Posted on 01/29/2008 11:55:19 AM PST by Sideshow Bob
There have been more than a few recent articles and editorials attempting to affix blame for the demise of the Republican Party. Peggy Noonan blames President Bush. Rush Limbaugh believes a McCain nomination will kill the party. However, even in a worse case scenario, the Republican Party will probably stagger along for several years much like the last decade of the Whigs. Conservative Republicans should probably be more concerned about the impending demise of the conservative movement within the party. Some individuals can be blamed more than others, but this folly has many fathers. The latest blow to conservatives has come from within – thanks to Dr. James Dobson and other egotistical evangelicals. Political doomsayers may be correct and it is likely too late to save the conservative movement in 2008. Conservatives can correct their path to destruction for 2010 and beyond, but only if they look back at recent history, recognize the actions and actors that have brought the party and movement to this point, and to learn from a long series of missteps and mistakes.
Ronald Reagan built a winning coalition of conservatives, independents and establishment moderate Republicans in 1980. A coalition of social, economic and security conservatives had come together to form a plurality within the GOP and wrest leadership of the party from the establishment, moderate GOP. The Iran-Contra scandal (Mistake #1) weakened the coalition and the moderate wing of the party regained control of the GOP (Mistake #2), which led to the election of President George H.W. Bush (Mistake #3).
While the elder Bush had adopted – albeit reluctantly – many conservative ideals, he and the moderate GOP leaders advocated a “kinder, gentler” approach (Mistake #4). Conservatives might have been content to take a back seat to moderate GOP leadership, but they read Bush’s lips and their support and enthusiasm for the Republican Party evaporated after the Bush tax increase (Mistake #5). In 1992 some conservatives were taken in by Ross Perot and his anti-establishment, anti-Washington message (Mistake #6). Others just stayed home (Mistake #7) and helped Democrats elect the Dope from Hope, Bill Clinton, with just 43% of the popular vote (Mistake #8).
The only positive to come out of 1992 was that it helped create an opening for an obscure, but brilliant Congressman from Georgia to lead conservatives to regain control of the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich reformed the three-legged conservative coalition and took an upstart innovative approach of leading the GOP from the House with a 1994 national congressional campaign platform – the Contract with America.
It is important to note that prior to the ’94 elections, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and other establishment, moderate GOP leaders scoffed at and were dismissive of Gingrich and the Contract. Dole and Senate moderates rode the Contract’s election coattails, but made it plain that the GOP Senate did NOT sign on to the program, was not obligated to it, reluctantly followed Gingrich's lead, and worked to water down each and every one of the Contract's provisions (Mistake #9).
By January 1996, Dole was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (Mistake #10). Dole sought to convince Speaker Gingrich to fold up the federal government shutdown stalemate with President Clinton and allow Dole to lead the GOP via his presidential campaign.
Dole gave Gingrich the choice of single-handedly continuing the shutdown and fight with Clinton and the media with Candidate Dole seeking a different path from the House GOP or deferring to Dole's presidential campaign and resuming the conservative battle together with Gingrich’s friend Trent Lott to keep President Dole honest after the ’96 elections. Gingrich made the wrong choice (Mistake #11). Gingrich probably should have run for President himself in 1996 (Mistake #12).
We all remember what happened. By caving in and compromising on the shutdown, the conservative House leadership lost some of their ability to control their more moderate members (Mistake #13). Bob Dole lost (Mistake #14). Trent Lott built his own voice separate from the House (Mistake #15). And with no help from Lott & the GOP Senate and a Clinton veto looming on all conservative issues, Gingrich, Armey & DeLay focused too much of their efforts on the growing Clinton scandals (Mistake #16).
Gingrich was able to maintain order within the House even during the Clinton impeachment. But after the Senate RINOs failed to do their duty and convict Clinton (Mistake #17), the House moderates began feeling their oats (Mistake #18).
Then, the impact of the missing FBI files took effect. Allegations of marital affairs Gingrich and Hyde took their toll (Mistake #19). Seeing his conservative House coalition slowly diminish and Lott's desire to set on a different path, Gingrich stepped down as Speaker (Mistake #20). Then his presumed successor, Bob Livingston from Louisiana, was also taken out by a marital affair (Mistake #21).
House Moderates became emboldened and championed the lackluster Dennis Hastert as Speaker to muzzle Armey & DeLay and appear less confrontational (Mistake #22). This effort also helped to clear the agenda of party leadership for the 2000 GOP presidential candidates (Mistake #23). And in 2000, conservatives settled for the "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush (Mistake #24). Many conservatives stayed home, nearly costing Bush the presidency and actually losing GOP control of the Senate in 2000 (Mistake #25).
To be fair, conservatives should thank God everyday for W's leadership in dealing with 9-11. But Bush also squandered the opportunity to push the party and country to the right following that horrible event (Mistake #26). The GOP regained control of the Senate in 2002, but based solely on the country’s fears of Democrats’ inability to deal with national security concerns and not on conservative social and economic principles. Meanwhile, the House drifted further to the center (Mistake #27).
Conservative fears of repeating Florida 2000 helped Bush win reelection in 2004, despite the party's overall drift to the center. By now, any conservative elements in the House and Senate were in complete retreat. The moderates ruled the roost in both houses. RINO defections on the Iraq war (Mistake #28), wasteful earmarks (Mistake #29) and ethics scandals (Mistake #29) were now front and center for the GOP. The only conservative victories of 2005-06 were the confirmations of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. And it took a battle to defeat Bush on his nomination of Harriet Miers to do it.
By Fall 2006 conservatives had become utterly disheartened. Attempts to make the Bush tax cuts permanent stalled (Mistake #30), the continued treachery of Arlen Spector, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the Gang of 14 (Mistake #31), increased dissatisfaction with George Bush and the Miers nomination debacle all caused conservatives to stay home in November 2006 (Mistake #32). And the GOP lost both the House and Senate.
Occasionally, the conservative movement can still rise up. The reaction to the Amnesty bill was encouraging. But other than that, conservatives have again been wandering in the wilderness. GOP moderates and RINO's have been resistant to allowing a conservative to assume leadership in Congress. And any potential conservative congressional leader has held back (Mistake #33), in part due to the extremely early start of the 2008 presidential race (Mistake #34).
And what did conservatives get for 2008 GOP candidates? Were there any Reagan conservatives who possessed all three legs of the coalition stool - strong national defense, social conservatism, economic conservatism?
Nope.
Instead, we got Rudy Giuliani. An autocrat who has little affection for social conservatives, but pledged to nominate strict construction judges. Whoopee!
Instead, we got John McCain. An angry RINO maverick who enjoys flouting social and economic conservatives AND even the GOP establishment to gain favor and positive reviews from the liberal media.
Instead, we got Mitt Romney, an uber-wealthy GOP establishment moderate. At least Romney panders to social and economic conservatives with recently discovered flip-flopped positions on issues of importance to those two factions.
Instead, we got Mike Huckabee – the Dope from Hope, part II. While he is just as slick and manipulative as Bill Clinton, Huckabee is nowhere near as smart.
Instead, we got Ron Paul, a true blue, libertarian nutbag. Paul has a few economic bona fides that have pulled away a few non-nut job libertarians. But I'm sorry, Dr. Paul is a kook.
Instead, we got the Obscure Four - Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, Tommy Thompson & Duncan Hunter. Tancredo & Keyes are single issue candidates. Tommy & Dunc are well-rounded politicians (especially Hunter), but they lacked the ability to have broad nationwide appeal.
Seeing this morass of blech, Fred Thompson entered the fray expecting to be the savior of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Fred should have been that candidate.
Unfortunately, Dr. James Dobson and a few evangelical leaders decided to cut off their nose to spite their face (Mistake #35). You see, Fred's not a Bible thumper. Neither was Ronald Reagan. And like Reagan, Fred is a bona fide, all-around, federalist conservative. That wasn’t good enough for Dobson. And when Fred refused to kiss Dobson's ring of evangelical purity, Dobson went shopping for a candidate he thought he could control.
Flim Flam Huckabee seized on that opportunity. Huckabee played Dobson into thinking that Dobson could be a GOP kingmaker (Mistake #36). A handful of evangelical leaders blindly pushed Huckabee as a viable conservative (Mistake #37). The media, who knows a GOP loser when they see one, helped fan the flames of Huckabee's support. For a time, the scheme worked. Huckabee won Iowa (Mistake #38), but eventually the truth of Huckabee's Christian Socialism became evident to most conservatives.
But the damage had been done. Social conservatives were now spilt. Some had been taken in by Huckabee's class warfare (Mistake #39). Some had been taken in by the media's false depiction of Fred as a lazy campaigner (Mistake #40) and settled for Romney, Rudy or, worse, McCain (Mistake #41).
Added into this deceptive mix was the ability of independents and Democrats to participate in and distort the Iowa, New Hampshire & South Carolina Republican primaries (Mistake #42). Media darling McCain was back! McCain – the new Comeback Kid – was ready to lead....the GOP down to defeat. Meanwhile, Fred's race and the ability for the GOP to unify behind a Reaganesque conservative died (Mistake #43).
At best, the GOP could still end up with a George W. Bush-lite nominee like Mitt Romney. He will at least pretend to care about conservative ideals from his Country Club wing of the party.
At worst, the GOP could end up with John McCain. McCain, the perennial thorn in the GOP's side who was once touted as a possible VP running mate for John Kerry!
Who knows? It’s still remotely possible that none of the moderates and RINO’s still in the presidential race will win a majority of the primary delegates. Maybe a conservative nominee could still rise up in a brokered GOP convention. Maybe a conservative national congressional campaign like the Contract with America could still arise in time for the 2008 elections. But really, that’s a fantasy.
The reality is that conservatives will have to wait until 2010 or 2012 to reassert itself as the true and legitimate leaders of the Republican Party. The reality is that conservatives have allowed numerous people to make numerous mistakes which have led the movement to this precarious point. The reality is that conservatives and the GOP are now left with this Dobson's Choice of Romney or McCain. Pass the nose clips and prepare for the worst.
What can I say? projection?
the808bass wrote:
Not me. Listened to his radio show regularly. I have read many of his books. I respected him. All past tense.
Well, I don't listen to his radio show, but I have read 2 of his books and had great respect for him before this incident. And like 808bass, that is now past tense.
westmichman, who else are you referring to as Dobson haters?
That is not what I implied. It is not saying that everyone is idiots to simply note that the average citizen is not as politically aware as the average Freeper. I don't think a person who can't carefully delineate between the distinctions between a RLA and the overturning of Roe v. Wade is an idiot. I think they are probably less politically involved. That's neither a crime nor a sin.
Really? I thought we were heading for BFF. It's a sad day, indeed.
Sorry, don’t have a dog in the fight. Just trying to follow the thread.
“I hope Hillary or Obama win and take the blame for the next 4 years”
Unfortunately, no RAT POTUS will ever be blamed for anything. Whatever the crisis, calamity, attack, war, flood, fire, famine, drought, hurricane, tornado, cyclone, pestilence, pandemic, etc. — it will always and forever be Bush’s Fault.
Oy vey, what a silly rant. So Dobson didn't "kiss Thompson's ring". Big deal. Bob needs to stop being such a drama queen.
WHO ARE YOU?
“.... thanks to Dr. James Dobson and other egotistical evangelicals....”
Sorry Charlie
Thats where I turned YOU OFF.
Vanity Post?
LOL
I noticed. It is the very first thing I look for.
“.... thanks to Dr. James Dobson and other egotistical evangelicals....”
Sorry Charlie
Thats where I turned YOU OFF.
Vanity Post?
Um, yes. This was clearly labeled as a Vanity Post.
Thank you for your military service to this country. I'm sorry that you beleive Dr. Dobson is impervious to criticism.
westmichman, who else are you referring to as Dobson haters?
OK Bob, Here we go. Referring to Dobson and other evangelicals.
post#21: certain evangelicals are stupid or egotistical
#36: complete ass
#54: trash
#65: idiot
#111 don’t like, smarmy, holier than thou, prima donna
#112 religious bigot
#119: ayatollah Dobson
#125: dishonest, distasteful, unChristlike,
#128: religious bigotry
#348: sanctimonius prig
#363: contempt
This is just a sample from this thread, some of them are yours. If this is not hatred, I guess I don’t want to know what hatred would look like on here.
When Jesus referred to Pharisees and hypocrites, he was not considering them as people he planned to see in heaven unless there was a change in them (”not everyone who cries Lord, Lord , will see the kingdom of heaven”)
So I guess, calling someone a hypocrite or the like is damning them to hell unless they change their ways.
Send this to Romney!
Romney or McCain...either way we get AMNESTY
How do you figure? Are the American people suddenly going to
roll over and let it happen after winning a great victory last year. It is congress that controls the amnesty debate not the President.
I have just a wee bit of confidence that the same folks who inundated the congress with their wishes regarding amnesty, will again take up the cross, and bombard their Congressmen should this anti American stupidity come again before the people.
You and others have taken this tangent of the debate surrounding the portion of my vanity post referencing Dobson's partial culpability for the impending demise of the GOP and conservative movement down to a childish level.
Some have stooped to sweeping (and wildly incorrect) generalizations about evangelicals uniformly believing this or that.
Some have taken exception to the concept that an evangelical leader could be egotistical, hypocritical or Phariseeical.
Some have stooped to using a religiously bigoted "Dobson's right - Fred's not a Christian."
Some have falsely claimed, in the face of reality and voluminous evidence, that Dobson was just minding his own business and innocently offered his opinion in casual conversation with a reporter.
Now, you want to characterize anyone who casts a critical eye on Dobson - but more specifically, his actions and comments - as a HATER.
All of this is silly blather.
The point contained in my vanity analysis and the question that is being asked is:
Did Dobson's attack on Fred Thompson help cause the GOP and the conservative movement to reach this point in the nomination process without a viable conservative candidate and with the unsavory choice of nominating either Mitt Romeny or (shudder) Juan McCain?
Evidence, logic and reason dictate that the answer is YES.
You cany deny that Dobson attacked Fred. You can claim Dobson's attack was justified. You can can call critically thinking evangelical FReepers HATERS. Do your worst.
I stand unashamedly by my positon and the evidence, logic and reason that support it.
“....I’m sorry that you believe Dr. Dobson is impervious to criticism....”
You Sir, are not “criticizing” but painting a self portrait a individual with “issues”.
It’s your problem here - not Dobsons’.
I’m a Born-Again, Conservative, Charismatic Christian and no one of “flesh and blood” speaks for me.....not Dobson, Fallwell, or Micky Mouse.
Nor does anyone of this earth, in any positions of authority within or without the “Church” guide or direct my political leanings or vote.
You are headed in the wrong direction here, but I strongly doubt that there is anything I could say that would convince you the error of your world view.
Not just Dobson. It's much more organic than that. It's local pastors. It's email chains. Homeschool associations.
I have to give you a lot of credit here. You recognize the power of the Christian grassroots, something most FredHeads I have argued with deny. But do you also see the power of the Christian networks?
[Overturn Roe v. Wade or RLA] I don't think the simple majority of them could quantify them to any real degree.
I agree, to a point (see next).
[...] why are they suddenly and adamantly opposed to one of the positions? Because they were told to be.
I must differ with you. The RLA is driven by the Christians. Granted, it is driven by Pro-Life zealots, but they are a very high profile and visible faction. The point of the spear, as it were, and huge in number among the Christian Right (as opposed to mainline churches)
For a few years now, the RLA has been a demand of the Christians, born of an impatience with the Republicans, who mouth promises they never deliver. Their impatience is well justified too. They have been supportive of Republicans since Reagan, and have been long-suffering with little to show for it, and especially considering the horrible toll on the children of an entire generation. I sympathize with their insistence.
That insistence had calcified into a tenet of the SoCon movement long before Fred, and long before this election cycle. I dare to say that it is misguided to suggest that the Christians (by and large) are uninformed on this particular issue. They have been loudly uncompromising for some time now.
But in my disagreement with you, I wish to agree in a more general sense- I do believe that Christians are turned inward, into their own community and structures, and are largely uninformed by way of the world.
They tend to listen to Christian radio rather than Conservative radio... They tend to get their news from Christian news services and websites that cater to Christian issues (because Christian issues are ignored by the MSM)... And they tend to hang out on Christian forums.
I do agree that Christian networks have tremendous influence on Christian thought, and can certainly be capable of spinning an issue in a particular direction, though in an aggregate sense. There is no leadership that can direct it all.
So, attacking a person who holds a slightly different position strategically while aiming to accomplish the same goal is the epitome of stupidity.
Yet who is to blame for that? As I said previously, the RLA is set in stone. To blatantly deny the Christians' position is certain to court their ire. Regardless of Fred's intentions, and frankly, irregardless of merit, this is the very crux of a horrible mishandling of a primary issue.
And Huckabee attacked Thompson, knowing that that was where he could gain support.
Granted, but Huck attacked Fred where he was exposed, in the place where Fred showed a great weakness- Fair game in political battles. I mean no offense, but the fault is in that which was undefended, not in the action of the opponent that spies out the weakness. Surely you must admit that.
He didn't attack McCain, even when McCain stood between him and victory
Not true. McCain's support does not come from the Evangelicals or Conservatives, other than the military, to be sure. Fred and Huck have always been competing for each other's supporters.
In short, seeing a vast sea of difference where's there's really only a stream of difference in tactic and magnifying that difference [...] is exactly what was done to Thompson by Huckabee's campaign and his willing supporters in Evangelicaldom.
Again, I must disagree, for the reasons already covered above. Fred's outright rejection of what Christians consider to be a solid demand was a wrongheaded and ill conceived direction.
In his defense, I think that in part, if he were given due time to explain the difference, the Christians may have softened somewhat. But the truth of our electoral process is that it is driven by tiny sound bytes. his position was largely distilled, and I do have some sympathy for that, whether I agree with him or not.
“Rockefeller” Republican Alert
;-)
OK, I'll bite.
Why did you "turn me off?"
What's my world view?
What is the error in my "world view?"
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.