Democrat Lite A Big GOP Does Not Make

davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 05/28/09 | david limbaugh

[lancer256]

I see "pragmatists" everywhere I look in the Republican Party -- those who say we must always be more concerned with not offending so-called moderates than with advancing our principles. The irony is that no one is less pragmatic, in the end, than these self-styled pragmatists because their prescriptions are a recipe for failure.

Most recently, of course, the Republican branch of the political correctness sect insists that we must not oppose Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the Supreme Court because her confirmation is inevitable and by opposing it, we'll gratuitously alienate Hispanics and women -- as if they haven't already been conditioned by the liberal press to believe conservatives are ogres regardless.

What's missing from this analysis is that one of the main reasons Republicans have lost favor of late, reflected in their trouncing in the 2006 congressional elections and in shrinking GOP party identification percentages, is their alienation of the conservative base. The best-kept secret is that with 60 percent of Americans still considering themselves conservatives, Republicans only need to be true to their conservative principles to win again.

While I've always considered it hyperbolic to suggest there is no difference between the parties, I find it increasingly difficult to defend this position. Beltway Republicans, with notable exceptions, spend half their time groveling to the forces of political correctness, conceding the ideological turf wars to liberal Democrats and agreeing to operate within the four corners of the liberal- and relativist-dominant media culture without a fight.

[Man50D]

The best-kept secret is that with 60 percent of Americans still considering themselves conservatives, Republicans only need to be true to their conservative principles to win again.

Their principles are no longer Conservative.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

They want us to be more like Democrats—well, the Democrats fight Republican nominees with every weapon they have in their arsenal, and when that doesn’t work they spit and piss and bite and claw.

[TADSLOS]

If the GOP continues to surrender its principles, however, it won't matter if it wins, because it will have morphed into that which it has professed to oppose.

It's already there, David. The ghost shadow of the DNC.

[Kansas58]

It is an insult to Hispanics to believe that every Hispanic supports SotoMayor.

It is an insult to women to believe that all women support Sotomayor.

[mono]

If the best response we have from Rush, Newt, Huck, Beck and Tancredo is calling her racist as I have seen then conservatives will lose and the GOP will lose. There has to be a better response than that.

[TADSLOS]

If the best response we have from Rush, Newt, Huck, Beck and Tancredo is calling her racist as I have seen then conservatives will lose and the GOP will lose. There has to be a better response than that.

You're right. Racist doesn't quite cover it. She's an incompetent, card carrying La Raza bigoted racist and affirmative action poster child.

[nathanbedford]

The Republican who can personify an issue in opposition to the Democrats will go a long way toward becoming the party leader and probably the party nominee.

I see Newt Gingrich stepping out on several issues. He has been vociferous on the Nancy Pelosi flap even calling for her resignation. He has opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and flatly called her a racist. With these and other public moves Gingrich has tried to position himself as a leader of the opposition. Full disclosure, I think he would make the best leader we could muster at this time but it is clear that he is not catching fire so far. He wants to be the nominee and I want him to be the leader.

I have no doubt that many will point to Newt's failings as a husband and his flirtations on global warming with Nancy Pelosi. The problem is I do not hear anything at all from Sarah Palin or from Mitt Romney (I think Romney has just criticized some union favoritism of the administration) who are laying back until the time is right for them. But the fight is now. Gingrich at least is in the arena.

Whoever emerges as the standardbearer leading on the issue which captures the imagination of the anti-administration forces, will either lead those forces toward a reform of the Republican Party or toward a breakup of the Republican Party splitting the conservatives from the moderates. Since I do not see how anyone can capture the imagination of potential anti-Obama voters with anything but a conservative message, that means that the emerging leader most likely will be a conservative. He will no doubt attempt to bring the moderates to his side. The moderates will try to water down his message. To the degree that he succumbs to the blandishments of the moderates, he will lose the base and he will blunt his message which must be pure if it is to attract independents.

My thesis is that independents are not won by moderating a basic conservative message but by tempering and purifying it so that it seizes the imagination and sweeps all along with it. That was what Ronald Reagan did. He articulated the most conservative message and won over the independents. Once he got dominance within the party, that is, once he secured the nomination and shook off the moderates attempt to saddle him with Gerry Ford, the moderates too were swept along because they could do no other.

It is more desirable to purify the Republican Party and proceed into an election season exploiting the apparatus and machinery of the party than it is to splinter away. The latter course leads only to defeat. Third parties do not triumph in America because of structural reasons having to do with the architecture of our system. Ronald Reagan followed the former path.

[Defiant]

There's a psychological component to people's decision to vote Dem or Republican. If Republicans go along with the Dems, they come off as loser tag-alongs snipping at the heels of the cool kids and wishing they could be like them. People will join the cool kids and make fun of the tag-alongs. No one wants to be a loser.

If the Republicans set up a true rivalry, and say that the Dems are wrong on everything, and we will fight them on everything, then that forces people to make a choice.

Osama was right about one thing, everyone wants to back the winning horse. Republicans doing what Ahnold and Frum and people like that want are clearly losing horses, and no one will back them, not conservatives, not moderates, who will be forced to throw in with the winners, and not liberals, who are Dems to begin with.

The only way for republicans to regain power is to provide an alternative, and to show that they are going to fight for it. Then people might invest their lives and intersts in that cause. Until then, why risk Obama's wrath?

[nathanbedford]

Agreed.

[okie01]

If the best response we have from Rush, Newt, Huck, Beck and Tancredo is calling her racist as I have seen then conservatives will lose and the GOP will lose. There has to be a better response than that.

A few questions...

1. Was it not a racist statement?

2. Are such racist thoughts not complete anathema on the bench? Especially on the Supreme Court?

3. What is the problem with accurately identifying a valid reason for objecting to her appointment?

I'd really be interested in your answers.

[Cheap_Hessian]

Mark Levin is usually the best to listen to on the judicial topics.

[SoConPubbie]

If the best response we have from Rush, Newt, Huck, Beck and Tancredo is calling her racist as I have seen then conservatives will lose and the GOP will lose. There has to be a better response than that.

You are either ill-informed or a troll to say that about Rush.

Rush has covered most, if not all, of the inadequacies of Captain Zero's nominee for the Supreme Court.

If you don't like Rush, just say so. Otherwise, please educate yourself about the topic you are posting on!

[Cheap_Hessian]

“If Republicans go along with the Dems, they come off as loser tag-alongs snipping at the heels of the cool kids and wishing they could be like them.”

I think the bigger point is that socialism doesn’t work. The Republicans should stand for principles and policies that lead to economic growth, a strong Judaeo-Christian culture, a strong national defense, and a balanced federalist government.

The right of every American is to have their life, liberty, and private property protected. Republicans should be fighting for a system that allows everyone the opportunity to chase the American dream through hard work, ingenuity, and prudence. Republicans should foster an environment of competition that encourages risk while also allowing failure. Republicans should stand up for the truth and not this grandstanding routine for cheap political points.

Why should we support the majority of Republicans who are either too stupid, too afraid, or too corrupt to fight this encroaching tyranny on our freedoms? There is no excuse.

[TheFourthMagi]

Purify the Republican Party on exactly which issues?

[Defiant]

I think the bigger point is that socialism doesn’t work.

You have identified why you and I will never support Obama. We are not susceptible to deciding that socialism might work all of a sudden. I was talking about the electorate as a whole, the unthinking masses who live their lives and don't examine the basis of their beliefs, and can be swayed by mass media and social pressures. Sadly, that is enough people to elect an anti-American marxist, and the only thing that will change that is someone who forcefully provides an alternative, and who seems to have a chance at winning.

[Cheap_Hessian]

“Sadly, that is enough people to elect an anti-American marxist, and the only thing that will change that is someone who forcefully provides an alternative, and who seems to have a chance at winning.”

The only thing that can change this liberal stranglehold is reality. Reality will show socialism doesn’t work. The question is whether the unthinking masses, as you describe, can recognize Obama’s failure. Let’s hope so.

[nathanbedford]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2260369/posts

[mono]

Wow! Based on comments posted I hit a nerve. I repeat, screaming racist, racist will not defeat this candidate. Attacking her record might.

[SoConPubbie]

Wow! Based on comments posted I hit a nerve. I repeat, screaming racist, racist will not defeat this candidate. Attacking her record might.

And you apparently can not read nor listen to Rush.

No one is SCREAMING RACIST, however, Rush did point out, using her own record, that she is correctly called a racist. He also pointed out her other deficiencies as well.

Furthermore, his tactic has a pretty good chance of convincing those on the left and the moderates you are so fond of, that this is a candidate they should not support because being a RACIST is so important to them. If nothing else, since it is supported by her own recorded history, it might shame enough of them to back away from supporting them.