around for MSM approval and B) that the Republicans can easily win back Congress in 2008, just by stiffening their spines and pledging to return to their conservative roots.
I have my doubts on both counts. For starters, why would Republicans get the message that “we need to be more conservative” in a year that conservatives were knocked out?
In the Senate, a bad year for the Republicans would mean the loss of Rick Santorum (who has lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 88 out of a possible 100, and a 92 in 2005) in Pennsylvania, Jim Talent (93 rating lifetime, and a 96 in 2005) in Missouri, Conrad Burns (91, and a perfect 100 in 2005) in Montana and Mike DeWine (80 lifetime, only 56 in 2005) in Ohio. Of course, Ohio voters who sit this one out will replace DeWine with Sherrod Brown, who has a lifetime rating of 8 and 4 for 2005.
If the GOP base doesn’t show in Maryland, you get Ben Cardin (lifetime rating of 6, 2005 rating of 0!) or Kweise Mfume (lifetime ACU rating of 4) instead of Michael Steele.
Nice job, guys. Your effort to re-conservativize the Republican Party in Washington by staying home this year will have the effect of massacring the actual conservatives and empowering the moderates who you disdain. Perhaps we can call this counterproductive maneuver “RINO-plasty.”
Once the Democrats regain control of Congress, a GOP takeover is going to be exponentially harder than it was in 1994. You’re never going to catch the Democrats as flatfooted again.
(Excerpt) Read more at tks.nationalreview.com ...
I support and admire your passion. My problem with the Republican "right or wrong" crowd is that they join in with the Democrats in trashing conservatives like Alan Keyes and Katherine Harris. They spread all kinds of nasty things about them, criticizing their competence, intelligence, delivery, appearance, whatever. They always have reasons not to fall in with their support. The left wing of the Republican Party has always done this. Scranton and Rockefeller trashed Barry Goldwater. John Anderson said he's vote for Ted Kennedy over Ronald Reagan, and ran an independent campaign against him for president. But then they lecture us about third parties and their destruction.
The Rino's want our support for less than ideal candidates. The fact is that they don't reciprocate. We are told to support their Giuliani's and Romney's and McCain's and DeWine's, and they promise horrible things to come if we don't vote for the "most conservative candidate." They've got more boogey men than I can count.
Do a search on any Katherine Harris or Alan Keyes thread here and look at the ridicule these same moderates throw at our conservative candidates. They tell us not to expect perfection. But it's darned apparent they do.
I still remember the Specter-Toomey race. Specter has been a liberal just like everyone said he would be. We warned them. He's a stinking lizard. He's the poster child for cronyism with the Democrats, but we're told he'll vote with us occasionally or some such rot or that Toomey couldn't win. That's another canard. Gerald Ford said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. And the country was a lot more liberal in 1980.
We are having a discussion about what exactly conservatism is. After that, we can argue about how far left we want our candidates to be. Right now, most of our party couldn't be distinguished from Jim Wright and George Mitchell, the career pols they overthrew in 1994. And we aren't even talking about the president here. There's about ten threads every day on his betrayals.
Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, those ARE black helicopters circling your house and no, the tinfoil isn't working. OTOH, that MARXIST bilge you spew needs a change; it was hoary with age, 100 years ago.
We are a minority. Repeat that ten times.
Right, now that we have cleared that up, what is the best strategy going forward ? It seems to me its best to be in, not out. Because out is the wilderness, and, just talking about judges, you will get 100% Ginsbergs with maybe a Ramsey Clark or ten to spice up the mixture.
And as for judges, by whose standard has he named only five conservative judges ?
My memory goes back to Eisenhower..
IMHO, congress as a whole, was far more "conservative" in the '50's..( That includes the Democrats, many of whom were conservatives..)
It was the '60's that liberalized our representation.. Began the centralization of federal power, etc...
My perspective is, that Liberalism has to be stopped... The sooner the better..
My method of attack is to vote as conservative as possible, and withhold any support for those that do not support and defend the constitution, and our nation...
RINOs don't fall under my "support" column..
I have no problem just 'sitting it out' until then.
If you think Dems won't cut defense, you are out of touch with reality.
The Dems want to immediatly withdraw our troops from Iraq, emasulate the NSA, so they can't protect us, eliminate Missile Defense -- now when N. Korea and Iran are getting nukes, just for starters. And you want to enable them to do it, by helping them gain power?!
"He has to balance the misery of a huge number of poor and blameless people vs US national interests."
If he balances anything vs U.S. national interests he does not deserve to be President. That's the problem. He was elected as President of the United States of America not head of the UN.
Even Karl Marx has a 9 rating. LOL :-)
Vote Dem? You can't find one Dem "CONSERVATIVE", in either House, nor running for office this year! Even Zell Miller voted WITH his party, most of the time, when he was still in office!
Vote for a Contituionalist Party nobody, with ZERO chance of winning? You might just as well vote Dem and be done with it.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, never, NOT EVER, dare to vote for a RINO ( would that you and the other ABUSERS of that term knew what it meant and used it correctly! ), and allow a Dem win. Hedy, it doesn't matter which party holds the majority in each House. Who cares if Pelosi and Rangle and Conyers head the committees? /venomous sarcasm
There are, by my count, seven species of American conservatism. Wait, its Teusday now, so there must be ten varieties. Wednesdays are worst, we get, oh, twelve-thirteen then, in a decent season.
The truth is that there isn't one conservatism; conservatism is the anti-ideology. By its nature its a messy amalgamation of threads of everything under the sun. And the Republican party is all that plus more. It takes patience, perspective, and tolerance to make conservatism work, which Ronald Reagan had in spades, btw. What he lacked was anger and resentment.
Ethics is not within the scope of US national interests - even broadly construed ?
If so we would be no better than France.
"Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
Posting in your sleep again I see. I guess that explains it.
Dems are the reason that we even had 9/11!
A Dem is the reason Iran is such a major problem right now.
Dems WILL cut the feet off our military and the CIA and everything else!
Yeah............no big deal, if we have a Dem in the White House; that'll really "teach the GOP a lesson" and we'll get more RUTH BADDER GINSBERGS on the SCOTUS, which will be just delightful to YOU; right?
"Ethics is not within the scope of US national interests - even broadly construed ?"
As President, ethics is doing what's in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.
Its not the 50's anymore.
The US population has changed a lot since then, Its not the same country. We have had an illegitimacy rate of >30% for three decades. Generations have grown up wrong.
We have to work with what we've got. We cannot just throw a fit because it isn't the way it was way back when.
There are many conservative tendencies. If you can get a sort-of conservative in preference to an outright liberal, vote for him. He may be the most you can get elected, given the nature of the electorate. The alternative is surrender.
Ethics is not in the best interests of the citizens of the US ?
Pssssssssssssssst...your memory isn't quite up to snuff.
Spot on, true conservatives are not quitters and wont give up.
RINOS agenda would advance if conservatives dont play the political game, the buchanites dont advance conservatism in this nation.
Oh, wait a minute, yes, you are.
BTW...get your eyes checked; there's a B in front of those Zs.
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.