Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
I am no longer a RiNO
By Neil Stevens Posted in conservatism | Conservatives | Republicans | RINOs | Ronald Reagan — Comments (152) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For the record, I no longer consider myself a RiNO. I will vote for the nominees of the Republican party* all the way down the ticket automatically. That's my new policy.
This is a major change for me. I've always considered voting for another party to be a reasonable message-sending approach. but I was misguided: my thought processes hinged on the assumption that the Republican party is truly and rightfully Reaganite. But that is not the case, so I have to adapt.
When Ronald Reagan first took prominence in the Republican party, conservatism was a small and unpopular faction in the party. It can be argued that the only reason Senator Goldwater could take the party nomination in 1964, the year of Reagan's groundbreaking speech to the convention, was that all the more popular Republicans saw no point in running against the ticket of President Johnson and President Kennedy's Ghost.
Sure enough, the hostility never went away. After Goldwater's defeat, Reagan had to continue to sell the country and the party on conservatism. Even when he successfully ran for Governor, some California Republicans were so harsh in their attacks on him as a conservative that he coined his 11th Commandment that we know today.
Why did some Rockefeller Republicans hate Reagan so much? I believe it's because they felt entitled to the party, and to its nominations. Reagan was an outsider, someone who threatened and challenged their views, and so he had to be shouted down. Persuasion went out the window, and so eventually their views went out the window by 1980.
I believe conservatives must not make the same mistake the Rockefeller Republicans made. No matter how many victories we had, no matter how well President Reagan and Speaker Gingrich governed and showed how conservatism works both in politics and in practice, we must not grow entitled. We must not ever let ourselves believe that the party belongs to conservatives, and that our ideas are obviously correct to anyone who's a real Republican.
We must work, we must persuade, we must argue tirelessly as much with our fellow Republicans as with the Democrats on the merits of our views and our policies. We must put in the thankless work within the party, taking positions within it to keep it functioning, and later lead it. We must show solidarity with other Republicans, and not just the conservatives. All these things are vital in order to show our good faith, so that we can count on other Republicans to join us when we get our next turn at the top.
Even if conservatism is the Republican Party's Michael Jordan, we must remember that Jordan never won a league championship until he started running an offensive system that let his teammates have their turns with the ball. It's time for conservatives to stop being ballhogs, too, so that we can win both as a team, and for our own faction.
No more withholding our votes. No more calling people RiNOs or sellouts. No more sitting back and complaining about the establishment without getting involved ourselves. It's time for Reaganite activism, in his example.
* I take this phrase to exclude people who are not nominated in the usual fashion, so that people who wouldn't have counted include Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall election, or David Duke in a Louisiana runoff.
and persuading and arguing never stops EXCEPT after we pick our nominee, and then we unite.
The only way to get things done via the government is thru the Party.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I agree, unity is a must
by Sheila Frush
or we could wake up with a dem majority and the end of America as we know it...
Great diary - well done.
by DGaines
A great history lesson for us all.
You're right...
by Steve Foley
...Forcing ultra conservatives like GWB on the party (twice) and in our leadership positions like Speaker Hastert and others it is time we take a back seat or give up the ball to other factions under the big tent.
I'm convinced :)
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Well, Steve, you get two choices
by Neil Stevens
a) Bang the table and complain. Result: Get nothing and like it.
b) Work to rise back up in the party like conservatives did before. Result: Get something in the future and do great things for the country.
Your call.
08!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Heh, I never got any Browne stickers
by Neil Stevens
Or I'd ship them right over :-)
Of course I pick B...
by Steve Foley
...I picked B a long time ago -- problem is how do we get there? Persuasive conservatives have been working on this for years most since the first Bush and more since the second and the results are lacking!!!
Rallying the troops as much as possible to win this cycle may be a moral victory for the party but to what end? This would seem to signal to the rank and file that conservatism is no longer the way to win since others have been so successful.
This:
Work to rise back up in the party like conservatives did before. Result: Get something in the future and do great things for the country
May be better achieved by working through a loss which looks more and more likely.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Winners never lose.
by Neil Stevens
We do it from the bottom up, just like Haley Barbour is suggesting, and he's a former RNC chairman.
I know *all* of us won't have the opportunity to do things like run for local office or for local party leadership roles, but some of us can. And the rest of us can help those who do run. That's one part of what we can do.
Another part is to persuade. We need to *sell* conservatism as though the Reagan Presidency never happened.
On this point I agree
by Steve Foley
...but it will have little barring on this cycle!
And I still think a win here relegates conservatives to the corner in a "shut up and do as your told" position within the party. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the beholder I suppose.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Yes, conservatives did too little in recent years
by Neil Stevens
And yes, conservatives are paying for that now. But that's no reason to give up.
It could be worse. We could be starting from scratch, as in 1964!
I don't think I called for...
by Steve Foley
...conservatives to give up or leave the party! I may be personally re-evaluating this party's direction and whether it's worth it to me to remain a loyal member of a party that's increasingly disloyal to me and my views. But I'm not advocating anyone give up or leave the party!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Well you're one person I had in mind with this diary :-)
by Neil Stevens
The more conservatives who quit, the harder it will be on the rest of us, heh.
If the GOP today is enough to make you reconsider your membership, the GOP in 1964 would have had you qutting already! But we can follow Reagan's example and do great things.
Talk of quiting is always overstated
by JSobieski
I can't imagine more than a small handful of people on this site would actually fail to vote R in a presidential election.
What I hate is all of the "electability analyses" where someone says X is the only person who can win, and if you disagree, you are basically voting for Hillary.
For example, I have a strong dislike for McCain. I am never going to donate money to his campaign, or volunteer my time. But I am 100% certain to vote for him.
Instances where conservatices don't vote are pretty limited to: (a) examples of strong third party runs (Perot); or (b) where a Republican candidate is mired in a personal scandel (last minute BusH DUI story in 2000).
Otherwise, I would bet real money than all of these "I will sit out" folks will vote R.
How so?
by Steve Foley
If I were to quite the party I would still be supporting conservatives no matter what or what party affiliation.
Haystack left the party last year he still supports conservatives.
16 years of conservatives working hard to change the party and get conservatives elected and we have little to show for it. Although we've made good progress it's certainly not anything to write home about. I agree we could do great things in theory but I don't see a move that way and continued success by non-conservatives in the party doesn't exactly support a need for the rank and file to want or need to change.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Because we still have to nominate the right guys
by Neil Stevens
The fewer of us are in the party, the harder it will be for us to build a conservative bench in the party, and nominate conservatives to high office.
The process of politics counts. Ideas alone won't win. Just ask Fred Thompson.
That's part of my point
by Steve Foley
The party is not doing that and right now the party enjoys its highest membership of conservatives ever.
I realize that the thinking is I should work tirelessly to promote conservatism within the party, while at the same time voting for whatever squishy mope they dress up and trot out. But I don't like it and it's not sitting well with me anymore
This live to fight another day business is tiring and not yielding very good results.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Party politics is a team sport.
by John E.
By sitting out or protest voting, a normally R voter may contribute to the loss of the R candidate. Given our very human psychology (cmp. results from Game Theory), sabotaging the result is going to generate hostile and in-kind payback from the sabotaged toward the saboteurs. This will disqualify the saboteurs from the grant of respect which is necessary to influence the otherwise cooperating members of the Party. The zero-sum approach is going to get a zero-sum response; as is so evident in the interaction between parties. And unless there is a realignment wherein a third party becomes viable – I’ve recently seen some convincing scenarios for this -- that approach is not viable for resolving disputes between various types of conservatives or their moderate and libertarian caucus. As long as whatever shape of conservatism has its best shot in the Republican Party we shall have to be satisfied with a strategy of mutual accommodation. Our own particular agenda is going to move forward only fitfully and only in conjunction with that of our varied coalition members in the form of our imperfect candidates.
Putting the point in the most personal way by analyzing my own personal psychology, I find that on this very web site, my heart is turned hard against those who have left the party. I don’t care about accommodating them and I’m predisposed to discount what they write if I read it at all, no matter how much I formally appreciated them. Those that threaten to leave the Party, or talk of celebrating Republican defeat in the POTUS race for the sake of their particular factional interests, or laying out in the general election for “principle,” are bound to me by a very tenuous thread which will break if the threat is realized in action.
The problem is that in politics you are dealing not just with ideas but with people and what they want. Given that, IMO Neil has laid out the better strategy for getting what you want. Our party politics is a team sport. If one faction can justifiably prefer a team loss to something less than featured dominance so can every other. So every faction may justify this strategy and we will all lose forever and ever. Teams work because members cooperate for a result that benefits all somewhat but no one completely. Zero-sum strategies within the team are cancerous.
I'm glad you had the chance...
by Steve Foley
...to offer your opinion! I respectfully disagree!!!
Btw - your approval or the lack of respect given to someone who's left the party or disagrees with the party and protests in the form of not voting the party line, is of little consequence.
There are contributers here that don't belong to the Republican Party and you've Recommended their posts!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Well thanks for reading my opinion Steve.
by John E.
You are right, I am of the smallest of consequence. Of course that's the reason for political Parties. The psychology pointed out above -- and my personal experience was intended only to provide an example of it -- is offered as much more than my opinion though. It is presented as Sandbox 101. If you piss on those in the Party, they are going to piss on you. That leaves interdependence as the best hope, no matter how frustrating it gets; and we of little consequence all keenly feel that pain.
I had this dialogue with haystack. At least he said he was probably going to pull R in the booth, but we mostly dismissed each other. Yea, I think voting Kinky is kinky, even knowing it could not affect the outcome. The fact of his promotion does suggest that my own psychology is out of step. If you all proceed and succeed then I'll see that I got it wrong in Sandbox 101. In some ways I would much prefer a political environment in which I don't have to accommodate and cooperate in order to have influence. What would a political scientist say about a system like that?
At root isn't this dialogue about how to go about getting what we want? And isn't the analysis of the psychology involved crucial to that? At any rate, that's why I focused in on the psychology.
Bush is an ultra-conservative?
by SamInTheSouth
What crack pipe are you smoking? Bush is a big spending, big government, big brother, anti second amendment, war mongering neo-con.
He is no conservative nor is he reflective of conservatives across this country.
Sam, he was joking.
by Spiral
He was pulling our legs. Hence the smiley face at the end.
That's about where I've been for several years
by wennejunk
I've reflexively voted all R at election time, but recognized over time that many of the Rs were not necessarily very conservative.
I think it is safe to say that most Conservatives are Republicans but that most Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives.
Most Rs ARE more conservative than Ds (else they would migrate to the other party), but should not automatically be called 'Conservatives'.
Conservatives are a subset within the larger party and need to do exactly as you say: "work, persuade and argue tirelessly" to move things rightward because we are working against human nature.
To paraphrase an old quote: It takes no effort to grow weeds, but a garden one must constantly maintain. So, yes, we must work.
I think a great part of the irritation Conservatives have felt over the last few years with GWB and the GOP majority is that we did take it for granted that R was synonymous with 'Conservative' and sat back thinking we had finally reached the finish line only to be surprised to find we had made a mistake. It unfortunately took us too long to realize this.
In that sense, the defeats the GOP suffered will have a longer term positive effect to get us moving and working again.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
I'm with you Neil...
by Right Again
the stakes are just too high. Hillary must not become President. Bill must not be allowed to roam free in the White House. Judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsberg must never again be confirmed. We must not surrender our hard-won efforts in Iraq. We must not allow tax increases to turn a recession into a depression. We must not allow amnesty for illegal immigrants to encourage the influx of another 12 million illegals. Health care must never become the responsibility of the Federal government.
Every candidate on our side is not right on each of these issues, but any candidate on our side is better than any candidate on theirs.
[Ron Paul is excluded as a candidate on our side from the above discussion]
Guaranteeing conservative judges
by Steve Foley
How do you figure we guarantee conservative judges with a liberal controlled congress? For that matter how do guarantee conservative nominees with any of the candidates? How'd that work out for Reagan and GHWB?
Of the sitting justices only two were appointed by a democrat!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
We finally stood up to the Democrats with the Roberts and Alito nominations. We found the way to nominate judges with conservative, rather than unknown, views. Granted it would be hard to guarantee conservative judges with the liberals controlling Congress, but I don't think it would be impossible. They already accomplish so little, I'm not sure they could take the strain of refusing to confirm a well qualified conservative nominee for very long.
Any way you cut it, we have a much better chance of getting conservative judges with one of our candidates than with one of theirs.
I think the chance...
by Steve Foley
...of getting conservative judges with one of our candidates is better just not much better!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
This isn't about Clinton or just national office
by Neil Stevens
While I'm glad you'll vote Republican, my point would hold just the same if Zell Miller were the Democratic nominee.
If Zell Miller were the likely nominee
by JSobieski
I can't believe that you would have written this blog.
In a brokered Republican convention, Zell Miller would be worth a mention. I would take him over any of the current candidates.
I absolutely would have
by Neil Stevens
I actually don't fear HRC as the end of the world the way many here do.
I don't fear Hillary either.
by JSobieski
On foreign policy, she is the best dem. She is sufficiently poll driven that her legacy would be corruption (like Bill's) and a general absence of substance (like Bill's).
What I am saying is that you reached this I am not a Rino conclusion in the context of the current primary mess.
If Miller was running, that context would not have occurred.
I also don't think she's the end of the world
by wennejunk
But I really, really want her and Bill discredited so America can move on from the sordid politics of this couple.
There's something fundamentally wrong with America, the voters and cosmic justice that allows them to keep on keepin' on the way they have.
A loss in the general will provoke the kind of 'loser' condemnation that both Gore and Kerry picked up and the Democratic party is unlikely to ever give her another chance if she drops the ball.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
Bill went into after same. Why? Not because of what others implied or said to put blame on him.
But rather, what he knows he could and should have done.
He wants to fix that legacy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
John McCain = Zell Miller...
by Right Again
except that John started his political career as a Republican and Zell Miller started his as a Democrat. I think their political beliefs are currently pretty well aligned.
Nope--Miller is to the right of McCain
by JSobieski
Taxes
Immigration
Global Warming
I would enthusiastically support Miller for President.
I will plug my nose, have a light lunch, and vote for McCain in the general and try to focus on something else.
Good Post
by Whitehorse
I have only faced the scenario where the republican candidate was less conservative than the democrat candidate - In that race, I did not vote for either candidate.
Facing reality, I doubt that, in terms of conservative philosophy, that we experience the above scenario very many times. Also, few times will the republican candidate be untenable, like a David Duke.
Very true, conservatives don't "own" the republican party. We can see on the other side where the fringe left (koskidz, moveoners, etc...) believe they own the democrat party & are going to "cleanse" it of anyone who is not of their orthodoxy. We can see, if we look, the rifts & cracks that are forming & getting bigger because of this.
There will be very few times when the republican candidate for {insert office} will not be significantly more conservative than the democrat candidate - not to mention that the democrat candidate will vote for democrat leadershhip & the agenda that brings...
This isn't about the Democrat
by Neil Stevens
This isn't about the Democrat. This is about being a good Republican, just like Reagan. Reagan would never have endorsed a Democrat, because he was trying to make the Republican Party conservatism's home, and to endorse Democrats would undermine his efforts.
Moose welcomes you from Frostbite Falls - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Hokey smokes! n/t
by Vladimir
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Natasha Fatale entering Whassamatta U.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Thanks I had fun making it.
by Neil Stevens
Almost a shame I don't need it anymore, heh.
Outstanding, Neil
by Charles Bird
The way for conservatism to prevail is work within the party and get the best possible GOP candidates elected. If those candidates aren't conservative enough, then we keep working on them until they see the light.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
Welcome aboard, NS.
by skorrent
Conservatives don't "own" the GOP but we can be very influential when we stick together and work hard.
The only nit I can pick is not to minimize Barry in '64. With Nixon in rehab, Rockie and Scranton were the cream of the Liberal Republican crop. Barry's victory signaled a substantial shift of power w/in the GOP. In hindsight, the GOP could not have beaten LBJ no matter what, but the awful behavior of the Lib GOP wing at and after the convention did absolutely nothing to increase their power within the party. (n.b. to SF and other conservative pouters!) In fact, their extreme reaction made Nixon (whom we would nowadays call a "moderate") look acceptably conservative, and set the stage for what followed.
On second thought, ...
by skorrent
Nixon's price controls and sucking up to Red China might make him a full-fledged, modern-day RINO.
Amen.
by hunter
It will be by sticking together and sticking it to the dhimmiecrats together that we will win and move America forward.
I'm not a RiNO either....
by kowalski
I'm a RiYES! :)
Pulling the coalition back together is my first and most important concern, and I say that as someone who came to the Republican Party as an outsider.
We must work, we must persuade, we must argue tirelessly as much with our fellow Republicans as with the Democrats on the merits of our views and our policies. We must put in the thankless work within the party, taking positions within it to keep it functioning, and later lead it. We must show solidarity with other Republicans, and not just the conservatives. All these things are vital in order to show our good faith, so that we can count on other Republicans to join us when we get our next turn at the top.
Amen, brother. It's good faith and a refusal to engage idiotically in the Lakoff narrative that will bring us back together.
Well, that and the fact that America is still the greatest country in the world and its single best hope for the future. :)
RINO'S
by Larry Cromoga
A snake is a snake, a tiger is a tiger and a RINO is a RINO and not a conservative.
Larry,
Hutchins Texas
Well said, Neil.
by Vladimir
The state the party today has little to do with a failure of conservatism's ideas.
The state of the party today has very much to do with failure of its chosen leaders to lead, and the public character flaws of other elected Republicans (Packwood, Livingston, Foley, Stevens, Vitter, Craig).
We need to support impassioned, committed and talented leaders. We could learn one thing from the Dems -- solidarity. They have learned on the shop floor and in the union hall what "hanging together" is all about.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Disagree, but
by SIConservative
I disagree with your post for reasons that I'm certain you understand since you held them until very recently. Even so, I'm very happy to hear that you plan to support Ron Paul when he wins renomination for his Congressional seat.
But this is, bar none, the single most compelling case I've ever read for doing just that.
Bravo, good sir. Bravo.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Need some help here
by SteveLA
Neil
What is a "conservative", small c or capital c mean to you ?
I keep getting confused by the uber social conservatives in the party that assert that unless you support an outright ban on abortion, something to restrict what the gay folks are up to (not quite sure what, outside of topics like gay marriage), then you're a RINO. The second amendment purists, think any restriction on gun ownership is bad as it's an invitation for the elephant to put it's nose in the tent, or so a co worker who's a big NRA guy tells me.
So you can see how I'm getting confused. Now I realize that there's been a few blogs on this very topic over the past week or so, but help me out, what's your yard stick for being considered a conservative? I'm easily confused you see and I'm looking for you to tell me what that term "conservative" means.
I'd appreciate hearing what you think what passes for being a conservative, in all 50 states, not just Southern part of the US.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I use the Russell Kirk definition of conservatism
by Neil Stevens
It's not about specific policies. Conservatives can disagree on those. I'm talking about the underlying philosophy and thought processes.
I’d like to take a swing at that definition.
Support for market driven economy Only by maintaining a market driven by personal and corporate incentives will we grow and prosper.
Confident foreign policies. Foreign policies which face down evil rather than lie face down pretending we are not their premier target: Middle East, Venezuela, North Korea.
Clearly defined borders, protected and respected.Fences if need be, repeal of the Amendment which allows for anchor babies.
Encouragement of personal accountabilityEven in regards ex Presidents named Clinton.
Acceptance of and encouragement for religion. Acknowledgement that the nation began with and shall remain committed to words such as these: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
A vital add to religion
by David123
Realizing that men do not have full and perfect knowledge of the Almighty, no man shall punish or attempt to punish another man for converting to another religion. If the Almighty is displeased with a religious conversion, He will deal with it in the next world.
Similarly, a definition of Liberalism
by ElliotE5
Economics: Class warfare over growth Taxation as redistribution, even retribution, rather than as a basis for growth.
Insular foreign policies One life given in support of this Nation, in protection of its people and policies, is too many.
Borders? What borders?This is not a nation; From Sea to Shining Sea is not ours; We are strangers in a strange land, not our own.
Entitlement trumps accountability When is it my turn?
Religion ? As there is no good or bad, only ends which justify means, how could there be a Supreme Being who holds us to account?
A Federalist Paper for the 21st Century
by Balfour Conservative
Concise and well-thought out. Should be required reading for everyone on this site.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
You embarass me. Thank you.
by Neil Stevens
Thanks to all who read it, actually.
555 - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
as usual Neil,
by kyle8
I like you, I think you are eloquent, and I do not agree with you.
I will absolutely not vote strait ticket, and I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever again vote for someone whom I am uncomfortable with for ANY reason, because every time In the past in which I have done so, I regretted it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
5 5 5 5 5 5 -> repeated n/t
by Joliphant
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I just can't let myself make that mistake again.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
nonsense
by kyle8
Jimmy Carter fooled a lot of people. He actually seemed more conservative than Ford. In that case you were voting for the most conservative candidate as you perceived it.
We all make mistakes.
I will not buy into the OH NOE!SSS we got to stop the big bad democrats at all cost argument.
By defeating Ford, Carter paved the way for Reagan and his message to become dominant in the party.
By voting for Dole and two Bushes, we have allowed the Rino wing of the party to gain ascendancy.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
true, and besides the point
by kyle8
as I said before, Carter fooled us, and why was he able to fool us into thinking he was more conservative than he was?
Because there was not a whole lot of difference between him and the guy he was running against.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You can't win them all. You are going to lose some. I'd rather lose with a guy like Ford in 76 than lose with a guy like Reagan after a few years of Ford stinking up the place and hurting the Republican brand. It took enough damage from Nixon.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Disagree
by Neil Stevens
16 years of ground work by Reagan, including two previous Presidential runs of his own, paved the way for Reagan. 25 years of National Review paved the way for Reagan.
Reagan didn't come just because a bad Democrat got elected. After all, Clinton got re-elected.
But he would have never made it into the White House if Ford won. That's the point. Ford wins 1976. He governs as a more benevolent version of Nixon. He loses in 1980 to Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Teddy Kennedy, or somebody equally bad. George "Read My Lips: Voodoo Economics" H.W. Bush gets the nomination in 1984 because Ronald Reagan is too old. The Democrat either beats him in 1984 or not. Ronald Reagan never becomes President of the United States.
Result: No 8 years of Reagan. We have no template for a decent Republican president, so we keep picking Nixon/Ford/Bush 41 types as our candidates, because those crazy conservatives just can't win. I think we did alright with Ford losing. The alternative would have been so much worse.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Oh yea... another consequence
by zuiko
We treat the USSR with kid gloves and help keep them afloat when they need our help and they continue to exist and oppress much of the world to this day. Without Reagan as President that is a distinct possibility.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
good points - esp since carter didn't
by i_miss_coolidge
appoint any justices
(on the other hand, it would have been nice not to have revolutionary iran to deal with...)
but good points
"Do the day's work."
It could bring a worse carter. Yes, a good reminder of what failed liberal policies canbring would make the "environment" better. We can do that from the ground up and from the top, esp if we have Mitt or Rudy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The only guarantee in life
by zuiko
Is that the Democrats aren't going to win them all and neither are the Republicans. It is necessary for the people to remind themselves why Democrats make horrible presidents at least once a decade. I'd rather they be reminded of that when we have a lousy candidate. You might not get someone better next time, but if the choice is between a lousy Republican (and I only consider one of the final four to be that bad) and a lousy Democrat, I'll take the lousy Democrat. Odds are we will have somebody better next time around, since Republicans, on average, are better than that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Bravo!
by Putter
Insisting on absolute conservative purity in every election cycle is a recipe for political impotence. Those that threaten to take their marbles and go home or start a third party are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I thought we were the party of realism and pragmatism. With any luck, the Code Pink and MoveOn crowd will yank the Dems to an island on which many folks would not be comfortable. Why follow the Code Pink model? The GOP brand is not in good shape at the moment, so we need a bigger tent if we want to accomplish ANYTHING.
This is not a surrender and not a defeat. It is taking a step back so we can take two forward. We own talk radio, but we barely have a toehold in the rest of the media and academia. The only reason we are able to compete is that the logic of conservatism is so compelling. Lets swallow some pride so we can feast on half a loaf.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...
Friends help you move. Real
by Putter
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...
I wish I knew...
by Putter
why I delivered this extra, empty, post. I guess I should not use the preview function. No, I did not page back.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...
Disagree...strongly
by R.E. Finch
While I sincerely appreciate your construction, I'm afraid there is no way I can be swayed to cave in on principle to escape possibly having the RiNO label affixed to my posterior. Perhaps for some in the remaining GOP field, your arguments might be persuasive to me come November.
But certainly not all.
If the GOP is so uncritically unfit as to nominate a philosophical Democrat to lead it, I'm not obliged to, and I refuse to, suck up to that sort of foolish propositional new status quo. And this is precisely what the party would be expecting of me were it to nominate John McCain, or anyone with his historical propensities.
At some point, conniving the base into capitulation on principles will mean the only thing definitively RiNO will be the Republican Party itself.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Amen R.E.
by beyondrightwing
But at this point any of the remaining candidates we were to elect to represent us would be a RINO, would they not?
"McCain thinks he’s called the sheriff. Wonder what Teddy calls him? I call him co-conspirator." - beyondrightwing
Sadly, yes...but to varying degrees <nt>
by R.E. Finch
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
My sentiments exactly...
by Seth Kegley
I'm beginning to believe like you, Neil... in order to not get stuck with a Democrat I have to accept the crumbs from the table so to speak... oh well, maybe at some point we'll have a strong conservative leader step up and carry the mantle that has proven successful...
View my blog at http://preacherskid.blogdrive.com/
I disagree with the whole premise of RINO
by Chi_Town_Jerry
I have voted Republican consistently for 30+ years. I will continue to do so.
But I don't share the views of a lot of the ultra-conservatives that hold forth here and who lay claim to the Republican party.
Does that make me a RINO? The term RINO implies ownership of the Republican Party by individuals with a set agenda. Well, I'm sorry, I won't allow that.
I'm a Republican who thinks stem cell research on existing embryos is just fine.
I'm a Republican who thinks abortion is no darned business of the Federal government, nor is any other medical procedure.
I'm a Republican who thinks less government is better, and one that taxes less is best. The Conservatives that moan about McCain voting against the tax cuts fail to mention he wanted corresponding spending cuts. So delude yourselves into thinking tax cuts with deficit spending (like drunken Democrats) is more "conservative" if you like, but it's not in my book.
So, call me whatever you like.. but, I am a Republican. If the party doesn't fit the ultra-conservatives, maybe it's them that needs a cute acronym.
Jerry
Kool aid
by R.E. Finch
We agree that abortion is "no darned business of the Federal Government." But it isn't the business of the Supreme Court either. Nor Congress.
It's rightfully the business of the several states.
Where you have drunk deeply of campaign Kool Aid shows in your belief that at the time in which the tax cuts were being debated, McCain expressed any interest whatsoever in corresponding spending cuts. He did not. Rather, he cloaked his entire objection in the language of class warfare more commonly used by Democrats like John Edwards and Ted Kennedy:
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."
There was a time in which politicians might get away with such insipid reframing of past legislative stupidity, but Google is now a great leveler; hopefully, instant access to un-framed record will eventually put an end to such conniving tactics as McCain uses.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Let's end the McCain threadjack here (nt)
by Neil Stevens
Wow... I can't say that if
by seekeronos
Wow... I can't say that if you (Jerry) were running that I would be able to vote for you with a clean conscience as a Republican (much less a a conservative).
But you do come close otherwise as a "stay out of my pocket and out off of my back" mold of Republican, if your politics and talking points are indeed genuinely sincere.
For my measure of value, destroying live human babies (embryos) for the sake of "science" is hardly valuing life any better than the standard-issue Democrat.
Touching on abortion, I think Fred Thompson (and in the same vein, RP also) have it right in saying that that should be decided at the state level, not the federal... and small government works best when the tax cuts and spending cuts are packaged together.
FredHeads: Fred is done, give Mitt another look - yes, he changed his standards, but arguably for the better.
The concern of losing the party.
by Staunch_Libertarian
I respect your position and I think it is a very reasonable one. At some point though ideas and policy do matter and there is a history of parties shifting and leaving certain ideas behind. From GWB to McCain that would be a gradual swing in the moderate direction that many have a problem with that is reasonable as well.
You can fight hard and still get knocked out of the party. At some point your loyalty to your principles may extend beyond the loyalty to a party. A political party does not deserve loyalty. The party has to be loyal to the members.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
The party *is* its members (nt)
by Neil Stevens
Yes and the members seem to be liberal.
by Staunch_Libertarian
The majority is no longer conservative and at some point you have to wonder if you want to really work hard and vote consistently for candidates that you always disagree with. If I wanted to vote for, volunteer with, and donate to liberals I could join the Democrat Party.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Would this have applied to Jeffords and Chafee? <nt>
by SIConservative
Not that it matters
by SIConservative
Not that it matters since everyone here has already read it, but I'll recommend this, even though I disagree with you, just because this will soon be an endorsement of Ron Paul (for Congress).
Voting != endorsing
by Neil Stevens
Sorry, you won't catch me actively expressing support in particular for that apologist for tyranny.
What is a vote if not an endorsement?
by Staunch_Libertarian
It is the ultimate endorsement in reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
No it's not
by Neil Stevens
The party is a coalition. I can back the party, as a whole, by voting for all its nominees without necessarily endorsing every single one of them.
I plan to do this because I want the Pauls, Huckabees, and Chafees of the party to do the same for conservatives when we're the nominees.
It's nice to read something original and sincere. I especially appreciate this paragraph:
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard