Posted on 01/20/2007 11:06:08 AM PST by Clintonfatigued
For decades, the conservative movement has been the animating force of the Republican Party, providing the ideas and energy that catapulted candidates to the GOP presidential nomination and, often, the White House.
But as conservatives survey the 2008 field — and, particularly, the early Republican front-runners — many are despairing. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani have all broken with conservative orthodoxy at one time or another. Many activists have neither forgiven nor forgotten.
"There's absolutely no contender that is a bona fide conservative," said K.B. Forbes, who has worked for a number of conservative candidates and causes since the 1990s. "We have insiders, squishes and moderates running for president."
The candidate closest to the heart of social conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, plans to formally launch his White House bid today with a speech in Topeka. But even those who admire Brownback, and especially his Senate leadership opposing abortion, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research, question the viability of his candidacy.
"Brownback has to prove he can win," said Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
Land sees different problems for the three leading GOP hopefuls. "Most social conservatives at present are uncomfortable with McCain," he said. "They're appalled by Giuliani." As for Romney, Land said, "He has to convince social conservatives he's become one of them."
It's a striking state of affairs, given the ascendance of the conservative movement since 1964. Although he was crushed in the general election that year, Arizona's Barry Goldwater wrested the Republican Party from its Midwest and Eastern roots, starting a realignment that eventually turned the GOP into the party of Ronald Reagan, the Sunbelt and the
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I told you, I would defend your right to speak out. What more do you want? That doesn't mean I agree with you. You act as though I've committed some horrible offense. I call that a juvenile response. If you take exception to my posts, fine, lets hear your opinion. We view the 2006 election results differently. You want to blame conservatives. I think the ultimate responsibilty lies with Bush&Company. The facts simply don't support your contention. Pi$$ing off your political base, serves no good purpose.
Fair enough. I am concerned, sir, that you have bought into the Fabian myth of the inevitability of leftward drift in Western Republics. If all you are concerned with is Republican predominance, then know that history proves that conservative actions eventually prevail with the American electorate even in the face of ferocious media attempts to discredit them. What you fabianistically label "far right" is moderate. Polls prove nothing, as even a quite cursory examination of the history of polls proves. The point is that conservative policy works, and common sense will eventually coalesce about that which works.
LOL
I agree . I don't think the *purists* are reliable. No one is good enough for them but candidates who could never win. I think it is wise for us to start to appeal to other voters rather than trying to placate those who are unlikely to support us anyway - no matter who the nominee is.
Wow, you not only missed the barn door, you missed the barn.
Reagan created, as you said, a "coalition". But I remember time and time again when Reagan was criticized for NOT being a conservative. He was challenged for runaway spending, with unparalleled to that time deficits, though he called for a decrease in the rate of spending.
He brilliantly sold as much wheat to the Soviet Union, the "Evil Empire", as he could. And he was roundly damned for doing that--by people who didn't see that our wheat was draining the life out of their economy like a vampire.
Time and time again, he did things his way, and to heck with whatever liberals or conservatives wanted, and he was generally right. Tip O'Neil complemented him for overwhelming democrats by doing things on their agenda they never dreamed they could do.
So was Reagan a conservative? In balance, yes. But though he carried their flag, he led and they followed. He was not *their* conservative, *their* candidate. He transcended conservatism to make a great presidency.
And that is my point. If you look at George W. Bush today, and you make a great checklist of what he has done, many items on that list are conservative. Many are liberal. And the vast majority go well beyond that level of philosophy.
Bush, like Reagan, is concerned with the USA, not just today, but years or decades in the future. From the lofty perch of the office of the president, they are less concerned with the petty squabbles of people today, then they are of grand designs, carefully constructed to benefit our nation long after they have gone.
And *that* is the candidate conservatives want.
Neither one. Rush is just an entertainer, probably couldn't lead an Easter parade. Savage is a buffoon who make a mockery of conservatives, his self-serving invectives make my skin crawl.
Well and truly stated. Now, what Pubby prospective candidate fits that fold?
revisionist--is that how it's spelled?--or does it start with a "P?"
That's what we loved about him. We believed he was at least TRYING to be a conservative!!! Some of these RINO's are just sickening from the git-go!!!
You are not going to get a *perfect* candidate in the GOP. You need to accept less than perfection or try another party - like the Constitution Party.
You called that right! "Be afraid! Be very afraid!"
Is that a threat?
Yeah, Pat and the Brigadiers are always ready to Ride to the Sound of The Guns. LOL
The social conservatives are about 11% of the population. The independents are about 45%. It is imperative to appeal to the independents.
That's bunk.
I overheard an interesting suggestion yesterday - the team of Gingrich & Bolton!
You may want to take a look at the Constitution Party.
Disaster on foreign policy (at least according to 'conservatives') = opposition to needless bombing and invasion of nations that do not represent a threat to this nation of states
Considering the average voter's past actions last November, both he and Brownback may look very good to conservatives that are tired of Republican nation building.
Right. So will John Murtha.
Cut and run, billbears.
The Liberal faction of the Free Republic needs a good bath.
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.