Posted on 02/01/2006 9:05:20 PM PST by TBP
A new on-line poll of 1,028 conservative activists and donors shows that 77 percent are either seriously disappointed with Republican Congressional leaders or want them replaced.
The January 31 survey also found that 54 percent of conservatives feel so abandoned by current Congressional leaders and President Bush that they plan to reduce their contributions and/or grassroots work for GOP candidates in the 2006 election. And 70 percent would support a principled conservative challenger running against an established incumbent Republican in a 2006 GOP primary.
The poll, taken just two days before House Republicans vote to choose new leaders, should serve as a wake-up call to GOP officials and President Bush, said Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, which sponsored the survey.
“Conservatives feel betrayed by the Republican leaders, and they want them replaced,” said Viguerie, who has been dubbed the “Funding Father” of the conservative movement. “Conservatives, which form the GOP’s base, provided most of the volunteers and money to elect a Republican-controlled House and Senate – and wound up with bigger government as a result. Now more than half of these committed activists say they’ll reduce or end their involvement in the 2006 elections – which could prove devastating for the GOP.”
Asked how they feel about the Republican members of Congress, 48 percent of conservatives report being “disappointed” and an additional 32 percent think they “should be replaced.”
Asked to grade the GOP-controlled Congress, 73 percent gave it a D or F on “controlling government spending;” 73 percent gave it a D or F on “reducing illegal immigration;” and 54 percent gave it an “overall grade” of D or F.
Sixty-three percent gave Bush a D or F on controlling government spending.
Perhaps most troublesome for the GOP, Viguerie pointed out, is how that anger may affect the 2006 mid-term elections: 51 percent of donors said they plan to reduce or end their financial support in 2006.
“This is a recipe for Republicans losing both houses of Congress in 2006. Republican leaders need to comprehend that if they govern as liberals, they will lose the support of conservatives,” Viguerie said.
The complete poll results are on-line at: http://www.conservativehq.com/chq_survey_1302006_stats.php
Statistically meaningless.
Statistically meaningless.
But great fodder for the Republican haters on FR. After all, fake but accurate isn't just for liberals.
dnager - that as well!
Apparently, it includes GOP party hacks as well.
Similar story already posted here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569795/posts
I will never vote for a lib Demonrat so long as there is any difference between one and a "Republican."
I never heard of ConservativeHQ. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the post. BTW, I'm not sure I agree with the doom-and-gloom conclusion: I can't see a conservative voting for, for example, Hillary, who's a confirmed socialist, just because he's mad at Pres. Bush's spending. Although, I confess, I did vote for Ross Perot because I was mad at BushI's tax increase, but I was young and stupid then.
The bigger issue would be conservatives staying home on election day, which is a definite possibility.
You're right. But I hope they'd be more sensible than that and realize that although it's not a perfect world, one with a Republican president has to be better than Hillary. Unless it's McCain, of course; that's an internal battle I don't want to have with myself!
"Unless it's McCain, of course; that's an internal battle I don't want to have with myself!"
Lol, same here.
I'd vote for McCain over any Dem. I'm not fond of him, and there's no way the base would select him, but in the odd event he does get the nomination, I'd enthusiastically vote for him over anyone the moonbats would offer. The Presidency is more than just one man--it's a list of appointments to the Government. Any GOP president, no matter how "liberal" he may be, will have to appoint members from his party to various positions. Some of them, from a "liberal" GOPer, will be the like of David Souter--others, won't be. And that would be the difference, having a Gov't mixed w/ a couple of Souters, or a Gov't composed entirely of Jamie Gorelicks and Sandy Bergers.
A McCain Presidency would be a dismembered limb. A Hillary Presidency would be a disembowelment. Hopefully it won't come to that, but if its between that choice, one must be chosen. Sitting out and pouting is support for the disembowelment.
That's the argument I'd have with myself, and that's the same conclusion I'd reach: it's not a perfect world, but it would be a heck of a lot worse with Hitlary at the helm.
Nor can I, but I can see a lot of conservatives deciding that there isn't a dime's worth of difference and staying home, hurting Republicans up and down the ticket. Other conservaties will find a new attraction to third parties (especially if they keep running guys like Jim Gilmore who have some credibility.) This will hurt some Republicans, mostly the RINO types.
I must say, I certainly don't recognize Barry Goldwater's party anymore.
hmmmm. What are the odds that online poll has been "freeped"?
A lot of us are familiar with certain pretensive behaviors who use FR to declare they are "Republicans," although it is paled in comparison with the many more who purport to be "conservatives".
They're simple to identify. Just question them as to conservative values and beliefs and watch their animosity grow.
Some of those are in today's GOP. Cerainly in places such as CA, for starters.
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.