Is it Time for Conservatives to Form a Third Party? Updated and Stickied!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I have to admit that over the last several years, I have been torn about whether or not there is a need for Conservatives to leave the Republican party and either form a new third party, or join one of the small, already extant, Conservative parties. I have been on both sides of the fence, so to speak, and have been unable to come to a full decision. A recent comment on another post prompted me  to again consider the issue. I think it’s time we revisit this debate

First up, the “leave the Republicrats” side of the debate:

We are tired, as Conservatives, with the Republicans talking Conservative on election day, and then doing the following

  1. Growing the government
  2. Increasing spending
  3. NOT fighting to shrink government and regulation
  4. Backing down from the liberals on social issues

We believe that every election cycle, we are subjected to platitudes and empty promises, soon to be broken after the the polls close. We also believe that there is no “conservative way” to do big government. The two are mutually exclusive, and the very idea does not represent what a majority of rank and file Republicans believe. Research shows that they are overwhelmingly Conservative, and history shows that they not being served by the Republican Party.

The issue is that the core of the Republican Party is moderate. Moderates sit in positions of power, and either control and/or contribute large sums of money to the party. Consequently, moderates, at least at the national level, have far too much control. They are not likely to relinquish this control and seem to look at Conservatives with contempt. They compromise and cooperate with the Marxists on the left, and leave us betrayed and angry. They have failed us on so many occasions, there are many willing to leave the party altogether.  Still others have “dropped out” entirely, and are waiting for a party that will represent them.

Now, the Republicans in the Congress are poised to engage in “bi-partisanship.”  This, losoely translated, is “capitulate.”  Is this what we want?  Do we want a party of moderates that will capitulate to tax increases?  Do we wnat a party that will state that “ObamaCare is the law of he land?”  Do we want a party of Boehners, and Romney’s, or do we want a party of patriots the embrace freedom?

Then, we need to look at how the establishment Republicans treated the Tea Party, and their candidates.  How many were undermined, or passed over for committees of importance?  How many were not supported by the national party, only to go down in defeat?  Yes, the Tea Party forces were able to “primary” some establishment GOP candidates, but how many more people at the local and state level were defeated by unethical tactics, so the  RINO’s could retain power?

Conservatives do not want to have to chose between Demicans and Republicrats, or socialism, and “socialism lite.” We want a real Conservative choice, a party that will act like Conservatives AFTER the election. We want a party that will REALLY shrink the size and scope of government, and restore it to it’s constitutional limit.

__________________________________________________________________________

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Now, for the “We must re-take the Republican Party” side:

Breaking away from the Republican Party plays into the hands of the left. With resistance to them split, they can ram whatever socialist legislation they want down our throats. We would not have the power to stop them.  We barely do now.  They will take over health care, regulate talk radio out of existence, regulate the Internet, raise taxes to impossibly high rates, create a debt that will enslave out children, pass environmental regulations that would kill American industry and jobs, and ruin this great nation, perhaps permanently.

The fact is this; we need a well established and funded party hierarchy to achieve our goals. Starting a new party, even if successful, would take years to accomplish-years that we do not have.

Admittedly, The Republican party is not perfect – we have our internal struggles, but there IS a difference between the parties. Would Reagan have attempted to deceive the people with a single payer system that will eventually ration care and kill Americans? Would either Bush have coddled communist dictators, and undermined democracies in Central America? Would any Republican administration have gone overseas to apologize to the dictators of the world, while at the same time throwing Israel under the bus? Would any Republican administration support a Marxist redistribution scheme concocted in the name of “saving the Earth?” I think not.

We have to realize that even with 40% of the population defining themselves as Conservatives, it’s still not enough to win an election out right. Like it or not, we need the moderates. That being said, we need to remind them that we, as Conservatives, are in the majority. They need to realize that if they do not listen to us, we WILL eventually leave. We need to exert our influence over the party and make sure that the promises made in the campaign are translated into action. We also need to weed the RINO’s out of the party. They are worse than moderates, as they have shown a willingness to betray us anytime doing so would enhance their own personal position.   If they leave the party, that’s well and good.

If given the choice, capturing the Republican Party is the most expedient way to forward our agenda. Creating a new party out of thin air will take resources, and more importantly, time. We have neither of those in abundance, especially when confronted with Obama and his socialist agenda. The danger is simply too great.

___________________________________________________________________________

 That what I have read or heard from others, this covers some of the major points of this issue. This is a worthy debate to have at this time, especially as consequences of the President’s policies become increasingly apparent.  However, he and his allies will spin, lie, deny, and blame all of the negatives away.  At the same time, I believe we have to start looking to the future and how we can best take our ideals and put them into action. I’m still on the fence with this issue. A year ago, I was all for leaving the party. Now, the risk of failure and the possible consequences of said failure, are making me more cautious.  No matter what we do, failure is NOT an option.

Note:  This is a slightly revised post from 2009.  Surprisingly, not a lot needed updating.  The main issues remain.  The question is if we need to explore another option.  Also, with the site outage on Monday, I thought I’d leave this at the top of the page.  Hopefully, we can have a debate here.

Share

Three Ways in which President Obama is like President Roosevelt

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

History repeats itself, and when the economy crashed in 2008 there was a great opportunity for President Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) to play the role of former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). And as time has gone on, the comparisons between these two Presidents and their actions has become more clear. Following are Three Ways in which President Obama is like President Roosevelt:

1. Both candidates ran for election the first time as moderates but have governed from the start as radicals.

In 1932, FDR ran for election on a platform promising less spending, less government, and vague policies and promises designed to appeal to a broad range of voters. Hoover attacked Roosevelt as a capitalist president who would only make the Depression worse by decreasing taxes, reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting “trade [with] the world”, and cutting “Government—Federal and State and local”.

In 2008, BHO ran for election on a platform that promised a balanced budget, more efficient government, and vague rhetoric and promises designed to appeal to a broad range of voters. Both won on these moderate platforms- but after winning both instead pushed for radical policies and betrayed voters by not doing anything that they promised to do.

FDR did not lower spending- he increased it. FDR did not deliver less government and less socialism- he expanded government and pushed for more socialism by government. FDR did not govern in a way that would appeal to a broad range of voters- he capitalized on crisis and wars to maintain power for too long while governing in a radical way. Hoover proved to be exactly wrong in his attacks on FDR- although FDR ran on a particular platform, he proved to govern in the opposite manner.

BHO also did not balance the budget and cut the deficit in half like he promised, instead doing the exact opposite by pushing for budgets that produced the largest deficits in history and drastically raised the amount of debt that America was forced to borrow from China and other nations. BHO has not even tried to create more efficient, smarter, faster, and responsive government, instead working hard to massively expand the size and scope of government bureaucracy and insulate it from any accountability or oversight. And Obama has not governed in a nonpartisan way that bridges the gaps between red and blue voters, instead actively promoting divisiveness and spewing forth bitterly partisan rhetoric and now presently engaging in the most relentlessly negative campaign in the history of our nation.

2. Both candidates inherited a bad recession and responded to it by turning the recession into a long and lingering depression.

In 1932, FDR did inherit a recession- after the economy collapsed in 1929 Hoover had responded to it by doing everything wrong, expanding the size of the national government, restricting free trade, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and having the government meddle in markets. The response to this liberal intervention by Hoover was predictable- the economy did not bounce back as it had from earlier recessions and instead lingered and got worse.

In 2008, BHO also inherited a recession- major companies were bankrupted by union policies, bad debts and investments caught up to banks and investors, and the housing market collapsed because government policies and community activists had encouraged and supported risky and unsustainable actions. This sharp recession hit in the later part of 2008 and likely would have lingered until 2009, after which the bottom would have been hit, bad investments written off, bankrupt companies gone under, and businesses and consumers adjusting the economic recession. But both FDR and BHO took these recessions and made them into depressions.

FDR responded to the recession by killing off economic activity by raising taxes and regulations, made investors and businesses nervous by rapidly changing the rules of the game and acting in an arbitrary manner, and soaking up excess capital by pushing for more government spending that turned out to simply be giveaways to political friends and allies. The economy did not improve- the Great Depression continued, the economy sank into another depression, and it wasn’t until after FDR’s death that the economy once again recovered to where it had been before his presidency.

BHO also responded to the recession by working to kill off the recovery and choke off economic recovery. During his entire administration he has pushed for increased taxes, in particular increased taxes on small businesses, investors, and ‘the rich’, making small businesses, investors, and the rich nervous about their income and become anxious to protect it from predatory government policies promoted by Obama. BHO has soaked up excess capital and money that should have been available for lending to consumers by instead borrowing massive amounts of money, turning money that could have built new businesses and fueled new investments into slush funds given to political allies and bad investments in green energy and other outlandish schemes. Efforts to reform businesses and labor were met with hostility by the Obama administration, which seized private companies that showed signs of economic distress by dividing them in half between themselves and labor, and working to punish companies that attempted to become leaner and more efficient through labor reforms. Even attempts to build new thriving and profitable industries in energy were met with hostility by Obama, which has worked tirelessly to kill off this economic activity and prolong the recession and deepen it so that the short recession turns instead into a severe depression.

3. Both inherited an unstable world situation and have through their policy actions made the world more unstable.

In 1932, Japan invaded Manchuria, unemployment was rising in Germany, Stalin’s continued to implement disastrous centralization programs in the Soviet Union, there were political upheavals in Brazil and Mexico, and there was instability in the Middle East.

But during the course of FDR’s administration, events around the world spiralled out of control, culminating in a World War. To be fair, at this time in history the United States had far less influence on world events and it is debatable whether or not actions by the United States might have been able to stop the Jewish Genocide, the Japanese invasion of China and the related atrocities there, the outbreak of a massive World War, the horrible results of Stalin’s government policies which resulted in the murder of millions, or any of the any other many bad results around the world. But it is also fair to say that these things all occurred under FDR, mostly as he stood by and watched- or even in some cases supported them.

BHO also inherited an unstable world situation- Afghanistan still was dealing with terrorism, dictatorships in the Middle East were facing efforts to replace and reform them, and China was exploring whether or not it could begin to seriously challenge the US in a range of areas.

And yet, only a short 4 years later, the world has not responded to Obama’s policies by becoming a safer, more stable, more humane world. The entire Middle East has now been engulfed a confusing and bloody uprising that President Obama has alternately and seemingly randomly supported and acted to suppress, highlighted by radical terrorists becoming more powerful in Egypt, a deadly civil war in Libya, continued oppression and atrocities in Syria, and instability in surrounding regions. Perhaps the only area that appears to be improving in Iraq- and Obama spent most of his life being critical of our actions there. Iran has moved steadily closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, captured one of our drones, fired on our troops, and continued to support terrorists around the world. Afghanistan has gotten worse, and Obama has responded by firing generals who supposedly disrespect him in tabloid magazines. Russia and China have filled the void in world leadership that Obama represents, mocking him as the weakling that he is and laughing as they routinely outmaneuver Obama and damage US interests around the world.

These are only three examples of how President Obama has governed like President Roosevelt- there are many more out there. Here is one article that does so- Comparing the Great Depression to the Great Recession. This is not good- FDR’s leadership was characterized by the Great Depression and World War Two, and although many people think that these are positives and that FDR is to be applauded for being a leader during a massive economic depression and a horrible world war, in my opinion it is much preferable to have a President like Reagan who presided over an economic boom and increased world stability. We can only hope that President Obama does not serve any more terms of office and that we get a nice moderate after him (like how Eisenhower eventually followed FDR) to restore the good times to America.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share

Are More Conservative Supporting Rick Santorum?

Share

Well, there are quite a few high profile Conservatives getting behind former PA Senator Rick Santorum.  For background, here is some more from The Other McCain…

OK, so having endured those lean, lonely and seemingly hopeless weeks of early December, I am not even slightly daunted now, and am in fact greatly encouraged to see that more and more conservatives are climbing aboard the Santorum Express. The latest is Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:

Why Santorum?  In my estimation, Santorum is the last consistent conservative standing, and the only one both promoting the conservative agenda and campaigning as a conservative in the race.  . . .
Santorum has demonstrated a level of personal integrity in this race that outshines the rest of the field.  Santorum has campaigned with blue-collar Reagan Democrats in mind, pushing for an economic plan that would revitalize manufacturing and small business.  He could easily have tipped over into class-warfare populism while Gingrich and Romney bashed each other over their work at Bain and Freddie Mac in order to ingratiate himself with that sector by playing on latent envy.  Instead, he defended capitalism and both of his competitors on the campaign trail more effectively than either could defend themselves.  In contrast, Romney keeps demonstrating a lack of fluency in conservative politics and philosophy, while Gingrich has conducted a personal, angry campaign that threatens to reinforce every negative stereotype about conservatives, both at times putting themselves and their ambitions above the party they seek to lead.

Every time a blogger endorses Rick Santorum, an angel gets his wings, 

According to the post, Phyllis Schafley, Tom Tancredo, David Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin have all jumped on the Santorum bandwagon.  That is rather impressive.

For me, I’ve frequently, and loudly, lamented the lack of quality in this field of candidates.  Romney is a RINO, and Gingrich has a history of supporting some big government stuff.  Ron Paul, while perfect on the economy, seems to be oblivious to the threat posed by radical Islam.

Then, there is Santorum.  I thought he won the last debate, and has been very consistent in trying to talk about Conservatism.  I know he is known as a social Conservative, which isn’t a strong suit in this election.  He also is an foreign interventionist (just because I think that Ron Paul is oblivious to radical Islam, I have to admit that he does raise a great point about getting into perpetual foreign wars).  Santorum also does have an economic message, and if he would win the nomination, could run against Obama well.  His challenge will be to tone down the social rhetoric, and concentrate on the economy.  That challenge will be all the greater, as the MSM will constantly ask him about gay marriage and abortion above all things.  The effort will be to distract from Obama’s economic weakness, and scare moderates with Santorum’s social beliefs.

I’ve not endorsed any candidate, and I may not.  I think we really needed some good people on this ticket, and we didn’t get them.  So, as usual, we’ll have to pick from what we are given.

At any rate, what do all of you think?

Share

The Demographics Still Hold: More Americans are Conservative, but why is the Left so Successful?

Share

Every year, Gallup does a poll to determine the political division in America.  This year, the results were much the same as in the last two, with nearly twice a Americans reporting themselves to be “Conservative” as those identifying as “liberal.”  The Blaze has some more coverage…

The Gallup poll shows that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent moderate; and 21 percent view themselves as liberal. The figures are no different than they were in 2010 and conservatives have outnumbered both moderates and liberals for three years running now.

Politico adds:

Conservatives began outstripping moderates in 2008, and the percentage of moderates has declined steadily over the last two decades, from 43 percent 1992 to 35 percent in 2011.

In fact, both self-identified conservatives and liberals have risen in number since the early 1990s, indicating a growing polarization in American politics.

While self-identified conservatives dominate the Republican Party, making up 71 percent, the Democratic Party is more split – 39 percent of Democrats view themselves as liberal, and 38 percent consider themselves moderates.

It might be worth noting that, per the poll’s findings, independents are mainly moderate (41 percent), but veer more towards conservatism (35 percent) than liberalism (20 percent).

So, we outnumber the “enemy.”  But when then, are the liberals so successful?  Being only 20% of the population, why do they have an impact beyond their numbers?  Here are some thoughts.

1.  Liberals are well placed.  During the “long march through the institutions,” leftists, and flat out communists, occupied important positions in influential institutions:  Education and media, in particular.  Doing so allows them to control what is taught to children at all levels.  Then, they attempt to control the information that is released to the public.  They were successful in that area for many years, but now, the alternative media is making a significant dent in their power.

2.  Liberals are better organized.  Being collectivists in their nature, leftists are well suited to the role of being drones.  They are more likely to give up themselves to a cause, and show blind faith towards it.  Conservatives, on the contrary, are more individually minded, and tend to be more self sufficient, not only in actions, but in thought.  That does, at times leave us at a disadvantage, but it also means that we don’t submit all that well.   That makes leftist plans and policies far more difficult to implement and maintain.

3.  Conservatives might be a bit more busy.  If you recall, in 2009, CBS engaged in what Limbaugh would call, “a random act of journalism.”  They published the results of a poll that indicated that the average Tea Party member was in their early 40’s, made slightly more than the median income, and was more likely to be college educated.  Looking at that data, we might assume that most have families, have careers, and are probably working towards their individual goals.  That is, my friends, how it should be, but it doesn’t always leave room for activism, indoctrination, thuggery, and the other hallmark behaviors of liberals.

4.  Also, knowing my own experiences, and the stories of other bloggers, I wonder what “kind” of Conservatives this 40% is?  I know that drank establishment GOP Kool-Aid for some time before I woke up.  I called myself a Conservative, but it was the weak, big government, NeoCon brand, and I didn’t know the why’s and how’s of Conservatism.  So, I have to ask, how many of these Conservatives are as I was?  I’m almost afraid that I will get an answer.

At any rate, those are my thoughts.  Comments are welcome, as always.

Share

Classic Conservative Hideout: Third Party?

Share

With so much apparent dissatisfaction with the current slate of GOP candidates, and with many of the Tea Party supported Congressmen going native in the unreality bubble, I’ve heard more talk of a third party.  I did present both sides of this back in July of 2009, so I thought I might present that again, and see how the debate unfolds.  The post was purposely written to be neutral, so the debate is the key.  So, here is that post, published in it’s entirety.

I have to admit that over the last several years, I have been torn about whether or not there is a need for Conservatives to leave the Republican party and either form a new party, or join one of the small, already extant, Conservative parties. I have been on both sides of the fence, so to speak, and have been unable to come to a full decision. A recent comment on another post prompted me  to again consider the issue. I think it’s time we revisit this debate.

First up, the “leave the Republicrats” side of the debate:

We are tired, as Conservatives, with the Republicans talking Conservative on election day, and then doing the following:

  1. Growing the government
  2. Increasing spending
  3. NOT fighting to shrink government and regulation
  4. Backing down from the liberals on social issues

We believe that every election cycle, we are subjected to platitudes and empty promises, soon to be broken after the the polls close. We also believe that there is no “conservative way” to do big government. The two are mutually exclusive, and the very idea does not represent what a majority of rank and file Republicans believe. Research shows that they are overwhelmingly Conservative, and history shows that they not being served by the Republican Party.

The issue is that the core of the Republican Party is moderate. Moderates sit in positions of power, and either control and/or contribute large sums of money to the party. Consequently, moderates, at least at the national level, have far too much control. They are not likely to relinquish this control and seem to look at Conservatives with contempt. They compromise and cooperate with the Marxists on the left, and leave us betrayed and angry. They have failed us on so many occasions, there are many willing to leave the party altogether.  Still others have “dropped out” entirely, and are waiting for a party that will represent them.

Now, the Republicans in the Congress have been talking a good game lately. They have been standing up to the president and the Democratic majority. This leads me two questions, “Where were you a few years ago when Bush was spending too much and you had the majority? It was your failure to live up to Conservatism that caused us to lose in ’06, and again in ’08. How will you behave if Republicans take back the Congress in ’10?” I’m afraid I already know the answers.

Conservatives do not want to have to chose between Demicans and Republicrats, or socialism, and “socialism lite.” We want a real Conservative choice, a party that will act like Conservatives AFTER the election. We want a party that will REALLY shrink the size and scope of government, and restore it to it’s constitutional limits.

___________________________________________________________________________

Now, for the “We must re-take the Republican Party” side:

Breaking away from the Republican Party plays into the hands of the left. With resistance to them split, they can ram whatever socialist legislation they want down our throats. We would not have the power to stop them.  We barely do now.  They will take over health care, regulate talk radio out of existence, regulate the Internet, raise taxes to impossibly high rates, create a debt that will enslave out children, pass environmental regulations that would kill American industry and jobs, and ruin this great nation, perhaps permanently.

The fact is this; we need a well established and funded party hierarchy to achieve our goals. Starting a new party, even if successful, would take years to accomplish-years that we do not have.

Admittedly, The Republican party is not perfect – we have our internal struggles, but there IS a difference between the parties. Would Reagan have attempted to deceive the people with a single payer system that will eventually ration care and kill Americans? Would either Bush have coddled communist dictators, and undermined democracies in Central America? Would any Republican administration have gone overseas to apologize to the dictators of the world, while at the same time throwing Israel under the bus? Would any Republican administration support a Marxist redistribution scheme concocted in the name of “saving the Earth?” I think not.

We have to realize that even with 40% of the population defining themselves as Conservatives, it’s still not enough to win an election out right. Like it or not, we need the moderates. That being said, we need to remind them that we, as Conservatives, are in the majority. They need to realize that if they do not listen to us, we WILL eventually leave. We need to exert our influence over the party and make sure that the promises made in the campaign are translated into action. We also need to weed the RINO’s out of the party. They are worse than moderates, as they have shown a willingness to betray us anytime doing so would enhance their own personal position.  The eight that voted for Cap and Trade need to know that we have not forgotten about them, and we should find Conservatives to run against them in the primaries. If they leave the party, that’s well and good. They should join Arlen Specter, who continues to show that his political philosophy is one of cowardice and convenience.

If given the choice, capturing the Republican Party is the most expedient way to forward our agenda. Creating a new party out of thin air will take resources, and more importantly, time. We have neither of those in abundance, especially when confronted with Obama and his socialist agenda. The danger is simply too great.

___________________________________________________________________________

What what I have read or heard from others, this covers some of the major points of this issue. This is a worthy debate to have at this time, especially as the President’s plans are being thwarted. He and his minions will be back. They never give up, but I think we can use the summer recess to consider these “less immediate” issues. I believe we have to start looking to the future and how we can best take our ideals and put them into action. I’m still on the fence with this issue. A year ago, I was all for leaving the party. Now, the risk of failure and the possible consequences of said failure, are making me more cautious.  No matter what we do, failure is NOT an option.

There you have it.  As I read it, it seems just a relevant today as it was nearly two and a half years ago.  So, have at it in the comment section.

Share

Where’s the Conviction for Conservatism?

Share

A few weeks ago I was asked if I thought there would be some type of compromise in the debt ceiling debate.  I replied, “I hope not!”  The truth is I know the Republicans will cave in because there simply aren’t enough of them that have a strong conviction for conservatism, which tells me that we have far too many Republicans pretending to be conservative.  These pretenders are easily recognizable.  They are always the first to move to the center to find compromise even though the center is now located firmly to the left.  They are the first to jump out of the rank and file to cut bad deals behind closed door.  They are more concerned with their own influence and power than representing their constituents or states.  They’re always looking for a way to run away from the conservatism they profess to embrace and they have been playing this game for years.    If only they had the same conviction for conservatism as Democrats have for progressivism, Obamacare wouldn’t have made it to the floor of the Senate or House of Representative.  The truth is the Democrats’ conviction for progressivism and their unwillingness to bend or compromise has served them well.

The Democrats have managed to successfully pull the ideological center in America to the left because they stand firm in their belief that big government is the answer to all our problems.  They embrace the concept of the ends justifies the means and will say and do anything to shamelessly advance their cause.  They do not care who they steamroll or hurt; all that matters is their agenda.  They will use any method or process to spread their poison.  There is no compromise in their mindset; it’s a one way street.  As flawed as their ideology is, they embrace it and believe in it and this is why they have been successful.  This is how they managed to garner so many votes in the 2006 and 2008 elections.  They did whatever it took to win and if they meant portraying themselves as center-right politicians so be it.   Americans tend to turn away from wishy washy politicians and gravitate towards those who they believe stand for something.  They tend to be pulled towards people who are strong in their convictions and firmly believe in what they are peddling.  This is how it always has been in America and how it will be in the future.

I believe in conservatism because it embraces the individual and dismisses the collective.  It reduces the size of government and protects individual liberties.  My conviction for conservatism is strong and anyone would be extremely hard pressed to move me from my position.  I’m 100 percent sold on it.  The problem in Washington these days is there is a large number of Republicans who are not sold on it.  This is why they are so quick to turn their backs on conservatism.  Ronald Reagan was really the last true conservative President and he ran on solid conservative platform.  He beat Jimmy Carter and pounded Walter Mondale in 1984 in a landslide victory.  He stood by solid conservative principles and did what many did not think he could do, win.  Ronald Reagan attracted a variety of voters from all walks of life.  He cut across the political spectrum and advanced the conservative message during a time when people were uncertain about America.  He didn’t believe in the wishy washy, he championed the bold colors of his political philosophy.  Folks this can indeed happen again if the Republicans stand firm in their convictions and embrace conservatism instead of discarding it at the first sign of trouble.

We need to feel good about being conservative.  We need to be strong in our conviction for conservatism.  Ronald Reagan blazed this trail for us and laid out the roadmap for success.  Maybe it’s time we follow his example and lead from the front instead of from the rear.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

Media Bias: "Psy-Ops" Poll

Share

Da Tech Guy, RS McCain, and TCOTS are all discussing the recent AP poll that gives Obama an approval rating of 63%.  The reason for the results?

And in this same poll the president has a 63% of those responding with a favorable opinion of him. Sounds pretty ominous for the GOP doesn’t it?

Unfortunately for those who actually like to be informed when reading what is supposed to be a news story you have to go deep into the AP numbers (not included in the story) to discover that the AP polled almost 2 democrats for every 1 republican (35% vs 18%). That’s not a poll that’s Psy-ops!

Next RS McCain nails the entire purpose of doing these polls.

Furthermore, independent voters like to vote for the winner. Polls showing Obama ahead will, of course, encourage Democrats and discourage Republicans. More importantly, however, such polls will sway independents toward Obama.

It is always a mistake to think of independent voters as moderates or “centrists.” It is more helpful to think of them as “low-information voters” who don’t pay much attention to politics, and whose judgments are influenced more by superficial impressions of candidates than by deeply held political beliefs.

That’s 1000% correct.  It also matches the MSM’s view of themselves…they do not exist to report the news, they exist to shape and create the news.  They view the public as a mass of mush heads, and their noble purpose is to tell those mush heads what to think.  Unfortunately, there are a sizable number of mush heads that are tuned to the MSM’s frequency.

And, at last, Bob Belvedere gives us the marching orders…

As he points out in another part of the same posting, these kind of voters are swayed by perceptions: is the candidate a winner, does he seem to have momentum.  The Left understands this very well and that’s why they can get away with rigging their polling data.  The low-information voters have no desire or will to take the time to probe the way the polls were conducted.  That’s why it’s important that we be ready to respond to the Left’s dirty tactics immediately, while we’ve got the LIV’s attentions.

There you have it folks.  The lefty pollsters are cooking the numbers to demoralize us, deceive the less informed, and we have the means to counter it.

Share

Good News From the Middle East

Share

I know, the terms in the title seem mutually exclusive, but there seems to be something good going on there.  I had intended on running this a week ago, but the shootings in Tucson interfered.  At any rate, better late than never.

We all remember the New Years attacks in Egypt, when a suicide bomber blew up a Coptic Christian church service.  It seems that some of the majority Muslim population in Egypt has a surprising reaction to it.  Here is some coverage from the WaPo.

“I know it might not be safe, yet it’s either we live together, or we die together, we are all Egyptians.”

Such are the words one expects of great leaders on the battlefield, of politicians preparing a nation for war, of civic leaders rallying people for an inspiring cause.

But these are the words of Cherine Mohamed, a 50-year-old Egyptian housewife.

These words became a slogan of sorts for many brave Egyptian Muslims who chose yesterday to risk their lives in the wake of the New Year’s violence and attend Christmas Masses with their Coptic Christian brethren, serving as human shields against further potential acts of extremist violence on the Christian holy day.

A movement led by Muslim leaders and journalists, the civilian response has the heartening undertones of a civil rights struggle that transcends religious differences. It is furthermore a demonstration that because government officials in Egypt and other Muslim-majority countries have often failed to defend religious freedom, the people are taking matters into their own hands.

Kindly visit the WaPo for the rest.

Ever since 9-11, we’ve been challenging to “moderate Muslims” to take a strong stand against terror.  What we have heard  seems to be half-hearted platitudes.  We’ve not seen demonstrations, or people taking a stand.  In Egypt, however, people have made a stand, and have taken  action that demonstrates actual tolerance. In fact, they put themselves at personal risk to do so, because Jihadis don’t take kindly to people that stand up to them.

I applaud their decision to stand with their Christian neighbors, and hope to see more of this in more and more countries.  If this indeed a growing movement in Islam, we must support it.  After all, that is what we have asked of them.

H/T: Daley Gator

Share

Call it Something Else: “No Labels” is Democrats Re-labled

Share

Back when I was trying to be a snark/parody blogger, I often used the phrase, “calling it something else.” The theme was simple. When the people reject the left’s failed policies, the left doesn’t go away. They simply re-package and rename those same failed policies, presenting it as something new and novel, hence, calling it something else. Well, on November 2nd, the people rejected the Democrats. A possible solution? Repackage the Democratic Party, and call it something else.

For the last couple of months, I’ve been hearing little hints of a new “moderate” (read- gutless and lacking in any core principals) organization or party that is meant to be the solution to our overly “partisan” political scene. I’ve been waiting patiently for this to be revealed, and just before Thanksgiving, Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin told the tale.

First, Mr. Powers linked to a WSJ article about No Labels.

No Labels (www.nolabels.org) is led by Democratic fund-raiser Nancy Jacobson and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who were introduced to each other by Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s political adviser.

No Labels has drawn support from advisers to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, above. Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, below right, is one of the group’s leaders.

The group has raised more than $1 million to seed its effort against what it calls “hyper-partisanship.” Backers include co-chairman of Loews Corp. Andrew Tisch, Panera Bread founder Ron Shaich and ex-Facebook executive Dave Morin. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, as well as U.S. senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, will attend the New York launch.

The group’s goal is to start a centrist equivalent to the tea-party movement on the right and MoveOn on the left. It sees an opportunity based on the defeat of liberal Republicans in recent years and the heavy losses taken by conservative Democrats in 2010.

“I’ve never seen such a wide opening for a third force in American politics,” says William Galston, a Brookings Institution fellow and No Labels adviser.

Now, there are a few signs that this is yet another attempt by the left to launch some Astroturf campaign. Like the Coffee Parties, and the openly Marxist “One Nation” effort, this is, by all appearances, a top-down controlled effort, with funding and leadership installed. Rather than ordinary people responding to an actual cause, this is an invented cause demanding followers. You can see funding already provided. You also see that leadership is already appointed, and regular people are not calling out for this, pundits and organizer are.

Then, Mr. Powers conducted a powerful dissection of the “No Labels” campaign.

You can’t have a “middle of the road” movement without including super-lib Debbie Stabenow. Three years ago, on the “most liberal Senators” chart, Stabenow was tied with Hillary Clinton, who is of course famous for her centrism. As for Michael Bloomberg, nothing says rational middle-of-the-roader like somebody who thinks abortion is a fundamental right and salt is murder.

No Labels” backer and Panera Bread founder Ron Shaich just oozes “middle of the road.” He’s donated thousands of dollars to the Mass. Democratic State Committee, John Kerry for President and Barack Obama for President. That’s a centrist track record if there ever was one.

Loews’ Andrew Tisch has contributed to both parties — technically — but other than Republican Mark Kirk, for the most part Tisch has thrown support to moderates who avoid partisanship — Independent thinkers who aren’t blinded by party loyalty such as Charles Rangel, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Jerrold Nadler and Hillary Clinton.

In 2004, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was asked to be the National Chairman of the Kerry for President campaign — a job that was of course only offered to political centrists. Kerry also endorsed Villaraigosa for LA Mayor, because he was so, you know, moderate and all.

So, there you have it.  This is nothing more than the latest in a long line of “progressive” Astroturf nonsense. While both the hard left and hard right have talked third party, these “moderates” (snickers and guffaws to follow) seem intent on starting one. Of course, I’ll get on board with the prediction that this will be yet another centrally planned and funded Astroturf operation with no staying power or real bottom up mandate.

However, the “No Label” folks do present us with an interesting opportunity. They seem to be poised to attract RINOS. We’ve been trying to weed that particular species out of the GOP, at great expense. However, if these liberals in moderate clothing want them, I wouldn’t want them to let the door hit them on the ample, pork fed backsides on the way out of our party. It’ll save us the considerable effort of eliminating them at primary time. After all, RINOS are nothing more than liberals in moderate clothing anyway, so they deserve each other.

In a way, it’s too bad that they’re going to flop like all the other efforts to artificially stimulate a political movement. Not only would they drain the dead weight out of the GOP, but also as a blogger, they would provide a near limitless stream of failure about which to write. But alas, just like the failed fiscal stimulus, a political stimulus lasts only as long as the people are paid to be there. Then, it just fades away.

Note: Per the post image, I have no idea if Soros, or one of his front organizations, is funding this turkey.  It wouldn’t surprise me, but there’s no evidence at this time.

Share

The Demographics Hold: Conservatives on the Rise

Share

Last year, I covered that there is a “Demographic of Doom” for the Democratic Party.  Basically, the people politically identified as ‘Conservatives” vastly outnumbered those identified as “liberal,” and equaled those identified as “moderate or independent.” This is what I had to say back then.

Recent polls have shown that America is beginning to move to the right, with 40% claiming to be Conservative, 21% liberal, and 38% “moderate.”

With nearly a 2-1 margin, Conservatives might see this as a cause for celebration. This has happened before- people do turn more conservative when there are difficult economic times.  It might also be because the POTUS has been caught in many of his lies, and his polices are being exposed, stalled, and (hopefully) defeated.

The research I noted indicates that neither ideology has a sufficient voting bloc to win an election outright, the liberals even more so.  Obviously, this explains why the POTUS appeared more moderate in his rhetoric during the campaign, and why he distanced himself from his associations with ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.  They knew what to say, and when to say it, to put the moderates at ease.  Also consider that the MSM selectively covers the left in a way that ignores their failure and promotes or invents the successes, and consequently,  there was a mass deception.  Combine all of that with the fact that the left and the MSM browbeat Bush for eight years (And Bush did an abysmal job in explaining his positions), inducing ‘Bush fatigue.”  In the end, as the saying goes, the “center did not hold.”

The implications of this are clear.  The Democrats cannot win elections without taking the middle.  They were able to do that in 2006, and 2008.  However, 2010 looks to be pretty bad for the Democrats.  Additionally, as I noted last July, the POTUS tried to appear moderate to set the middle at ease when he ran for office.  After the last 15 months of actually governing (or not), the people have gotten a taste of Obama’s policies, and it has proven to be a most sour flavor.  Needless to say, he’ll not be able to replicate that strategy.

Gallup has duplicated their polling. And the results seem a bit worse for the Democrats.

PRINCETON, NJ — Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup’s history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.

Here’s a telling trend.

Independents today are slightly more likely to say they are moderate than conservative, with fewer than 20% identifying as liberal. While this is similar to 2009, it represents an increase in conservatism among this group since 2008. (emphasis mine)

So, this is a potentially disastrous trend for Democrats, and especially the “progressive” wing.  They need moderates and independents to vote for them.  Otherwise, they are a fringe party.  However, the independents and moderates have been increasingly alienated by the Democrat’s schemes, and are moving to the right.    Essentially, both poles need the middle to win, but the left needs far more of that segment than the right to pull off electoral victories.  Also, we must consider that not all members of any segment will vote, but at this point in time, enthusiasm goes to the Conservatives, so the GOP should expect greater turnout and gains in November.

I looked forward for this polling data, as Gallup does it yearly.   I was interested in seeing if the trends had changed.  However, it has some particular importance, given the recent immigration debate.  Over the last week or so, I’ve been stressing to other bloggers that ” Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) is solely targeted at leveling the ideological/demographic  imbalance.  If the “progressives” can grant amnesty to millions of illegals, and make them dependent on government programming, they can do much to “correct” this imbalance.  It’s not that they care for the illegals any more than any of their other client groups.  They keep them down just enough to keep them on the government plantation (as well as letting them think that they are doing them a favor).  That way, they know they’ll have their votes every election day.

Image Credit: Gallup

Share

Shifting Ideologies and Moderates

Share

Recent polls have shown that America is beginning to move to the right, with 40% claiming to be Conservative, 21% liberal, and 38% “moderate.”

With nearly a 2-1 margin, Conservatives might see this as a cause for celebration. This has happened before- people do turn more conservative when there are difficult economic times.  It might also be because the POTUS has been caught in many of his lies, and his polices are being exposed, stalled, and (hopefully) defeated.  While I would certainly interpret it as encouraging, I actually think it displays a course of action. To take a further look though, I think we need to define moderate. First, this from Wikipedia:

In American politics, a moderate is an individual who holds the middle position between those generally classified as being left-wing or liberal and those seen as right-wing or conservative. An alternate definition, and one widely held among swing voters, is that a moderate is one who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right i.e. centre-left and centre-right.

To many, this would be a very kind assessment. Much of the time, moderates are accused of being ideological cowards, not being able to take a stand, or even having no ideology at all.  While there are certainly politicians and citizens of these types, I believe that there are additional factors to consider, such as issue specific voters, and people that may be socially liberal, and fiscally conservative, and any combination in between.  The possible combinations are probably endless.

No matter what they believe or where they stand on the right-left spectrum, the fact remains that moderates showed up for Obama last fall.  They made up the remaining 31% that he got at the polls (I know that these stats do not translate directly into registered voters, or even people that voted, but the fact that Obama needed them to win is still true.).

The gist for me is that many of these moderates may not really know what Conservatism is and, more importantly, why free markets, small government, and personal freedom mean more liberty and prosperity for all.  Additionally, may not know how destructive socialist policies are, nor may they know the lies being perpetrated by administration.  Again, the media fails in its watchdog role by refusing to cover the results of socialist policies, both here and abroad.  They revise history, spin negatives into positives, and selectively ignore party affiliation when a democratic official get’s into ethical or legal hot water.  In the end, I believe that many people in the “middle” are not aware of the reality of our political situation, or that they stand to lose many of their freedoms should the policies of the left be enacted.

The research I noted indicates that neither ideology has a sufficient voting bloc to win an election outright, the liberals even more so.  Obviously, this explains why the POTUS appeared more moderate in his rhetoric during the campaign, and why he distanced himself from his associations with ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.  They knew what to say, and when to say it, to put the moderates at ease.  Also consider that the MSM selectively covers the left in a way that ignores their failure and promotes or invents the successes, and consequently,  there was a mass deception.  Combine all of that with the fact that the left and the MSM browbeat Bush for eight years (And Bush did an abysmal job in explaining his positions), inducing ‘Bush fatigue.”  In the end, as the saying goes, the “center did not hold.”

So where does this leave Conservatives?  The facts leave us with a mission, in my opinion.  If we are going to appeal to these people in the “middle,” we need to explain to them why Conservatism is the answer to today’s issues and problems.  Not by creating more government and taking over people’s lives, but by removing barriers and obstacles and allowing the people to find their own way in life.  Reagan was brilliant at this, as demonstrated by his complete destruction of Mondale in 1984.  He was, as many noted, the “great communicator.”  His success shows this much.

Reaching out to moderates, in some respects, is easier for us than it is for liberals.  For one, we don’t have to lie about associations.  We don’t have people on our side advocating for forced abortions, health care rationing, coercion of the public, animal rights, “end of life care” instead of medical treatment, and a host of others.  We don’t have to cover up our true intentions with deceptive rhetoric, like “public option.”  We can demonstrate that lower taxes and less government can benefit all Americans, because it has. Conversely we need to illustrate the failures of liberal programs at every turn.  We don’t have to move in one way or another to appear to be something that we’re not.  We can stay on message, and talk to the people without compromising who we are or what our policies entail.

That does not mean that there are no challenges.  The media leans to the left, and will always distort our policies and statements.  They will continue to selectively cover stories that favor the left.  They will ignore our successes and exploit or fabricate our failures.  We also have to accept as a reality that the left justifies any and all means to achieve their goals.  They will lie, deceive, and obfuscate.  They will use paid protesters and community organizers to commit (alleged) fraud.  They will create and exploit crises to support their long-term goals. We will have to operate in acceptance of these challenges, and explain them as well.

At the same time, Conservatives have done well in the face of Obama.  The Tea Party Movement, while not partisan, does endorse many conservative and libertarian ideas.  It has also encouraged participation by people that have never been politically active.  The attendance has been multiracial, as well as from multiple political parties.  Bloggers, radio hosts, and organizers have been able to get the word out.  But, how much of this effort has been expended on educating and reaching out to people that might not be aware of the issues?  The left is doing it, and lying all the way.  They have ACORN, and a host of other “community organizations.”  They now have the president’s creation; “Organizing for America.”  These people will be out in full force to lie, intimidate, vandalize, occupy, or otherwise bully the people into doing what they want.  I honestly think we need to get our message out as well, but we don’t need to resort to lying and thuggery to achieve our goals.   Having the truth on one’s side has a quality and quantity all it’s own.  If we do nothing in this regard, the liberals will lie to them at every turn, and be successful at it.

Share