Update: R.I.P. GOP

By Clear thinker
January 22, 2008 - 20:28 ET

Update 1/28/08

For those following this thread there is some good news to report. The last two paragraphs were written at a time of emotional distress, but with the passing of time, the emotion has passed also. Having time to think and talk with others I have changed my intent of action. I will not be leaving the GOP. Instead I am joining with many other like minded citizens to take back our party. At this point in time, the only way we can see that the GOP will ever listen to Conservative concerns again, is to encourage others to vote for true Conservative principles by writing-in the name of Fred Thompson. The GOP is our party and we are taking it back.   

R.I.P. GOP

 

Although the heading seems a bit dramatic, it is the opinion of this author that we have seen the last days of the party of principle. The exact date of this deathwatch was Jan, 19, 2008.

 

More directly related to this passing are the principles of Conservatism. For the historically disabled, a great man once had his own explanation of Conservatism. It went something like this... Conservatism is a three legged stool made complete by the strength of three principles.

 

One leg represents the fiscal Conservative. This is where a Conservative Government would take in only what it needed to operate while finding any, and all manner of saving the people's money. Of course making government smaller would lend to making government less expensive and thereby allowing citizens to keep more of their hard earned money.

 

Another leg is that of the social Conservative. The biggest concern for the social Conservative is the barbaric use of abortion in this country. There are other modern day issues like same sex marriage that concern the social Conservative, but the abortion issue is the monster issue, as well it should be.

 

Finally, the third leg of Conservatism is that of security. This is the easiest to explain and understand. The security Conservative wants a strong national defense to protect the homeland from all enemies within, and those foreign to us. The logic is incredibly simple, yet profound. If we cannot protect ourselves from our enemies the first two legs will never matter.

 

For many years the Republican Party has been the party that came closest to these principles in theory and in practice. Then we had a president come along who defined, embodied, and led by example that gave us the three legged stool analogy of what it meant to be a Conservative. This president was Ronald Reagan. By his own will, and by his own examples, he showed us how important these principles were to all free men and woman. Because of him we had phrases introduced into the political lexicon such as 'The Reagan Revolution', and 'The Reagan Coalition'.

 

Each Republican president since Reagan has in one way or the other tried to live up to the three legs of Conservatism with varying degrees of success. Along the way something started to change that was so subliminal that very few people even noticed. We got the very first hint that something was going wrong when the term 'Compassionate Conservative' was used over and over during the presidential bid by George W. Bush. The few that sent up the red flags were mostly ignored. Something that I must sadly admit to.

 

So where does that leave us today? In my estimation, it leaves us in a terrible fix.

 

Since the years of Ronald Reagan there have been many a politician that has held office in many capacities, with the most important being the Congress and the Senate. Those that have held these offices have mostly claimed to follow in the footsteps of the venerable Reagan. But as we know, these claims have been disavowed by the passing of time. Those that call themselves Conservative Republicans have in large part turned away from the three legged principles and proven to more like the Democrats when voting on bills and arguing issues. These Republicans have been responsible for the term RINO (Republican in name only) finding it's rightful place in history.

 

We are at a pivotal point in history, so what do we do?

 

Here's what I'm going to do, and I hope others join me. First of all, I will be writing in my candidates name on the primary and the general election ballot. My candidate has dropped out of the race but the conservative principles he espoused are the real conservative principles, so I'm voting for conservatism, not a candidate. Shortly after the general election I will be quitting the GOP. After 30 years of supporting the party, it's not an easy thing to do. I may rejoin the party if we ever get another real conservative that runs for office.

 

The only other option is to hope somebody starts a new political party that actually sticks to conservative principles. I personally like the name 'The Conservative Party', and would support it with money and votes. Some Republicans would argue that I should hold my nose and vote for another candidate as a third option. This option is not even a consideration unless I'm willing to compromise my principles. Some things I will not do.

‹ The United States is not a country. Ron Paul on Glenn Beck Radio.. a MUST listen ›

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Conservative Party?

January 22, 2008 - 22:20 ET by Clear thinker

Seriously folks, would this name work as a political party name if we recruit the right candidates? 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

Hey Clear

January 23, 2008 - 01:48 ET by candance

The Whigs went down in flames in the 1850s for exactly what the GOP is doing now. If not for folks like Abraham Lincoln invigorating the Republicans then, it could have died out quickly enough.

20 years is long enough for us to get the memo they will never turn things around.

I'm with you.

Didn't hear this angst before....

January 27, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Clutch Cargo

There wasn't much teeth-gnashing from conservatives when former Pres. George Herbert Walker Bush was nominated by the GOP in 1988, and again in 1992.

Consider that GHWBush was ProAbortion just eight years earlier in 1980, and GHWBush had vowed a 'kinder gentler' administration -- which was an open-handed slap at Ronald Reagan.

Not to mention GHWBush's appointment of lib-leaning ? David Souter or Kennedy ? to the US Supreme Court, GHWBush's tax hikes, and other non-conservative actions.

In 2008, Mitt Romney is a proud promoter and MUCH better defender of conservative principles, yet many people still carry hatred for the man. I don't get it.

Obviously, GHWBush got a pass for being a WWII hero. I can understand that.

But many hard-right Republicans obviously carry the same type of class envy hatred against Romney that Democrats have been tossing about for years. It is unbecoming.

Romney might have made some dumb PC pandering statements in 1994 and 1994, but his Governing record was fairly conservative, as evidenced by his high marks from several ProLife groups, by Tax watchdog groups, and even from the NRA.

Like Ann Coulter said, Mitt Romney is much more conservative than perceived.... in large part because he was constantly being pulled and pushed into compromising statements by the liberal Massachusetts Democrats, .... and by the Republican hating media.

 

 

 

 

Hi CT... Great piece you

January 27, 2008 - 15:33 ET by bigtimer

Hi CT...

Great piece you have here...

I like the name the Conservative Party...if only, I hope to see more conservatives in my lifetime...but I am still going to vote, as far as I am concerned not voting and letting the likes of the left get hold of the Judges again is the destruction of the gains we have made in this country...and that for me is a lot of destruction...it is bad enough what we have to face in the Senate this election, the House too...that is one of the main reasons I will not sit this out, there are others. 

I will vote...I have to.

So where does that leave us today?

January 27, 2008 - 15:49 ET by JayTee

It leaves us in Florida, the FIRST primary where only Republicans can vote, and it leaves us waiting on SUPER Tues on FEB 5th...BEFORE you can assume any kind of RIP. 

A bit premature here, CT.

Don't form opinions before Texas has voted, or NY, or Calif., etc....there is also the Republican Convention coming in the future.  

The Sky is not falling, Rhino's haven't won the presidency. 

 

GOP vs Conservative movement...

January 27, 2008 - 23:30 ET by Clear thinker

Jay Tee,

All of what you wrote is clouding the horizon temporarily but we  shall know very soon now. In the meantime I have joined a large working email group and a discussion board trying to figure out what our next move should be.

The one thing I can say for certain is this.... With me being pulled along relunctantly at first, we have made one major decision. The GOP is OUR party and we are taking it BACK! So for now, we have agreed to stick with the party, but there are going to be conditions. As you may have guessed, one item we will not budge on is the voting for anymore RINO's. 

This coming week should be an important and decisive week for the action we take next, so stay tuned. There is hope yet for the Conservative movement.  

The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.

 The National Security leg

January 27, 2008 - 18:05 ET by alamojb

 The National Security leg should include National sovereinty.

When the elder Bush kept talking about "New World Order" I tried to blow it off.  Looking back, I think of his emphasis on UN approval to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.  This legitamizing of the UN as a Supra National entity.  Many of us conservatives have helped this by naming broken UN Sanctions against Saddam as justification for the war, instead of boldy proclaiming we should do what is best for our nations defense regardless of what the UN thinks. ( I still have mixed feelings about The Iraq war, but I have strong feelings against legitamizing the UN.)  A few years ago the UN even tried to gain legal control over the internet. You think our first amendmnet will protect us? Think again. The emerging international opinion is that there is no free speech if it "offends" certain pet groups.  Namely Muslims and Gays. Almost like they are king, and how dare we peasants be allowed to say a thing about the king!  We have had at least one death penalty case in which a Supreme Court Justice sited " emerging international opinion" in the ruling, so the precedence is there.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/01/21/frightening-canadian-free-speech-suppression-ignored-us-old-media

Now we have the younger Bush administration supporting the UN Law of The Sea Treaty ( LOST).  This same administration seems unwilling to enforce our southern border and allows the Mexican government to operate no less than 47 Consulates in our nation.  He has signed suspicious documents like the SPP and the former Mexican President Vicente Fox admits that there have been secret talks to get rid of the US dollar and replace it with the Amero.  

The Bush family are Globalist.  This is no longer about right verses left.  We are entering a  stage of history when the very concept of "Nations", especially Western Nations, are being challenged by Supra-National entities.  One need only look at the emerging EUrabia to see where our future lies.

Many on this sight even do not see this yet, so I do not expect the uniformed masses relying on the MSM to see it either.

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

 

 

The poison of Multiculturalism has made people so that if the "Borg" of Star Trek were to show up saying "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated", half the Western World would call those of us who resisted "Bigots" and 'xenophobes".

LOST:

January 27, 2008 - 18:45 ET by alamojb

LOST: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/31/the-vote-on-lost-american-sovereignty-on-the-line/

 

Also, I might add one thing.  When I found out John McCain was using Juan "Mexico First" Hernandez I sent out many emails with the link to Michelle Maulkin site about that. ( This was before NB ran their article on it.)  I ENCOURAGE you to email as many of your conservative friends with a link about that. I attatch the link here( open at comments portion- must scroll up to read the article)

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/john-mccains-open-borders-outreach-director-the-next-dhs-secretary/#comments

Double post

January 27, 2008 - 18:47 ET by alamojb

Double Post

alamojb

January 28, 2008 - 19:14 ET by misterbill

I am sure you don't need me to second you, but all the things you say are true. I am one of those who blindly followed the Republican line (with the exceptions of voting for a few people I thought were the best candidates.

I recently reread Dick Lamm's essay , "How To Destroy America". It instilled as much concern in me then as when I first read it. 

 Your concerns are valid and happening as we sit here and read.

God knows when the situation will erupt, but it will be soon if America , as a whole, does not wake up.

 

 

 

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author: 

Misterbill, Thank you.

January 28, 2008 - 19:32 ET by alamojb

Misterbill,

Thank you.

Hey Howdy Howdy

January 28, 2008 - 19:39 ET by bigtimer

Hey Howdy Howdy misterb...

Just wanted to throw that in real quick...

Miss you around here...

I only imagine...

January 28, 2008 - 08:12 ET by sarcasmo

What people would be saying if our situations were reversed, because I've seen it already in the constant "he's going to go third party again" predictions. I'm also amused at the prospect of you suddenly joining my chorus on unfair third party ballot access laws, and believe me, if your "Conservative Party" formed your ass is going in that line, like it or not. But, that needed-needling aside, I do have a serious question for Fred-fans, and my apologies but aside from a link in the editors' picks I've seen no discussion of it here despite tremendous media-bias implications.

What do Fred-fans think about the shocking-to-me Carl Cameron reveal that Fred may have been in this for the VICE-Presidency all-along? Here and here have more description of the story. Even if it's false, if Carl thought it was true, might knowing "the secret" have subtly-influenced his coverage? How, and did we see it? Should Carl be questioned a bit more about this? (I think so, I'm very curious!!)

And should it even be possible to swear a reporter to secrecy in such an important matter? Does anyone believe any Democrat candidate would swear Carl or any Fox employee to secrecy (I don't) and if not, what does THAT say about media bias & partisanship these days?? And what OTHER deals are going on & what secrets are being kept for what candidate(s)? That's the slippery slope Carl is now on by agreeing once to keep this secret, IMO.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Do you really think for a

January 28, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Clear thinker

Do you really think for a second that Fred was in it for a VP slot?

If you do, then you don't understand Fred. 

The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.

I have no idea, but it's not me saying it...

January 29, 2008 - 01:40 ET by sarcasmo

It's the Fox News reporter by the name of Carl Cameron. I don't affect Fox News coverage even one bit (obviously...). Carl does (again, obviously...) and regardless of the truth of the Fred-rumor, if Carl "knows" it, said rumor might have affected his reporting. If anything, the truth of the rumor is for my purposes here entirely irrelevant!

This means that you have yet to answer even-1 of my questions, in your apparent zeal to tell me that I don't understand Fred, perhaps caused by the jabs about stuff like ballot-access laws and your ass suddenly finding itself in my-line if you try to do a new party. Please try to look beyond my good natured jabs and tell me what you think. Hell, it's not just you I'm mocking. On that particular issue, I'm perfectly willing to mock the entire US government -- they make it too-goddam-easy. But the fact that your proposed conservative party will almost-certainly emerge stillborn due to ballot-access law BS is beside my main point, which is potential bias -- especially from Carl Cameron -- surrounding Fred's run.

Here's what I think. Compared to some of the others I happened to LIKE Fred, because at least he has a decent sense of humor IMO. Still, liking Fred doesn't change the factual situation, and therefore doesn't change the bias/potential-for-bias I and others like "Ace" mentioned. I think whoever said there may have been a "black hole effect" might be right, even though I have no proof and even though that kind of bias, if it happened, is probably very subtle. I also think it's fascinating that nobody else seems to have any ethical issues with Carl's agreement to keep such a secret for a candidate. Another minority view on my part, I guess...

Do you really think for a second that Fred wouldn't accept a VP slot in a New York heartbeat from one of the remaining-RINOs?? I don't, but maybe I still just don't understand Fred -- we'll see...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Real meaning of R.I.P. for GOP!

January 28, 2008 - 08:34 ET by PawpawN

Guess you all forgot the real meaning of R.I.P. for GOP!  It is Romney Is President!  So get over yourselves and let a business man run the country for once! 

Pawpaw, As much as I

January 28, 2008 - 17:37 ET by Clear thinker

Pawpaw,

As much as I respect your wishful thinking, I think it's time people start getting used to the idea that Romney won't win the general election.

The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.

Hi Ct... What makes you

January 28, 2008 - 17:42 ET by bigtimer

Hi Ct...

What makes you so sure Romney won't win the general election?

Who do you think will?

Very curious with which way your mind is going here...

thanks

Hi bt...

January 28, 2008 - 18:07 ET by Clear thinker

Hope all is going well for you!

I hope I can explain in just a few sentences. Anyway, look around at what's happening within GOP voter community and you get a glimpse of what I'm getting at.

Let's start at one end of the spectrum, Ron Paul. He has stated he won't go 3rd party, only time will tell, but I'm fairly certain that he has a rabid following and this following is in the tens of thousands maybe even a lot higher. If he drops out, which I don't see happening, his followers are sure to write him in. If he get's pushed out at the convention they will still write him in. Maybe not all, but I think most will.

Then take people like me, and growing every day, who will also be writing in my guy. There's more of us than people realize at this point.

Now take a look at the rest of the contenders. McCain is going to pull moderates and a good portion of the veteran vote.

Romney is not catching fire with the masses and there will be many that won't vote for him because of religion.

Then take alook at the evangelical vote, the majority of which seems to be with Huckabee.

And finally, Rudy. His numbers have fallen so fast with nobody to blame but himself. He will still pull big voting numbers in metro areas.

I see these problems going all the way to the convention. And I see a very mean nasty convention because everyone is so divided and entrenched in their own camps. No matter who comes out of the convention they will never get enough of the base to vote for them. Once again because of the entrenched camps. This leads me to believe that we ain't got a prayer this time around.

BTW... In case you haven't caught my update I have changed my mind about voting. I will stay with the GOP so I may help others pull the party back to conservative principles. However, I will still be writing in Fred for the primary.

The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.

Thanks Ct... You may be

January 28, 2008 - 18:20 ET by bigtimer

Thanks Ct...

You may be right...

Time will tell.

One thing is for sure...this is one of the most important elections to me in my lifetime...

Been something else on both sides of the aisle...we have a long way to go yet politically speaking that is.

I do think Romney may catch fire though...he just may Ct.

Just sayin'...lol.

Glad you are voting...we all should IMHO.

I'll be sticking to the GOP

January 29, 2008 - 02:15 ET by Schnikeys

I'll be sticking to the GOP as well.

What's the sense of making a whole new party when we can just simply strengthen conservative influence in the GOP, a party that already has plenty of honorable history behind it?

We'll be better off hanging in there. 

Especially if you know, from my barbs...

January 29, 2008 - 02:20 ET by sarcasmo

That any such proposed party WILL be stillborn (no 'maybes' here) due to the unfair ballot laws designed to perpetuate a political duopoly...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)