Posted on 01/26/2008 5:57:27 AM PST by fightinJAG
[snip]
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Well said and spot on!
I think even Rush has lost sight of the fact of what politics is and what it accomplishes (or not).
You've raised the fundamental question: what is conservatism?
Yes, I know, and wholeheartedly believe, that conservatism is a set of unchanging ideals ("immutable," as Rush likes to say).
But it seems to me there are only two conclusions that can be reached here:
1. Either there are not enough "conservatives" out there to cause the election of "conservative" congresscritters to cause the implementation of "conservative" policies (on issues such as immigration), or---
2. What you are advocating as an essential expression of "conservatism" (the rejection of amnesty) isn't.
Neither of those conclusions is pretty.
Peggy’s not the only one who blows off what Bush did for our country, and our future, by appointing Alito and Roberts.
Plenty of people fail to give him/us (”we the people” had a lot to do with getting them nominated as well) credit for that.
Exactly. A great summation of a great post.
There’s actually some truth to that. Especially if he keeps on this road which will encourage the 100% to stay home.
So where were conservatives on everything else? Why were they not similiarly players in all the things here that people complain about?
Fifty years from now Iraq will be a relatively free and prosperous and peaceful country in the heart of the Middle East.
It all will have been worth it.
Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter could have been suitable conservative leaders, but conservatives did not rally to them.
So is it the leadership is lacking or the willingness to support leadership?
Peggy Noonan maudlin stuff.
Did GWBush disappoint the party core? yes absolutly.
Is GWBush out of touch or refused to hear the party core? yes absolutly.
I don’t see this as ending the party.
I see this as a MSM effort to push the parties to two poles.
A clique for poor people and a clique for rich people.
But how did Bush prevent us from, say, supporting the more conservative candidates in the primaries?
How did Bush keep down conservatives to the point that Thompson and Hunter dropped out before we even get to the closed races?
How did he do that?
Your list is awesome, but how does the lack of those accomplishments translate into conservatives not backing the more conservative candidates that were in the race now?
I am, thank you!
a leader must lead.
Hunter had a horrible campaign. Dismal communication skills.
Thompson was better but his campaign needed a shock and awe start and it flopped. He tried to communicate new media but spend money on the old time table.
Thompson was effective one on one as seen with the “thompson effect”, it proves that people are hungry for conservative values when they are effectivly presented.
(the msm blackout template did not help either)
The fact remains, DINO trups RINO, only the candidate making conservative points can win.
"So where were conservatives on everything else?"
Conservatives were and are all over the map on everything else, with nearly everyone screaming "My way or the highway"
First, I think the White House and Congress had a slim window to prove that conservatism works. They failed miserably in my estimation. You and I know Bush isn't a conservative, but the average voter believes Bush is a conservate, he's failed, therefore conservatism has failed. That makes it much more difficult to run as a conservative. Had the GOP enacted conservative legislation with positive results, the climate would be much more favorable.
Second, most in the GOP intuitively know that this party is in deep trouble this year. Much of that trouble is directly attributable to the GOP itself. Many think the only way to avoid that is to run left; consequently many conservatives have betrayed their principles because they think it will prevent a Hillary Presidency.
Finally, conservatives of all types (fiscal, national security, social) have been repeatedly kicked in the teeth over the last eight years. History has demonstrated that "going along to get along" nets them nothing. Understandably, their mentality has changed to "all or nothing" and the chances of a coalition conservative candidate (i.e. Fred Thompson) has been reduced.
Once it breaks down into “my way or the highway,” the party stops being, IMHO, a party.
To me, a political party is a voluntary association of individuals who join together to advance, really, a world view through electing officials who will somehow-—maybe not directly, but somehow-—help their cause.
You wrote:
First, I think the White House and Congress had a slim window to prove that conservatism works. They failed miserably in my estimation. You and I know Bush isn't a conservative, but the average voter believes Bush is a conservate, he's failed, therefore conservatism has failed. That makes it much more difficult to run as a conservative. Had the GOP enacted conservative legislation with positive results, the climate would be much more favorable.
You may be right as to the "average voter." But I am talking about the conservative voter. To me, this still doesn't speak to explaining why conservative voters didn't rally to the more conservative candidates, leading in fact to those candidates having to drop out altogether.
Did what the GOP did legislatively figure at all into who you supported among the field that was presented? No. And I bet it didn't effect other conservative voters either.
Second, most in the GOP intuitively know that this party is in deep trouble this year. Much of that trouble is directly attributable to the GOP itself. Many think the only way to avoid that is to run left; consequently many conservatives have betrayed their principles because they think it will prevent a Hillary Presidency.
I think your observations are accurate, but I still don't think they apply to conservative voters. I don't think that conservative voters ever decide to "run left," or to "betray their principles."
So either there are a whole bunch of people who call themselves conservative, but who aren't. Or there aren't nearly as many conservatives out there as one might believe. I don't know which it is.
But I do know that conservatives had every opportunity to at least support more conservative candidates than the front-runners now, but they didn't.
Finally, conservatives of all types (fiscal, national security, social) have been repeatedly kicked in the teeth over the last eight years. History has demonstrated that "going along to get along" nets them nothing. Understandably, their mentality has changed to "all or nothing" and the chances of a coalition conservative candidate (i.e. Fred Thompson) has been reduced.
I can't agree that conservatives have "netted nothing" over the last eight years. For one thing, the Supreme Court has been changed for the foreseeable future to one much more balanced.
But, regardless of the merits of the conclusions you observe, I think your last point is the most telling. The increase in the "my way or the highway," or one of the many other ways it can be characterized, thinking is, IMHO, exactly what is preventing the emergence of a candidate who is at least more conservative than the current front-runners.
It's not the GOP, Bush, the MSM or anyone or anything else that caused conservatives to fail to get a more conservative candidate out of the bottom tier.
It was solely the ever-increasing pervasiveness of the idea that accepting anything less than 100% constitutes "going along to get along" and that is to be avoided.
I have been asking a bunch of questions here as to why conservatives failed to get one of the more conservative candidates out of the bottom tier.
I have consistently called BS on the explanation being the party, the MSM, Bush, etc.
Your one-line, above, did a lot to shed insight, leading to me articulating it this way: #238
I won’t reply point-by-point, because I agree with just about eveything you stated. Certainly there are not enough conservatives, and that’s the driving factor behind the current primary debacle. I do think, had conservatism been proven to work, it would’ve won converts. However an increasing number of Americans (in both parties) are interested in using the big stick of government to achieve their goals. And for that I have no solution.
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.