Posted on 02/26/2007 5:11:33 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 02/26/2007 5:36:44 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Defending conservative principles has long been a hallmark of the Republican party as opposed to the Democrat party which promotes the progressive liberal ideology. Millions of conservative Americans have long trusted the Republican party to uphold the principles of individual rights, traditional family values, moral government and our traditional conservative American heritage.
Millions of conservatives have devoted large parts of their lives and fortunes over the last several decades to the longstanding conservative ideas and principles held cycle after cycle as mainstays of the Republican party platform.
We depend upon the Republican party to defend and preserve our cherished individual rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the rights to private property and due process, and the right to local government and control, ie, states rights.
In addition we depend upon the Republican party to be diligent in the security and defense of our nation and of our national sovereignty and our national borders. We depend on the Republican party to fight for constitutionally limited government, conservative fiscal policies, and to keep taxes down.
We also depend upon our party to fight for our traditional family values system and to fight off the liberal progressive attempts to use big government as a tool to deprive us of our rights and to degrade our moral society.
Our Founding Fathers created a system of government that was designed to defend the Republic and our individual rights and to keep itself in check. Over the last century, more and more of the designed in checks and balances have been eroded away and government has grown larger and larger and more and more powerful and corrupt.
The 16th and 17th amendments shifted the balance of power away from the states and we the people and handed it over to the federal government. And the income tax gave the government a tool to not only feed their voracious appetite for other people's money, but also to hold us at bay under threat of prison. And more recently, it's morphed into a tool to use for social engineering.
Then along comes The Great Depression and the Democrats seize the opportunity to seize control over our economic freedoms and implement vast government bureaucracies to regulate and control our industries, farms and businesses.
And the Supreme Court seizes the power away from we the people and our elected representatives to become the final arbiter and dispenser of what used to be our constitutional rights and freedoms.
During the last fifty years, we've all but lost our religious freedoms and local control over societal issues.
Thirty four years ago we lost the right to defend innocent life in the womb.
Within the last couple of decades we've nearly lost all of the right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.
We've all but lost the right to maintain local control over our school systems.
Our rights to free speech, free assembly, and to petition the government have been all but abridged away. McCain-Feingold is but one more nail in that coffin.
Even our rights to private property have taken huge hits. The Kelo decision ensures that the government holds the real title to your property regardless of whose name is actually on the document.
And all during this time we've depended upon the Republican party to defend these rights as the government encroachment marches steadily on.
Oh, we've managed to win one here and there, and slow them down a bit, but the encroachment continues over time and our rights are eroded away.
It's even seemed to accelerate recently. Republicans making deals with the liberals and giving up freedoms and huge amounts of our tax dollars. Seems our fights for free speech, freedom of religion, property rights, local control, sound fiscal policy, national sovereignty, even the right to national defense is falling by the wayside as the Republicans grow weaker and the Democrats stronger.
And now the stage is being set to place the loss of our rights onto warp speed. The Republican party seems hell bent on nominating a man who will not defend our most basic rights to life and liberty.
I say that after all that has transpired, after so many of our rights and liberties have been taken away recently, in many cases by Republicans, and after we seem to have lost all control over budgeting and spending, and losses of local control and private property rights and even national defense, national security and national sovereignty, and now they want to take away our most basic right to life and liberty?
Then what else besides our dignity do we have to lose? If this is not a betrayal of trust then I don't know what is.
I guess the last line of defense will have to be, "I will not sell my soul to the highest bidder or for the lust for power or even for security. I place my trust in God"
An oustanding post, quantim, and one I agree with. You've stated it beautifully.
...very well said, sir.
No. I think you have the disconnect. You just observed Repubs got whipped in the congressional elections.
Why do you think that was? Because a bunch of unenthusiastic--stupid--conservatives stayed home.
BUT. Somehow you think Rudy can win the general election, because those same conservatives are going to be fired up seven years later over Rudy's performance post 9-11?
I don't think so. And I'm speaking as one who before the Congressional elections urged conservatives on FR to get and vote straight line Republican!
No disconnect here, pal. Look at yourself.
I would challenge you to prove that statement because it is a frequently used canard that is simply not true.
We will never turn our losses around for a run in 08 if we don't understand why we lost in 06. This old "conservatives stayed home" chant makes a good sound bite but it simply isn't true.
Prove it? Look at this forum! Was there unified enthusiasm before the election? Or a huge contingent of conservatives upset over immigration, and/or fed spending, and/or Bush signing campaign finance laws, having to be pushed to offer up a bonafide conservative Supreme Court candidate, and on and on...
How about you prove conservatives were united and energetic...compared to their counterparts on the left. Good luck.
The more energised and unified wing, right or left, tends to sway the "mushy" middle in elections. And I believe the held in the 06 elections.
The middle didn't lead. They followed where the energy was.
I don't have to prove it because I never said they were. That's your statement and I won't bother you again with proving your original statement about why pubbies lost the 06 election because I know you can't. Your premise is still false.
Prove it? Look at this forum!
heh..There you go again. You follow false premise #1 with false premise #2.
It's a mistake to assume that "this forum" is a microcosm of the voting public. It isn't. The issues that you speak of didn't even show up amongst the voters who sent the pubbies packing.
Although they are very important issues to conservatives they had little impact, if any, on voter choices in 06.
What 06 did for us is send a wake up call...
and it didn't come from conservatives not voting.
Me:Same old disconnect. We just had an election where we lost 20 good pro-HR4437 congressmen...
No. I think you have the disconnect. You just observed Repubs got whipped in the congressional elections. Why do you think that was? Because a bunch of unenthusiastic--stupid--conservatives stayed home.
So then we agree that anybody who didn't vote for those 20 good HR4437 conservatives is "stupid".
BUT. Somehow you think Rudy can win the general election, because those same conservatives are going to be fired up seven years later over Rudy's performance post 9-11?
Huh, What? Why do you make things up about my point of view?? There is nothing that I posted that would even come close to suggesting that I think Rudy can win the general election. Seriously I want you to explain why you just made that statement up about my point of view. I'll will be looking for your answer.
And I'm speaking as one who before the Congressional elections urged conservatives on FR to get and vote straight line Republican!
Good for you on that.
...and..having read the posts on this thread, neither does anyone else.<
I think you stated the obvious.
I believe we have all the right beliefs and answers to problems if we will just come us with a candidate that we can all get behind.
I personally am not looking for the next Reagan since I do not believe he exists ..at least not right now.
We need to keep the dims at each other's throats and not allow their "throw shiite on the wall and see what sticks" strategy to go unchallenged.
We need to be sure we actually/factually understand WHY we lost in 06 and take that information forward to 08.
If we proceed from a false premise we are very unlikely to arrive at a correct conclusion, or victory.
Oh well, enough rant from me...c-ya.
Sure, I'll answer your questions soon as you answer mine, dope.
Uh, I "assumed" this forum is a microcosm of conservative voters, not the entire voting population. As far as your own contentions, you don't want to defend the inverse of my argument, which is that conservatives weren't as energized in the 06 elections as libs. Because you can't.
Jim R., who started this thread, made the argument that Republicans won't win the upcoming election by moving leftward and ignoring their base. That base considers a host of different issues important, because they all hang together to keep the nation strong and on the right track.
I think he's right. You don't. I advocate voting for a true conservative in the primaries to face off in the general election. Other people here are on the Rudy bandwagon. I say way too early for that.
Just anybody? That's not how it works.
You just observed Repubs got whipped in the congressional elections. Why do you think that was? Because a bunch of unenthusiastic--stupid--conservatives stayed home.
That statement is false..no more no less.
I agree with some of your other statements, but not that one.
Would you agree that your above statement is false or are you going to insist of believing that false premise.
With regard to Jim, I'll let him speak for himself. There is no question that much of what he says is DOBA but I don't believe that he is advocating that we lost in 06 because conservatives stayed home.
That's your assertion, and unfortunately the assertion of many others on this forum...and it's still false!
The only reason that it's important to challenge it is that we will never solve our problems of 06 if we don't know why we lost or if we accept false assumptions.
"Just anybody? That's not how it works"
Yes, thats how it works. There are people running that can live with the current party platform. Perhaps add a plank about better border security.
I don't know how else to say it: the right was not as enthusiastic or energized as the left in the 2006 elections.
From the top down, they didn't have a clear, consistent conservative core set of beliefs to "sell".
SO: some conservatives stayed home. Some failed to do more to talk to friends, volunteer for get out the vote efforts, contribute money, etc.
The "middle" followed the energy--which was on the left.
Now. To me, the lesson from this isn't that Republicans need to "moderate" and move left.
It's that Republicans need to unite behind a consistent set of core beliefs, and energetically and unapologetically advance and defend those beliefs the next time out.
They can do so by selecting a bonafide conservative in the Primaries.
Maybe Newt. Or a dark horse like Duncan Hunter. Or someone not in currently, like General Franks...
But not McCain. And not Rudy.
"SO: some conservatives stayed home."
I don't know how you know that but I think that horse has been beaten enough.
"The "middle" followed the energy--which was on the left."
I dunno about the energy thing but the middle definitely followed the left. The same people that voted for pubbies in the past voted for dims this time around...and the margins were razor slim. If you took a total of 50,000 votes(out of 83,000,000 votes cast) and sprinkled them around, the result would have been the pubbies holding both the house and senate.
"Now. To me, the lesson from this isn't that Republicans need to "moderate" and move left. It's that Republicans need to unite behind a consistent set of core beliefs, and energetically and unapologetically advance and defend those beliefs the next time out."
Couldn't possibly agree more.
"They can do so by selecting a bonafide conservative in the Primaries."
Amen!
"Maybe Newt."
Too much baggage.
"Or a dark horse like Duncan Hunter. Or someone not in currently, like General Franks..."
Boy, would I love to see it..my dark horse is Tony Snow.
"But not McCain."
Definitely agree.
"And not Rudy."
hmmm...gotta see how that one pans out.
Well. It turns out you and I are not that far apart in our viewpoints.
Right again!
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.