Help needed identifying Vichy Republicans.

Absolutely:

Colin Powell

William Weld

Adelman

Freid

Scottie McClellan

David Brooks

George Will

David Frum

Christopher Buckley

Doug Kmiec

K Parker

K Madden

Christopher Shays

Peggy Noonan

So far, those are our Vichy Republicans...

Notice this not a list of people who claimed Conservatism then ran away from it’s principles.

It has been bounced around more, modified, re modified and rejiggered to conform to a variety of descriptions.

That's because Barry Goldwater hosted within himself seemingly opposed thoughts about personal liberty. He was at once a social conservative and a libertarian conservative. That is, he was socially conservative, but he demanded the libertarian's right to be let alone to pursue his own lights to the greatest degree the Ninth and Tenth Amendments could be construed to preserve from social and legal interference.

Some people emphasized Barry's social-conservative comments in a key speech he made in May, 1964 while seeking the nomination, and others point to his libertarian tendencies. He embodied both.

I think that former definition of conservatism is still alive with some, like Pat Buchanan, but that is not the definition that seems to be causing so much grief.

Social conservatism is a great thing, I have no reasons to dismiss it or criticize it as long as it is not heavily salted with hypocrisy.

It is the seemingly vast numbers of sunny day only single issue social voters who self describe themselves as conservatives that have irked the country club types and the moderates and paleos.

That's the reason I brought up the Dole campaign. After action studies revealed at the time that many of these folks, lacking any emotional connection to Dole, simply did not show up at the polls, and I verified this at the time in my own State. I saw this again in 2004 and 2006 with some local Senate and house races.

The constant irritation caused by this has angered the party insiders to the point of revolt! This revolt began in earnest in 2006 and it continues today. This has caused many true social conservatives to attack the country clubbers, and paleos more intensely and with immigration, Shiavo, stem cells, and the SCOTUS issues at risk, the party coalition that Reagan built and I participated in which won us the majorities in all three branches has disintegrated and is no more........

Putting humpty Dumpty back together at this point is not possible and probably not even desirable for any of the various groups. The only way this occurs is if the Dem's take full control and then all the little problems pale when compared to the primary problem, that being the democrat reformation of what once was a Republic as they transform us into a Euro-style democracy complete with a Parliament that calls it's self the Congress.

This did not need to happen, but it did because of a lack of leadership. There was nobody to set the priorities and calm the political debate waters. People like Limbaugh and others who I have a lot of respect for, called this wrong and further increased the damage by encouraging the fight until a winner emerged, but there could never be a winner. The leadership vacuum assured that no winner would ever emerge and the damages became more or less permanent.

If McCain ever does actually pull off a miracle, he would be a automatic lame duck on day one. Congress would run roughshod over him and the admin, and it would be a joke. Every domestic and foreign policy initiative would be questioned and then set aside, and no progress would or could be made on anything at all. Some might think that a good thing, but the fact is, he would be forced to sign bills he can't support much as Bush is doing today. Overrides would be possible for nearly 100% of the vetoes.

Unfortunately, it is what it is. I think the party will reform eventually, and we could get some things going by 2012 at the earliest if we pickup some seats in 2010. If not, then 2014 midterms would be the new beginning or establish the new direction of the party.

I don't think there will be a lot of red meat in it for the social conservatives this time. The national party will be trimmed down and much more focused on seats. You will see the local parties grow stronger as a result and that's the way it should be, or should have been.

We were torn down from the bottom up, and the rebuild will have to come from the bottom up as well. Then and only then can the right leadership emerge at the top.

I consider these turncoats as just what they are. I don't and can't advocate their public positions, but I do understand what is behind them.

My critique is for inside use.I would never go against the party and vote for a RAT no matter how disappointed I may be. The worst I could do is to forget to vote, and I have decided that I can't do that this year.

These turncoat Repubs are so far up the backside of Washington politics that they can't see that the Messiah is not anything like Bill Clinton. He is not a lucid democrat. He will not only allow leftist trash to pass by his desk, he will salt the government with advocates for the worst policies we could possibly enact.

His cabal of leftists who are supported by the socialist and communist parties of the USA will also have foreign roots. (and we know what that means)

No,,,,,,I will be voting for a man I despise but I should not be forced into that situation by a defective party, nor should anyone. We will lose that needed 5% to put our candidate over the top, and it could have been prevented.

I have never viewed politics through a principled eye, and it never was intended that we do so. The reason is largely that many of our conservative principles are not universally accepted by all our voters, and they never will be. The coalition has many varied and closely held views. When we bring them to the front and use them as a wedge against the left, we also shoot ourselves in the foot, each and every time if we do not consider the consequences..

It just IS what it is and we and our party leadership or lack of it, has screwed the pooch on this one.

The coalition has many varied and closely held views. When we bring them to the front and use them as a wedge against the left, we also shoot ourselves in the foot, each and every time if we do not consider the consequences..

I disagree. Lee Atwater and Karl Rove both did it brilliantly and at appropriate times on appropriate issues. Atwater went after Dukakis's intellectually lazy, liberal fuzziness and detachment from reality (the rapist debate question when he flunked the Human Race Test, the tank ride, Willie Horton). Rove used down-ballot issues to sharpen differences (real differences) and bring hesitant or otherwise-disengaged social conservatives to the polls. All fair and square, never mind the incessant whining of the press -- they'll always whine when their guy loses.

But you can't keep broadening the message to try to broom in people who Just. Don't. Care., without losing a lot of your own base groups that are the easiest to motivate, engage, and recruit for volunteer work. The GOP has done that a lot under the leadership of the Wall Street/Rockefeller/Ford/Dole/Bush wing.

Besides -- since when has "catering" to the principles of your own party's backers and constituents become "pandering"? Was it "pandering" when William Jennings Bryan stood up and thundered against the "Cross of Gold"? Press people have got a mouth on them, and the Party needs strong, articulate voices to use some strong rhetoric on the press snarkers and snarlers, engage, refute, and then rebuke their sorry asses in fora where they can't control, edit, or modulate your message, where you are going to get out, 5 X 5 and no distortion. Make like Samson, and part their hair with the jawbone of an ass.

Bushel-basket optional, lol.

You can use those hot button issues that only 10-20% of the base care about, but you must use them locally and not nationally.

For example, it was a huge mistake to advocate for a constitutional amendment on marriage! It not only failed, it broke off pieces of the base who could not go along and things like this were done multiple times as in the case of Shiavo, the Ports and immigration.

I never said you had to hide the issues. You can use them, but "all politics is local".

The Dem's saw what we did and as a result did not make the same mistakes in this cycle. It is those little Obama quotes to local constituencies that we are grasping and trying to use against him, but they are not effective because they remained local.

I tried like hell to warn against this crap years ago. The party blew it after the 2004 cycle, but it began around 2002. It was then that the warring began within the party and it peaked in 2006.

Now there are few still fighting because the decision to dismantle the party has already been made. In other words, it's all over but the cleanup.

You can continue to believe that if a issue is deemed to be conservative, it will work every time it is tried. The fact is, it may or may not, depending on internal support by the coalition. You can say that the coalition does not matter, but without it, you can't win a national election where margins are single digit.

Reagan understood this.................The GOP party hacks have dismissed it and done so to their own demise.

I think 5X5 is the rebuilding stage, the Republican message has been muddled to the point that there is no distinction and little difference on wide support issues like domestic spending.

Consider that the House Republicans spent an entire summer break on the House Floor to advocate for drilling, only to have even that moment snatched away in the addled minded “Bailout Bill”, we played directly into Pelosi’s hands with that issue.

As for the Vichy Republicans list, I googled Vichy Republicans, the term originated in a Hotline blog post in 2005, and from a Major in Iraq speaking about Republicans and others who sought to cut off funding for the Iraq War.

“and you blame the dog...”

Misses the point, the people on the list have either endorsed Obama, or simply savaged Sarah Palin, you cannot have messaging when the so called “Opinion Leaders” are too busy attacking the VP pick to bother to hit the Democrat Presidential pick.

That makes little sense, and yet the David Frum’s of the world are blaming Limbaugh for daring to support Governor Palin, they have outlived their utility, and you’d have there to be no repercussions for their actions, not even a general disdain for their words.

Nay, the list will and should be inclusive, a Big Tent of Vichy Republicans be they opinion leaders or has beens.

Like a family argument in any home, the participants will stomp around, slam the doors and cuss a blue streak.

Time will make the anger subside, the memory fade and as soon as something more important becomes the primary issue, the entire family will reunify.

There will be some who have burned their bridges to the extent that no further relationship is possible. I think those we already know like Powell and a few others, but very few. Most of them are all washed up anyway and have ditched their party but they keep all the same friends. Nothing will change for them. They used up their republican credentials however.

It is my hope that within three to four years, a couple of them will publicly admit their mistake.

You mentioned Frum........he achieved what he wished for with a membership in a conservative think tank. He feels vindicated. He has had nothing to lose and has attacked the party for 12 years.....he still has the same friends, he still pays no price and why would he.

Politics has many strange bedfellows. It's a process, not a religion written on paper. Frum considers himself to be a conservative, So does Pat Buchannon, a dozen or so famous and infamous preachers, a bunch of whine and cheese intellectuals, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush one and two, and you and I and about 20 to 30 percent of the public...

We do not all agree on every issue or even most of them, but we do agree that liberalism is bad.

Frum truly does not see Obama for what he is because his opinions are formed in DC and not in the real world. They see Obama as a Democrat and Democrats run left in the primary and center in the general. They govern generally from the center.

Unfortunately for Frum and all of us, Obama is not a Democrat. He is and will soon expose himself as a radical leftist.

This country will get a learning experience and will suffer great damage. I just hope that it can heal it's self and most importantly learn from the experience.

As to this list, I don't like the idea of lists.....

I don't think we better ourselves or represent our party by ostracizing those who don't tow the party line. If we do that we are no better than them....

But we are better than them! we have always been better and even more so now. let's not prove that we are the same. that's all I am saying here.....That's really the point.

I disagree Cold Heat, they cannot have it both ways, and neither should the Vichies be allowed to be Opinion Leaders for Conservatism a moment longer.

Bob Novak was a lifelong Democrat for example, yet even while ill, perhaps fatally so, managed to pen a piece that was constructive that gave a favorable look at Governor Palin, yet the ones who could not bring themselves to do even that are to be allowed to influence Conservative opinions via appearances in places like Townhall?

A list is fraught with hazard, both seen and unseen, in this case the Daily Koz kids had a thread with 1,000 posts to it about this very thread, the main topic was “The upcoming Republican Civil War” a notion I hardily disagree with, however there are and should be bright and clear lines, attacking a VP Nominee simply because it is fashionable is one of those lines that the Vichy have crossed, if I had my way, they would never be allowed to forget their treachery.

And the other notion, we are only 30% of the population has little weight in my view, even if we were 1% of the population, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, if we allow this to stand, were will the next faux line in the sand be drawn?

I know, perhaps they could write columns excoriation Republicans with the unmitigated gall to oppose Obama’s plans?

That is the path that is being trodden upon and the direction they are taking, if they will not stand with us now, when, exactly will they bother to stand with us?

That is the path that is being trodden upon and the direction they are taking, if they will not stand with us now, when, exactly will they bother to stand with us?

I'm going to be as clear and as blunt as possible in this answer regarding when........

This pissing contest did not start in a vacuum. It began when social conservatives ramped up their attacks against the East Coast moderates to a unprecedented level during the Miers debate and most viciously during Shiavo.....

Traditionally they have accepted the religious based and social based component of the party electorate and even though the relationship has always been tenuous, the two factions have managed to get along for the most part. Reagan did a good job of forming the coalition in it's early days and that held up for a long time, until 2004. After repeated attacks, threats and smears in e-mail, and even on the House floor, they backed up and defended themselves. The water under the bridge has prevented any reconciliations to this point, and it will take a joint purpose and a dynamic republican leader to put these two factions back together.

The sad thing is that both are needed to win national elections or to even move the republican agendas forward. Without reconciliation, we will be relegated to the back seat as the Democrats make hay and history without us and in spite of us.

Those are the political realities, and if you can't see that or at least accept it and the responsibility that goes with it, then there really is no point to trying to grow the party. We may as well just hang it up and go home.

Political coalitions are fragile things. We saw the democrats blow up after the 2000 election and today we see the republicans do likewise. It takes a bit of tactful understanding to form a coalition and the constant knowledge that all these factions have differing agenda's but generally agree on three or more central issues.

When one faction tries to Bogart the agenda over the desires of another, there can be no coalition or certainly not a strong one.

“..Political coalitions are fragile things. We saw the democrats blow up after the 2000 election and today we see the republicans do likewise. It takes a bit of tactful understanding to form a coalition and the constant knowledge that all these factions have differing agenda’s but generally agree on three or more central issues....”

Perhaps, but with jaundiced eyed Opinion Leadership, we will never rebuild any sort of co-alition, add in the large money backed Obama in this election, and they have broken trust with us.

In my view, what is needed is new Opinion Leaders in the form of Columnists that are not part of a Fifth Column, and a better understanding of what our “three issues” are, as well as a recognition of the damage President Bush has done to the Republican Name.

In my view, Rove and Bush had the correct modern template for Republican Victories in 2004, minus the excessive spending and unpopluar Iraq War, things would have been much different in 06 and 08.

The Democrats will have their day, but that merely gives us a chance to straighten our own house, and start again.

as well as a recognition of the damage President Bush has done to the Republican Name.

I don't agree with that. Bush had to make a few unpopular decisions, but going back and looking twice, I see the same decisions being made.

He tried to hold the coalition together, but the unrelenting media bias and a very populist turn by society has severely damaged his public reputation....But not in my eyes.

I felt the same way about Nixon. Taken as a whole and looking at what he accomplished, his presidency was successful. I believe Bush will be vetted correctly by historians,in spite of the blame game going on now.

As to government growth, Reagan grew it as well. If government shrinks, it is only in reaction to less available money to spend. Bush did the best he could to reign in spending by advocating and passing tax cuts. Had not a long list of emergency measure been passed that blew through the budget authorizations, government would have at least remained stable in terms of capital outlays and commitments with the exception of medicare. But that's not what happened. The checkbook was seized by the spenders and pander bears,and they blew through all the constraints, as the next admin will also do.

They will do it until they can't or the credit rating of the country is damaged.

It does not matter what party you put in charge. As long as they can write checks, they will if the public demands it.

It is the public in the end who calls the shots. It is the public who should take the blame for excessive spending and the war in Iraq should not be responsible for the domestic excesses. The Dem's and some republicans used the political debate on the war to say that if we spend billions Iraq we should be spending billions domestically as it is only fair....LOL!

Democracy has many failures and this is certainly one of them. Public whims, political expediency, and party politics have all failed us and will continue to do so until there is no more money available to spend. It is what it is. It's a spending spree that began because of 9/11 and it has not stopped, nor will it until we break the bank.

And that day is not too far off and coming like a freight train.

Funny you should mention Nixon, he was the last two term Republican Centrist, and when Ford lost to Carter narrowly, the Republican Party was roadkill in the public political discourse.

We are facing a similar situation this election, it can be said “Carter led to Reagan” but it is just as true “Nixon led to Carter”.

The Republican “brand” Free Trade, Low Taxation, is on the verge of being discredited in this election, that is one of the real stories that is going unsaid by the Vichy, they played cheerleader for such a paradigm, it falls out of favor and their reaction is to attack Governor Palin and run for the tall grass or hope to be co-opted by Democrats for some small seat at the public policy table?

In order for Republican Conservatism to rise again, it must clearly deliniate the differences between themselves, and the Democrats, the failed Opinion Leaders do not seem to be prepared to do that, Brooks has said he sees 10-15 yrs of Democrat Dominance in DC.

Lionheart that one.

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.