Skip to comments.Fighting the Good Conservative Fight
Posted on 12/03/2012 9:57:32 AM PST by Sharkfish
Ever since the election, introspective Republicans, gloating Democrats and a largely corrupt media have offered innumerable suggestions regarding how the GOP can reconstitute, re-brand or re-invent itself to attract more Americans. The party must become more diverse, more inclusive, more compassionate and/or more modern. Some of these arguments might have merit, but in reality there is only one thing Republicans must fully embrace: genuine conservatism, for two simple reasons. One, anything less makes them Democrat-lite, and voters will invariably prefer the real thing; and two, embracing conservatism is critical for the nations survival. That survival depends on conservatives first acknowledging, and then waging all-out war, on three critical fronts. Until that occurs, conservatives are doomed to irrelevancy.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
To read later.
IMO, trying to get the Republican Party to shift back to the right is like trying to get the egg back in the chicken. Once laid, it ain’t going back in!
I believe that the RNC is a broken, rudderless party full of linguini-spined cowards. As long as the two-party system exists, conservatives will be forced to vote for moderates (like Romney), instead of having a real vote for a real conservative. Since, IMO, it is highly unlikely that the RNC will ever return to its conservative roots, if there are enough of us who are dissatisfied with the RNC, we need to start pushing for a new party that represents our interests.
Over the years, a number of different 3rd parties and 3rd party names have been profferred but, unfortunately, none seem to have found the light of day. If we mean what we say, it is time to stop caving to the whims of the broken, out-of-touch RNC and go our separate way with a new party.
Those are our only options - continue to stay with a party that has lost its way and no longer represents us, or shift to a new party that does.
“Those are our only options - continue to stay with a party that has lost its way and no longer represents us, or shift to a new party that does.”
I vote for “shift to a new party that does”!!!
It is time to smash the GOP.
See Whither American Conservatism? which looks at the American Conservative crisis, from the perspective of whether the Republican Party can still be of use to us.
We have to learn to explain our position on issues better; not simply hurl slogans on those issues. We have about run out of time to break the strangle hold that the Leftist Academics & Media Talking Heads have on a large segment of American youth.
Thanks for the link William. Your points are cogent and well taken. Unfortunately, proving conservatism’s worth is a battle that need to be fought on many fronts, including within the Republican Party.
My definition of a RINO is someone whose political identity is sufficiently defined by his ability to "work with" Democrats that, despite running on the Republican ticket, he would rather undermine the conservative cause than have it cripple the Democrats and render useless his ability to "work with" them.
One possible rule change in Congress which would IMHO improve the quality of representation immensely would be to only reveal how congresscritters vote on things after voting is closed. As it is, if a majority of congress wants various things, but only a minority really wants to go on record as supporting them, that minority can avoid having more people go on record as voting for it than are required to pass it. If some of the potential support for a bill was from people who want its supporters to actually go on record, and wouldn't reveal their support or lack thereof until after the close of voting, its supporters would have to guess at how many votes they'd need, and would be much more likely to cast votes that reflected their true ideology.
Here are my suggestions for chants, signs or banners:
Here are my three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:
1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?
2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?
3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT in your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?
Actually, Congress has had a rule sort of like that for decades. Back when they used to pass pay raises for the sitting Congress (before they accidentally passed an Amendment that only allows them to give pay raises to the NEXT Congress!), it was always surprising to hear most of the Congress get in front of a microphone the next day and deny that they had voted for the raise. If no one voted for it, how did it get passed?
This is how they did it: A rider with the pay raise would be attached to a bill and the bill forwarded to the Speaker's inbox for action. At this point, a bill would typically either end up in committee or it would be called for a floor vote. However, when the bill with the pay raise rider was submitted, it would be allowed to sit on the Speaker's docket for 72 hours with NO action taken. The rule was that if a bill sat on the docket for 72 hours with no action taken, it was considered automatically passed and sent to the president to sign, which he typically did.
And, that's how it really works! So, when all those Congresscritters would find a microphone to deny voting for their pay raise (which was usually VERY unpopular with the taxpayers!), they weren't lying!! They just hadn't done their job for 72 hours!
Wouldn't you like to avoid doing your job for 72 hours an get a pay raise??
History & civilization are multi-generational processes. The Conservative seeks to progress by building on what previous generations have achieved, through their generations of struggle. Each local community, as every conceivable subset of the population, may have its own nuanced views of that achievement or process--or of the priorities to be focused on. This can often be confusing. Karl Rove's misdirection of the Bush Presidency--in my opinion--illustrates the point. (The economically unfeasible, and Constitutionally wrong, Federal intrusions into education & health care, to humor popular concerns, are examples.)
To return to the general. It is always easy for those primarily focused on electing their own list of candidates to compromise the functional conservative quest, by chasing after--for example--transient attitudes, or assuaging temporary concerns (that is, pragmatically, letting those who are not interested in a consistent building, to focus attention on the wrong considerations).
This may play into the hands of those who seek to win, at almost any price, simply to get elected, even if they lose their way, in the process. Therefore, we need to constantly remember why we even engage in the first place.
Ah, there lies the rub.