Conservatism Will Win Again
By Mark I Posted in 2006 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One thing I wasn’t quite prepared for in becoming a parent was the guilt. I always thought that raising a child and imparting my values to my children through discipline would be relatively easy and second-nature. That belief didn’t survive contact with my firstborn’s hurt eyes the first time I expressed my disappointment in his choices. But, like all good parents, I was able to rally compassion for his hurt feelings and recognized his genuine desire to make me proud of him. “It’s okay son, Daddy corrects you because he loves you. And, son, I have confidence in you and know that you will learn your lesson from this and do it right next time.”
This morning, as we wake up from a late night of conservatives lecturing the Republican Party about its choices over the past several years, we need to rally to the Republicans who are seeking our approval. We need to assess where the party disappointed us, and set it on a course to make us proud in the future. This morning, as Republicans fall all over themselves to win back our affections, we must employ a firm, but loving hand, and gently push them in the direction of the conservative principles that we imparted on them 12 years ago.
Read on…
First, let there be no doubt that conservatives decided this election. Senator Santorum, much as I like and admire him, reaped the bitter fruits of the seeds he sowed two years ago with his support for Sen. Specter over Pat Toomey in the primary. Sen. Chafee, for whom I shed no tears, was similarly challenged from the right this year by a conservative, Steve Laffey. NRSC Chariwoman Sen. Elizabeth Dole backed the moderate Chafee and aggressively campaigned against the conservative, to no effect. Sen. DeWine, of the Gang of 14, sidetracked hopes of ending judicial filibusters in the Senate once and for all. Sen. Burns sold his soul for lobbyist money, and now may have to surrender his seat. Sen. Allen refused to align himself with traditional marriage in his campaign, running away from conservative principles. Conservatives noticed.
The issue of immigration was horribly mismanaged by the White House and the Senate, leaving conservatives in the House in the unenviable position of obstructing their own party. The House, however, could not completely escape blame since it is there where the bloated spending bills of the past 5 years originated. Conservatives remember when cutting the budget actually resulted in less dollars spent in programs, rather than lower percentage increases and brand new entitlements. The Republican leadership made no meaningful moves at reforming a broken budgetary process, restraining earmarks, or curtailing the influence of lobbyists. Speaker Hastert seemed to bend over backwards to protect the institution of the House in the midst of the William Jefferson scandal, rather than press for Jefferson’s removal. While a bulwark on immigration, the House passed embryonic stem cell research, resulting in a presidential veto, and in the process sold out the pro-life base for a few good headlines. House members everywhere conceded ground to their opponents by promising to be better at addressing their opponent’s complaints while largely ignoring the cries of their conservative base. Conservatives noticed.
Conservative turnout in this election was 2% lower than in 2004, according to numbers published at The American Spectator by Phillip Klein. That may not sound like a lot, but in close races in Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, it accounts for all of the difference. Similarly in House races, according to the RNC itself, “…22 races are within two percentage points; 18 of them are being decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, and four by less than 1,000 votes.”
Despite all that the Republicans have done to disappoint us, they are our hope for the future. We know this because it was conservatives who brought the modern day Republican Party to being; first with the election of the most conservative president in the nation’s history, then again with the election of the most conservative Congress in the nation’s history. We can and must do it again. Already, would be Republican leaders in the House are coming out to pledge themselves anew to the principles of the 1994 revolution. We should see these pledges as an indication of where the center of gravity lies for the next election. It lies with us.
Today is a day for gestures great and small of support and confidence in a Republican Party rededicated to its core conservative principles. I will be making a small, but important one. In doing so, I express my confidence that the Republican Party will learn this lesson and learn it well. I affirm my belief that next time, the Republican Party will do it right. They will have my full support from here on out. Today I will officially change my voter registration from independent, to Republican.
Allen joined a group of Virginia ministers, most of them black, to show support for a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions.
He certainly didn't make it the focal point of his campaign (after all, he had no more power to affect it than the average citizen did, by voting), and chose instead to focus on what he would do if re-elected to the Senate.
Maybe drawing more attention to his support of the Marriage Amendment would have helped him, but to say he ran away from the issue, and that's why he lost, is patently untrue. Almost all of Webb's campiagn against Allen focused on the overwealming support the latter has given President Bush on the war in Iraq. And conservatives didn't run away from Allen and other Republicans (as evidenced by the victories of all of our incumbent congressional candidates, even in close races), the recently emerged liberal tilt of NoVA put Webb just over the top.
Were mistakes made? You bet. Should Allen have lost this race? Absolutely not. But his stance on the VA Marriage Amendment had nothing to do with it.
"Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"
Icythus
It wasn't conservatism that lost yesterday. The public took a look at the leadership of our party...Bush 41 Part II, who never met an illegal immigrant or spending bill he didn't like, and who has absolutely no plan for victory in Iraq, Ken "I'm sorry about the 'Southern Strategy' of old so I'm going to turn the GOP into a pro-amnesty, pro-affirmative action disaster" Mehlman, and John McCain(need I say more)...and rejected it in droves. Tired of open borders, a never ending war in Iraq, which sure isn't helping us stop North Korea and Iran, pork barrel spending, record deficits, and corruption, the American public decided to wipe that smirk off of faux-conservative George W. Bush's face. The only problem is that they used the Republican led Congress to do it.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
If you did, you should be in panic mode if you are a social or fiscal conservative, or both as I am. Our Liberal in Chief is about to really show his true colors.
George W. Bush. The joke seems to be on us.
Are eyes finally opening about where Rove/Mehlman are taking this Party? If Tuesdays results and Wednesday's press conference did not open your eyes, you are just not paying attention!
Bush whenever he threatens party principles. This became quite clear at today's kisses-n-hugs-with-the-left presser. We need to bear that in mind as so and so is bandied about as Whip or whatever.
that there are not more comments for this post. As a conservative, I agree...where are the rest of you? It is interesting (and disturbing) that very few posters agree.
I'm starting to come to a conclusion that will be vastly unpopular here...
Is it possible that directing anger at "Republicans" by "Conservatives" is a convenient method of disassociating an unsuccessful attribute from a desired self image?
If Republicans lose, it must point to something at fault within the Republican self, but not the Conservative self - even though these seperate identities are effectively one and the same.
By imagining Conservatism as an exclusive club that Republicans have to strive to be worthy of, you can keep the "loser" lable off of your preferred identity.
Is this realy just a necessary coping mechanism?
(asking respectfully, despite frank tone of post)
You're off base. We're concious of a dichotomy between conservatism (a political belief system) and Republicanism (a party).
The problem is a double oversimplification. First, "conservative" is just a label. We pick and choose issues. Some of us are for drug legalization, some are drug warriors, some oppose gay marriage, some don't care, and so on.
The key is that each of us believes in individual rights and responsibilities as being more important than societal or group needs. To look at a group of people and see them as part of classes makes one a Democrat.
Now I've gone and oversimplified, and probably not got it right. But hey, it's late.
The second oversimplification is thinking that we identify ourselves as Republicans or as Conservatives at all.
I think I'm not making sense, but to sum up, the answer's "no".
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I think that's a good summation of the libetarian position, but certainly not of a paleocon or a neocon. Both of those subsects recognize that whether through aggregation of individual rights, or because of other effects when people join together in a group, groups can have rights. But those rights must be subject to the same scrutiny as other rights, weighed and balanced against individual rights, and ordered with an eye to maintaining individual liberty.
In some sense, it is easier to characterize our opponents, who in adopting an implicit if not explicit tottoliterian regime, always subjegate the individual to the group, especially the group that has political power. We are against that. There may be limited instances when an indivual must bow to group right and/or expectations, but there must also be instances in which the group bows to the individual. Libertarians are at the end of the spectrum which is most suspicious of all group rights, while I think paleocons are toward the middle and neocons are at the other end.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's what I said earlier in a post today, along the lines of: this is no time to turn against the GOP, but it is not time to stand in stalwart support of them, either.
Rather, it is time to remind them what bold, principled leadership looks like.
My support for Republicans has never been lower than right now, but I am not leaving the party. I will work for change by writing letters to the President, to an assortment of administration officials, to my GOP representative who got my vote yesterday based solely on voting against her opponent, and to my state Republican party. We must make our voices be heard, and we must lead our party back to bold, principled leadership.
This loss may indeed be a blessing in disguise and a chance for us to recover our lost principles.
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
3000 votes in Montana (Montana) separate a 51-seat Democrat Senate from a 50-seat tie, with a fruitful two years for Dick Cheney.
The Democrats, with their thin majority and with eyes on the prize in 2008, are all talking bipartisanship. Even Howard Dean at at press conference on Wednesday said he hoped to "reach across the aisle". He hoped there wouldn't be the divisive personal attacks from Karl Rove and friends.
Dean, who demonized Republicans at every turn.
Jack Murtha is all nicey-nice ... except that he said history will judge Don Rumsfeld poorly, and blasted the guy after he'd resigned. What a complete lack of class. Murtha is a jerk.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
For the record, I think immigration hysteria is overblown. We can secure the borders, but anyone that thinks we can round up all oI think focusing on the Federal Marriage Ammendment SEVERELY sidetracked the party from real progress in blowing up the nanny state. Most importantly, Bush failed to sell the Iraqi campaign as part of the War on Terror. It angers me every time I see a poll that separates Terrorism and Iraq as issues. But, that ship has sailed. If you ask me, the leaders aren't libertarian enough on domestic issues anymore either...
- Spending
- No Child Left Behind Act (I believe it is necessary for accountability of schools... IF we have such a monstrous Dept of Educ... but, why do we have such a large Dept of Ed?)
- Medicare Reform ==> More gov't programs
- No Social Security Reform
- No Sales Tax replacement of Income Tax, or at least some income tax reform
- School Choice
- Lobbyist pandering
- Harriet Miers
- Abandoning Federalism to play Dem games
- Spending
I know this isn't a popular position on this sight, but if the GOP continues to communicate and listen to social conservatives exclusively, then we will never get any real progress made. I may be one of the few libertarian Republicans that supports McCain, but if Newt doesn't make a run, I'm McCain all the way. Find me one other Senator genuinely ticked about gov't spending more than McCain, and I will be amazed. I've been looking...
To quote a crony: "The only libertarian-leaning individuals that were bumped from the House on the GOP side were Hostettler and Hayworth. All of the other losses were by "old school" Republicans that have been in office for years and years (Clay Shaw, Curt Weldon) or by squishy moderates (the New York bunch, Northup, etc).To me it seems like a clear trend, and reinforces our message: Get back to your damn principles, GOP!"
Bring back Goldwater and Reagan.
Flame away. But, if you agree with me, check out the Republican Liberty Caucus (web address below)
Repeal the 16th Ammendment
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
I'm starting to come to a conclusion that will be vastly unpopular here...
Is it possible that directing anger at "Republicans" by "Conservatives" is a convenient method of disassociating an unsuccessful attribute from a desired self image?
If Republicans lose, it must point to something at fault within the Republican self, but not the Conservative self - even though these seperate identities are effectively one and the same?
By imagining Conservatism as an exclusive club that Republicans have to strive to be worthy of, you can keep the "loser" lable off of your preferred identity.
Is this realy just a necessary coping mechanism?
(asking respectfully, despite frank tone of post)
I am just a different kind of conservative (apparently) than Tom Delay. And I don't like his version of it.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
As a fellow libertarian Republican, I have to dissent. We got a thumping too. Libertarian Republicans lost nationwide in just about every race (save Palin, Crist & Otter). This was not just a clear rejection of our conservative friends, but of us libertarians, as well.
Voters want bigger government, plain and simple. How else do you explain a bonafide Socialist now in the US Senate? Too me, that's the most frightening message coming out of this election; Bernie Sanders is now a United States Senator.
We've lost the educational battle. Americans are not familiar with, nor do they support libertarian limited government ideals. And that's a huge failure on the part of Cato, Reason, ect... not so much of the political arm of the libertarian movement.
The only way I can think of coming out of this muck is too seriously Oprah Winfrey-ize our movement; more fluff, more celebrity, more moderate "feminist" tones to our rhetoric.
As a rugged individualist, I'm admitting that rugged individualism doesn't sell anymore.
As for McCain, sorry, he's not sufficiently "Arnold Schwarzenegger type". We need to run some sort of Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura, Condy Rice or some other type of good looking celebrity to attract Voter interest. Maybe Guiliani comes closest. Maybe even Alaska's newly elected Governor Sarah Palin?
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
You're right, as I mispoke. Challengers and open seat Republicans were caught in the tide, too. But, the incumbents slept relatively easy on Monday night.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
Did not complete my first thought.
"For the record, I think immigration hysteria is overblown. We can secure the borders, but anyone that thinks we can round up all of the illegals in the country and ship them back is in denial of the gross amount of money that would have to be spent to do this."
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
are ceasing to listen to libertarians.
It isn't immigration hysteria. We are against illegal immigration. Once illegal immigration is under control, I will be willing to discuss changing the immigration process and raising limits. By throwing in "hysteria" and overgeneralizing to immigration, you prove to me that you don't give a blankety-blank, about what I or other like me think or have said in previous posts. You lead with emotional blasts against our deeply held beliefs, just like the liberals you claim to be fighting against.
Buck up, show us some respect, and you might start getting somewhere again.
But it is impossible to round up every illegal ALREADY HERE without a HUGE cost to the government and liberties of American Citizens.
Let's keep illegals out, deport any illegals if they commit crimes, and look at the possibility of making them legal IF the costs justify it. My problem is with the notion that it will be so simple and cost-efficient to to round them up while already here. I just can't envision any federal program that would not kiss our tax dollars goodbye.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
Focused intensity over time could improve our border situation. Beefed up numbers of personnel, beefed up unmanned aerial systems use, would be more effective than rounding up everyone already here, IMO.
If you want to get to rounding them all up, and it appears you do, that's your prerogative. But, why do that before sealing up the borders? Preferably without a fence which can be tunnelled under.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
The coming influx of new illegal immigrants to the U.S. from now on will make the U.S. vanish, and the new influx of illegals will register to vote for socialists now and always. These things will kill conservatism forever, and everybody here who wants to deny all of these things doesn't know what's coming starting next year!
Illegals, by definition, can't vote. And there will be no such dramatic change.
The Democrats know they will be held accountable, too.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
self-reliance and small gov't principles just as quickly as a farmer or someone already taking welfare on the US Dollar. Ensure they assimilate. Then let their brains do the rest.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
Of course, we have to educate them on the benefits of these principles. We can bring in immigrants, but they MUST be assimilated. Europe isn't in trouble b/c they have a lot of Muslim immigrants. Europe is in trouble because they never tried to assimilate the Muslims. They just wanted them to pay taxes and fund their entitlement programs.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
...Europe isn't in trouble b/c they have a lot of Muslim immigrants. Europe is in trouble because they never tried to assimilate the Muslims...
Point on.
Also - the Democrats are fervently hoping that the Republicans/Conservatives don't attempt to even try to help with this assimilation here.
They understand that the surest way to guarantee that 95% of recently-legal hispanic votes go to Democrats for three generations or more would be for them (Democrats) to be the principal assimulators, leaving conservatives complaining on the sidleines - until it's too late, and the hispanic vote is lost.
The image of "The Fence" will be a lasting image from the 2006 and 2008 elections in the minds of hispanics.
Democrats are hoping that conservatives don't fully recognize the ripe field of already-socially conservative potential voters hispanics represent.
In these parts, you only need to live to vote, at least for non-federal elections. I expect the Dems to push for this at the federal level, although they won't do it through Congress. They'll keep pushing it through the courts in Southern California and through the 9th circuit.
You are missing the point. Most Democrats at every political level will do all that they can do to win elections, even if that means cheating on votes for Democrats from such sources as from: illegals, the dead, voters who end up voting more than once whether at the same location or in different locations, or in a variety of other illegal ways. Most conservatives and most Republicans will do all that they can do to fully follow all of the rules and to not cheat. Having any number of "illegals" successfully vote for Democrats and leftists at every political level always outnumbers politicians who are truly trying to abide by all of the rules-every time!
A few years back, in the 47th Congressional District in California, Rep. "B-1" Bob Dornan was defeated by Loretta Sanchez partly through "illegals" voting for her, and she's still there today. Where's the "Democrats being held accountable for their actions" in her case?
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/a_return_to_the_normal_or...
[When you're prepared to actually engage in conversations, as opposed to spambotting, let us know via the Contact Us tab. - Moe Lane]
Imagine if we had barely won. What would 2008 look like?
The timing of this well-deserved defeat is a blessing. Let's make the most of it.