Posted on 03/04/2007 4:15:07 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Anger on Display Among Conservative PAC Audience
Sunday , March 04, 2007 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — America's conservatives are mad and they're not going to take it anymore.
That was the message the movement's leaders delivered throughout the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. last week.
One after another, conservatives told FOXNews.com that they are angry, irritated, frustrated and in some cases depressed. And the target of their angst and ire is none other than the Republican Party, which wants and needs their support to win the 2008 presidential election and avoid losing more seats in the Senate and House next election.
Many of these conservatives, whose national stars began to rise with the presidential election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, described the GOP's state of affairs in Washington with words like "failed," defeated" and "in the grave."
"The Republican Party apparently has a death wish, but that doesn't mean we conservatives have to go along with it," Richard Viguerie, a movement veteran who helped elect Reagan, said during his wildly-received speech delivered Thursday. "Let's focus on the conservative movement, not the GOP."
"We've got to stop being lackeys of the Republican Party. We've got to be a third force," said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an online activist network. He is running as a Republican in the June special election to replace the late Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., who died of cancer on Feb. 13.
Several candidates vying for the GOP nomination appeared at the conference. But one — Arizona Sen. John McCain — was notably absent, and the frontrunner in generic opinion polls — former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — acknowledged to the crowd that he has differences with his audience on social issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I hope you can find someone that you can get excited about and support. Several that you mentioned seem like good prospects.
Rino
That was a good post. I can't disagree with any of it.
That was a good post. I can't disagree with any of it.
There is not a working conservative majority. There has been no change in Roe vs. Wade. No change in partial-birth abortion (and with Rudy, there never will be). Name me any significant achievement for the socon cause. In fact, the only significant domestic achievement of the Republican regime has been tax cuts, which are a fiscal conservative victory (not the socons are opposed to them in any way whatsoever; they know taxes are anti-family). A "contract" to kill the IRS and give us a flat or fair tax would mobilize lots of support, but it only appeals to the rank-and-file citizen. Special interests want special targeted tax breaks, and will pay for them. All we have is our votes, and the non-conservatives, whether Bush, Romney, Rudy, McCain, or whoever, know we have to vote for them, or have Hillary, Hussein, or Algore.
Search DuncanHunter, go back to Dec., November, that's when they started it. That link I gave you will show what has been going on for 3 months against Hunter posts. I'm explaining this for the benefit of lurkers, because I'm pretty sure you know better.
I won't answer any more of your questions, go look or believe what you want.
Here's the link again of one snarky comment on a Hunter thread.Post # 69. There are TONS of them, which I posted at #122, but it was pulled.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795070/posts?page=74#74
Roe is one vote away from going down, and the next two retirements from the SCOTUS - are liberals.
I hope that Newt will get in.For our sake and our childrens sake.
Thanks, I am currently leaning pretty hard towards Duncan Hunter, but I admit that many things about his situation worry me. The fact that he's a Congressman is an issue but isn't too big an issue. At one time, being vice-president was considered a dead-end job. Today, the vice-presidency is considered the stepping stone to winning a party's nomination. Maybe Duncan Hunter can be the many who changes the fortunes of House of Representatives members. The fact that he isn't likely to win his home state regardless of his current office is troubling. The fact that he doesn't have executive experience to any great extent is troubling. Against these things is the fact that he's very good on the issues. Ultimately, I want someone who will do the right thing in office.
Another candidate who is appealing is Tommy Thompson. He has a pretty good resume. I don't see him generating the excitement to win, but if we vote as adults for a change, we should consider him. I like his executive experience. I like that he was an originator of welfare reform. His plan for Iraq would be to divide the country into states with a great deal of autonomy. He thinks that the Iraqi government will continue to have trouble because no one really wants it to work. Each of the groups over there would have more enthusiasm if the defining governmental force in their lives were more aligned with their demographic group.
I haven't researched Jim Gilmore. I think he's a pretty standard Republican on the issues. He has the right experience from what I know.
Newt Gingrich doesn't appeal to me. He just doesn't seem to be the kind of leader who would be a good executive. He was great at retaking Congress, but he didn't administer things very well. I fear that he'd be the same way as president. On the other hand, I could put a Newt Gingrich bumper sticker on my car with no problem and knock on some doors for him.
Ultimately, I may end up being more involved in a U.S. Senate campaign in 2008 than I am in the presidential campaign, but having someone I respect at the top of the ticket would help me feel better about all of my volunteer activities.
Bill
"I scribbled a note on my request for funds from the RNC stating that they would see not a penny from me until there is a real conservative candidate for Pres (including and especially social conservative, not to mention fiscal). When there is, I'll send as much $$ as I possibly can to help."
Thanks for the idea. I think I'll do that, too.
Gingrich would be a good chief of staff, driving policy.
Because it was over a decade ago, and I have little idea what those euphemistic "acts" really covered, I can't say what really survived from the contract. Basically it was a broad-based conservative agenda; the first time I can remember when a party laid out a platform they actually intended to enact. As I remember it, GIngrich and his allies wanted to kill PBS and the Dept. of Education. There was talk of radical tax reform, not just a few cuts. It was a heady time for conservatives of all types. Then Gingrich caved in to Clinton on the govt. shutdown (IIRC) and things went downhill. Then came Bush & "compassionate conservatism."
Lots of us are very disturbed at turning the Party over to people who are no more conservative than Lieberman, on the unsubstantiated theory that they are the only ones who will win the WOT. That kind of compromise is what got us into this mess. If frustrated conservatives attack Rudy for playing all the PC pandering games like a typical liberal Democrat, that's understandable. Can anyone imagine Reagan, or even Ford, Dole, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc. cavorting in drag or marching in gay parades? Is that Presidential? Is that what will inspire the troops risking their lives every day in the WOT?
Since well before the election. But the party leadership seems to think that turning left is the correct path.
I did that too. I might as well have spit in the sea. They continue to send me solicitations with dire warnings about Pelosi, Hillary, etc. I think the sad fact is they don't really need the small contributions from people like us. They mainly want us to show up and vote, and they play these fear games, just like they are now with Rudy. The Party bosses will nominate Rudy, or anyone who they think can win, because that means thousands of patronage jobs for their hangers-on. They are not interested in causes. As I said, it's a racket, and principles, whether socon, neocon, or libertarian, have very little to do with it.
Me too. I'm praying for Newt.
A democRAT President to go with the House and Senate?
Face it - if the Republicans aren't going to be conservative, people will stay home on election day.
Now, I don't want to turn this into a Rudy vs. whoever thread: my point is, I think the authors are right that conservatives want someone who will seek to utterly defeat our enemies, not have a "new tone" or get along with them.
This is what I sensed at C-PAC---that conservatives/Republicans were desperate for someone who would actually fight, not "get along." Mitt Romney got some of his biggest applause when he talked about not only vetoing spending bills from the Dems, but also Republicans.
My sense at the convention was that this desire to fight on SOME ISSUES---ANY ISSUES---and win trumped what, specifically, those issues might be.
I'm not even a Rudy supporter (I am a Ron Paul supporter) but I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone is so worked up about that. It was a joke. What's the big deal?
I absolutely agree. I love Newt, but he was much more effective to the cause before he became speaker and IMHO he would not be effective as president of the U.S. And before anyone asks me "why," I can't really tell you why or quantify it for you, it's just my gut feeling. (Which could also be the two chili dogs topped with cheese and habanero hot sauce that I had for supper acting up, LOL!)
I would likely join you, except that there are no strong anti-big-government candidates to be found. They all seem to have avoided the race and left the anti-gun, abortionist, anti-free-speech, government-healthcare-loving leftist RINOs in their place.
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.