Posted on 11/11/2006 2:42:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
As I write this column, three days after the midterm elections, the Democrats have taken over the House of Representatives and, with the concession of Sen. George Allen (R.-Va.), have captured the Senate as well.
Make no mistake about it—this is Republican loss and not a conservative loss.
Republicans lost because the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership too often cavalierly abandoned the populist conservative message and policies of President Ronald Reagan.
For far too long the American people have come to view the conservative movement and the Republican Party as one and the same. Indeed, they are not.
Conservatives need to re-establish their identity and independence from Republicanism. The Bush Administration has been hijacked by neo-conservatives who believe in “big government conservatism.” The very phase is an oxymoron—designed to give cover for big government intervention in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas.
The neo-conservatives support open borders, expansion of the education bureaucracy and promoting democracy in the Mideast through military intervention.
Republicans paid a heavy price at the ballot box for their failure over the last few years to live up to the ideals and standards which the American people believed they represented when they took the House of Representatives from the Democrats a decade ago and when Bush won the presidency in 2000.
This election turned out to be just what many conservatives had feared—a referendum on the performance of the Bush White House and the Republican Congress, rather than a contest between the two competing party’s visions for America.
Republicans lost touch with almost every element of their base.
Economic conservatives could not understand it when the Bush White House teamed up with Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) on “big government” legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare prescription drug bill. And they could not understand why “conservative” leaders such as former Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) carried the water for the President on behalf of this massive expansion of government.
Conservatives were perhaps most dismayed with the administration’s failure to secure our borders and to deal with illegal immigration. And many conservatives such as Bill Buckley, Brent Scowcroft and Pat Buchanan were skeptical early on about the war with Iraq which they viewed as unnecessary and not a part of the War on Terror.
To further complicate matters, Republicans—who were elected by promising the highest standards of integrity—were involved in one scandal after another involving members of Congress, Republicans lobbyists and some members of the Bush Administration.
Exit polls indicated that the American electorate had become more than skeptical regarding the war in Iraq, concerned about the war on terrorism and the scandals in Washington.
One final nail in the coffin of the GOP was the failure “at all levels of government” in responding to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. (One note: In my opinion this emphatically excludes the leadership by Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi in efforts exhibited in rebuilding his state.)
In short—the mid term elections can be summed as crisis of confidence in the GOP controlled Congress and the Bush White House.
Sadly, it seems that the “Party of Reagan” has been hijacked by the neo-cons, the big government crowd and the pragmatists.
The debate for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and the conservative movement has begun. Let’s hope we are up to the job.
The question is this: Do we want do the stay the course or do we want to want to return to the “Party of Reagan?”
[***Mr. Rotterman is a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation and a GOP consultant.***]
Surely you're not suggesting conservatives got anywhere near 100% of their agenda? Here in California it would be hard to argue that they even got 10% of their agenda with the detestable Ahnold and Duf in control of the party.
Now I supported McClintock. But I do understand why some conservatives would have voted for Arnold (though he is far too Liberal for me), as they believe CA has become far too Liberal a state for a conservative to win. They may be right. I am not familiar enough with CA to make that call.
People have differences of opinion regarding political and voting strategies. Generally, it doesn't make them anymore or less conservative. It's someone's stand on the issues that defines their brand of conservatism. At least that's the way I see it.
Looks like a conservative to me. However, as far as death penalty goes, I would be for public hangings. Build a gallows in front of the courthouse, sell tickets, (good revenue booster). or is that too radical?
How did you get that from my explantion of Reagan's definition of a radical conservative? Nice change of topic, btw.
With the political situation in CA today, I would not expect that conservatives would get anything close to 100% (which incidentally I don't expect to get ANYWHERE), and wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 30%.
A lot of people held their nose and voted for Ahnold. He repaid them by telling voters that he voted for and supported Democrats and by openly attacking the Republican Lt. Governor candidate days before the election.
Sounds good to me as long as we model the judicial process on how Texas handles it... you kill someone, we kill you back and don't wait 50 years to do it.
Public hangings sound good... or maybe televising them? :-)
You argued that a "radical conservative" wouldn't settle for anything less than 100%. Since we didn't get anywhere near 100%, who can your definition be applied to? Do we use tea leaves?
I will read it. Thank you very much!
on televising them.
I was going to mention that, but only if they showed a reinactment of their crime so the people didn't start feeling sorry for them.
Did you read reply #43?
You are creating an argument where there was only a question.
JimRob made his decision a day or so before the recall election and posted that decision on FR for all to see. He didn't run around FR trashing those of us who opposed Arnold, and he wasn't outspoken in his support of the liberal Schwarzenegger either. He was for McClintock up until the end, and expressed that opinion on several occasions.
People have a right to vote for whoever they choose to. However, since FR is a rightwing forum, advancing conservatism and opposing liberalism, I see no good reason to hold back criticism of liberals, moderates and centrists. Especially those who go out of their way to promote anything but conservatism. Simple as that.
Well, just as I thought, you are a...a..Conservative with a capital C, lol!
Tamzee seems to believe that anyone who isn't a complete sellout is a "radical conservative".
Excellent point, the press fawning endlessly over Tookie was nauseating and deliberately deceptive. I like your idea, similar to "Unsolved Crimes" but with a really happy ending....
Thank you for the explanation.
exactly
Some are lemmings some are traitors.. but ALL perform sedition..
That's about the size of it :-)
Which is why I'm so determined not to see the country continue to lurch left away from us by blowing elections out of tiny-tent-ism in blue states.
I know and understand most of the reasoning. I believe I would have voted for McClintock but cannot be certain. Republican Liberals like Arnold will stab you in the back every time.
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.