Posted on 02/05/2007 12:00:21 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? -Matt. 16:26
The same question can be asked of a political party. The names of America's political parties have long since ceased to mean anything. While certainly, there's a difference between a Republic and a Democracy, these difference do not define our political parties and their members.
The soul of the Republican Party is conservatism. That conservatism is different than past generations, but at it's heart the Conservatism of today believes in limited government; a wise, prudent, yet firm foreign policy; a respect for traditional values; and lower taxes.
This is in it's essence the heart and soul of the Republican Party. The Republican platform is why I and many others are first generation Republicans. Yet, in recent years, much of the platform has become a dead letter under the leadership of President Bush. Limited government has become a cruel joke, traditional values have been fought for when convenient, and fundamental tax and social security reform has been little more than rhetoric despite six years of Bush and Republican congresses.
Conservatism was nurtured by Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, and numerous others who created a movement that is now at risk. The risk doesn't come from the big liberal press or any of the usual suspects, but from unprincipled folks who plan to make 2008 the year conservatism dies in the Republican Party.
The Men Who Would Be King
Across this country, people claiming the mantle of conservatism are getting set to sell people on moderate and liberal candidates whose election would mean the ultimate marginalization of conservative ideas. Let's not kid ourselves. If the Republicans win the White House in 2008, the leader of the Republican Party will be whoever is in the White House.
You can expect with a Giuliani nomination, many platform planks will bite the dust. Mr. Giuliani has in the past described himself as coming from the same tradition as liberal New York Republicans Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. Under Giuliani, the Republican Party will almost certainly cease to have a pro-life plank, or at the very least no one will take it seriously.
You can expect that the man who three times received the nomination of New York's liberal party will not be the sort of man to begin to dismantle government programs, touch the third rail of Social Security in order to create a sustainable retirement system, or touch the federal income tax code.
Then we have Senator John McCain who will be able to lay claim to being pro-life despite a series of bobs and weaves on the issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. John McCain will be good on pork barrel spending, but don't expect government to shrink under Senator McCain.
McCain in his old age has a bit of a messiah complex. You'll never hear McCain quote the words of Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem!" McCain believes government can solve problems from political corruption to the ages old "problem" of climate change with enough regulation. Senator McCain is also not too keen on giving our money back to us and tends to believe anyone who doesn't support his amnesty bill for illegal immigrants is a bigot.
As for conservative judges, you can forget about it. Senator McCain can be expected to appoint fairly center left jurists for a very simple reason. Strict constructionists who would overturn Roe v. Wade would also laugh at McCain-Feingold and the numerous reform bills that President McCain would dream of.
John McCain's pretentious view of himself, the power of government to right all wrongs, and his cavalier attitude would bring the closest thing that our country has had to Fascism to the White House.
Governor Mitt Romney is a man for all seasons. He can be conservative, moderate, or liberal depending on the moment. Many conservatives have placed their faith in Governor Romney to govern as the social conservative he's running as. Just as Massachusetts voters expected Romney to govern as the social moderate he ran as in 2002 before he realized that social conservatives were a key constituency to exploit in his quest for the 2008 White House race.
Someone whose public record has been one flip flop after another can be counted on to be consistent only in his inconsistency. By setting himself up as the conservative candidate, he guarantees that his eventual betrayal will deal a decisive blow to conservative principles.
Some believe that Romney's metamorphosis is genuine. While I wish it were so, common sense argues against a man who has spent his entire life as the heir apparent to one of America's top liberal Republican families "seeing the light" late in life, particularly given that his pro-life conversion story is so unbelievable that National Review's Rick Lowry suggests he'd be better off not talking about it. Far more likely, Mr. Romney's marriage to conservative principles is one of convenience that will be broken when no long necessary.
While these candidates' people will swear to you up and down that they can win, they rarely if ever mention that a victory for McCain, Giuliani, or Romney is likely to set the Conservative movement back decades. Talk about a pyrrhic victory!
In a Republic we can elect a man to carry the banner of a platform, not impose his own views on the country. And, bith Guillani and Romney could be counselled by their pastors to a change of heart of abortion to save their soulos. Stay tuned.
Paul in 08'
Unfortunately the author is right, even more unfortunate is that the only options to McCain/Rudy/RINO's is Hillary/Obama or worse. I can't vote my conservative principles on a third party, because that guarantees a Hillary. I feel so screwed.
Gee, what a novel essay. I can't recall the last time I read an essay in which someone bemoaned the lack of "true" conservatives in the field today. Give Adam an "A" for originality!
Newt '08!
Rockefeller's not for me.
He is not for GOP.
He is for the welfare state.
He has had more than one mate.
Rockefeller's not for me.
He is not for GOP.
R-O-C-K-E-Y,
Oh, you SOB!
Republican folk song, sung to the tune of the hymn Rock of Ages and the Mickey Mouse Club theme song.
Sad to say, not any longer.
In fact, it seems as if the "soul" of the Republican Party isn't much different than the soul of the Democrats - "Acquire and maintain power, at any cost!"
good article ping
You can't destroy something twice.
Support a conservative before Rudy McRomney is your only option.
Wooo Hooo! Newt in '08! Time to get back to those good old conservative values of fidelity and honesty!!!!
Giuliani could end up splitting both parties at their extreme hinges. Now that would be interesting.
Yeah, Newt has been less than perfect and was outed by the Clinton crime family's smear machine. Regardless, Newt would not be the first imperfect human to run for president. President G. W. Bush has a past history as well. Newt's human failings aside, at this moment, there is no other conservative available. Fortunately, there is still time for one to find his or her way to the political spotlight.
The drumbeating for Rudy is coming from The Everything For Us Nothing For You Lobby----using the "dumb Christian" ploy. As Borat indicated to Rolling Stone---you can tell those "dumb Christians" anything and they'll believe it.
They are hoping to convice conservatives they are a small minority against the faked-up "groundswell" for Rudy. Rudy might win only if conservatives roll over and play dead. That ain't gonna happen.
MAJOR STUDY BY THE PEW FORUM ON RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE:
Republicans Can't Win Without Christian Conservatives (this means you, Rudy)
SOURCE: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QS6fK2c8AP0J:pewforum.org/events/index.php%3FEventID%3D115
Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional Christian religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democratic, according to a major study by the Pew Forum.
Some of the conclusions of this report were already evident in 2004 exit polling data. For example, voters who attend church more than once a week (16 percent of all voters) chose Bush over Kerry by a margin of 64 – 35 percent.
Likewise, those who attend Christian denominational Churches on a weekly basis (26 percent of voters) supported the President by a 58 – 41 percent margin. Also very telling, those who never attend Church (15 percent of voters) overwhelmingly supported Kerry 62 – 36 percent.
The study further found that traditionalist elements within each religion tended to vote Republican, while modernist groups within the religions trended towards the Democrats. A multiple regression analysis of exit poll and public opinion survey data from 2000 and 2004 enabled the Pew Research Center to assign a relative weight to various demographic markers.
Interestingly, church attendance was tied with race as the most significant factor. But even that number is deceiving; in that race is only an important factor due to the high level of support the Democrats receive from black voters.
These trends represent a major shift over the past forty-five years. White Christian Evangelicals in 1960 favored Democrats by a two-to-one margin; now they are Republican by a 56 – 27 percent margin. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.
In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004. These trends have also brought an increased acceptance of religion in the public square.
While Americans do tend to favor the separation of church and state, 70 percent of voters want their President to have strong Christian religious beliefs. Likewise, the study reveals that 52 percent of Americans believe that Christian churches should express political views. Surprisingly, support for political involvement of churches is strongest among younger voters age 18 to 29 (59 percent).
At least he's intellectually honest, which would be something we haven't seen in the oval office in 20 years.
And if you're the type that's eager to throw stones for past mistakes, am I to assume you dislike Bush for being an alchoholic and a coke-head?
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.