Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Do Conservatives Go Now? Part 2 (Donít Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party)
Conservative HQ ^ | 19 Apr 12 | Richard A. Viguerie

Posted on 04/20/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT by xzins

Fourth, Remember the Difference Between Republicans and Conservatives.

Conservatives look at the endorsements Mitt Romney has garnered from such establishment figures as former President George H.W. Bush and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and most importantly from business-as-usual Washington insiders, such as lobbyist Ed Gillespie, and they see advocates of positions they often opposed, not friends of the transformational agenda that won the Tea Party wave election of 2010.

Surveying Romney’s record and agenda, and most importantly the people he is likely to bring to Washington to implement his agenda, movement conservatives see little likelihood a Romney administration will differ from a Bush administration, or a McCain administration, or a Dole or Ford administration.

This is why conservatives remain so deeply skeptical of Mitt Romney’s candidacy for President. They look at his record as Governor of Massachusetts and the policies he espouses and see no commitment to the kind of transformational change the conservative movement has been working for the past 50 years to achieve.

Republican Party insiders still can’t come to grips with the reality that the rebellion of the small government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party is as much a rejection of their stewardship of the government – the earmarks and massive spending and debt of the Bush years – as it is a rejection of Obamacare and Obamanomics.

Let’s be quite clear – there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives. The goal of the Republican political party is to elect its candidates to control the levers of government power. Conservatives should not get so swept-up in the Republican Party’s campaign for power, that they loose sight of the fact that the goal of the conservative movement is to hold the government to constitutional principles, no matter what political party is in power, and in the process rejuvenate our society and culture.

Fifth, Don’t Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party.

If the difference between conservatives and Republicans is based in the conservative movement’s commitment to holding the government to constitutional principles, no matter which Party is in power, then one of the most important things conservatives can do is to support organizations that are committed to that same goal.

This also means declining to support organizations, including the national, state and local Republican Parties if they are not committed to holding the government to constitutional principles.

The folly of conservatives supporting the Republican National Committee, and many state Republican Party committees was made readily apparent during the presidential primary. In state after state the establishment GOP did its best to thwart the will of the grassroots conservative voters by using its power to tip the scales toward Mitt Romney to the disadvantage of the conservative candidates in the race.

In the same vein the Republican National Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have become virtual incumbent protection rackets – appearing to sell influence and access in return for donations to keep incumbent members of Congress in power.

Thanks in part to the ability of the new and alternative media, especially the internet, to empower grassroots activists it is now possible to bypass the establishment Republican Party. There are now dozens of sound organizations committed to constitutional conservative principles that are doing everything from training volunteers in grassroots campaign techniques to recruiting and training conservative candidates to run for Congress and their state legislatures.

Just because an organization has conservative in its name doesn’t mean the organization is actually conservative – especially if it is headquartered in Washington DC. Too many Washington-based organizations, even ones that began with the intention of fostering conservative government, have become part of the inside-the-Beltway Republican establishment.

Very often the best organizations to support are not the state parties and national committees, but the local groups; County Republican Committees and Tea Party organizations who share our values and are doing the hard work to elect conservative candidates to office up and down the ballot. By supporting these local organizations, which are always struggling to raise money, it is possible to know their leadership, know whether or not they share our values and determine whether they are accountable and effective.

During the Bush – Hastert – Frist years too many Washington-based policy organizations sold their souls for a few tickets to the White House Christmas party or a seat at the State of the Union Address. They failed in the real test of whether they were effective advocates of conservative policy – holding the government to constitutional principles, no matter which Party is in power.

Don’t get suckered into supporting the Republican Party’s incumbent protection racket. Donate only to small government constitutional conservative organizations and committees dedicated to holding the government to constitutional principles, no matter which Party is in power, and electing small government constitutional conservatives to office. Avoid establishment Republican-oriented organizations and Party committees that don’t hew to conservative principles, and work against conservative candidates and blindly support Republican incumbents even when they oppose conservative policies.

Sixth, It’s the Primaries, Stupid – Support Small Government, Constitutional Conservative Candidates

If 2012 is another big wave election, like 2010, but it sweeps into office the usual big-government, establishment Republicans, then we will have missed the opportunity of a lifetime.

Supporting small government, constitutional conservatives, no matter how far down the ballot they are is crucial to our long-term success, and running for any office, no matter how far down the ballot, is worthy of your efforts.

If constitutional conservatives are to govern America, we must not only elect a President and a Congress, but also city council members, school board members, state legislators, Secretaries of State, Lt. Governors, etc.

Of course, there are many good candidates already running who are with the Tea Party movement. However, the vast majority of positions on the ballot this year do not have small government constitutional conservatives running, and many will have incumbents who have not faced a contest in years.

We who want constitutional, small-government should be running candidates even when it appears they have little or no chance of victory. The mistake of assuming good candidates will emerge from the regular party process does not work most of the time because the establishment Republican Party has no real interest in the kind of transformational change sought by conservatives.

Do you really trust Party leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to build a Republican majority of small government constitutional conservatives? If we leave it to the national congressional and Party leadership to recruit the candidates we will end-up with a Congress just like them; incumbents such as Bob Bennett and establishment figures such as Charlie Crist, and Trey Grayson.

When making decisions about where to put their financial support, conservatives should remember that if the national Republican committees had their way, such now-stalwart conservative Senators as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee would never have been elected.

The only time we are guaranteed to lose is when we don’t compete. In today’s volatile political environment, no establishment candidate is truly safe. The American people want the chance to take out the big-government, establishment politicians; put your money and your hard work directly behind those candidates who are committed to small government, constitutional principles.

TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conservative; elections; establishment; gop; rejectromney; rncc; romney; romneytruthfile; smallgovernment; teaparty; viguerie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-227 next last
To: Turbo Pig; Windflier; All
I am not advocating Romney; I am advocating doing what is needed to ensure that obama is a one term president.

At what price? And for what reason -- because your fear of Obama has risen to a state of panic? People don't think clearly when they're panicked.

The price of Romney is too steep. The risk of losing the most conservative ground under Romney is greater than the risk of losing conservative ground under Obama -- and STOP with the Chicken Little Sky is Falling Obama is Omnipotent and We Can't Survive Him!!EEEEEEEEEE! rationale of pure panic.

I have been accused frequently by rally-round-Romney types of being driven by the petty, shallow motivations of vanity and personal dislike of Romney. It seems to me that those who blindly reel back in terror at Obama, who vow that "he can't be a two-term president! I'll vote for an orange juice can before I'll vote for him!" are equally engaging in vanity and personal dislike of Obama. It's pure emotion that shapes their strategy.

I hope a limited government conservative enters the race. Until then, voting for Romney IS AS STUPID as voting for an orange juice can. Yet I have my vote and WILL use it to FIGHT LIBERALISM with calm, reasoned strategy knowing that it's a gamble, but it's a better gamble than not voting at all or voting for Romney.

If it's R v O, I will vote third party for the express purpose of doing what I can to dilute the liberal statist victor's vote count to the smallest plurality possible, so that socialist therefore enters office as politically vulnerable and weak as possible, on record as opposed by the majority of voters.

An enemy inside the gates is a LOT more dangerous than an enemy outside the gates. Liberalism is the enemy -- not Obama, not the Democrat party, but LIBERALISM. Conservatism is our only friend in fighting liberalism. Obama is less dangerous to conservatism than Romney because Romney is an enemy inside the gates.

141 posted on 04/20/2012 4:30:25 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Palin’s not running so my candidate is long gone. It won’t help to write her name in unless 60 million others are going to do the same thing.

I will write in Sarah if for nothing but to lodge my protest against what choices I'm being offered. I refuse to make a choice between two left-wing candidates.

If folks want to elect a quisling Republican traitor to the White House, they'll have to do it without my help. I'd rather face four years of civil disobedience and protest marches against an avowed enemy in the White House, than be stabbed in the back by Romney The Trojan Horse.

I'll keep my personal honor and integrity intact, thank you.

142 posted on 04/20/2012 4:30:56 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I'll keep my personal honor and integrity intact, thank you.

By voting against Obama, my personal honor and integrity will be fine. My wife and dog will still love me.

143 posted on 04/20/2012 4:36:36 PM PDT by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig; All
I honestly do not know how to respond to your reply; because ..well I don't want to offend you.

I appreciate your taking into account my feelings, but please do not think I will be offended because I do not operate this way. Have at it! That's what the ideal of this country is about which so many have forgotten! Say what you mean and mean what you say, and if there is any place on this planet to do this, to offend, it's in THIS country and on this board! In fact, I would love if you tried to offend me because then we could probably get somewhere!

Now, the 4 points you make are quite honestly very weak. They have been expressed time and time again and have no legitimate consideration by conservatives who think rinos are the scourge of the earth! Here's why...

1: Yes, the damage is done. I've heard this argument EVERY election! When do you want to STOP the damage?

2: Romneycare is law in MA and it's citizens are under that PENALTY/FORCED LAW right NOW! Talk about damage being done!! Obamacare will most likely be struck down by the USSC.

3: Pure speculative B.S. A conservative can win!

4: Conservatives are winning at the local level, we have to carry that over nationally! The only way to do this is STOP voting for rinos! ABO is like a disease you LESSOR OF TWO EVILS have!

I am so sick and tired of this BS argument!! Things have changed. It's a NEW WORLD. A Different culture. A more black and white politicon. (Yes, this is a NEW WORD meaning: A politician trying to disguise who they are NOT! They try to CON you! IOW: Mitt Romney and his supporters!)

You can not win with a rino, and all rinos do is undermine the party and America. In today's political arena it's a terrible choice! Until you say enough is enough then nothing changes and we keep hearing your old, tired, worn out, ineffective 4 point arguments with NO CHANGE!

Is there more explanation you need to understand, NO MORE RINOS?

Is there more explanation you need to understand, PRINCIPLE?

144 posted on 04/20/2012 4:39:28 PM PDT by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts; All

“Insulting the people you are trying to convince has never been a good way to win an argument.”

That is all the Romney Superpacs, Romney supporters and Romney himself could do from the beginning of this primary campaign. Libel, slander and distort the records of every conservative who had a turn against Romney’s sleaze machine.

Every CONSERVATIVE in the race was suddenly turned into a “liberal” by the billions of dollars of Romney’s LDS bull sh*t machine.

It’s not about revenge. What these credulous dupes just don’t get is that we are in this situation NOW -BECAUSE- we have placated their traitorous lies for 24 years since Reagan left office.

Yes, we get your specious arguments. We have heard them enough. We will NOT vote for Romney nor will we vote for Obama. We will vote for a conservative so the lost GOP votes can me specifically QUANTIFIED. Henceforth there will be no question as to the consequences of Fox News and the establishment’s chicanery in this race and what it has begotten.

If only people like this dupe who just insulted you with the insipid comment you just addressed - if only they had the perspicacity and the backbone to take a stand against it once and for all, we wouldn’t have to be in this situation.

It’s not as though we do not have decades of precedent of what happens when we give in to these underhanded sobs and “plug our noses”. If we had not done so for the past two decades, we would NOT be in this situation.

There’s still time people. Newt can’t win enough delegates to win the nomination - but he sure as hell can win enough to deprive this ignoble shape-shifter from being the GOP nominee.

These people continue to circumvent the issue which is that the GOP HAS A CHOICE. These Romulans are the epitome of the old-school HIJACKING TERRORISTS in the sense that the traditional hijacker would take the person hostage and make demands that come with the stipulation that if they are not placated, their hostage dies.

That is what Mitt and his cell have been doing from day one as they systematically employed their terror tactics from state to state, primary to primary. Romney and his cell have systematically assaulted each and every conservative from Newt to Perry to Bachman to Cain to Santorum and back to Newt.

We started out with the promise of 999 and unless these people wake up, we will end with 666.

Under no circumstance will I betray my faith and my principles by voting for this lying, slandering, underhanded scoundrel.

145 posted on 04/20/2012 4:41:20 PM PDT by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mo
The Conservative Cause is clearly served by an Obama re-election rather than a Romney win. A Right leaning/Conservative Congress can easily remain united behind an Obama re-election....whereas the same Congress will be sliced and diced by the RINOS if Romney is in the White House.

THANK YOU. But ... but ... but ... it must be your hatred of Romney, your personal dislike of him, your need to throw a temper tantrum, your vanity ... talking in that post!

Just kidding! I agree with you 100%.

FRiend, pray that conservatives get over their panic and wake up to your SAGE WARNING in time enough to reject Romney at every turn.

My preference: I'd rather Newt Gingrich got the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, with Palin as a running mate. Or vice versa.


146 posted on 04/20/2012 4:44:10 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; All
With Freedom Under Assault, We're Told We Must Moderate?
Moderation is not a substantive belief. This is my problem with moderates. There isn't a core there! Moderation is a tactic. It's not a set of principles. It is a tactic that says, "Regardless of the situation, regardless of events, my first impulse is to find a different way around." I know moderation, per se, is illogical because there are clearly times when it is self-destructive or counterproductive. For instance, moderation after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor would have been irrational. Moderation against slavery would have been immoral. How do you debate the issue of moderation if it has no core? You wind up debating tactics, but tactics without principle are pointless -- and this has always been my problem with moderates. ...

Particularly in the face of the most radical and destructive administration in modern American history, where the president has said he wants to fundamentally transform the nation, what does moderation look like? Where am I supposed to moderate? What am I supposed to moderate? Are all these Republican candidates tonight at the debate be asking themselves, "Who's willing to go further in compromising with the Democrats?" To show what? To accomplish what? Isn't the purpose of this debate tonight for one of these people to stand head and shoulders above everybody else in demonstrating he or she is the one who can beat Obama?
Republican moderates are guaranteed losers in eight out of ten elections you're gonna have. Now, I think that people who write pieces about "moderation" need to do a little bit more than just sit back and be critical. We need to know what it is these moderates think is worth fighting for. Is it just winning elections with whoever can win so that the result may not even be productive? These moderates need to tell us what are the principles that they believe that an individual or a nation should stand firm on, because, so far, moderates don't do that. That's why they are moderates! They don't want to be tied down. They want to be able to preach moderation because it gets them praise.

147 posted on 04/20/2012 4:46:46 PM PDT by RedMDer (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Like a laser...this must be the focus for now. The dangerous boy socialist must go!

Like a laser, your one-track-focused take blinds you completely to the bigger picture. Imagine the Democrat president to follow Romney. American children today would pay a heavy price for such thinking as yours' cowardice and lack of faith in RIGHT.

You want to strike a deal with the devil that is Romney in order to avoid Obama. I got news for you, FRiend. A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition.

148 posted on 04/20/2012 4:51:07 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin; mo
Then since your goal is to advance the conservative cause, you must be intending to vote for Obama yourself.

Chin, there are other ways of rejecting Romney to advance the conservative cause. Try giving it a modicum of thought.

149 posted on 04/20/2012 4:53:52 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

Rush Limbaugh could have cut the head off the snake and destroyed the Romney candidacy at any point in this race.

Unfortunately, he gave both sides just enough from day to day to feel like Rush was “on their side”. He played both sides for ratings.

Mark Levin and Mike Reagan were among the very few who had the balls and integrity to make a clear stand against Romney.

Despite saying that ‘if Romney were to get the nomination he would then support” the sleaze - at least Levin had the integrity to tear the imposter apart on his show for the past several months.

I like Rush; however, he passed up an important opportunity at our expense at this historical moment detrimental to our survival.

150 posted on 04/20/2012 5:03:56 PM PDT by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: arrdon; xzins
arr, I know your post was directed to xzins, when you snark: Ihave a grand idea; why don’t you half-wits go out and FRAGMENT THE VOTE AGAIN so we can put this Commie POS back in office for another four years! Will that make you feel like you got even?

I am urging conservatives, if there is no valid conservative in the race, to deliberately fragment the vote in order to make sure that whichever bad guy wins -- and both Romney and Obama are BAD GUYS -- gets in with the most miserable, pathetic plurality possible, so it is loud and clear that the majority voted AGAINST him.

It hurt Clinton pretty bad with 43% (the Republican Revolution was nourished by that plurality) -- imagine how it would devastate Obama (and supercharge conservatives' victory in a major battle inside the Republican party) if, because we "half-wits" went out and fragmented the vote, Obama got in with only a 34% plurality, fully 66% of Americans ON RECORD, loud and clear, as opposing him.

And no, it won't make me feel like I "got even," because vengeance is for ninnies -- I got over "getting even" when I was a kid. My goal, my motivation, is to USE MY VOTE TO FIGHT AGAINST STATISTS AND LIBERALISM.

151 posted on 04/20/2012 5:05:34 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Standing on my chair cheering, clapping, and firing my .45 Vaqueros into the ceiling!

That's our kinda stuff!

152 posted on 04/20/2012 5:09:50 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Old Badger
WELL SAID, Brother FReeper. Excellently well said, inspiring, and calm. As opposed to the shreiking panicked rationale of Romney Surrender Monkeys.

Godspeed Newt Gingrich.

153 posted on 04/20/2012 5:15:44 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
The Republican Party is bigger than the presidency.

That, my FRiend, is BRILLIANT.


154 posted on 04/20/2012 5:18:14 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon


155 posted on 04/20/2012 5:24:41 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Imagine what Obama will do if he thinks he has voter approval of his socialist agenda by being elected to a second term.

If conservatives vote against Obama AND against Romney, and Obama wins on such a pathetic plurality that as much as 66 percent of voters voted AGAINST him, he and his socialist agenda, if not entirely dead in the water, will at least be at negative buoyancy and conservatives will probably cream him in the mid-terms, just like Republicans did when Clinton got a 43% plurality.

Imagine what DC will do if REPUBLICANS give their offical approval, even in a plurality, that the Republican party's most powerful representative be an advocate in opposition to FIVE MAJOR CONSERVATIVE ISSUES -- nationalized health care, on-demand abortion, the gay agenda, activist judges (see Romney's record), and cap-and-trade global warming eco-tyranny.

God forbid Romney gets in there, you can kiss the Republican party goodbye. I'm coming to realize that if you want to save the Republcian party and conservatism, the ONLY thing is to vote AGAINST Romney. ABO, and ABR. ABOOR.

156 posted on 04/20/2012 5:30:48 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I don't know why this is so hard for so many people to understand.

I think it's because they're too scared to think straight. :^(

157 posted on 04/20/2012 5:41:33 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The RNC should have made it clear from day one, that Romney was a bridge too far. He was able to run roughshod over Newt and Santorum. I have no doubt that others who didn't have as deep pockets as Romney did, decidced to stay out rather then go broke.

Romney was Conservatism's 2012 poison pill. His message was brought to you by the entirely too willing RNCe.

Oh, man, you are on FIRE today!!! Since 2008 I've regarded Romney as the single biggest threat to the GOP, along with a lot of FReepers. People would accuse us of engaging in a "circular firing squad," and I'd point out, "No, pretty much everybody is aiming at Romney. He's the guy we need to take out."

There were many who loath Romney but who were naive enough to think "Nah, there's no way he's going to pose a threat in 2012!"

I think he's a friggin' vampire, un-killable, sucking the blood out of the Republican party. He needs a stake driven through his political heart. I hope it happens with the selection of a limited government conservative at the National Convention. I can dream, can't I? ;^)

Godspeed Newt Gingrich.

158 posted on 04/20/2012 5:48:06 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: hattend
I'm judging Obama's record.... and squeezing your eyes shut to Romney's. Pretty bad way to vote, FRiend.
159 posted on 04/20/2012 5:55:00 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
Then the choice, although sometimes difficult becomes a bit easier.

Yeah. Conscience. Conscience is always the factor. Save your spurious false-dichotomy long con for the feeble minds you RiNO's always prey on.

160 posted on 04/20/2012 6:05:06 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-227 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson