"Elect and elect, legislate and legislate, spend and spend. The damned fools don't know the difference."
Posted on 05/09/2008 5:51:33 AM PDT by Keyes2000mt
It goes without saying that the GOP is taking a dreadful thrashing right now. Conservatives are unmotivated, Democrats are obliterating Republicans in the fundraising arena, and the GOP's poll numbers have dropped off a cliff.
George Bush, the face of the Republican Party, has an approval rating of 30% and according to Rasmussen Reports, one of the best polling agencies in the business, 41.4% of Americans consider themselves to be Democrats while only 31.4% say they are Republicans. Worse yet, voters trust the Democrats more than Republicans on the economy, government ethics, the war in Iraq, health care, Social Security, education, immigration, and abortion. Yes, the GOP still has an edge on taxes and national security, but how are Republicans going to compete in 2008 if they cede all those other issues to the Dems?
That's something Republicans in Congress are just going to have to figure out. How do you win elections when your supporters are unenthusiastic, people are sick of your political party, and money is in short supply? Unfortunately, in 2006, the answer was, "You don't."
In 2006, Republicans lost 6 seats in the Senate and 30 seats in the House. Although it's far too early to say for sure, judging by the direction the political winds are blowing, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the GOP loses another 4-6 seats in the Senate and an additional 10-15 House seats this time around.
So, why does the GOP seem to be trapped in this recurring political nightmare?
There are a plethora of different reasons for it: the war in Iraq, gas prices, a soft economy, George Bush's lack of communication skills, corruption scandals, the illegal immigration brouhaha, nominee John McCain, out-of-control spending -- you can go on and on.
However, there is one overriding problem that dwarfs all the others, a problem that few people in the leadership of the Republican Party seem to have come to grips with. That problem is that conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, no longer believe that the GOP has their best interests at heart.
That's not to say that there's no difference between the two parties -- because there is. That's not to say that the country would be better off if John McCain loses; it most certainly wouldn't be. That's not to say that the Republican Party isn't more conservative than the Democratic Party; without question, it is.
That being said, does the Republican Party adequately represent conservative interests? No. Do George Bush and John McCain's values and beliefs match up well with those of the average conservative in the Party? No, they do not. Does the machinery of the Republican Party -- the RNC, the NRCC, NSCC -- treat conservatives fairly and do a good job of representing conservative interests? Not at all.
In other words, to many conservatives, the Republican Party has ceased to be an organization that serves their interests and has become merely an allied organization that shares many, but not all, of the same critical goals.
That may seem like a small distinction, but it's an important one. Conservatives will stay up late volunteering for a campaign, give until it hurts, and crawl over broken glass to put candidates in Washington who're "on their side."
However, it's a totally different ball game when we're talking about mere allies. Why give money and spend precious time volunteering on the campaigns of people who are going to turn right around and cut you off at the knees on spending and illegal immigration once they get to DC?
In other words, the attitude towards the GOP has become, "He may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he's my son-of-a-b*tch." That's what today's Republican Party is to most conservatives: our sons-of-b*tches.
........Which brings us, as conversations of this sort usually do, back to Reagan. Why did conservatives love Reagan? Certainly, he was a great President, but he departed from the conservative orthodoxy on more than a few occasions. Reagan signed an abortion bill when he was governor of California, the debt exploded under his watch, he raised taxes, he signed an amnesty bill, and Iran-Contra was certainly a big scandal. Yet conservatives, who were just as serious about their principles back then as they are today, supported him ferociously when he was in office and revere the man's memory.
Why?
Simple: because there was never the slightest doubt in the minds of conservatives that Ronald Reagan shared their values and was doing everything within his power to use conservative principles to make our country a better place. So, when Reagan did something that conservatives disagreed with, they figured he was just doing what he had to do for the sake of politics and didn't hold it against him.
Republicans today don't have that luxury because the assumptions that conservatives made about Reagan have been reversed. If a Republican does something that pleases conservatives, they often assume that it is being done for political purposes while deviations from the conservative norm represent what Republicans really want to do.
Until the Republicans can repair that breach of faith and convince conservatives that the GOP has the same goals as conservatives do on issues like spending, the size of government, and illegal immigration, the Party may win some battles, but it's going to slowly, but surely lose the war for the future of our country.
If a group would seriously decide to build a truly Conservative Party from the ground up, we might be able to abandon the modern-day Whigs.
The problem for Republicans is that there is no quick fix. It will take a few years of arguing for conservative principles before anyone will believe in them again - and none of it can start while McCain is the standard bearer.
I expect 2008 to be a blow-out for Democrats. The GOP abandoned conservatives, and now wonders why we don’t give cash, walk precincts, etc.
I think the biggest probelm you had with Ron Paul is that you simply don't understand the terminology.
One man's "isolationism" is another man's non-interventionism.
There is a BIG difference between those two terms, and the difference is the difference between peaceful coexistence and unwarranted war-mongering.
The way to realize peace is to exhibit restrained strength. As in: "speak softly, but carry a BIG stick."
The way to continually appear weak and indecisive is to engage our military in nearly every country in the world, so that they are spread thin, and give them no clear mission, except to follow orders from politicians.
Right!
Got a pencil?
Ditto on that. It’s the perception the public has, and I’d lay this on the MSM more the W, not the facts. When I hear the public thinks the Dems would do a better job on the economy, abortion (now that’s a fluky one to add), social security, the War in Iraq, healthcare and immigration, you know they’ve been brainwashed!
Ouch! Truth hurts.....
"Elect and elect, legislate and legislate, spend and spend. The damned fools don't know the difference."
We do not need more bureaucrats pledging to enact "conservative" agendas.
Worst of all, and it wasn't the War in Iraq, as I consider that but one battle in the worldwide War on Terrorism, but continued embracing illegal aliens here in this country and continuing to attract many more, which has happened over the past 8 years.
Now I am supposed to hold my nose and vote for one of the architects of "Amnesty," I don't say that I won't but I definitely have closed the check book and will not be out there championing the leadership nor the man at the top!
Sadly, since Duncan Hunter, there is not even one Republican that even bothers to gain my attention.
As many here, I'm sick of the lot but not enough to jump ship and vote for some third party, or, God forbid, vote for either of the communists running as democRATS.
If enlightened people cannot put aside their differences and unite to defend this nation and freedom and, yes, goodness throughout the world, in lieu of their selves, then civilization will be no more.
The constant crescendo of “I, Me, and My” is nothing but a prelude to extinction.
W’s arrogance??? Not even close... It’s the second part of that- his inability- or reticence to communicate effectively... For 8 years, he’s allowed every lie imaginable go unchallenged... This, more than the Iraq war, has devestated the GOP and conservatives, more than anything else IMHO... How do you allow Kennedy to say the war was lie after lie after lie and not refute it? Yellowcake? How do you not forcefully shoot back every time and say that the Dems also supported the Iraq war? I could go on and on... I used to respect our President, but after seeing the damage he’s inflicted, add me to the list of his detractors...One person I respect even less is Cheney. I DESPISE him- he’s been useless. Where the hell has he been the past few years... He’s a damned disgrace
“Certainly, he was a great President, but he departed from the conservative orthodoxy on more than a few occasions. Reagan signed an abortion bill when he was governor of California, the debt exploded under his watch, he raised taxes, he signed an amnesty bill, and Iran-Contra was certainly a big scandal.”
The author is making too much of those specific items.
First, most Americans probably didn’t know he signed an abortion bill as Governor of California.
Second, the deficit and national debt were small problems when Reagan took office, and the publics’ awareness grew gradually, and particularly when Ross Perot highlighted the problem and led the 1992 campaign with 37% approval before he bailed out.
Third, he raised some taxes after his huge tax decrease.
Fourth, illegal immigration was a small problem compared to now, two or three million compared to 12 - 20 million. Far fewer voters paid attention to the problem then, and it received far less press coverage and talk radio and other alternative media scarcely existed then.
Fifth, most conservatives didn’t consider Iran-Contra a big scandal. They thought the Democrats in Congress were trying to usurp the President’s authority in foreign policy.
I don’t think the above examples support the notion that conservatives trusted Reagan as the author claims. They just were not great concerns of most voters during the 1980s that some later became. The trust probably had more to do with his ability to communicate and foster optimism and sell conservatism as a general governing philosophy.
“I am left without representation.”
Precisely how I feel. Well said.
They asked who I would vote for ...McCain or Obama...
I said ....neither...
She sputtered around because she didn't have a little box to check ....
I was suppose to choose one.
The PR problem stems largely from a press that is outwardly hostile and always has been to this President. When we do right, no one remembers. The gullible portion of the population has always gone along with it...and the rest are being worn down over time.
Look at the Al Reuters/Ap story about Obama/hillary ticket they are pushing and creaming over. They’ll convince the dumbdowned populace that this is going to happen
“That problem is that conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, no longer believe that the GOP has their best interests at heart”
AMEN to that.
That’s about the way I see it too. I’d also add that the GOP has to lose some really bad PR dead wood — like Ted Stevens and his ilk.
The single biggest problem for the GOP since 2000 has been how Bush/Rove have “led” the party. True conservatives were bashed by Bush on issues such as spending (eg, Medicare part D) and illegal immigration, while Bush has done nothing to assist the GOP’s conservatives in Congress when it has come time to skirmish against the DNC on other various domestic issues. Bush’s veto threats have been a very hollow and unbelievable threat against Congress. There has been no budgetary restraint from the Bush administration at all, which is the single biggest issue every year where a GOP president needs to back up conservatives in Congress.
As it is, I think conservatives will have to rebuild the GOP from the state level on down, electing and promoting a whole new generation of leaders. Look at people like Gov. Palin of Alaska for an example of someone who has been brought up from lower state positions who actually walks the talk on fiscal conservatism.
Lastly, conservatives need to quit trying to be liked in DC. They need to go into DC knowing that the press, the various liberal front groups, the Democrats, et al, are going to howl whenever conservatives win a policy issue. Conservatives should not fear this, they should revel in it. They should wake up every day in DC and ask “Which liberal can I make howl today?” not “I wonder if anyone will like me today?”
A big part of the PR problem is that we have a bunch in DC who waits for the Democrats to shape the message instead getting out in front of an issue and framing it before the Democrats.
This is part of what it takes to lead. Trouble is, the GOP at heart is a reactionary party, who reacts to the press, the DNC, liberal interest groups.
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.