Conservative-GOP marriage over?

politico ^ | Monday May 7, 2012 | Craig Shirley

[Bigtigermike]

It should come as no surprise that the Republican National Committee has been “covertly” supporting Mitt Romney throughout the primaries, as POLITICO recently “revealed.” It was the worst-kept secret in Washington

Reagan, the über outsider, called for a “new Republican Party” back in 1977. Reagan wanted the GOP to shed its country club, corporate boardroom image and become a genuine conservative movement, focused on the individual.

Reagan’s words threatened the status quo of the scions and heiresses of the country club and corporate boardroom set. The former California governor and his conservative followers were never accepted by these insiders

[...]

The Republicans’ desire for power is usually stronger than any desire for restraint by conservatism. It always seems to leave conservatives disappointed.

Many conservatives have, in fact, decided that their beliefs have become permanently inconsistent with Republicanism. This may be more apparent in 2012 than ever before. No offense to Romney, but he is the perfect nominee for the Republican Party in 2012 because he — like the GOP — has adopted a variety of positions over the years in order to acquire power. The Etch A Sketch comment was stunningly accurate.

The “lesser of two evils” argument is now settling over the landscape. Perhaps. The “conservatives have no place else to go” storyline is being pushed. Maybe.

On the other hand, some conservatives now view this election as a clear Hobson’s Choice or possibly a Morton’s Fork. One choice is bad or nothing; the other between two bad options.

Conservatives should be clear-eyed, though. The job of the Republican Party is to deceive conservatives into handing over their support. This does not mean that conservatives can’t arrive at the conclusion that this choice is between the lesser of two evils.

But they should prepare to be disappointed.

[Manic_Episode]

The GOP is now a pro-choice party, among other things. It would be immoral for me to support, approve, submit or vote for Mitt, the Whig.

I'm not taking my ball and going home, I'm playing ball at another field.

I do kind of secretly hope Mitt does beat Obama, but he will have to do it without my vote.

[ExCTCitizen]

I don’t care if a third party gets the dems elected as my conservative beliefs are not being met by the GOP. I will continue to support conservative republicans but will not be bullied into electing a liberal in the GOP. The GOP is no longer a 100% lock on my vote.

The GOP never had me 100%. I voted Democratic before, but I know that voting 3rd party in this election will mean that the Marxist DICTATOR WANNA BE will trample the Constitution. He'll stack the SCOTUS with Marxists and then force Obamacare down our throats.

I will no longer be scared to vote third party if that is what is required to get a conservative elected.

You may never get a chance to vote for a CONSERVATIVE again, if Obama gets his wish. (I think he is more dangerous then Hugo Chavez).

If the GOP wants to get elected then they will have to move to the right

Agree, but we need to get the tea party people into the gop leadership

otherwise the dems will get elected and they will lose their power. It goes both ways the dem party gets elected if they do not support conservative values as well.

The American Zombie Party don't care for conservatives. What we CONSERVATIVES need to do is to talk to the union workers (the Reagan Democrats) and get them to join the gop.

However, as a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE... I want the government out of my life and my kids life.

[ExCTCitizen]

The Whig party is for the Moderates...

[zeugma]

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. This was her year. She had a large built-in base to operate from who were ready and motivated to take the charge to the foreigner in chief.

If she just wants to be another talking head, there's nothing really wrong with that, that's operating on a completely different level from actually being in the fight.

As for the GOP-E having her in their sights, do you really think there ever be a time when that won't be true?

[boxlunch]

Next time, the Republicans would be well advised to raise money, disband their circular firing squad, and support an electable conservative.

---

Choose ONE ahead of the R primaries, and then support that ONE with boatloads of money, time, commitment, etc. Choose the conservative BEFORE the primary season!

[papertyger]

Given my position is non-disprovable, I must concede to your reasoning.
I don’t like it. I don’t believe it. But damned if I can marshal an adequate argument against it.

[papertyger]

D.C. v. Heller.

I had considered that case in forming my challenge, but decided to challenge anyway, because I don't believe a case of such limited practical scope qualifies as moving our society substantively to the right.

[Darren McCarty]

The GOP is now a pro-choice party, among other things.

No it is not. Mitt Romney may very well be a pro-choice candidate, but the GOP is bigger than one man. Vote your conscience when it comes to Mitt, but there's a lot of other candidates running for different offices that call themselves Republican.

It's time that people think bigger than just one presidential candidate who controls 1/3 of the government.

[redpoll]

I appreciate your posts, especially these. You are correct, sir.

[papertyger]

Choose ONE ahead of the R primaries, and then support that ONE with boatloads of money, time, commitment, etc. Choose the conservative BEFORE the primary season!

We had one, but she, and we, succumbed to a protracted preemptive strike from the left and the GOPe.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks

[tomkat]

Today's reply, for what it's worth, to a GØP e-beg :

- - - - - -

You people make yourselves complicit in annointing ØbamaLite (aka Rømney) and then SERIOUSLY have the nerve to ask us to pay for it ? ? ?

If the chameleon creep wants it badly enough, you're welcome to help him get it, or he can buy it on his own.

Given the GOP's utter disdain for Conservative principles, this will be my last election as a registered Republican.

Please remove me from your mailing lists.

[tomkat]

- - - - - -

It wasn't nearly nasty enough .. sorry if it disappointed anyone else

[Manic_Episode]

" there's a lot of other candidates running for different offices that call themselves Republican"

==========================

If they are conservative I won't hold the R against them, but the top slot does set the tone.

[GJones2]

> The choice of the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. I refuse.

And thereby choose to allow the greater evil to prevail (under current political circumstances). In ordinary life we do things every day we’d rather not do because the alternatives to not doing them are worse.

I see nothing about an election that makes refusing to choose either of two disagreeable alternatives in any way virtuous. If the worse one prevails, your action — or inaction — has been partially responsible.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>I see nothing about an election that makes refusing to choose either of two disagreeable alternatives in any way virtuous.

There’s nothing virtuous of picking Willard over Barry-0. Nothing. Either way, we’re stuck with evil.

[x]

The RNC has always been the center of Republican insiderism — what the insiders call pragmatism. Consider, back when Roger Stone was at the Young Republicans, in 1975, he hung up a portrait of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in his office. Within hours, the order came down from the chairman’s suite: Take the picture down. At once.

Stone was not the only conservative with misgivings about the GOP. Reagan, the über outsider, called for a “new Republican Party” back in 1977. Reagan wanted the GOP to shed its country club, corporate boardroom image and become a genuine conservative movement, focused on the individual.

Okay, is that the Roger Stone who campaigned for Tom Kean and Arlen Specter and headed Specter's presidential bid?

Or is it the Roger Stone who backed Gary Johnson this year and just announced he was switching to the Libertarian Party.

Trick question: they're the same person.

It's hard to tell just who is the "establishment" or "the elite" and who isn't.

As with Roger Stone, you can be "establishment" or "elite" one year and a populist maverick the next.

You can be conservative and anti-establishment or moderate and establishment, but you can also be a conservative and very much a part of the party or ideological establishment and a moderate to liberal and very much an outsider.

Try this also from the article:

Many anti-establishment conservatives — including Mark Levin, Richard Viguerie, Vic Gold, Jeff Bell, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Don Devine and Joe Scarborough — have expressed profound misgivings that the GOP has evolved into an “insiders club only.”

For a lot of people, Tucker and Joe are as "establishment" (i.e. well-off and moderate to liberal) as anyone gets.

If they are outsiders, who are the insiders?

I doubt Bushite Sean Hannity and anti-Bushite Vic Gold have had much in common in recent years.

And Richard Viguerie has been playing at being "anti-establishment" so long that he's become very established himself.

Once you get a seat in the conclave -- even for a little while -- aren't you a part of the "insiders club"?

If all these people are "anti-establishment" they're anti-establishment in so many different ways as to make "establishment" a meaningless word.

[BlackElk]

Fair enough. In that event, it is a planted axiom that Romney is somehow better than Obozo. Both are absolutely terrible. Neither merits any conservative support whatsoever. Only Romney can destroy the GOP as a viable major party. He can and will do this by indulging his basic leftist instincts on all of the social issues, being an infernal elitist fuss-budget on capital punishment, doing nada to interfere with the ongoing holocaust of babies, and nada to interfere with Adam accessing the nether end of Bruce's digestive tract as though it were a sexual organ and calling it "marriage," and everything else we have come to expect from Romney including his pathological dishonesty as to issues. Romney can destroy the United States as easily and then some as Obozo can and Romney can destroy the United States with most Republican Senators acting as cheerleaders and co-conspirators since Romney would be "our guy."

To summarize, your point is well-taken that you did not specifically mention Romney's proclivities as to disastrous judicial appointments. Romney is actually a MUCH broader problem than SCOTUS and judges and a considerably worse problem than Obozo is capable of being. Romney is a problem across the board for those who are neither trust fund babies nor other members of the pampered, powdered and privileged class. The planted axiom was that somehow there might be a legitimate argument that Romney is somehow better than Obozo.

[BlackElk]

I took the pleasant trouble to review your homepage on the subject of Nathan Bedford Forrest. I looked hard at how you would handle Fort Pillow and I think you did a very fair and well-informed job of handling that. Forrest was, in most respects, a very fine man who was neither perfect nor some plaster saint but a very fine cavalry officer who earned the right to be feared by his Union foes.

That having been said, I cannot imagine Nathan Bedford Forrest, if he were alive in our time, casting his ballot for the likes of Romney.

I also agree with your preference for Thomas Jonathan Stonewall Jackson, perhaps the finest battlefield military commander and one of the very finest men that this nation has ever produced.

[BlackElk]

Ilovesarah2012:

Your daughter is remarkably and uncommonly wise and prescient and you should be proud of her. You must have done a lot of things in raising her that were verrrrry right. Ponder what she is saying and consider joining in her wisdom. There is no point in voting for Obozo OR for Romney. They are two of a kind, right down to their despicable campaign tactics.

[BlackElk]

Thank you for your kind words! God bless you and yours!