Posted on 11/10/2006 7:27:00 PM PST by outofstyle
Election Day is over, the votes have been counted, and it's clear that conservatives took a beating. I have always maintained that Christian leaders should not make partisan endorsements — and I never have. But I am unashamed to say that I am a conservative.
In one sense, I think, all Bible-believers are conservative, because we believe in governing our lives by revealed truth rather than by man-made, utopian ideologies. Modern liberalism wants to remove all restraints on people's behavior. Conservatives believe in the moral law. So Bible - believers might be liberal on a lot of issues, at least in the common sense of that word, like helping the poor, but they would be fundamentally conservative in their disposition toward life.
House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejoices with House and Senate leaders as the Democratic Party takes control of the House of Represetatives at an election-night rally at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006. Pelosi is regarded as first in line to become the next speaker of the house. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) So, what happened in Tuesday's election? The economy is strong. And it's true we're in an unpopular war, but people vote their pocketbooks most often. Yet the conservative movement, which had been gaining ground, has blown it. It has been defeated. Why?
The answer is one that may startle you. Conservatives lost because they deserved to. They failed to live up to the high standards of personal behavior they preach about. And that's what brought them down.
Is there a double standard here? Why should the case of Mark Foley have helped bring down the Republicans? After all, twenty years ago a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, had an affair with a male page, disclosed that he was a homosexual, got his wrist slapped by the House, and then got re - elected! Why has Foley's indiscretion turned into Foley-gate?
The answer is because it's just the tip of the iceberg. Look at how the conservatives for years railed against the Democratic liberal establishment and all of its money, the lobbying establishment, the junkets, the payoffs. The conservatives campaigned against it in 1994, only to take over Washington and do exactly the same thing. This is what is known as rank hypocrisy.
Is it unfair that when conservatives do things liberals do, that they, the conservatives, are labeled as hypocrites? No.
According to that great conservative thinker Russell Kirk, the first tenet of conservatism is the preservation of the moral order. True conservatives don't look at government as a plaything by which they can impose their latest ideas on the country; they look at political power as a guardianship, what Chesterton called the democracy of the dead. In other words, we have a debt to those who have gone before us, and the primary debt is to preserve the moral and constitutional order that our forebears fought to defend.
So when a conservative has a much - publicized affair or is outed for improper sexual behavior with pages, or digs into the congressional budget pot to hand out earmarks to his own district, he is a hypocrite to be scorned.
My hope and prayer is that conservatives in America will do some serious, sober soul - searching. We need to get our own act together before we can preach to others, or before we deserve to hold power. And if we break trust, we are breaking trust with the very essence of who we are. Our own character is at stake.
You can talk all you want about the unpopularity of President Bush, or the Iraq war, or immigration. But what this campaign really boiled down to was, well, when it comes to conservatives, it's character, stupid. If conservatives don’t learn that lesson, they will spend a long time in exile — and deservedly so.
It's an ill wind that blows no good.
Just think, Chafee and DeWine are gone and probably for good. Specter is no longer head of the Judiciary Committee holding back our federal judge nominees, and when the Pubs get back in the majority in 2008, he'll have a hard time talking his way back into the chairmanship. Oh yeah, we also got rid of that namby pamby Hastert . . .
Now you're about to say, so what, if we lost control of Congress? Believe me, it is much easier to oppose Democrats in power than it is to oppose your own people in the form of Rinos.
Conservatism is principle. Republican is a party.
Placing party over principle is a practice of those with weak character.
LOL....or up early. Just couldn't sleep. Guess I'll call it a three hour nap! LOL
"Conservatism is principle. Republican is a party"
Right. And conservatives are people. In many respects they lost.
I'm kicking myself to the curb soon. Getting late here.
Same here. Have a wonderful weekend!
Things have changed a lot in the last 40 years. You had to have been there in 1964 when Barry Goldwater was defeated. Cronkite had the conservative movement dead, buried and forgotten for all time.
Contrast that with the use of the word "liberal" today. No politician will admit to being one, and many of them run as faux conservatives. Why is that? Could it be that the public finds out the truth in spite of the media, even if it takes a few years?
In the mean time, It's Veterans Day. And my father loves this day.
God Bless America
God Bless our Troops
God Bless President Bush
/Salute
MaxMax.
Well stated, thank you for posting.
It was Bush's father ("another kinder, gentler, a little fuzzy on the vision thing", New World Order "conservative") who did not take care of Saddam Hussein back in 1991, with the misguided advice of then Gen. Colin Powell (the political general.
No discussion concerning the survival of Saddam Hussein is complete without mentioning the role of former General Colin Powell's poor advice to President Bush (41) and Bush's ill-advised decision to end the original Gulf War on February 28, 1991--before the surviving core of the defeated Iraqi army (mainly two divisions of the Republican Guard with most of their equipment) could be cut off and destroyed, or captured and disarmed.
Bush made his decision at the forceful behest of General Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell reportedly told Bush and the rest of the White House "High Command" that the remaining Iraqi army was totally defeated and in full retreat and that further attack would be a slaughter, both "UN-AMERICAN and UN-CHIVALROUS".
THE "MOTHER OF ALL BLUNDERS"!
General Norman Schwarzkopf and his generals were collectively against the premature cease-fire, estimating one to three days more would be needed to cut off and finally trap the Republican Guard survivors (keep in mind we're not talking about going to Baghdad, but only blocking the road from Basra to Baghdad, which the U.S. 24th Mechanized Division and 101st Airborne were poised to do). But unfortunately, Schwarzkopt did not push this view to Bush, to whom he reported directly, a serious error of omission. No more Iraqis needed to have been killed. They had only to hoist a white flag or simply abandon their vehicles and equipment, and walk away. Powell knew all of this. The Brits were furious about the cease-fire. So were the Saudis, Qataris and other Arab Gulf countries. In fact, Newsweek reported British Gulf commander Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere went "ballistic" and British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd--who happened to be in Washington--jumped Bush about it immediately, unfortunately to no avail. Had the Guard and it's equipment been finally captured or destroyed, the Shiite rebellion in the South would probably have succeeded. Combined with the simultaneous Kurdish insurrection in the north, it was highly likely that Saddam would have chosen to take a hike and would not be a problem today. Had that happened, thousands of civilian lives would have been spared. Saddam's survival led to the continued UN sanctions on Iraq. These have grievously persecuted a population that was powerless to overthrow a tyrant that the U.S. allowed to stay in power. Pre-Gulf War, this population greatly admired America and Americans. That's the legacy of Bush (41) and retired "political" General Colin Powell.
Maybe not Mark Foley alone.
But add into the mix:
disgrace Congressmen Fey, and Cunningham, (two GOPers now heading off to jail),
that idiotic preacher from Colorado (who claimed to practice conservatism),
the failure of the GOP congress to curb illegal immigration,
the bigtime overspending,
the failure of Pres. Bush to articulate some type of winning strategy in Iraq (other than "we must win"),
and yes, even the hurtful and boneheaded thing Rush Limbaugh said about Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons disease
and you have a demoralized Republican base.
Not, not everyone was demoralized.
But when 5-percent of your voter base is demoralized, you will lose all those razor thin elections you've won the past 12 years.
-- and That's what happened.
I agree with your assessment but I would add one thing. Border fence.
Congrats. What district?
In my state, Pennsylvania, we lost a fabulous leader, Sen. Rick Santorum.
And my conservative one-term US House Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick lost by 1,200 votes.
Fitzpatrick is pro-Life, a tax cutter, supported the Iraq war (mostly), squeaky clean, faith based, environmentally friendly, pro business --- and yet he was defeated by a dumbed-down Democrat who has a thuggish way of talking, and has already told Tom Delay of Texas to "you better pack your bags and get ready for prison."
A good and positive attitude.
Bet no one outside of Indy will hear that there are 18 voting machines still missing. Might have a little to do with the Carson- Dickerson race. Baglady supposedly won. HMMNNN Wonder where they went?
I live in Michigan's 7th district. We got rid of Joe Schwarz who was clearly a democrat in disguise and replaced him with Tim Walberg. Schwarz didn't take losing very well. He never congratulated or endorsed Walberg and then on Monday he announced he was running as a write in candidate.
Schwarz was opposed to drilling in ANWAR, pro-choice, pro gun control and pro illegal alien amnesty. Walberg is a minister who is an exact opposite of Schwarz.
In 3 words - Contract with America.
The spirit of the Contract with America was based on small-government conservative principals, something which many in today's republican party seem to have given up. I won't lay all this at Bush's feet, though he has a hand in it as well. The federal spending-per-capita is out of control.
I thank what he has said is don't go preaching your conservative ideas and live like a Democrat.
We lost some RINOS and this will prove to be a good thing for the GOP. The thing we need is to rid ourselves of more of them before trying to become a party of power again.
Stay on the moral issues, not just being conservative is going to be enough.
And, changing the subject a little. We are now starting to see who is running in 08. John McCain is starting his bid and he is nothing short of one of the leading RINOS, part of the gang of 14.
If he is is elected as the runner for the 08 presidential bid this will definitely be the one I will sit out. At 63 I have always voted but can't force myself to vote for this man. He has thrown more hissey fits against his own party in the past four years than another RINO.
Please, lets try finding a true consesverative the next time.
Your tag line forgets one thing - then the people tired of war and sacrific kicked Churchill to the curb - and his ideas too for 40 years.
The reason the libs can have no charactor is that it is their party line. They believe that freedom of expression means freedom that is unrestrained - all pleasures is good any suffering is bad. Try to stop the world from wanting nothing but pleasure.
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.