Will GOP follow moderates into oblivion? [RINOs are stupid, arrogant losers]

Republican stalwarts are fond of recalling the 1992 Democrat National Convention, and the manner in which Bob Casey Sr., the Governor of Pennsylvania, was prevented from giving a speech on account of his strident pro-life views. Here was the incontrovertible proof that Democrats censor and oppress those who do not toe the party line.

What is rarely recalled is that, four years later in the Republican National Convention, the official party policy was to avoid any mention whatsoever of the entire abortion issue. GOP candidate Bob Dole sought to sidestep controversy that party insiders feared might be overly "divisive," since that is how the major media and the Democrats portrayed defining moral issues such as abortion. With the conservative base thoroughly dispirited by this and a host of similar actions, Dole lost that race, leaving the Republicans to flounder for another four years.

Dole's fate was consistent with the pattern of Republican presidential candidates and their regard for conservatism in general. Those who boldly and unabashedly carried the conservative "torch" have done well, while any who attempt to "move to the center" and "find common ground" with the left will be abandoned by conservative voters. John McCain, while claiming to do both, succeeded at neither. And his electoral results proved it.

Herein lies the picture of a losing Republican "strategy" to which its liberal members doggedly cling, despite results that have been consistently disastrous over the years. Every attempt to water down the GOP platform, in a futile quest to widen its appeal, has had exactly the opposite effect. Seeking to portray themselves as standing for everything, such self-serving party insiders are rightly recognized as standing for nothing.

Nevertheless, an infuriatingly effective ruse from media liberals and Democrat political hacks has been to convince congressional Republicans to "moderate" (read: accommodate the liberal agenda). When voters exhibit their outrage by abandoning such Republicans at the polls, those same Democrats assert loudly that the party is still "too conservative" and thus needs to drink more of the poison that has been killing it. Cowardice, whether in day to day life or in the political arena, is by definition easy to manipulate. Thus the most timid Republicans can be counted upon to follow this lead.

Arlen Specter's recent official abandonment of the Republican Party (as opposed to the unofficial manner in which he has been doing so for years) provides a powerful case in point. Since Specter made his announcement to switch to the Democrats, liberal activists such as James Carville have predictably insisted that the move represents undeniable proof of an excessively narrow governing philosophy among the Republicans. Thus, we are told, the only winning strategy is for the GOP to move even further left, in order to accommodate the likes of Specter.

"Conventional wisdom," stubbornly promoted by the ruling class on both sides of the aisle, insists that the ultimate purpose of a political party is to get its members elected to office. In truth, such a notion represents defining evidence of a party in decline. The founding purpose of a political party is always to advance a particular set of ideas. The chances of those ideas being adopted as public policy will increase with greater popular support and the strength that lies in numbers, a party is established to move the particular banner forward.

Unfortunately, at some point along the way, those doing the moving and shaking inevitably shift their focus from "the cause" to their own fortunes, at which point the true ideology that undergirded their formation into a party is likely to take a back seat to the presumed pragmatism of the moment.

It is at this juncture that the present day Republican Party is completely foundering, and will continue to do so unless its reins can be seized by a cabal of true conservatives who are neither willing to accept a thoroughly biased view of the world as presented on the nightly news, or cowed by the inevitable personal attacks against them from the left. Efforts to make the party more appealing by mimicking the Democrats will neither ingratiate the party to the news anchors nor inspire voters to rally to it. Who could be expected to derive inspiration from a cheap imitation of the hard-left, when the real thing is readily available from the Democrats?

It is wholly frustrating to the conservative base that the road to Republican victory lies so blatantly in front of myopic party insiders, yet they refuse to recognize it. In the wake of Bill Clinton's 1992 electoral mandate with its "resounding" forty-eight percent of the vote, Newt Gingrich rallied his party to adopt a conservative manifesto known as the "Contract With America." Despite media coverage that was universally disparaging, Gingrich led the Republicans to a stunning victory in the 1994 mid-term elections.

Had Gingrich remained true to his principles, he may well have thoroughly routed the Democrats, including Bill Clinton, in 1996. It was only when he as House Speaker, along with then Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, essentially validated Clinton's fiscally excessive policies by caving in to him on the 1995 budget showdown that Republican momentum was rebuffed.

A similar opportunity exists for Republicans now, if a sufficient number have the courage and forthrightness to recognize and seize upon it. Americans are no more enthused at the prospect of Republican "cooperation" with the left than they were in 2006 or 2008. And despite media stories to the contrary, a considerable backlash against the severe overindulgences of the Obama Administration looms.

Whether or not that sentiment ever coalesces into a renewed Republican vitality will depend solely on the character of party leaders, who can either listen to the discredited "moderate experts" and consign themselves to permanent minority status, or seize the moment on behalf of traditional America and ride it to victory.

I’ll fight for what I believe in. But when it comes to casting a vote in an election, I’m not sure that not voting, or voting for the lesser of the two candidates, could ever help me to “fight for what I believe in”.

I believe in a lot of things. If there are two candidates, and one candidate will be on my side for 70% of the things I am fighting for, and the other for about 10% of the things I am fighting for, I’m not sure how logically I should not vote for the 70% candidate, because I AM fighting for a lot of different things.

The only reason I can see to not vote for the 70% candidate is if you have a pretty solid majority of conservatives in a voting area, and know that if you reject the moderate, the next election cycle you can replace the democrat with a conservative.

We did that in 1994, so it isn’t impossible — but the conservatives of 1994 became the moderates of 2000, became the losers of 2006.

We need to win over a majority of the electorate, and I can see that having “republicans” who do the wrong thing makes that harder. So I do understand the desire to get rid of the “bad republicans”. I just don’t see a winning strategy in the current rhetoric that would reject voters who don’t agree with us 100%, and that appear to put us in a permanent minority.

If solidly conservative Americans were 40% of the electorate, I could see us getting there with this strategy. But the number isn’t anywhere near that. And the more we scream about purity for the 20% who are, the easier it is for a liberal media to dismiss any candidate we support as obviously far-right and out-of-the-mainstream.

It doesn’t help that if we have a solidly conservative candidate but he says something that sounds like pandering, we immediately attack and demand they re-take the purity oath. Why would anybody want to run as a conservative if you can’t please the base no matter what you do, and if doing so makes you toxic to the majority of the electorate?

Look at Ric Santorum. He made a serious error, but he was otherwise a strong conservative, and conservatives abandoned him for that one error. There are conservatives abandoning Jim DeMint for the same reason — one “error” in their minds over a political support issue, and he is no longer “conservative enough”.

I’ve seen others reject solid conservatives because they weren’t sufficiently strident on immigration, or because they didn’t support pro-life to the womb, or they said something nice about a democrat once. Rush’s poster-child for conservative, Bobby Jindal, was nearly run out of conservative-town on the rails because of a decision he made at the start of his term as Governor. A couple of the really strident conservatives have even attacked Palin for being insufficiently pure.

Of course, here at FR we regularly go after each other for perceived failings in the purity test.

I wouldn’t vote for someone who had a lack of integrity, or a lack of character. Beyond that, I presume there could be a case where the choices are so bad I would choose not to vote, but that has never happened in my lifetime of voting.

My line is more secure when it comes to who I would send money to — I never gave a dime to John McCain, even though I voted for him.

In a primary, you find the candidate who best espouses conservative principles. I have had times I didn’t vote in a primary because we couldn’t get ANY candidates to run who were really conservative.

When I get a chance to vote on ISSUES, rather than on people who then represent me, it is easy to vote the correct side of issues, and I do so.

And when I write to my representatives, I tell them to do what is right. I don’t compromise on my principles to make people like me, or to try to get people to listen. The question is whether voting for the BETTER candidate is considered a “compromise” if none of the candidates are perfect.

RINO's are arrogant, and they are losers. But at this point in time, given the fact that the extreme, wacky left is in control of Washington, I would take a RINO over a Democrat. At least with most RINO's, capitalism would not be under attack the way it is under this admin and congress. And things like the first two amendments of the constitution (heck, all of the constitution) would not be as heavily under attack with RINO's calling some of the shots.

Having said this, though, RINO's need to be willing to work with conservatives moreso than they have been in recent years. I live in NY State (for now), and I can see what a disaster it is when RINO's have a death grip on the state GOP. Bottom line, the RINO's need to stop lecturing conservatives and joining in on the attacks on some of our candidates (Palin, for one), and they need to recognize that the Marxist in the White House is the enemy.

I wouldn’t cast a vote just because of that (R). I vote for what is best for the country and when given two choices on election day, the choice is obvious.

I campaign for the best possible conservative candidate prior to voting day, but when that day comes, we all have a choice to make and I do what I think is right.

Everything I learned about Obama before the election told me all I needed to know about who I should vote for in the end. I wasn’t rewarding bad behaviour, I was trying to prevent the national crisis that we are in with Obama and the Dem’s in control of our country.

Obama is just getting started and look at what he’s done. Look at what a Democrat controlled congress has done. Changes are being made that may forever change the very fabric of our great nation. We are in more danger than we have ever been since 9/11.

The only comfort I have is knowing that I tried to prevent it on election day.

Nobody can count on my vote because of what party they belong to.

I evaluate the candidates, and make my choice based on two criteria.

First, I rank the candidates based on desirability, which for me consists of three criteria: conservative principles, character, intelligence. Probably in that order.

Second, I choose the candidate highest in ranking that has ANY chance whatsoever of winning. Meaning I would sometimes vote for a less conservative candidate if I felt that the less conservative candidate could win while the more conservative candidate would never win with my vote. BTW, I fault nobody who skips that step and votes for the most desirable candidate on their list, without regard to winnability.

If there are no candidates that can “win” that I have any interest in, then I would vote for the candidate highest on my list to “send a message”. Note that I put “putting a decent person into office” above “sending a message”, again others do not and I don’t fault them for their choice.

It makes no difference which candidates are “D” vs “R” vs “I”, although I don’t believe I’ve voted for a democrat since my first election in Maryland where I voted for a conservative democrat over a liberal independent when the republican was nonexistant.

I am not currently a member of the Republican party. I lapsed my membership last fall, after the TARP fiasco.

The steps you take in evaluating candidates, ranking them and making a final choice mirror my own.

I’m still registered as a Republican and have donated to the RNC in the past. However, I started sending a message rather than money last year.

When I said I vote for the “R” on voting day, I was referring to presidential elections. In my experience there hasn’t been one presidential election in my lifetime (50+ years) where there were more than two candidates that could possibly win the election. In those instances I have always voted for the Republican candidate. That being said, I can’t think of any other elections where I’ve voted for a Democrat, but I think somewhere along the way I may have voted for an Independent.

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.