Goodbye GOP

Two developments in the Republican Party point to its future: South Carolina's Jim DeMint announced his retirement from the United States Senate to serve as president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the Reuters News Service reports that GOP House Speaker John Boehner is purging conservative Tea Party members from key committees "as he seeks to tighten control over his unruly caucus ahead of difficult votes on 'fiscal cliff' issues."

You see, it matters not how conservative a Republican you send to Congress if his vote (and yours indirectly) is negated by the gelding brothers John Boehner (House) and Mitch McConnell (Senate).

"I've decided to join The Heritage Foundation at a time when the conservative movement needs strong leadership in the battle of ideas," said Sen. DeMint in a statement announcing his departure from the Senate. DeMint told the Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger, "This is an urgent time, because we saw in the last election we [Republicans] were not able to communicate conservative ideas that win elections."

In short, DeMint had an epiphany: His party's leadership is unable to "communicate conservative ideas" because they and the party they lead are not conservative. And believing they are requires a tortured redefinition of the term "conservative."

I have been a registered Republican my entire adult life. But the neutering of the GOP by its establishment mafia has left me no choice: At the earliest opportunity, I'll part company with the Party of Lincoln and register as an Independent.

I can't support a party that has become nothing more than the women's auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

I don't think the Republican Party needs to be abandoned. Nor does it need to be blindly supported. Instead, in a manner akin to Grover Norquist's no tax pledge, lovers of liberty need to work out a simple pledge to support the US Constitution and require candidates to support it. If those candidates feel the need to run under the umbrella of the GOP, that's fine - they should not be penalized for adopting a label. If those candidates decide to run as Libertarians or Independents, then likewise - the label is not important. The pledge is.

When a candidate decides to support unconstitutional legislation, or backs a huge and horrible bill because there is something in it he likes, he loses the support of the lovers of liberty. Maybe the GOP can save him, maybe they won't both. We don't care. We'll be supporting the next candidate who does.

The GOP is just a tool. We can use it, sometimes, when necessary. But all of our candidates need to oppose unconstitutional legislation and administrative overreach as a first principle, whatever label they choose to adopt.

“Isn’t that akin to saying that, if rape is inevitable, you would lie back and enjoy it?”

Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid, not even with duct tape. With so many Americans now willing to support a Marxist because they lack the mental and/or emotional intelligence to discern what is happening, it’s just a matter of time before the remaining freedom-lovers must make a choice. It’s that simple. In addition to our own home-grown Takers, within the next few years we’ll have a huge influx of immigrants from the south who will be more than willing to participate in the Obamaclause charade.

You call it fatalism — I call it realism. ;)

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.