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

Conservative HQ ^ | 19 Apr 12 | Richard A. Viguerie

[mountainfolk]

I am responding to the title of your post, the following content I skip read. These pearls of wisdom coming from yet another self proclaimed conservative who views themself as the premier conservative are much alike. Throw out the old Republican tyrants and bring in the new Lords. I am quite suspicious of calls for destruction of the Republican party and installation of a new group of purer conservatives. I note that this Republican primary ran for some months with a variety of candidates who made their case but who did not receive sufficient backing to stay in the running.
I will not submit to anybody defining my conservatism for me, nor do I presume to do so to others. I alone am responsible for making my judgment as to whom I believe to be the best person to lead this Republic.
Destroying the Republican party would not redound to the benefit of any of the political segments who currently are posting on FR under the guise of various conservative superiority. There are those who want a third party, there are those who are democrats egging on self destruction, there are undoubtedly operatives, paid or not, supporting individual candidates, and vested interests for one cause or another. Splitting the available votes won't give any new political party sufficient leverage to win a national election. Given the unlimited financial resources of the democrat party, they own the US treasury after all, it logically takes a strong organization to overcome the money advantage of the opposition. Running a campaign on a shoe string is not a viable option for national elections. The Republican party is the only force at this time who can replace the socialist regime now in power. Howling at the moon and fantasizing about if, ands, or buts, won't change that reality.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

technically speaking, another’s vote is none of yours or mine business. I can wield a pencil however.

Of course it is. If other peoples' votes weren't our business, nobody would campaign or try to convince people how to vote. And if you're going to say that it would be much better for conservatism if Obama won, then it is perfectly legitimate for others to point out that the logical conclusion of your position is for conservatives to vote for Obama, thereby advancing the cause of conservatism.

If you don't have a rebuttal to that argument, I'd suggest you check your premises.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

When making your choice factor this: Which party programs, ideas and actions are closer to Karl Marx or which are closer to the Constitution.

Over the last 60 years, the GOP has controlled the White House about 60% of the time. Yet, the GOP has not significantly slowed the growth of government - which is our biggest problem. In fact, some of the most egregious big-government legislation has been passed under GOP Presidents.

So, in practice, both parties' programs are closer to Karl Marx than to the constitution.

The only edge I could give to the GOP is that a GOP President seems to appoint Supreme Court Justices that are more conservative, although that has in some cases backfired.

The test will come in June when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on Obamacare. If the Court doesn't at least find the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional, I'll know for certain that there's not a dime's worth of difference between a GOP and a Rat presidency. If that's the case, I will certainly not vote for Romney.

A case could be made that it might be better for our country to have GOP House and an Obama Presidency. The resulting gridlock would better keep the bastards in both parties in check.

[mo]

I wouldn’t presume to “tell” another how to vote; a write in ballot is always perfectly acceptable, however.

Any logician should be able to clearly perceive that a Republican Congress with a Romney presidency is more damaging to the Conservative Cause than ANY alternative in the White House.

[ex-snook]

"I know I'm in. The Repubs exist to frustrate conservatives, and I'm ready for a change."

Count me in too if the Conservative party promises to withdraw all combat soldiers from wars that have not been Constitutionally formally declared by Congress. No Presidential work-arounds on UN resolutions.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

We have been operating under the rule of "Lesser of Two Evils" for decades. I have agreed with it. I now stop to ask folks, has our nation grown stronger over those decades? At some point we have to be honest with ourselves. For me, the answer is a clear, "No."

So instead of saying people who do this are wrong, I want to give them something to think about. Perhaps it will help them see things a little differently.

What we have been trying hasn't worked. We slide farther left every single year. At some point this has to stop, or we lose the nation we love no matter which party is in power.

I don't find anything wrong with that argument as written, but it certainly implies a causal link that hasn't been proven. Namely, that the reason the country has slipped to the left is because conservatives or Republicans are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I don't think that has anything to do with it.

The problem isn't conservatives voting for the lesser of two evils. The problem is that the horde of liberals and mushy-minded moderates all get to vote too, and they don't want the same people we do. The stark reality is that conservatives are not the majority in this country. So if we want conservatives to win Presidential elections, we have to be fortunate enough to either 1) be running against a really crummy, uncharismatic Democrat, or 2) have a truly great conservative candidate.

Unfortunately, neither of those was available to us in this campaign cycle. I don't see that as a justification to give up on opposing the greater of two evils because of the greater damage that can be done by that greater evil. And, it seems obvious to me that conservatives are certainly going to have more influence over a GOP President than a Democrat who will be pandering to his base heavily his entire second term.

Just because the President is a Republican doesn't mean conservatives can't loudly and strongly oppose his policies with which we disagree. As much of a squishy moderate as Bush was on some issues, I think most of us would agree this country would be in even worse shape if Gore of Kerry had been elected in his stead. And it does us no good if the patient dies before we can find the right doctor.

[ngat]

You say: “If you want to dump the GOPe....you should be taking OVER THE GOPe!!! Are you a Precinct Committee person? Do you go to their meetings, help elect conservative PCP’s? If not, then you’re just talking trash.”

Response: “I am in a precinct, but how will that change the higher ups? Hm?”

Guess you better try getting Civics reinstituted as a subject taught in the public schools before trying to get people to understand that we are where we are because conservatives abandoned participating in the process,

[Old Badger]

"The Conservative Cause is clearly served by an Obama re-election rather than a Romney win. A Right leaning/Conservative Congress can easily remain united behind an Obama re-election....whereas the same Congress will be sliced and diced by the RINOS if Romney is in the White House. The Powers That Be fully understand this...."

As I've said before, unfortunately, in the unlikely event Romney should get the presidency, he will become the head of the Republican party and will therefore put those individuals of like minds in key positions. Just going by his past history pertaining to his conduct in and out of office, it will take decades, if ever, for the conservative movement to again gain the foothold and the power that it now has. Among vast number of conservative Republicans (I use that term advisedly) there will be such a "wailing and gnashing of teeth" lamenting how could this have happened to us and this great country of ours? My retort will be...... look in the mirror! The "Republican Establishment" is playing a successful game of rope-a-dope.

As for myself, I'll no longer vote for the lesser of two evils because evil is still evil no matter how much lipstick you put on it. My word, I've gone down the voting list from Sarah Palin to Newt and I'm going no further. I'll not vote for someone who should actually be running on the Democrat ticket as a moderate Democrat. That's how we got into this mess! Let'r rip!

[GrandmaPatriot]

Like a laser...this must be the focus for now. The dangerous boy socialist must go!

So the dangerous man socialist can take his place? (Romneycare, gun grabber) I don't think so. Not a spit of difference between them and don't go saying it's about the judges. Romey put in judges that were just as liberal as the Obama picks.

I will never vote for Romney. He does not hold one value that I do. He may reluctantly claim that he is a Republican but he is no conservative.

[upsdriver]

Your dreaming on that one. The Republican’s have no “Balls” or anything else. Nothing and I mean nothing is going to change.

No, but the tea party does and that's who we should be supporting, not the Republican party.

[upsdriver]

I am not advocating Romney; I am advocating doing what is needed to ensure that obama is a one term president. Deal with the real and present danger now, deal with extrapolated threats when they arise.

Obama himself insured that he is a one term president. The Republican party has taken it upon themselves to make Obama is a two-termer. I have no intentions of helping the GOP defeat Obama. None whatsoever. They stabbed the tea party in the back so ef'em.

[libdestroyer]

if conservatives are the instruments causing Obama to have four more years, then that is the end of conservatism in the USA as a viable political entity.

If conservatives are willing to compromise their beliefs for the sake of a party, THAT is the death of conservatism.

You'd better wise up!

[Darren McCarty]

So should we support the Constitution Party?

The only thing the Constitution Party is good for is a protest vote. Depending on the polls here, I may go that way for president, but what is more important is to make sure there are good republicans nominated for the downticket offers. Tim Walberg is usually good for congress. Most of the US Senate candidates in my state are acceptable, although some are better than others.

As my tagline states, the Republican Party is bigger than the presidency. Because the presidential nominee is unacceptable, doesn't mean that we should toss the good guys under the bus. Those that do are idiots.

[Marguerite]

"The “elites” are the ones who shoved Romney down our throats and have no apparent love for Tea Party conservative thinking. Defeating the GOP-e strikes me as nearly as important as throwing out the Dems."

[Darren McCarty]

If Romney is the GOP nominee, I will no longer be a republican.

I was a Republican before Romney was first elected to anything. I'll be here long after he's gone. The party is bigger than Mitt.

[Marguerite]

“Time after time during the Republican primary election cycle grassroots conservatives and Tea Partiers saw establishment Republican Party officials put their thumb on the scale to tip the balance in Mitt Romney’s favor.
From the arbitrary abuse of the winner-take-all rules in Florida and Arizona, to the post-election delegate allocation changes in Michigan, to the burdensome ballot access process in Virginia the establishment Republican Party did everything possible to thwart grassroots conservative activists and keep the power to choose the Republican nominee in the hands of Party insiders.
To prevent this from happening again, and to build a Republican Party leadership that truly represents its conservative base, Tea Partiers and grassroots conservative activists must redouble their efforts to take over the Republican Party.”

http://www.conservativehq.com/article/7603-where-do-conservatives-go-now

[Turbo Pig]

I have no intentions of helping the GOP defeat Obama

That's OK, at this point, I really don't care how you, or anyone else votes. That is your prerogative.

I will say this, if obama is re-elected and ANYONE complains, or posts something negative about him, his policies, his wife, his administration...anything, my first question will be "Who did you vote for?" If the answer is I didn't vote for the president, because I hate the GOP and/or Romney, my reply is going to be "Oh really, STFU then."

[pabianice]

>>Don’t Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party

Oh, heavens, no! Let’s run a 3rd party that will give a nasty, sneering Obama an easy second term! You are very stupid, Richard.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't find anything wrong with that argument as written, but it certainly implies a causal link that hasn't been proven. Namely, that the reason the country has slipped to the left is because conservatives or Republicans are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I don't think that has anything to do with it.

If you'll give it a bit more thought, I believe you'll realize that it does.

We have five elections over twenty years, where an avowed Leftist campaigns against a person who claims to be a Conservative, but actually doesn't campaign by voicing staunch support for Conservative ideals.  In this environment, nobody advances the premise that Conservative tenets are more sound than Leftist tenets.  Both campaign from a Leftist point of view, but one is less of a Leftist than the other.

Does Conservatism grow stronger under this model?  No.  It's impossible for it to.  It grows weaker, and that's precisely what has taken place.

The problem isn't conservatives voting for the lesser of two evils. Oh yes it is.  If Conservatives won't take a stand against Leftists within their own ranks, then they'll fall for anything.  McCain..., Romney...

The problem is that the horde of liberals and mushy-minded moderates all get to vote too, and they don't want the same people we do.  We could have said the same thing in Reagan's day.  Instead of adopting that strategy, Reagan reached out to Democrats by making sound arguments.  He prevailed because he supported sound policy, and sold it to others.  Who is selling it these days?  Nobody.

The stark reality is that conservatives are not the majority in this country. So if we want conservatives to win Presidential elections, we have to be fortunate enough to either 1) be running against a really crummy, uncharismatic Democrat, or 2) have a truly great conservative candidate.  Not true.  I don't think that's an outlandish comment by any means, but it is misguided.  If we want Conservatives to win, our party has to endorse them, support them, and keep lofting them.  I'm not making the case they will always win.  I am making the case that when our time does come to gain the leadership, a Conservative will be the person installed into office.  Our party clearly fights to defeat this reality.  In his day, Reagan WAS NOT the RNC favorite.  George Bush was.  None the less, Democrats reached out to thim and supported him.  The same dynamic is alive and well today.  Most people don't realize it.

Are you aware of the percentage of the populace that considers themselves to be a Conservative vs a Liberal?  41 vs 21% LINK

Sadly the RNC is operating under the same misconception you are.

Unfortunately, neither of those was available to us in this campaign cycle. I don't see that as a justification to give up on opposing the greater of two evils because of the greater damage that can be done by that greater evil. And, it seems obvious to me that conservatives are certainly going to have more influence over a GOP President than a Democrat who will be pandering to his base heavily his entire second term.

Okay, then you buy into the idea that we must always vote for the (R), no matter what.  I say that because the Leftist is always without fail described as someone we can't allow to be elected, or the nation will crumble.  Strangely, the more this seemed to make sense, the more Leftist our candidates(R) happened to turn out to be.  Now we're at the point that folks who partner with Soros, Kennedy, Kerry et al are the folks we're being asked to support.  McCain formed a 501c(3) with Soros, Teressa Heinz Kerry, and the Tides Foundation.  Look at what Romney has been up to.  Who needs Democrats when you have the level of treachery on our own side?

I'm not saying this to be mean, but you're playing right into the hands of the RNC here.  You're proving them right.  We'll vote for anything with an (R) after it.  Why should they move back to the Right, if they can get people this Leftist elected?  Do you want people this Leftist?  I don't think you do.

Just because the President is a Republican doesn't mean conservatives can't loudly and strongly oppose his policies with which we disagree.  Look, if you want to kid yourself that Republican Senators and Congressmen stand up to Republican presidents, go ahead.  The Medicare Prescription plan?  The Kennedy/McCain Immigration Reform Act?  Nice try.  Lest you forget, the Immigration Reform Act was a done deal, if McCain hadn't wanted to run for the presidency.  The Democrats were in charge.  They had the votes.  Republicans would have joined them.  So no, failing the withdrawel of support by one of the drafters, this bill passes.  Is anyone at all operating under the delusion that McCain wouldn't have revived this as soon as he was elected?  It was the realization of this that more than anything else, cost McCain the election.  And remember, he was the lesser of two evils.  His bill would have seen over 100 million Mexican nationals become U. S. Citizen in under 20 years.

As much of a squishy moderate as Bush was on some issues, I think most of us would agree this country would be in even worse shape if Gore of Kerry had been elected in his stead. And it does us no good if the patient dies before we can find the right doctor.

If the Republican party couldn't get Bush elected without Conservative support, do you think the next candidate would have been less or more Conservative?  Yes, we got Bush elected, and then he proceded to join with the Republicans and the Democrats to shape the nation that was handed off to Barack Obama.  Tell me this destroys my arguments here.  Well, you can't.

Do I want Kerry, Gore, Obama, in office?  No.  At the same time, I don't want Bush, McCain, and Romney in office.  I'm sorry, but the RNC will never get the message if we don't send it loud and clear.  This nation will get no better, and will only get worse until it gets that message.  Now, when will we send that message if not now?

[upsdriver]

No problem. In turn, I’ll blame you for wasting your vote on Romney and losing the election that could have been won with a credible candidate.