Posted on 05/04/2009 2:25:32 PM PDT by AJKauf
One thing you said jumps right out at me. Sarah Palin will never attract “moderates” because of her pro-life, pro-gun positions. On those issues they will not compromise (and neither should she).
I was one of them. Note the name. That was the first time I ever voted for a Republican and the last time I ever voted for a Democrat. Once my mind was open to the duplicity of the Left, many (but not all) of my moderate positions became more conservative. In some ways, the Carter Administration did for me what The Black Panther Party did for David Horowitz. Nonetheless, I have been a registered independent for 38 years.
Reagan did not like Arlin. Not at all.
Sorry, REAGAN. Spelling on a soapbox is tough sometimes.
Also, one comment about Specter: In my opinion, his departure had nothing to do with being run out of the party. His switch was solely out of selfishness and self-preservation. He never was one of us to begin with.
This is where the charisma comes in. As I said, Reagan was anti-abortion, but did not run on it - nor did he change anything about it once he got there (other than provide verbal support for the movement). Sarah needs to pick her topics and run on the ones that will get her elected. It’s politics, after all.
You never see Democrats betraying their core principles: more government power, higher taxes, fewer individual rights, less personal freedom, identity politics, vilification of producers, glorification of parasites, class warfare, subsidies for degenerate behavior.
The GOP tolerates outright subversion of the core principles of conservatism: less government power, lower taxes, Constitutional rights for individuals, rewards for productive behavior. As such, the GOP is a party without clear principles. By purging RINOs, the GOP will come closer to defining itself as the party of freedom. The RINOs have a political home to which they can return - the Democrat party.
Loyalty to conservative ideals is only part of the problem, but this lack of principles is related to its other big problem - the elitist political class and their death-grip on the reins of power in the GOP. This is why Sara Palin is so hated by Romney and McCain. She threatens the elite political class. The RINO problem cannot be solved without also removing the power elites.
How is this for a flame? May I offer you a cigar for your perspicacity and also offer to light it for you?
Many Freepers need to better appreciate Reagan’s “big tent” philosophy. It does not mean abandoning your core principles. It means PRIORITIZING. I know more than a few pro-choice conservatives (and pro-life liberals). They don’t vote for the candidate espousing their position on that issue because other isues are more important.
Reagan resold the US on the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. The Constitution, a VERY new thing from the perspective of the last 2000 years of political science, was the first Contract with America.
If you view the Constitution as a contract, and show how Democrats have broken it, you win. It’s how Reagan won - “Government isn’t the answer to the problem, Government is the problem.”
If the GOP wants to move away from Reagan for marketing reasons, whatever. The GOP, however, can’t move away from the fact that the Constitution is a contract, and not a ‘living, breathing one’ either.
Imagine having a ‘living, breathing’ contract for any other good or service, where one side can change the agreement in the middle of the term, not based on an independent arbitration, but because agents of one party to that contract said they could.
The GOP has to go back to the basics - “Do you have the rights, and tell the government what rights they have, or does the government have all the rights, and tell you what rights you can and can’t have?” Start there. It gets pretty easy from that point on.
“What if killing old people became the law of your state, and you disagreed with it, would you want the option of moving to a state that wasn’t legal, without having to leave your country?” If you agree with this statement, you disagree with Roe v. Wade, and you also now understand why its bad law.
It’s as bad a law as a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, or a court-imposed ban on gay marriage everywhere. If you live in a state that supports it, you should have the option to live in a state that doesn’t, and vice versa.
“The Conservatives were in charge.”
Bingo.
You got it backwards. The Bush/McCain/Romney/Huckabee “moderates” do not tolerate conservatives.
Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.
They enjoy being invited the the limo-liberal events. Conservatives are called red necks, Bible thumpers, - they hate you and me.
But Rinos lost control of the party (most retired) for a while and now they have to lose again. That means we need a Newt-like effort to go out and speak, inspire and recruit conservatives to run for office. We have to take over the party machinery, the money, the voice and the agenda. Honestly, I think we are too split right now to change the Republican party. Many conservatives have given up on the party so it is a permanent minority right now. That is the way the Rinos like it.
Palin is a progressive in conservative clothing, just like Dole, Bush(s), and McCain.
In Reagan’s day, there were enough conservatives to offset the quislings. Today, the cowards have fled and we’re at the barricades. We have no room for sunshine soldiers when the enemy is on the move.
The “moderates” never did tolerate Reagan. And that is a fact.
You got the right. According to them, conservatives today are the “loons” and “nuts.”
Let me suggest to you, however, that part of the problem is that "Conservatism" is not a monolithic set of beliefs. There are many different brands that define themselves as "conservative" in one way or another, including social, fiscal, Catholic, Evangelical, pro-life, isolationists, globalists, protectionists, open-border, closed-border, and dozens of other brands....
The problem is that each of these is "conservative" in a particular way, and not all of the various brands are compatible between themselves. There is tension between them -- often a great deal of tension, or even outright contradiction.
It may not even be possible to "get absolutely clear what it means to be a conservative."
Reagan didn't really "define conservatism," so much as he defined a way for these various brands to more or less coexist. Reagan offered no single definition; but he did show us how to find enough common ground for conservatives to be effective.
As it stands today, "conservatives" of various stripes are in open conflict with one another -- each demanding complete acceptance of their point of view.
If "Conservatism" is to be revived, it's got to move away from that tendency to splinter over single-issue definitions of "conservatism."
We'll never be able to define a set of check-boxes that folks can simply fill in an "be conservative." what we need is to create a movement -- and a mindset -- where the inevitable disagreements can be handled in a civil and intelligent manner.
Perhaps the real problem with conservatism is conservatives who can't get over ourselves.
All these "moderates" are asking that conservatives accommodate Democrat policies and philosophies that the "moderates" agree with.
Some people, especially politicians, do strange things when they either get senile, or realize that they are gonna die before too long.
But they didn't do any such thing when Reagan was in charge, so we don't know how he'd have reacted to that.
Remember Reagan himself started as a Democrat moderate, and then saw the error of his ways. He did not ask the Democrat party to "accommodate" his new views.
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.