WHAT SHOULD CONSERVATIVES DO ABOUT THE GOP AND BUSH?

There has been a very loud and nasty argument gong on around here for months about how the GOP and George W. Bush have deserted Conservatives to pander to moderates and liberals and that they would stay home to show their discontent.. I say argument and not debate because there has been no debate just charge and counter-charge. I have issued the challenge to several disaffected former GOP and Bush supporters to start a thread that would focus on viable alternatives to both the GOP in 2002 and a replacement for Bush in 2004. None have taken up that challenge so I will start the thread myself.

This thread is not to continue the argument pro and con for either the GOP OR G.W. Bush.. Assume that conservatives have decided that Republicans are a lost cause and that the task is to put into place a viable alternative and candidate that will not result in conceding the elections to the democrats because that is neither smart OR rational. With that in mind I hope some of you that have given up and are very vocal in that stance will make your case for how conservatives should vote in the mid-term elections and who should be the conservative choice for POTUS, regardless of party, in 2004. If there is a candidate out there that you know about that could be groomed for national office in 2 years then please tell us why you think so and as much about the record on conservative issues as possible.

Once again, please refrain from just airing the same reasons for not supporting Bush, the GOP or both. That is already documented. The purpose for this thread are viable alternatives or solutions.

It appears that the thread is devolving to reasons NOT to vote for Bush so I guess the next step is to publish the named candidates that have been put forward. The list seems to boil down to the following. If you want pick a name or option from the list as your choice:

Ron Paul

Pat Buchanan

Alan Keyes

Howard Phillips

Newt Gingrich

Dan Quayle

Bob Barr

Brent Shundler

Tancredo

3rd Party to be named

Harry Browne or LP candidate

Let the democrats have it.

Nope. Take control of the GOP...at the LOCAL level.

I'm trying - again. I'm going to run for Precinct Committeeman in the primary election. I'm getting involved in a congressional campaign attempting to unseat a RINO and replace him with a real conservative. However, I'm running into the same country club RINO cheerleaders that I always run up against. Where do these people come from!? They think, like many here, that just because a person puts an (R) after their name that we should automatically support and vote for them and that any upstart Republican challenger is a threat to their power. Never mind that the incumbent Republican candidate shouldn't even be calling himself a Republican.

I've got one of my friends running with me. We hope to be RINO hunters, ferreting out all of the RINOs in the party and finding conservative challengers to replace them. We're going to start at the local party level because that's about all we can do.

I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment - again. But I guess I've just got to keep banging my head against that wall.

The best viable alternative? Click your heels 3 times and chant "There's no place like home."

And then ignore the man behind the curtain, aka the current majority of the American electorate. Like it or not, they currently skew moderate to moderate left, for a variety of reasons. This dumbing down of the electorate has taken years, and won't be reversed overnight, no matter how much some stomp their feet and demand immediate implementation of a conservative utopia.

IMHO, Bush is taking a somewhat opposite course from what is the conventional wisdom for elections. Instead of 'run conservative in the primaries and then run center', I think he is building trust and credibility with the moderates, the wary but not hard left, the uninformed, the political ignorant, the feel-good, and the boomer me-generation, who after 9/11 for the first time considered that maybe some of the constructs from which they base their opinions were incomplete or even wrong. Debunking the myths about conservatives so hammered home by every aspect of the media, destroying the template, so that when he does loudly advocate a conservative position, it won't be dismissed out of hand. But I bet he is going to campaign hard for conservative candidates this Fall. Slow at first, not over the top, but solid support.

Have you(speaking to all) ever dated someone more liberal than you? Did they change their opinions overnight, just because they were dating you? No, first you built trust, then they would listen and consider your arguments, and weigh for themselves. Finally they would begin to see for themselves. But first trust was required.

Do I agree with everything he is doing? Absolutely not. Actually I am glad Rush and others are loudly voicing their displeasure, much as a spouse would when one goes to far. This is healthy, and not appropriately expressing disappointment for bad decisions often only makes thing worse. But what angers me is when unrealistic childish rants become self-destructive, all the talk of sitting home, abandoning, etc. Rather than constructive criticism and seeking solutions, some here actually sigh with relief when they think they've found their latest excuse for pouting and quitting. I guess the burden of actually having to successfully win converts to conservatism in a difficult cultural environment was just too much, far easier simply to give up. Too many grumbling Jonah's rushing to seek shelter under every little sprouting weed, despite Ninevah's ears being opened.

You play the hand dealt you, and in 2000 it wasn't good. Yes, we now have an excellent opportunity, but it still requires strategy, patience, and prudence. Do I agree with every decision? Nope, and some will backfire. But in the big picture, they've done an awful lot of good so far. Bush won, you and I didn't, nor did Rush, or Drudge, or Savage, et. al. Again, he's building trust with the wary but open. Some will say that he broke the trust of the base, but they also probably said that many times about their parents. Good parents and good leaders make mistakes, but we judge them over the long-term. Whatever we do, let's work towards the goal of results, not destroying the family.

I don't know what the alternatives, if any. are for 2002 and 2004. (And I apologize for not having read the entire thread before responding. It's been a long day.) But I think that the long term alternative is to focus not on candidates but on centers of influence - the media, the academe. That is what the communists started doing back in the 40s, reaching full speed in 50s and 60s and look where we are now. The candidates and all politicians are controlled by the prevailing political winds and those blow from the media and from the academe towards the left. The focus groups, the polls all reflect the influence of the media. In a way, we are all of us "sheeple". Someone else controls our focus, dictates our priorities. Penetrate, infiltrate the media, I say. Long term. Short term, I'm pessimistic and think that little can be done.

Please quit changing the subject Dan. I keep talking about building a party from the ground up, and you come back to the idea of going for President on the first try. We dealt with that in post #144 to jla, the post you came in on. I said there "build from the ground up, not pres. on first try". You gave your answer to that in post #175, I refuted it in post #197. You then go right back to where you came in, in response to my post to jla in #144.

I never suggested we go for Pres. first, as is the case in your invalid examples. Not only are your examples invalid, they are a repeat of the strawman position that I have already disavowed on this thread. I am not going to go in circles with you.

I am glad your county is getting more conservative- they need a conservative party to fight for them. All resources they give to the national GOP will be used to marginalize and thwart them.

The premise of your question is fallacious. The fact is that the term "conservatives" encompasses a spectrum of beliefs and tactical approaches. Therefore, no single "right" answer could be given. The actions of the President this year have undoubtedly moved many conservatives to be less supportive of his general thrust, especially in domestic affairs, but also in the WoT and related foreign policy matters (e.g. handling of the Israeli/Arab conflict). W and his political advisors no doubt believe he is gaining more (from the middle) than he is losing (on the right) by his actions. If Bush loses some close states, e.g. West Virginia, Tennesee, Wisconsin, etc. in 2004, due to a modest increase in 3rd party defections, he'll know why. However, 2 years is an enormous amount of time. Speculation now on what the political landscape will be then is about as accurate as the global warming models.

That said, I would like to associate myself with the comment by IronJack regarding the broad cultural nature of the struggle against socialism. It isn't all about elections and political office. That's the part of the iceberg that's above the water-line.

Finally, I've been toying with the idea of a write-in in the 2004 Republican primary for the candidate whom I feel best represents my views -- Dick Cheney.

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.