Where Do Conservatives Go Now? Part 2 (Don’t Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party)

Conservatives look at the endorsements Mitt Romney has garnered from such establishment figures as former President George H.W. Bush and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and most importantly from business-as-usual Washington insiders, such as lobbyist Ed Gillespie, and they see advocates of positions they often opposed, not friends of the transformational agenda that won the Tea Party wave election of 2010.

Surveying Romney’s record and agenda, and most importantly the people he is likely to bring to Washington to implement his agenda, movement conservatives see little likelihood a Romney administration will differ from a Bush administration, or a McCain administration, or a Dole or Ford administration.

This is why conservatives remain so deeply skeptical of Mitt Romney’s candidacy for President. They look at his record as Governor of Massachusetts and the policies he espouses and see no commitment to the kind of transformational change the conservative movement has been working for the past 50 years to achieve.

Republican Party insiders still can’t come to grips with the reality that the rebellion of the small government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party is as much a rejection of their stewardship of the government – the earmarks and massive spending and debt of the Bush years – as it is a rejection of Obamacare and Obamanomics.

Let’s be quite clear – there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives. The goal of the Republican political party is to elect its candidates to control the levers of government power. Conservatives should not get so swept-up in the Republican Party’s campaign for power, that they loose sight of the fact that the goal of the conservative movement is to hold the government to constitutional principles, no matter what political party is in power, and in the process rejuvenate our society and culture.

If the difference between conservatives and Republicans is based in the conservative movement’s commitment to holding the government to constitutional principles, no matter which Party is in power, then one of the most important things conservatives can do is to support organizations that are committed to that same goal.

This also means declining to support organizations, including the national, state and local Republican Parties if they are not committed to holding the government to constitutional principles.

The folly of conservatives supporting the Republican National Committee, and many state Republican Party committees was made readily apparent during the presidential primary. In state after state the establishment GOP did its best to thwart the will of the grassroots conservative voters by using its power to tip the scales toward Mitt Romney to the disadvantage of the conservative candidates in the race.

In the same vein the Republican National Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have become virtual incumbent protection rackets – appearing to sell influence and access in return for donations to keep incumbent members of Congress in power.

Thanks in part to the ability of the new and alternative media, especially the internet, to empower grassroots activists it is now possible to bypass the establishment Republican Party. There are now dozens of sound organizations committed to constitutional conservative principles that are doing everything from training volunteers in grassroots campaign techniques to recruiting and training conservative candidates to run for Congress and their state legislatures.

Just because an organization has conservative in its name doesn’t mean the organization is actually conservative – especially if it is headquartered in Washington DC. Too many Washington-based organizations, even ones that began with the intention of fostering conservative government, have become part of the inside-the-Beltway Republican establishment.

Very often the best organizations to support are not the state parties and national committees, but the local groups; County Republican Committees and Tea Party organizations who share our values and are doing the hard work to elect conservative candidates to office up and down the ballot. By supporting these local organizations, which are always struggling to raise money, it is possible to know their leadership, know whether or not they share our values and determine whether they are accountable and effective.

During the Bush – Hastert – Frist years too many Washington-based policy organizations sold their souls for a few tickets to the White House Christmas party or a seat at the State of the Union Address. They failed in the real test of whether they were effective advocates of conservative policy – holding the government to constitutional principles, no matter which Party is in power.

Don’t get suckered into supporting the Republican Party’s incumbent protection racket. Donate only to small government constitutional conservative organizations and committees dedicated to holding the government to constitutional principles, no matter which Party is in power, and electing small government constitutional conservatives to office. Avoid establishment Republican-oriented organizations and Party committees that don’t hew to conservative principles, and work against conservative candidates and blindly support Republican incumbents even when they oppose conservative policies.

Sixth, It’s the Primaries, Stupid – Support Small Government, Constitutional Conservative Candidates

If 2012 is another big wave election, like 2010, but it sweeps into office the usual big-government, establishment Republicans, then we will have missed the opportunity of a lifetime.

Supporting small government, constitutional conservatives, no matter how far down the ballot they are is crucial to our long-term success, and running for any office, no matter how far down the ballot, is worthy of your efforts.

If constitutional conservatives are to govern America, we must not only elect a President and a Congress, but also city council members, school board members, state legislators, Secretaries of State, Lt. Governors, etc.

Of course, there are many good candidates already running who are with the Tea Party movement. However, the vast majority of positions on the ballot this year do not have small government constitutional conservatives running, and many will have incumbents who have not faced a contest in years.

We who want constitutional, small-government should be running candidates even when it appears they have little or no chance of victory. The mistake of assuming good candidates will emerge from the regular party process does not work most of the time because the establishment Republican Party has no real interest in the kind of transformational change sought by conservatives.

Do you really trust Party leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to build a Republican majority of small government constitutional conservatives? If we leave it to the national congressional and Party leadership to recruit the candidates we will end-up with a Congress just like them; incumbents such as Bob Bennett and establishment figures such as Charlie Crist, and Trey Grayson.

When making decisions about where to put their financial support, conservatives should remember that if the national Republican committees had their way, such now-stalwart conservative Senators as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee would never have been elected.

The only time we are guaranteed to lose is when we don’t compete. In today’s volatile political environment, no establishment candidate is truly safe. The American people want the chance to take out the big-government, establishment politicians; put your money and your hard work directly behind those candidates who are committed to small government, constitutional principles.

Chin, there are other ways of rejecting Romney to advance the conservative cause. Try giving it a modicum of thought.

Of course there are additional ways to advance the conservative cause other then when you cast your vote for President, and folks are certainly free to do all those.

But we're talking specifically about casting a vote for President this November. So when you've done all those other things, and you're sitting in the voting both to cast your vote for President, what should be done? According to you, an Obama Presidency will advance the Conservative cause. If that is your logic, then why wouldn't you vote for Obama so as to advance the conservative cause?

And I'm not asking you how you'll vote. I'm asking you to explain the logic of not voting for Obama under that assumption. Because I can't think of one.

There is no conservative scotus justice who will retire while Obama is potus. Even kennedy is rumored to have stated that. In the same way that JP Stevens, a rino republican liberal appointee, awaited the coming of Obama to retire, what a liberal Romney presidency will nominate is what he nominated in Massachusetts....liberals.

I am military, diggity, and one who has been around FR a long time. As have you. As an old-timer you certainly know how to dig into old posts of folks like me and discover where we have consistently stood over the years.

So, I will stand on my record...something draft-dodger Romney can’t do (1) regarding his avoidance of Vietnam service or (2) his ultra-liberal positions stated repeatedly through the years.

I am the conservative here, digs. Not Romney.

According to you, an Obama Presidency will advance the Conservative cause. If that is your logic, then why wouldn't you vote for Obama so as to advance the conservative cause?

Silly me -- I assumed you'd read all the posts on this thread, and not just the ones responding to you; if you had, you'd have seen that I've answered your question before in some detail.

The conservative cause would be advanced best if Obama squeaked in by a weak plurality, the lower the plurality, the better: Remember when Clinton got in on 43% (as in, 57% of votes cast were OPPOSED to him), and what happened to him the next mid-term? I doubt the Republican Revolution would have happened had Clinton won with 53%.

A vote FOR Obama would count to making his plurality higher, therefore it is logical to WITHHOLD my vote from him. It's logical to withhold my vote from Romney because he HAS A SOLID, DOCUMENTED RECORD of promoting and supporting all the things I have been voting Republican all these years to OPPOSE. Voting for Romney is plainly as nuts as voting for Obama.

I refuse to cast my vote FOR either Obama or Romney as voting for one is as nuts as voting for the other. But my vote, like every American's, is precious. I will USE IT the best way I can. And that is to vote third party, even if it's for a Pat Paulsen candidate, for the express purpose of using my vote to push whichever statist/socialist wins, Obama or Romney, to as anemic a number as possible, and hope that Obama is the squeaks in on, ideally, as low as 34%. That would mean 66% of Americans who voted, voted to OPPOSE Obama, and equally important and powerful, it would mean that registered Republicans were conservative and BRAVE enough to tell the GOP that Romney was a bridge too far, which would HUGELY empower and embolden conservatism within the GOP, and devastate liberalism in the GOP.

The election of conservatives is the only thing that's going to save America. THAT is the bottom line.

Frankly, a Romney win poses a much greater threat to conservatism than an Obama win. It's a gamble either way, but the greater odds in favor of conservatism lie in rejecting Romney than in allowing Abject Fear of Obama to bully conservative Republicans into voting for a politician who HAS A DOCUMENTED RECORD of doing all the things conservative Republicans oppose.

It's a gamble either way, but the greater odds in favor of conservatism lie in rejecting Romney than in allowing Abject Fear of Obama to bully conservative Republicans into voting for a politician who HAS A DOCUMENTED RECORD of doing all the things conservative Republicans oppose.

Very well stated. You are right, most of those who will support Romney are not doing it because of what he stands for (which is nothing) but because of a Fear of Obama. Romney will destroy the conservative movement if he is elected. We have more to fear from a Romney victory than an Obama plurality win. We must fight through the convention and if we lose there and Romney gets the nomination, then we must rally around a conservative 3rd party.

Frankly if Ross Perot had run against Obama and Romney instead of Bush and Clinton, he might have won the election.

A vote for Romney is a vote for the Status Quo. No Hope. No Change. Just a rudderless ship of state being battered by the winds of popular opinion.

The anti-Romney (RINO) crowd is focusing on the future of conservatism and the GOP. It’s a LONG-TERM SOLUTION.

The pro-Romney (RINO) crowd is focusing on beating Obama. IT’S A SHORT TERM SOLUTION.

Personally I don’t think either choice is necessarily the “wrong” one. All of us want to defeat liberalism forever!

BOTH SIDES NEED TO MAKE SURE TO VOTE FOR THEIR CONGRESSMEN! Even if you won’t vote Romney (I certainly won’t)...

We have more to fear from a Romney victory than an Obama plurality win. We must fight through the convention and if we lose there and Romney gets the nomination, then we must rally around a conservative 3rd party.

Thank you so much FRiend, for confirming that I have excellent company in the folks who've reasoned their way to the same conclusion I have.

Godspeed Newt Gingrich and God-loving, God-fearing American conservatives, and God vanquish Mitt Romney.

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.