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

Don’t Blame Third Party Voters If Obama Is Reelected

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 am disturbed by some of the things I am reading in some conservative blogs. I’m talking about those who ridicule libertarians in particular for “throwing away” their votes. The insinuation is that if Obama is reelected, it will be their fault. I do not agree with that way of thinking. I have the utmost respect for libertarians standing on their principles and deciding to vote for their third Party candidate. If Obama is reelected, the only people we should fault are those that voted for him not those that voted for someone else who wasn’t Romney.

Having said that, would I like to convince libertarians to vote for Mitt  Romney? Yes, I would. If we are to defeat Obama, we will need every vote we can get for Romney. My support for Mitt Romney is what my libertarian friend, Country Thinker, would call a strategic vote as opposed to a principled vote. If I were to stand on my principles, I too would vote for a third party candidate.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a fan of Mitt Romney or of the Republican Party. I believe that the most critical problem facing America is our ever-increasing mountain of debt. I am under no illusion that a Romney administration will do anything serious to deal with the debt issue, at least not voluntarily. Yet I am supporting Romney because I believe a Romney administration will be significantly different from another four years of Obama. A Romney administration will cut corporate and other taxes and will get rid of many overreaching regulations that are strangling the life out of our economy and will open up federal lands and the continental shelf to oil and gas exploration and development. These policy changes should create an environment where our economy can start to grow and we can finally have a real recovery. None of these policy changes will happen if Obama is reelected.

A growing economy would be very good for America, of course. But that is not why I am supporting Romney. Remember, my desire is for the next administration to tackle the debt crisis before it explodes in our faces. I believe that the policies of a Romney administration will get our economy going again; but I also believe there will be unintended consequences to a growing economy.

Please bear in mind what you are reading is nothing more than my opinion. And, I would be the first to tell you that my opinions carry less weight than a molecule of air. So, with that disclaimer, let me tell you what I think the unintended consequences of a Romney  administration would be.

First, I believe if our economy start to grow again we are going to see some serious inflation. Now growing economies do not cause inflation. But creating money out of thin air does. The Federal Reserves has been creating money out of thin air ever since 2008 with their QE1, QE2, and, QE2.5.  The big Wall Street banks have been able to borrow this funny money from the at almost no cost and invest in the stock markets for a good return. They, we are told, have over $2 trillion sitting in excess reserves at the Fed. But you can bet when the economy starts growing, the greedy bankers are going to want to get in on a good thing and those trillions of dollars that were created out of thin air are going to enter the real economy and the result will be inflation. So, what could be possibly good about inflation? Ask your self what does the bond market hate the most? The answer is inflation. So, if my strategy is correct, the second unintended consequence of a Romney administration’s policies will be that the bond market will respond to the inflation by driving bond prices down and interest rates up. Higher interest rates will seriously ramp up the cost of serving our debt, which is already over $400 billion per year.

My thinking is that the combination of these two unintended consequences will force all the clowns in Washington, both the “D’s” and the “R’s” to finally deal with our debt crisis. Their only other option would be default. They will be forced by events to introduce austerity programs similar to what many European countries have already started. there will be one very important difference, however. Our friends in Europe are having to deal with their debt crisis at a time where their economies are at best stagnant and in most cases shrinking. If my strategy works, America will have the chance to deal with its debt crisis while its economy is growing, which will go a long ways toward mitigating the pain.

So, there you have it, my friends. This is my lighter than air opinion of why I think supporting Mitt Romney is a good strategy for America. This is why I think my principled libertarian friends should put their principles aside and vote for Romney. But, if they decide to stand on their principles anyway and if Obama is reelected, I will not be pointing the finger of blame at them. If Obama is reelected, the fault belongs to those that voted for him and no one else.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking.  What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

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

Blogger Debate Series Continued – Third Party Viability question 2 rebuttal

Share

The question in this part of the continuing third party viability debate is:

Is a third-party vote “wasted?” If so, how? If not, why?”

I want to say that I have enjoyed debating scratcher. He is passionate about what he believes and makes excellent points. Scratcher has his rebuttal up at his blog, so now I will respond.

Here in part is what scratcher said:

“I guess if you want to believe in changing the Party, a third party vote may seem like a waste. But if you’re like me and believe the Party can’t – or rather won’t – be changed, then a third party may be the only way to go. It’s got to come down to what you want to stand for come election day…”

Okay, if you only want to look at this topic via what it means to you, personally then yes; I agree with scratcher. Voting for a third party is what you need to do; which goes to the original point I made that a vote cast is not a vote wasted. But does that vote cast do anything to keep the liberal statists from advancing their agenda? It isn’t just that you vote for a third party, it is what your vote does to aid the opposition. To this, scratcher said:

“Realistically, we can only be thankful right now that the progressives haven’t been able to force their agenda of change on the schedule they’d hoped to. A bottom-up infiltration of an unwilling and aware entity could take decades… if it succeeds at all.”

Well I would only mention Woodrow Wilson at this juncture. Since his Presidency, statism has been on the march; slowly in general, sudden at times, but steadily ‘progressing’ on our society. Statism has long been pushed by the left, it isn’t an invention of Barack Obama and even though it will take decades, we need to start somewhere. We can no longer let statism go unchecked, for as we have seen of late, the far left in the Democratic Party will stop at virtually nothing to foist their socialist agenda upon the American people. That is why voting for a third party in the general Presidential election would be nothing short of disastrous for the conservative cause.

Scratcher also said:

I think it proves instead the point I’m trying to make. The trouble with NY-23 wasn’t knowledgeable voters resisting a RINO liberal and breaking for the third party candidate. The problem was an arrogant Republican Party that ignored those voters, then sent Newt Gingrich to tell the common folk what was best for them. Had the Republican establishment thrown their support behind the popular and desired conservative candidate, Hoffman and the GOP would have both won – as would the voters.”

First of all, Newt Gingrich noted his mistake in supporting Dede Scozzafava in a meeting with Tea Partiers in New Hampshire:

“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says that he was wrong to endorse Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava in last November’s special election in New York’s 23rd District.

At the time, as a party builder and someone who has always been trying to help build the party, it struck me that she was the local nominee. She turned out to be a huge disappointment. And she turned out not to be frankly a loyal Republican,” Gingrich added. Responding to those critical of his endorsement, “And I think that those folks have the better of that argument.

And secondly, I think that what we need to remember here is that the Republican National Committee, according to their bylaws are prohibited from getting involved in the picking and choosing of a local candidate. Once a candidate has been chosen, the RNC can throw its support behind that person, but they cannot select candidates. This was a local problem made by Chicago style backroom deals and would probably not ever have been noticed in a different election cycle; which is only more proof that the Tea Party Movement is effective as it stands. Without their involvement this past year, you would not have seen the amazing election results in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Something else that scratcher said really hit me:

“That’s what it’s coming to for me. I’m going to vote for the person I think is best for the job, and never mind the Party choices. Will it reform the Republicans? I doubt it. But if they lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives like myself breaking for the third party, perhaps they’ll start looking for more appropriate candidates.

Wow. Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Card Check, Amnesty for Illegals – I can only ask, does anyone think that we can afford to lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives voting for third party candidates to force a change in the GOP that way? Personally, I don’t want to take that chance.

We have, coming up in the next two election cycles, a once in a lifetime chance to effect change in the Republican Party. The Tea Party Movement has sent a clear message that the electorate is fed up with the big government, out of control spending ways that the GOP fell into. Rasmussen says that the GOP is enjoying an unprecedented lead in the generic congressional ballot survey:

“Evidence is mounting that adopting Obamacare over sustained and vocal public opposition to government-run health care could lead to an electoral catastrophe for Democrats, as they fall 10 points behind Republicans in Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot survey.

The survey measures which party candidate for Congress voters intend to vote for in the November congressional election.

Rasmussen notes that: “The two parties were very close on the Generic Ballot throughout the spring of 2009, but in late June – around the same time Democrats began their campaign for health care reform — Republicans pulled ahead for good.”

If the GOP still has a double digit lead come November, the party will regain control of both houses of Congress with significant majorities.

For a little perspective, the GOP only held a 4 point lead in 1995, one year AFTER the Contract with America. Presently we are eight months away from the mid term elections. To waste this lead on the idea that we should hitch our horse to a third party wagon will only get us stuck in the mire of a fractured conservative vote while the far left in the Democratic Party continue on down the road to their socialist utopia.

Share

Blogger Debate Series Continued – Third Party Viability question 2

Share

The question in this part of the continuing third party viability debate is:

Is a third-party vote “wasted?” If so, how? If not, why?

This question is trickier to answer than it appears. Because it assumes that any vote could be wasted. The simple answer to that question is, “No, a vote that is cast is never wasted.” To vote is to speak your conscience, to announce your choice for the candidate you want to represent you in public office. So in the purest sense, a vote cast is never a vote wasted, even if cast on a candidate you are sure won’t win; third party or no.

Now if the question presented were to ask, “Is a vote for a third party what is needed to, A. send a message to D.C. and B. the way to get our country back on track to the principles and concepts of our founding?” In that case the answer would be a resounding “No!” Why you ask? The answer lies in what the electorate wishes to accomplish. Change of ‘regime,’ be it Democrat OR Republican; or more specifically, change of ideology in either party can only come about via infiltration and usurpation of said party. You cannot effect change by presenting a third party. You can go on all day how the Republicans blew it after they took power in the ‘90s, and I will not argue with you on that point. They did blow it, big time. At first, they were gang busters, presenting America with a balanced budget four years in a row, but in due time, the temptations of power caught up with them. But is the answer to this really the development of a new political party?

Even a viable third party would only offer that a new kid on the block, once in power would succumb to the temptations and vices that both the Democrats and Republicans have in the past. As I stated in the first part of this debate, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That being said, we are left with two options:

  1. Conservatives need to take back control of the GOP
  2. We, the Conservative electorate need to remain vigilant and hold our party to the highest standards and keep them on track to the road of smaller government and more individual liberties

This is by far, the hardest path to carve in today’s political landscape, but as my Dad once told me, doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing. It is much easier to sit back and take the populist route by spouting third party rhetoric and trying to capture the energy of the Tea Party Movement that is present in America right now, bending it to your will. The Tea Party’s power lies not in it being a third political party, but as a wake up call to the powers that be in the Republican Party. So far it is working. If you want proof of the power of the Tea Party, then look to the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and especially in Massachusetts. THAT is where the power of the Tea Party lies, in motivating the moderate Democrat and Independent voters to make choices for conservative candidates.

Lastly let me say that if people want third party choices, then let those choices be in the primaries. For then you don’t have to worry about splitting the vote and this might be the only viable way a third party could work in this country. A healthy, robust primary race with Republican and third party candidates could put a fine point on the message we need to send to D.C. Mounting a third party in the general presidential election would only serve to spell disaster for the conservative movement in America.

Share

Blogger Debate Series Continued – Third Party Viability Round 2

Share

Okay, I thought we were discussing the viability and possible success of a third political party. But as a staunch Reaganite, I cannot let scratcher’s comments to unheeded. So quickly, let me address those comments about big government, Reagan and his ‘silence’ on AIDS.

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at just what Ronald Reagan did. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor, our Constitution. It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative. It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time.

Now scratcher alluded to Reagan’s ‘silence’ on the AIDS epidemic. In it he links to Democracy Now!, a far left group. Little wonder that they would have something bad to say about Ronald Reagan. In his reply, scratcher said:

“This is the same Ronald Reagan who sat silent for SIX YEARS as the AIDS epidemic began and spread like wildfire. Why? Because like many so-called conservatives, homosexuality offended his sensibilities. In a statement about AIDS education, Reagan said:

“Let’s be honest with ourselves: AIDS information cannot be what some call ‘value neutral,’ ” said the President, who rarely has spoken about the disease in public. “After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don’t medicine and morality teach the same lessons?”

So we have from President Reagan a sterling example of a conservative who allows his own moral beliefs to affect policy – at the cost of many, many thousands (now millions) of lives.”

Wow, those are pretty harsh words. But are they accurate? Did Reagan sit “silent for SIX YEARS?” Of course not; one of the men who knew Reagan best, Edwin Meese III says that to say Reagan was silent on AIDS is completely unfair:

“I can remember numerous sessions of the domestic-policy council where the surgeon general provided information to us, and the questions were not whether the federal government would get involved, but what would be the best way. There was support for research through the NIH. There also were questions about the extent to which public warnings should be sent out. It was a question of how the public would respond to fairly explicit warnings about fairly explicit things. Ultimately, warnings were sent out.”

And Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for Reagan and author of the book, How Reagan Changed My Life says:

“As I recall, from 1984 onward — and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 — every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS. But, of course, that’s the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous.”

Also, official White House papers cited by Steven Hayward, author of the multi-volume Age of Reagan show that Ronald Reagan spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a question on AIDS research, the president said:

“[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for ’86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I’m sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it’ll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there’s no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.”

But was Reagan “a conservative who allows his own moral beliefs to affect policy – at the cost of many…lives”? Hardly, and who could answer this question better than one of Reagan’s own children? Patti Davis said on Time Magazine’s website as to whether a TV movie which portrayed Reagan as a homophobe was accurate or not. She said she recalls “the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way” in which her dad discussed the topic of homosexuality with her when she was age eight or nine.

“My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, “That looks weird.”… All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn’t really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn’t reserved just for men and women.”

And also responding to that made for TV movie about Reagan and his being a homophobe is this from Martin Anderson, a high-level Reagan adviser and coeditor of Reagan: A Life in Letters:

“I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them. I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans,” Anderson told me. “We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was ‘Leave them alone.’”

So it is pretty clear to me that Reagan wasn’t a homophobe, or even an indifferent conservative who ignored the AIDS problem. He budgeted for it every year of his Presidency after 1984. Reagan was a product of Hollywood and therefore knew a great many gay people, so it wasn’t as if the idea of homosexuality was anything new to him. Many of the misconceptions about Reagan’s ‘silence’ on AIDS comes from a CBS movie that was so inaccurate and controversial that CBS was forced to air it on their pay cable station, Showtime. Also it is clear that Reagan was a small government President, with the only part of the government he expanded being the military. To call him as guilty of social engineering as the worst progressive is laughable and highly inaccurate.

But what does all this have to do with our debate on whether a third party is a good idea for the Conservative cause right now? Well, nothing really. I just had to set the record straight on Reagan.

To be fair, scratcher did mention third parties –  in a fashion:

“If “true” conservatism is for smaller government and less federal intervention across the board, th[e]n not even Reagan was a “true” conservative. And if we can find some true conservatives, I’ll vote for them regardless of their party affiliation – or lack thereof.”

But if Reagan doesn’t pass a litmus test for scratcher, it makes me wonder just how far to the right a candidate would have to be for him to vote for them. All I can do is reiterate the need for Conservatives to take back the Republican Party so that we can change the course of our country back towards what our Founding Fathers intended.

Share

The Conservative Debate: To Be Or Not To Be A Third Party

Share

This is the next round of the infamous Battle of the Conservative Bloggers.

This is probably one of the most pressing issues on the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. Weather Conservatives should to move to form and vote for a true conservative 3rd party or to drive the Republicans to become a more solid and reliable Conservative party.

In this round of the conservative debate we have Don from Present DiscontentConservative Hideout 2.0 and Scratcher from Makes My Brain Itch. Both of these excellent bloggers are members of The Resistance and regular contributor to as well.

The question posed to the participants is:

Some people think, long term, that a true Conservative 3rd party is necessary, because the Republicans have proven only slightly better than Democrats when they were in power. The thinking goes, we are never going to change Washington, so why bother voting in the Republicans.

Other say that we need to refocus the Republicans because if we actually form a 3rd party, we are guaranteeing that the left will win election after election.

The question is what should the focus of Conservatives be going forward, a revitalized Republican party or a true Conservative party?

Scratcher is up first.

Be sure to check Makes My Brain Itch for his response and Don for the rebuttal and motorcitytimes for links to reactions from across the blog-o-sphere.
Stay tuned for more links to the debate.

Do your part…join the RESISTANCE.

Share

An Open Letter to Michael Steele

Share

I sent the following letter to Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

As the policies and actions of the Obama Administration have become more readily apparent, the Republican Party may believe that they have “default” support among Conservative and Independents for the upcoming election cycle.  I would urge you to examine this more closely.  As you may have noticed, the approval ratings for Republicans are still quite low.  There is a reason for this beyond the fact that the left and the media are against Republicans.

I believe that these low ratings are due to the Party’s abandoning of Conservative principals.  After George Bush was elected, government continued to grow in both size and scope.  Government interference in the free market continued, and programs continued to flourish and grow in influence.  Far too many Republican Congressmen and Senators, who ran on platforms of small government and fiscal responsibility, spent like drunken sailors when they arrived in Washington.  The people, and particularly the Party base, watched these developments with a growing disgust.  It is the opinion of many that Republican candidates run on Conservative issues to win elections, and then disregard those ideas when assuming office.  The people have grown tired of this, leading to, in my opinion, the losses in 2006 and 2008.  When too many Republican office holders abandoned to core concepts of the Party, the voters did not support them.  Simply put, one cannot energize an alienated base.  And we sir, are alienated.  Consequently, when the voter has difficulty defining the differences between the Republicans and Democrats, the Republicans lose.  There are differences, but there has been such a blurring of the lines that the base has been discouraged, and the left has been empowered. To this date, there are Republican Senators and Congressmen that are voting with the Democrats for (what will become) a single payer health care system, and a Cap and Trade Bill that will absolutely destroy our economy.  As long as these events occur, the base will be suspicious.  The empty promises are now falling on deaf ears.

Over the spring and summer, the Tea Party movement and the town hall meetings displayed the high level of discontent that the people have with President Obama’s policies.   However, one cannot rely on the left’s description of these events.  For one, the Republican Party did not organize them, as you well know.  If the Party had the ability to organize so many large and diverse crowds across the US, we would be talking about President McCain right now.  For two, the sizes of the crowds (particularly the 9-12 event) were seriously under-reported by the media.  They don’t want the people to know how big that particular movement are, nor do they want the people involved in the movement to realize their own size and power.  For three, many of the attendees at these events are just as upset with the Republican Party as they are with the Democrats.  I cannot speak for everyone at these events, as they were, contrary to what the Democrats and the media have said, not a monolithic group of white, racist Republicans.  However I can make some general observations:

  1. People are upset with corporate bailouts and government ownership or control of corporations.
  2. People are upset with the government’s dictating of anyone’s pay.
  3. People are upset with government causing problems, and then proposing even more government as the solution.
  4. People are upset with the intrusive nature of the current administration’s view of government.  We do not want government run health care.  We do not want government run schools.
  5. People want tax cuts, not tax increases.
  6. People want government to live within its means, just like we have to.
  7. People want government to shrink, not grow exponentially, or simply grow more slowly.
  8. People are upset with international capitulation, and the weakening of our defenses.

What we want is to have our elected officials actually act upon what they promised during their campaigns.  We want government to shrink, not just grow more slowly.  I, myself, have made the comparison that the recent choices between Democrats and Republicans is the choice between socialism, and “socialism-lite.”  Please hear this: There is no way to do big government in a “Conservative way.”  The two are mutually exclusive.  In fact, they are the antithesis of each other.   We want Republicans, not “Republicrats!”  We want a set of men and women that will lead, not shy away from tackling the bureaucracy, or the Democrats and their client groups.  We want people that will make the case for eliminating government programs that have not worked, nor ever will.  We want people that will stand up to the leftist media, and make their message heard.  We want people that will talk to the people as they were grown men and women, not sheepish children that require herding.  And, we want leaders that will listen to us, not the talking heads in the media, not the pressure groups that are bussed in to intimidate them, and not the advisers that recommend that they “moderate” their message.  When the Party supports and promotes moderate candidates, the base sees this as another indication that the party is out of touch with, if not dismissive of, traditional Republican ideals.  If that continues, the next round of town hall protests may include moderate Republicans, and if it does, it will be well deserved.

There is a rumbling in the base.  More than just the discontent that I was part of at the end of the last administration, this includes people leaving the Party, and supporting third party candidates.  There are many Republicans that are pledging to not vote for a moderate candidate, and will vote for a third party Conservative, even if it means losing an election.  There are third parties cropping up, and existing ones are gaining members.  People are angry, and will cling to their ideals.  In case you have not noticed, multiple polls have indicated that the people are moving to the right, particularly Independents.  The Republican Party can be part of this movement, or it can be left by the wayside.  We have said from the beginning, our fight is not about race or party, it is about ideas.  Will this nation be free, or will it be a socialist state?

I would kindly remind you to review the origins of the Party.  What happened when the Whigs decided to stand in the way of history?  You are currently in the position to make the same decision for the Republicans.  Will you stand for the ideas of the founders, or will the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs?  The choice is yours.  We will be watching and evaluating the Party’s performance in this regard.

As for me, I will stand with my fellow Conservatives, for Conservative ideas.  The banner under which I stand is not as important as the ideas themselves.

Let’s see if I get a response.

Share

Third Party?

Share

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.

Share