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.
Don't editorialize my remarks by taking them out of context.
In context: "This idea that conservatives should hope for Democrats to win, so Republicans can come to the rescue is utterly absurd. A waste of time."
I've been arguing for two days with FReepers who believe this nonsense. Beck believes it and so does Tancredo. What do you think we've been talking about on this thread. You've even alluded to that point. Don't act so innocent.
The enemy is Socialism and the aspects of Liberalism that threaten our Constitutional rights, national security, free markets, and the unborn. Only one prominent voice on the political stage is free of these adversarial characteristics. McCain is not that one person.
I understand how the numbers add up on the political balance sheet, but the GOP’s calculations prove to fail continuously - metaphorically bitch slapping those responsible isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Look, I have tremendous respect for McCain as a war hero, and I also appreciate the many accomplishments of those we often castigate. But we’re getting hammered because of the bad decisions and misrepresentations made these same members of the GOP - period.
We can’t flush them out, and the refuse to leave. What the heck else can we do besides the therapeutic act of insulting them?
Problem is, to achieve that objective, the engine of conservatism needs a vehicle to advance its rightwing politics. That vehicle is the political party apparatus. Right now, the Republican Party is sick and shows no signs of recovering anytime soon.
Without a healthy GOP restocked with new leadership, conservatives can oppose liberal Democrats all they want, but they won't win any elections. One of the worse things conservatives can do is to hand over to the enemy more ammunition to use against the GOP. Tancredo's remarks are ammunition for the left and Beck isn't even a Republican. He doesn't give a damn what happens to the GOP. More ammunition for the libs.
>>>>>Only one prominent voice on the political stage is free of these adversarial characteristics.
Just out of curiosity, who might that be?
I agree with your assessments of the GOP, but I’m obviously less concerned about Tom and Glenn’s party dis’ing.
>> Just out of curiosity, who might that be?
Palin.
I like Sarah Palin. If she intends on reentering national politics for the 2012 election, she best grow some thicker skin or she’ll get eaten alive. We shall see.
I’m not completely enamored with Palin, but I think her current direction is very good. I hope she stays on track and continues to sharpen her skills.
As you said - we shall see.
It’s not out of context at all. I’m just calling you out on your false premise.
You have been infering that we are WISHING and WORKING towards someone like Obama so that a conservative leader will appear.
“Beck believes it and so does Tancredo.”
That’s a belief you hold, but it is without foundation.
I notice you have studiously avoided answering my question about Ford and Carter.
THIS is a major problem with our system.
The Founding Fathers thought that public service would be an adjunct to a person's career, the apex of their accomplishments, and after serving a short term, like Washington or Cincinnatus, they would return to the plough.
I am certain they never thought ANYONE would try to make being an elected official a career occupation.
The very WORST thing about ALL these “Health Care Bills” is that they would exempt Congress from the very statutes they are attempting to ram down the throats of all other Americans.
Congresscritters in BOTH political parties are tacit partners in the establishment of a new Aristocracy of the Ballot Box and WE are enabling them EVERY NOVEMBER and EVERY PRIMARY day.
You didn't call me out. You took a sentence that I posted and you chopped it up to use as you saw fit. Bastardizing its meaning. That is editorializing. Period.
>>>>>>You have been infering that we are WISHING and WORKING towards someone like Obama so that a conservative leader will appear.
My guess is you failed reading comprehension in school. I never used the words "wishing" or "working". But all the arguments I've seen over the last few days are quite clear and speak for themselves.
>>>>>That’s a belief you hold, but it is without foundation.
Tom Tancredo opened the article he wrote with the following:
"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."
Nothing could be more clear.
>>>>>I notice you have studiously avoided answering my question about Ford and Carter.
You make a lot of dumb accusations that are out and out BS. You asked me: 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."
Now go away and stop wasting my time.
My guess is you failed reading comprehension in school. I never used the words "wishing" or "working". But all the arguments I've seen over the last few days are quite clear and speak for themselves.
The personal attacks don't work with me, so stop wasting your time with that approach.
Nowhere did I say that you used the words "wishing or working". I said you INFERRED that Tancredo and others said that. He never did, nor did others. So much for your own reading comprehension
What this all is is by Tancredo and others is simply rationalizing our loss and recognizing that our loss, and the Lefts win, can give us a momentum going into the next election. Clearly we are building momentum, the rationalizing is putting the best, most helpful, spin to a terrible situation.
All in the same way that Carters win did, and now we all are working for BHO to give us the same results.
BTW, I was the one in error, post 56 was to be a question of you:
Based on their analysis do you agree it's better that we had Carter, followed by Reagan, than Ford followed by some other Democrat?
>>>>>Nowhere did I say that you used the words "wishing or working".
Never said you did. Again, reading comprehension is fundamental to good debate. I neither said those words or inferred them. You reached that conclusion all on your own and without my help.
>>>>>What this all is is by Tancredo and others is simply rationalizing our loss and recognizing that our loss...
Most folks recognized last November, the election was over and Obama won. What Tancredo and others are saying is irrational. Beck got the ball rolling with his remarks to Katie Couric and many folks picked it up and ran with it.
Mark Levin was right when he chastised Beck for his "mindless" and "incoherent" statements. Beck is not a Republican or even a conservative. Beck is a libertarian with his own agenda. Beck's remarks are more ammunition for the liberal establishment to attack Republicans with, as they undermine conservatism. Beck knew what he was saying and it went right over your head.
Btw, back in 1976 the conservatives and Republicans I worked with on the Reagan campaign here in Colorado, recognized that Carter had won the election. We didn't dwell in the past. We got better organized and for a second time promoted Reagan as the 1980 GOP nominee almost immediately. That is not the same case today. The GOP remains in a coma and leaderless. While conservatives continue to search for our next field general.
Also, I don't usually deal in hypotheticals or what-if scenario's. I was gracious and answered you once. Be satisfied, its all you're getting.
And yet you are willing to denigrate those who do.
Over the nine or ten years I've been here, I seen a number of variations of the theme of Ronald Reagan's name.
One of the commonalities that all the namesakes seem to have in common is something very unReagan like, fear of answering tough questions.
I predicted this, as have others. When the nut cracking question would be asked, the Reagan namesake would run for the weeds.
Having answered your hypothetical question and with you obviously having lost the debate, I understand why you're so determined to change the subject. Got news for you. This isn't about me and its not about my screen name either. In fact, I've been here longer than you have. Us old-timers know that when a poster focuses on a FReeper screen name, instead of staying on debate topic, its nothing but a red herring. In this case, more evidence that you soundly lost the debate.
Not only that, you're a full fledged hypocrite and delusional to boot.
You can call it what you want, but your willingness to denigrate those who are willing to venture out publicly, as Tancredo, Beck, and many others have done, and give their opinion of a hypothetical situation while you run from the same on even a backwater thread here at FR points out your own hypocrisy.
Regarding the name, I have ALWAYS found it more than a little curious that those who most proudly try and lay some claim the RR mantle by using his name are those who, in the final vote, seem most unworthy.
The fact is you're no better than Beck and Tancredo. You guys are off the wall delusional and that doesn't help get the GOP out of its coma or help to advance conservatism.
Beck's unstable emotions, his growing libertarianism and call for a third party, further damages the GOP and undermines conservatism.
It also makes conservatives wonder how far Beck will take his libertarian agenda. He should stick to attacking Obama and the liberal establishment. And get back on his meds!
I have ALWAYS known that posters who take cheap pot shots at my FReeper handle, are actually Reagan haters to the core.
I’ve laid out a very brief but rational case for being suspicious of those here at FR who try to peddle their shoddy goods on the good name of Ronald Reagan, and the best you can come up with is ‘Reagan haters’?
Adding more evidence when we already have enough? You sell the name short, Reagan would have done better.
Most of you malcontents and wingnuts who attack us Reaganites, hate Reagan. Prove it otherwise.
As far as I can tell you know NOTHING about Reagan. Reagan was a uniter, not a divider like Beck and Tancredo.
Reagan gave us the roadmap to success and victory. Get informed, get educated: The New Republican Party, 4th Annual CPAC Convention, February.6, 2009 Then get a life!
Your lack of discernment causes you to come to unfounded conclusions.
Your posts on this thread are neither substantive nor obscure.
Basic juvenile rhetoric injected with pure sophistry.
You're right, I'm to the point:
Do you agree it's better that we had Carter, followed by Reagan, than Ford followed by some other Democrat?
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.