Posted on 11/17/2008 5:43:42 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
To listen to some Republicans, not to mention, the braying of media outlets such as MSNBC, and even, here and there, a few economic libertarians, you would think that traditional conservatives, the defenders of the unborn and the integrity of marriage as a venerable and ancient institution, were responsible for two wars gone sour, over-spending at a level to embarrass Lyndon Johnson, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society, numerous cases of GOP corruption and betrayal of the public trust centering around earmarks and political favors and the miserable results in the presidential and congressional elections just passed.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, not this writer's first choice for the job of vice president, has now become the target for patronizing comments by the chattering classes who can't tell a moose hunt from an Easter egg hunt. For some of these enlightened minds, Governor Palin's loving acceptance of her new baby with special needs and her stand-up support for her teenage daughter seem to count for nothing at best or even a big negative. They view her selflessness as trailer park behavior rather than a loving parent's defense of life and love in her family.
"To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections," said Edmund Burke.
Listening to these outcries, one might believe that the global economic meltdown, the single biggest reason for Senator McCain's defeat, was the result of a worldwide conspiracy of the Right to Life movement, pro-marriage activists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Mass-attending Catholics, oh yes, and the NRA.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“......Right to Life movement, pro-marriage activists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Mass-attending Catholics, oh yes, and the NRA.”
######
Check.
Check.
Check.
...and Check.
I believe I’ll move even further to the right.
And as a bonus, if it pisses off the LeftMedia and various and sundry secularists elsewhere, so much the better.
If Republicans begin to attack social conservatives, they can COUNT on my departure from their midst. I’m terribly unhappy with them in the first place.
The battle between GOOD and EVIL is becoming quite clear.
Perhaps they seek to make up for this lapse by becoming much looser on social issues, and adopting an "anything goes" approach.
Yeah. That will help.
Gee Tracy, why did you just have to qualify yourself about Sarah Palin “not being your choice” but... No guts among the pundits, I understand your column but sorry you’re a wimp.
There are so many ways that Sarah far outshines MEN, much less women, she’s incredible. No, I don’t worship her but I darn sure will join the vast number of like-minded conservatives in supporting her for whatever prosition she wishes to run for. Go SARACUDA! (saw a professionally made bumper sticker with that yesterday with the official colorscheme but no mention of McCain, hmmmmmm...).
“When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.”
(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1651)
Oh, no doubt.
In the form of at least three persons - Sarah Palin, Joe Wulzerbacher, and Gianna Jessen,
God made sure we had no excuse in our choice of Good and Evil in this past election.
Precisely! I think the GOP would quickly find out that it is impossible to survive without conservatives (I don't subscribe to this stupid notion that conservatism is comprised of three independent beliefs -- fiscal, social and pro-military -- and that one can pick and choose). However, I do believe that if conservatives left the party completely that we could form a viable new national party within a decade in much the same way that the GOP emerged from the collapse of the Whigs.
The RINOs can moan all they want about how "we've had our feet on their neck for too long," but they cannot escape the FACT that the last time they won an election without us issues like abortion and homosexual marriage DID NOT EXIST.
IF? I suppose the conclusion depends somewhat on what one means by "attack," but social conservatives, even if they aren't pushing for legislated edicts to enforce their morality, are generally fingered as the "crybabies," "perfectionists," "Luddites," or otherwise stuck in the past in a way that prevents the GOP from winning elections. The camp of enlightened "compassionate conservatives" have been running the GOP for decades; have consistently been more conservative than their Democratic opposition (sometimes by not much, but still, always the lesser of two evils); and have consistently viewed the social conservatives with barely-disguised scorn.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
Bla-Bla-Bla
Back in 2006 MSNBC ran a campaign to convince those voters that republicans, Bush admin, hates them. Now this. It’s called the media can attack from ALL angles.
Its Bush's fault and McCain's fault. Bush for running an idiotic presidency and McCain for being a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Even now he and his liberal sidekick Lindsey Graham are meeting with Obama - BEWARE!!
Even NOW, Bush II is planning an agreement with Iraq whereby U.S. troops in Iraq who are accused of crimes off base will be JUDGED IN AN IRAQI COURT!!! FURTHERMORE, the Iraqis will be able to inspect all arms shipments from the U.S. to our troops over there. This was on a banner at the bottom of the screen on FOX NEws this morning.
Bush II is a menace. We expanded vast amounts of money and lives over there to give these ingrates there freedom and they respond by making demands like this from us, they demonstrate not one shred of gratitude, they being persecuting Christians there with a vengeance, they make deals with Red China for oil and overtures to Iran.
This is sickening.
I think these wrap-ups of the election are only partially right.
They blame social conservatism because the Republicans lost running on it. They forget that social conservatism was all they could run on. Certainly, running on economic conservatism would have been a joke after the last 8 years.
It isn’t that social conservatism is bad, just that it isn’t enough to win elections alone. It takes the whole conservative package.
I used to tell the GOP what I expected in the way of political leadership, what I liked about their platform, and what I didn't like. I believe that "speaking up" is the activity that produces the "had the foot on our neck" complaint. So my solution has been to stop talking to them. Less discomfort for all involved. The Republican Main Street Partnership, Christine Todd Whitman, etc. can have the party, with no complaint and no foot on the neck from me. I'll happily wander in the wilderness rather than support the GOP.
The big tent Democratic party has plenty of room for the current leadership of the GOP, it's not as though the leadership will be out looking for honest work.
This past election campaign McCain did NOT talk about: Life, Abortion, Guns, God, Marriage, Israel, personal responsibility, self-defense, our obligation to our troops, crime, treason, JUDGES, Scotus.
His theme as near as I can recall: “earmarks” and “the other guy’s gonna raise your taxes.”
He DID manage to mention in his debates: responsibility to illegals, our responsibility with climate change, and campaign cheaters.
If ever a candidate scorned issues that would inspire those willing to consider voting for him, and touched on issues sure to make them hold their noses, McCain was that man.
McCain is that ignorant or McCain was not trying to win. I haven’t made up my mind on that one yet.
He was absolutely awful on the economic conservative issues.
We need both to win.
And as far as "two wars gone sour", it looks like Iraq is going to succeed unless Bammy screws it up.
And who exactly was objecting to Afghanistan?
They blame social conservatives first, because they aren't (they aren't blaming themselves, notice that?), and second, because they, as leaders, are accustomed to having their followers do "what they are told." In this case, doing what they are enticed to do, which is "vote against the DEMs."
The theme is that social conservatism is a lost cause in the political field, so don't expect any political party to champion social conservative issues. Especially don't expect the GOP to champion them. In effect, they are saying that the championing of social conservative issues loses elections; and therefore, those who expect the championing of social conservative issues are losers.
I've got a big "L" tattooed on my forehead. The GOP can kiss my butt.
Pubs aren't going to do that, it's the moderates and liberals who will create the impression that this most loyal base of the party is not wanted. The Pubs moved left after 2006, when they lost the House. They lost the House because they mishandled the illegal immigration issue, they didn't control spending and they let the Rat infested media control the message.
Bush was right about a lot of issues, but never had the stomach to fight for them and the House Pubs didn't either.
We need fighters who can keep their eye on the finish line. The opportunity to reform the party has never been better. The question is how.
Political success is about addition, not subtraction. Clearly, the GOP cannot win with only the social conservatives. That is why coalitions are a necessary part of political life. This is equally true for economic and national defense conservatives. Indeed, one could argue that the apparent singularity of social conservative support for the GOP ticket this past election was due, at least in part, to the failure of conservative economic or neoconservative foreign policies, many of which were radical departures from the Reaganite model.
This internecine battle has got to stop if there is to be any chance of regrouping for the off-year elections in 2010 and beyond.
One might view the tripartite Reagan coalition as a portfolio approach to political risk management, appealing to diverse constituencies, programs and messages across a wide and varied society. Viewed this way, social conservatives, free-market economic and national security advocates need to cling to each other while remaining open to the concerns of new emerging constituencies such as Hispanics who, by the way, are pro-family and not normally categorized as social liberals.
Does he mean the same Hispanics who overwhelmingly voted for Obama? Does he mean the same Hispanics who overwhelmingly support the invasion and their race? Does he mean the same Hispanics who overwhelmingly support LaRaza, MEChA, LULAC and the Hispanic Caucus?
This is not to diminish substantive disagreements on serious questions of policy. Indeed, conservative, paleo-conservative and simple plain-vanilla conservatives have real differences on preventive war, nation building, civil liberties and the like. Many will dissent from the GOP's pronounced tilt in favor of the humanity of the unborn in public policy. With only two political parties to choose from, such skirmishes are inevitable. Moreover, there are new issues that need to be analyzed and addressed creatively. For instance, entitlement reform may rival tax cutting as a concern for the long haul. Health care is another matter crying for creative solutions in an age of economic uncertainty and personal mobility in the market place.
Disagreements? What about immigration and race replacement? I guess those are issues we should not concern ourselves with?
There comes a time when a man recognizes he’s not welcome at certain gatherings. He stops attending.
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.