Restoring conservatism [eject the RINOs]

If the election were held today, Barack Obama would be the new President of the United States of America. The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls shows Obama ahead of McCain by nearly seven percentage points. It looks like the Democrats are going to have control of both the White House and Congress for the next four years.

And, mark it down, if there is a Democrat sweep, conservative Republicans will get the blame.

The fact of the matter is, however, that President Bush and the Republicans who dominated Congress during most of his administration governed as anything but conservatives. Except during election season, it has been difficult to find any trace of conservative principles among incumbents within the Republican Party. During their tenure, Republican governance was characterized by out of control spending, record-setting earmarks, affirmative action programs for corporate wrongdoers, corrupt relations with special interests, and sexual scandal. While they often described themselves as "conservatives," their walk was very different from their talk.

Few Republicans in leadership in government during the past decade have been authentic conservatives. At best, they have been counterfeit conservatives, which no doubt accounts for why Republicans lost so many seats in 2006 and why they appear ready to lose more seats and the Presidency this November.

In the aftermath of the election, the Republican Party will undoubtedly have the time to engage in serious introspection. Hopefully, its leaders will come to understand that conservatism is not just a "label" or even a "movement." It is a way of life.

“So now, when Conservatives (I mean the REAL ones) aren’t showing up, it is somehow going to be our fault once again. You made your bed. Now go lie in it.”

Real conservatives understand that in order to govern, in order to get your ideas into action where people can see that they work - instead of a mere philosophical discussion - you have to get elected.

I don’t know and never did “blame conservatives” for 2006.

I do blame GOP members who call themselves conservatives, as I am, who thought they would punish someone in the GOP for not being conservative enough - and helped give us Pelosi and Reid. I don’t call that a “conservative” accomplishment, no matter what I think of RINOS, whom I can’t stand.

Sorry, but as a Conservative, in the Bill Buckley tradition, starting out in Young Americans for Freedom, I will take the 200-2005 “compassionate ‘conservative’” GOP led Senate that confirmed Roberts and Alito, and yes, be glad I worked for the GOP members to be able to do that. I didn’t have to reject that leadership because they might have started-out willing to accept Meires. I could work with them and they could see we were right. Some that came our way were RINOS. None were Democrats. So, you can work with no one, because your not there, or you can work as a conservative who is there.

“The very core of two pillars of Conservatism are looking elsewhere, believe me.”

What, they don’t have Reagan’s fight in them? You think he went into the GOP thinking he’d have no opposition, from the “country club” RINOs.

Conservatives leaving the GOP over single issues is what has helped make the GOP “more moderate”. It’s a circular argument that you lose by your own choice. Reagan fought for the GOP by fighting for Conservatives in the GOP.

You want to run? Go ahead.

You say that if Conservatives don’t act like moderates, then their influence is so miniscule as to be like Libertarians...

...and then you want us to help your candidate win? Why, we have so *little* influence as to make no difference.

Face it, you Republicrats need us to win. You can live with a Conservative in power... and win. Or select one of your own and lose.

I think y’all like to lose, considering the consistant selection of Republicrats for the last 2 years.

So, when ever you all get sick of losing, you can follow a Conservative lead. Otherwise, get lost - we ain’t interested in listening.

“You say that if Conservatives don’t act like moderates, then their influence is so miniscule as to be like Libertarians...”

Nowhere did I say that.

“...and then you want us to help your candidate win?

“My candidate”. No.

“Why, we have so *little* influence as to make no difference.”

Again, I never said that; exactly. Anyone actively working in the GOP can make a difference. “Conservatives” leaving the GOP have made no discernable headway as an independent force or party, not even the Libertarians, as far as actually getting into government. Have they had an affect on the GOP itself? Yes. They have helped increase the proportion of everything they complain about in some GOP members. They have helped make the GOP LESS conservative. Wow, what a great statement of accomplishment that is.

“My candidate”. No.

As I have said since the end of the primaries. I will strongly hold my nose as I enthusiastically pull the lever for McCain.

It’s not about voting for McCain. It’s about voting against Obama; an avowed Marxist.

The time for building conservatives up is in the primaries. The time for voting against Liberals and Marxists is in the general election.

“Face it, you Republicrats need us to win. You can live with a Conservative in power... and win. Or select one of your own and lose.”

Sorry, I have never been a “Republicrat”.

But, when my final choices in a general election are a Liberal/Marxist or a McCain, I’ll take a McCain.

In the primary I supported Hunter.

I know. I remember. I did too, as did MANY who now will not support McCain't.

Like Hunter, I am supporting McCain in the general election.

Hunter's endorsement is expected of him as a Republican. But to my knowledge, he has done nothing more. Nor has there been any reciprocation, if MMPAC is to be believed. Hunter's son is getting little help from the RNC, relying mostly on Conservative support to win his chair.

This Conservative walks the walk while faux conservatives don’t walk or talk conservative, just push for antiwar wingnut third pary male wannabes resulting in Marxist Obama vistory.

I too have been very active politically, in my own way- though my causes revolve around SOCON issues, and the promotion of Regan Conservatism. I too, have walked the walk throughout my life, though now, mainly relegated to internet.

I, and many others just like me oppose McCain't and the Republican party on principle, many here are avid Hunterites and solid Reaganites, as you well know.

That we stand against McCain't and the Republicans along with our libertarian FRiends should give you pause.

It is the spirit of the Reagan Coalition that no conservative faction should be taking a back seat to the others, not to mention being left in the cold. For the sake of the war, and for fear of the future, you would throw FICONS, SOCONS, and libertarians in the cold, and you would have me do so too, not to mention rabs.

In that, you will only find dissent. Had you a Conservative to prosecute this war with Conservative principles and by Conservative standards, I daresay our libertarian FRiends could be persuaded.

But even I, who am for the GWOT, and who will vote for Keyes (who's position on GWOT would be to your liking), question the motives of the current, and possible coming administration(s) motives, which can easily be refuted, and are impossible to defend on logical grounds.

So you sing the song of Republicanism and join the choir of those who prefer a socialist Republican party, and require us to sing along. That will not happen, nor should it. Socialism is for liberals.

I am a native of San Diego and have lived here for decades.

The San Diego Republican Party has had many functions, etc. for Duncan Hunter’s son and are major supporters which includes the McCain supporters.

It is easy to have the bunker mentality when you live in a state spread out with less than 1 million population.

San Diego County is the size of Conn. with over 3 million population.

We have the largest concentration of Navy and Marines here.
You have an understanding of what is going on first hand

Throwing a hissy fit throwing the election to Marxist Obama only proves a person has no understanding of the real world or just wants to commit suicide

Ross Perot was no Libertarian, he was a populist.

I know what he was. But his message of small government rang with every libertarian I know- nearly to a man, they all voted Perot. That isn't to say that others didn't too.

As for Ron Pual’ he’s a nice guy, but not a force.

I think you are wrong. He had a huge impact in the primaries, and many I know (and all the libertarian minded I know) are writing him in this November. Even in Pro-Life circles, where Keyes holds more votes than any, his name is coming up. Many people like what he had to say, especially in domestic areas.

[roamer_1:]“Yes, we were told the same thing in ‘06, yet here we are again.”

Yes we know. The biggest shift in the ‘06 election was that so many of you stayed home. And for that, you want our thanks, for the result?!?!?! And for that, you gained what?!?!?

It isn't a matter of gain. It isn't a matter of thanks. If you want Conservative votes, you will have to raise up Conservative candidates, and live a Conservative lifestyle. Candidates, party, the whole 9 yards.

Conservatives live Conservatism. That is why they vote Conservative. To win their trust, you must be like them. To keep their trust, you must do as they expect you to. This isn't hard to understand.

The strongest, most unapologetic Conservative Republican in my House delegation, a freshman elected in 2006, was BEATEN this year by a liberal RINO due to rodents voting in the GOP primary (since they couldn’t elect a Dem in November). We can’t even get our own preferred nominees for general elections now. The Dems aren’t even attempting to challenge Lamar! since he’s so RINO, they don’t have to worry about him not representing THEIR interests. I’m not voting for him this year. I’m quite FED up with the RINO trash.

Would it help to tighten up the primary process so that Democrats couldn't vote in GOP primaries?

If so, isn't that a cheap, easy and dramatic change that should be made?

[roamer_1]“was one big Giuliani Gambit”

Sorry. The only one backing Giuliani was Guiliani. He couldn’t even stay alive in the only state he invested in, Florida. You refer to the most miniscule GOP primary any GOP candidate ever mounted as “one big gambit”, and give it a national command it never had? Dream on.

I refer to the "Giuliani Gambit" because what McCain't tried to do was essentially the same thing- Play up the middle, and act like the base doesn't matter. The base was not taken for granted mind you- it was deemed unnecessary, even as Giuliani supposed.

We were told as much from the very start, and every action of McCain't confirmed (confirms)it as true up until Saddleback, where the campaign took a sudden 180 to try to gain the Christians, and then came Palin as an unconditional capitulation to Conservatives- They knew by then that their mushy middle didn't have the votes or the money they supposed they did.

Even so, the VP pick has never been enough to make the deal- just to sweeten it... Considering the outright rejection of McCain't and his policies by the base, I doubt that Palin will be "sweet" enough to do the deal.

It is not a matter of punishment. Conservatives vote for Conservatives. That is not going to change. To be in power, the Republicans must serve honorably, and Conservatively... Else, they will cease to be in power. It is that simple.

Sorry. But Reagan started out thinking the same thing, after Goldwater lost. But he listened to more experienced minds and realized HE COULD BUILD A CONSERVATIVE BASE IN THE GOP, easier than he could create a third party.

After thirty years of globalist Bakerite control of the party, we have the advantage of knowledge in hindsight, which Reagan could not have foreseen- With primaries hopelessly advantaged toward the RINOs, and the RNC in control of Bakerites- who will dole out their monies according to their advantage, there is little hope of true Conservative control of anything in the Republican party, there never was, and there never will be.

It may well be easier to build up the Conservative base in the Republican party- but it is far less effective.

As the Republicans absorb their globalist ideology, we come very close to a one party system- the two parties holding a distinction without a difference. It is high time to build a 3rd (really 2nd) party- One that will offer principled statesmen to return us to Conservative, traditional governance.

will offer principled statesmen to return us to Conservative, traditional governance.

The key word here is "governance."

These United States are rapidly moving into a state of rule rather than of governance, and time is of the essence here. We must return to our the correct path before it is too late...if it is not already too late.

Many of the Founders would be devastated, but not surprised, at what their beloved Republic has become.

What, they don’t have Reagan’s fight in them? You think he went into the GOP thinking he’d have no opposition, from the “country club” RINOs.

Sure they do- At some point though, in 30 years, one begins to question the efficacy of such a futile process. In all that time, there is precious little that the Republicans can point to as Conservative achievement, while liberalism marches ever forward... globalism moves on without a hitch... All that lacks is Conservatism and it's values- the very thing that would heal us and put things right.

It isn't single issues. It is the whole of the Conservative agenda which is lacking- It is paid nothing more than lip service, as always.

You want to run? Go ahead.

Nope. Physical disability prevents me for sure. Even if I were still able, I would be one of the guys behind the curtain... That had always been my function, and I did it very well.

Closing the primaries is a start (In TN, we technically don’t have to register by party). I tend to support runoffs, which we don’t have in our state, which means the most liberal nominee has a better than average shot at winning the nomination in a field of Conservatives. May even have to reach a point where we decide in a private caucus. Of course, that doesn’t begin to address the problem of the Presidential primaries, which needs a drastic change (and the season needs to be shortened, not lengthened).

I agree with everything you've said; and think that since reforming the primaries looks to be "do-able", it would be a logical place to start.

...and replace them with.... Democrats? LOL Like I said, a lot of good that did us in 06.

There is no appreciable difference between the two any longer. If you would care not to see '06 repeated, vote for Conservatives instead of Republicans.

We may never have had an amnesty vote or bailout vote if we had legislative control based on number of seats

Nonsense. Both issues were Republican issues introduced by and supported by the Republican administration. In both cases, it was bipartisan collusion that was asked for, and in both cases Rinos champed at the bit to offer that bipartisanship, and Conservatives held it at bay.

For the most part, the only thing that has changed is that the Rinos have changed in large part to liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives have changed in small part to Blue Dog Democrats.

You are, as Ayn Rand said: [...] reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies [...]

Quite the opposite- As long as the Republicans embrace the socialism which they brand as globalism, rather than the sure and lasting tenets of Conservatism, the Republicans themselves are as much my enemies as the Democrats are.

There is no room for Conservatism in coalition with globalism. they cannot agree. They are diametrically opposed as philosophies. However, there is much agreement between socialism/communism and globalism, which explains why both march forward so easily, wile Conservatism languishes.

Or, as Sir Winston Churchill said: In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.

In saying so, you assume that Republican globalism is a "best alternative" to socialism/marxism. I reject that whole cloth.

Your thoughts are appropriate for primary season, we have history to show it destroys us if we take them to the general when we don't have a better option.

For Conservatives the "better option" lies in 3rd party candidates this year- Keyes for the Reaganites, and in building a Conservative party for the future. I am no longer a Republican, so your primary is no concern of mine whatsoever.

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.