Posted on 09/23/2009 9:55:57 AM PDT by Tiger_2009
Obama's Radicalism and the GOP Posted by Rocky Mountain Foundation on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:09:09 PM
Thank God John McCain lost in 2008. Obama's radical agenda will bring about the revitalization of the Republican party through grassroots citizen activism that would have been impossible under a McCain presidency.
By Tom Tancredo*
Eight months into the Obama presidency the Republican Party is suddenly thriving by virtue of the patriotic reawakening generated by Obama’s radicalism. But the Republican revival may be short lived if it does not listen to the voice of the new citizen activists.
Obama was elected on the strength of Bush exhaustion syndrome and Obama’s plausible promise of “hope and change.” But now that Obama has unveiled his truly radical agenda, middle class Americans are understandably alarmed.
Obama’s radical program has provoked a grassroots rebellion of historic proportions. While the Republican Party may be one beneficiary of this rebellion, the rebellion itself has nothing to do with party allegiance or party organization. Indeed, some Republican elites feel as threatened by this new activism as Obama Democrats.
What is astounding and unprecedented in recent American politics is that this authentic citizen protest arose entirely outside of political party structures. Republican officials had virtually nothing to do with organizing the Tea Party protests that began in April or the town hall protests in August or the historic gathering of over one million people on the Capitol Mall on September 12.
Millions of Americans are seeing the radical, Marxist character of the Obama agenda for the first time. The attempted government takeover of health care, a crippling new energy tax, his affirmative action Supreme Court appointment, the World Apology Tour, the Justice Department attack on the CIA interrogation of terrorists, and now the abandonment of NATO allies on missile defense — none of this was foretold in the platitudes of the 2008 election campaign. Obama’s agenda is the fulfillment of the dreams and fantasies of the left wing of the Democrat Party, but our political and media elites were all taken by surprise. Obama is not the “pragmatic centrist” voters thought they were getting.
The unprecedented citizen activism that brought 1.5 million ordinary American to the Capitol Mall a week after the Labor Day holiday is in part a predictable reaction to Obama’s radicalism, but it is also more than that. Something more profound is also at work. The fact that it has developed outside the established political structures is a story that has not yet been told because it does not fit the dominant “narrative” of American politics: genuine grassroots populism is supposed to always be from the left, not the right.
Obama’s radical agenda is forcing the Republican Party to confront a fundamental issue it tries hard to avoid. Is the Republican Party going to seek compromise with Obama’s radical agenda to prove they are committed to the same “compassionate” agenda, or will it provide leadership based on a different vision for America?
The sad truth is that this new activism, this rediscovery of constitutional limits on government and principled resistance to further expansion of entitlement spending, could never have emerged if John McCain had won the 2008 election. If John McCain had enshrined his anemic “hands across the aisle” pragmatism as the official language of the party of Lincoln and Reagan, the Republican Party would have continued its sorrowful drift.
What is most fascinating and encouraging and revolutionary about this mushrooming grassroots activism is that it is more than a reaction to Obama’s radical program. It is more than “just say no.” It also a rediscovery and reaffirmation of the conservative principles that were abandoned or belittled by Republican Party elites in the Bush era.
The grassroots activism of the Tea Party rallies and 912 protests is almost the exact opposite of a traditional political rally organized by a candidate for public office. The purpose of these rallies is to save our country, not elect some candidate. In fact, there is often a large element of “pox on both your houses” in these protests, and Republican candidates who think they can run on traditional themes in 2010 without addressing these new challenges will have a rude awakening.
Yes, we all know that compromise is a necessary part of governance. But what the new citizen activists are demanding is that compromise be based on a constitutional, limited government, low-tax agenda. A little arsenic will kill you a little slower than a larger dose, but please don’t serve it with a chocolate mousse and call it dessert.
What course the Republican Party will take at this crossroads is an open question. Old habits die hard. Just as George Bush was tone deaf on illegal immigration, many in the Republican Party leadership are loath to acknowledge that the mainstream media is in the pocket of the Democrat Party and new modes of communication and organization are needed. The hardest words for a Republican moderate to utter are, “Rush Limbaugh was right.”
But what is clear is that there is no going back to “hands across the aisle bipartisanship” that gave us McCain-Feingold and is too often a substitute for principled leadership. We do not need more snake oil of the “no entitlement left behind” variety. The day of reckoning for reckless government spending is at hand.
The “Help (Desperately) Wanted” sign is hanging in the window. Only leaders who can speak the language of liberty and limited government need apply.
“Money talks and they care only their global sponsers. “
True.
But they NEED votes. And if we ORGANIZE we can MAKE SURE that candidates who DON’T listen to US, may get money from globalists, but they WON’T get enough votes.
Its a matter of education, coordination, organization and motivation.
We have to motivate the mass of grass roots conservative Republicans who vote in primaries, into actively supporting anc electing only conservative Republican candidates.
If we can;t do that, we certainly can’t get a whole new third political party off.
So what should the procedure be for a politican to stop running for office so they won’t be called a quitter?
The problem is the GOP leaders think they can foist another McCain on us.
Just look and how PATHETIC Mr. Steele was duiring the 9/12 rallly. Pathetic is too generous a word. Steele’s commercial was a WEAK “me too” reaction. He was just transparent in trying to jump in front of the parade.
Steel does not get it. Nobody in the betway gets it. The MSM, the beltway country club, all think that the majority of the USA is as maliable as putty.
With a 95% incumbancy reelection, they may be right.
McCAin ran like a senator, not a president. He was decidely UNpresidential.
You’re confusing it with derogatory terms like cut and run, surrender, withdraw and retreat. Big difference.
McCain is a good example of why the GOP has no ideas and no majority making leaders. It is too bad because now more than ever, we need an opposition party with fresh ideas and the energy to lead. Moderates are great followers and boosters; they can not lead. Current the GOP is following Obama. Before that, they were following big spending Bush.
Obama’s radical agenda is forcing the Republican Party to confront a fundamental issue it tries hard to avoid. Is the Republican Party going to seek compromise with Obama’s radical agenda to prove they are committed to the same “compassionate” agenda, or will it provide leadership based on a different vision for America?
You’re right, I thought you meant it in a derogatory way.
Living and working in DC seems to do bad things to our representatives. The endorsement of Romney from Tancredo confused and angered a lot of us out here.
Was that a result of too long in DC? I don’t know, but it is what seems to happen to so many.
Most of us in the West are willing to overlook what may be a one time error in his part. He is on local talk radio from time to time, and seems to still have that same trademark zeal regarding illegals.
Exactly.
The Romney decision was a serious error in judgment. Tancredo joining Beck in saying McCain-Palin would have been worse than Obama-Biden, was a just plain dumb and not true.
Here I thought the major goal last November was to have a good reason to keep Obama-Biden away from the White House. IMO, Palin was that good reason.
We’ll see how accurate the statement “McCain-Palin would have been worse than Obama-Biden” is.
How would you rate “Gerald Ford would be worse that Jimmy Carter”?
>> Another political lunatic who thinks McCain-Palin would have been worse for America than Obama-Biden.
That’s not a fair assessment of what Tancredo hoped to communicate.
We've all seen the evidence of the last 9 months. That should be enough proof for anyone
I rate Gerry Ford a moderate incompetent. I rate Jimmah Carter a liberal incompetent. Okay?
And that is a fair assessment? LOL
Around FR we advance the conservative agenda and promote conservative candidates for public office. Candidates like Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Sarah Palin.
Conservatives don't sit around hoping that liberal Democrats win elections so they can screw things up and then Republicans will come riding to the rescue. That strategy is dumb. It serves no good purpose and in the long term will lead to disastrous outcomes.
My other post was garbled, I’m doing too many things at once.
What I meant to say was this:
We’ll see how accurate the statement “McCain-Palin would have been worse than Obama-Biden” is in a decade or so.
By way of example:
Given the benefit of hindsight, do you think it would have been better if Ford had defeated Carter?
And yes, Ford defeating Carter would have been preferable. Only marginally, however.
Obviously we will never know, but most experts now agree that without Carter, we wouldn't have had RR.
Based on their analysis I think it's better that we had Carter, followed by Reagan, than Ford followed by some other Democrat.
Similar prognostications are at work with Obama.
I find it hard to believe that any pro-liberty person would rather see Obama in office over McCain except for the purpose of sparking an effective movement back towards the traditional core.
McCain is the poster boy for all that’s wrong with the GOP - and it doesn’t surprise me one bit to hear the sensational statements made by the likes of Tancredo and Beck. At least for the sake of venting, let em’ blast the GOP - the damage was done by it, not Beck nor Tancredo.
But McCain and Obama are incidental to the message. The point is the activism that has begun to flourish out of necessity. It’s an argument worth considering when it’s proposed that McCain would have ultimately led us to the same point of termination, however, more slowly and less vividly.
Image the party further weekened by a McCain Presidency, and then followed in 2012 by an Obama Presidency. If not Obama now, then guaranteed later?
I voted for McCain hoping to defer what has befallen the Country.
Party-wide abstention for POTUS may have sent a better message to the remaining self-described representatives.
LOL You can't have it both ways. I answered your simple question based on political principle over political expediency. This expert says, where getting deep in the hypothetical weeds.
>>>>>Similar prognostications are at work with Obama.
Bunch of baloney. The conservative objective is to always keep liberals and Democrats out of power. This idea that conservatives should hope for Democrats to win, so Republicans can come to the rescue is utterly absurd. A waste of time.
Point out where anyone wished, or even said that?
McCain maybe one example of what is wrong with the GOP, but on the issues, candidates like Romney and Giuliani were far worse. By choosing Palin, however, McCain helped to energize conservatives and added 5%-10% to his final vote totals.
We conservatives, traditionalists and Republicans should be more concerned about how Obama is weakening America today and not get stuck in some dumb debate over how McCain is weakening the GOP. Its country first and party second in my book. The "sensational statements made by the likes of Tancredo and Beck", as you call them, serve no good purpose except to further undermine an already damaged GOP.
The fact is, the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because they abandoned conservatism. Any activism conservatives may be engaging in today, won't help the GOP. The GOP is still in a deep coma.
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.