Posted on 04/20/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT by xzins
Fourth, Remember the Difference Between Republicans and Conservatives.
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.
Fifth, Don’t Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party.
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.
Your dreaming on that one. The Republican’s have no “Balls” or anything else.
Nothing and I mean nothing is going to change.
I disagree right there. There are plenty of people espoousing conservative ideals, and they at least get presented as the alternative to what the Democrat does. And frankly, in this election cycle, Romney has rhetorically been a big booster of capitalism. It's his record on related issues that's the problem, but the conservative message is definitely getting out there evne if conservatives themselves doubt his sincerity.
The problem has been that conservative ideals are "tougher love" than the surface coddling that liberals offer, so it takes an exceptional messenger to make that case effectively.
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.
I don't see the virtue in drilling holes in the bottom of the boat so that the water runs out faster while waiting for that conservative to emerge. by then, we may be sunk.
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.
The problem, again, is that we don't have a Reagan running. We had a pretty flawed slate of candidates. The reason we haven't nominated another Reagan is that another Reagan hasn't chosen to run.
Are you aware of the percentage of the populace that considers themselves to be a Conservative vs a Liberal? 41 vs 21%
41% is not a majority. It gets you 41% of the electorate. In any case, peoples' definition of conservative may be ideosyncratic, and may not match yours or mine. But more importantly, if we assume that number is correct, then why didn't that 41% nominate a great conservative? It's because there wasn't one running. That was the core reason we're stuck with Romney today. Crud, the primaries showed that GOP voters kept flocking to the next non-Romney, in the vain hope they'd turn out to be the next Reagan. And they all failed. I voted for Gingrich, but I'd admit that he isn't Reagan either.
The core problem we've had is a lack of good candidates. And honestly, the only "fault" we can attach to that is to those non-existent candidates themselves. The best I've seen recently is Rubio in terms of the ability to communicate the conservative message effectively, but he's still unripe. I just want to be sure we still have a country when he's ready to run in 2016.
And you would be completely off-base; because Romney isn't my man. Thinking that I am a GOP/Romney supporter shows how blinded by hatred one is; considering I flatly stated I wasn't voting for him, but against obama.
In fact he's the last person on the stage; besides Ron Paul, that I want running for president this year. Unfortunately, my guy didn't win and it looks like Romney will be the nominee; barring an act of God, I fear. You make do with the hand you are dealt.
Since when does standing on sound conservative principles warrant insult on the FR? If your conscience is clear voting for Romney, then do it. I don't agree with your actions or understand them but I respect your right to make up your own mind. Those of us who won't ever pull the lever for Romney would appreciate similar treatment.
I'd feel a little bit worse with Obama's re-election than I would with Romney's election but not enough to abandon my conservative principles. I said five years ago that Mitt Romney is the only major Republican presidential candidate of my lifetime for whom I couldn't vote. That's an unbroken string of Republican votes back to unenthusiastically pulling the lever for Ford. Not Romney, ever.
I agree! Allowing the ENEMY inside your camp is much more dangerous than having him outside. Keep electing rinos and keep allowing these liberal appeasing prix to rummage around and destroy the best hope for America that exist!
When does supporting these "lessor of two evils" rino losers end???
She's A LOT better looking than Tina Fey. And classier. And more character.
Sorry, I’ll vote for whomever the Pubs throw up against Obama.
Imagine what Obama will do if he thinks he has voter approval of his socialist agenda by being elected to a second term.
I dislike Romney but he is better than another Obama term. Sorry FR, had to say it.
I predict that by November this site will have again become more sane and practical.
This "Romney-is-Satan" crap just won't hold up for another six months, especially after every conservative who ever held public office has endorsed him and campaigned for him.
One can always be impatient at the pace of progress but there is never any excuse for giving up.
You're right. Same with me. Every election is, "the most important election of our lifetime," and "now is not the time to abandon the party for the sake of ideological purity."
If we had "abandoned the party" in 1988, instead of nominating the first "New World Order" idiot, we wouldn't be in the shape we're in now. It has to start sometime, the sooner the better. I hope many will give up their hopes for the corrupt GOPe to reform itself. Their problems are genetic.
If we don't put our feet down now, in four years it will be the same old story with the same tired "my guy is less bad than their guy."
1) They are already inside the camp; the damage is done. The damage that Romney can do; even at his worst, is less than what obama has and will continue to do, if re-elected.
2) The big key this year; and even GOP/Romney haters admit this, is to put more true Conservatives in the Senate. Do that and even if Romney goes all Massachusetts RINO (which he will at points), there will be a mechanism in place to stop him. Refer back to #1.
3) Letting the government go idle(which it never really does)is not an option. Things HAVE to be done in order to roll back the things that obama and his bureaucracy have put in place. Even if the Dems lose control of the Senate, do you honestly think obama won't veto everything that comes across his desk; after all he'll be a lot more "flexible" once he's re-elected. There's no way that you'll be able to get a veto proof vote on even half of what needs to be done to set this ship aright. Romney may. or may not veto things; we know that obama will. Refer back to #1.
4) This whole sick cycle ends, when Conservatives take control at the local level, build a farm team and elevate true Conservatives to the national stage. Are you doing your part locally (you as in the reader, not you sirchtruth specifically)? Refer back to #1.
Until then you make do with what's before you and try to make the best selection possible in order to minimize the damage that is being/going to be/could be done. Abdicating the playing field to the enemy (obama IS the enemy who is the biggest threat to "destroy the best hope for America that exist!" as you put it) is just plain idiotic and counter productive, in my opinion, at this point.
How can you have one, without the other?
I hold all those talking heads and primary candidates that continually told us they would 100% support whomever the nominee was, responsible for the disaster named Romney.
The next President whomever that is, will forever change our country and I doubt it will be for the better. One might begin to think that there really could be a grand conspiracy.
The TEA Party is dead, long live the TEA Party.
Tape it to a brick and send it back with the postage paid envelope they send to you.
What you really mean is ef all of us, ef the country, ef the future. Because--let's be plain about this--that is what your attitude and inaction will do. You do NOT stop to argue about the furniture in the house while the house is flooding. First you turn off the damn water.
I really don't hold out much hope for our Republic no matter which of these Marxists are elected.
No politician can cure what ails our country, and we should not look to one of them for the answer.
You have a few examples of how the current Republican controlled House has checked the current White House agenda?
-—”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.”
You’ve got it figured out. This country has gone so far left that it’s just not going to happen that we can jump as far right as we want (e.g. Constitution Party). It’ll take two terms. Suppose a Romney term - and then if the country swings more conservative than now (I expect it will) - and then more conservative challenger.
That would be when Obama is the laughing stock of the mainstream.
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.