So they want another Ford vs. Reagan, do they?
By rhatican Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
krempasky,http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/congressmanroybluntelectedminority_whip, your friend's drawing the analogy to 1976 ("This is like 1976. Reagan was the guy, but the votes went to Ford.") is quite apt.
I am old enough to remember those glorious days (although I was only a boy). To their everlasting credit Reagan's supporters did not flinch, in fact they were inspired to redouble their efforts, whenever the vast majority of elected officials from the Republican party (and former RNC Chairman, then-CIA Director George H. W. Bush was undoubtedly of this opinion, too), including a sitting president, so much as told them that their recalcitrance smacked of unforgiveable, quasi-treasonous disloyalty. Why? Because they knew there was much more at stake than merely winning an election, or "holding together a majority." They knew that what they believed in was the right thing for America, and they would do what it took (electorally speaking, of course) to get the rest of the country to realize the same thing -- even at the risk of losing an election or two along the way. (In my estimation, by the way, Mike Pence's reputation is only enhanced by today's vote.)
In 1976, there were a barrage of polls that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Reagan was unelectable (mostly because people thought he was crazy), that Ford was the party's only chance at victory, and the Ford campaign practically buried the delegates in Kansas City with such literature. But what the GOP establishment never understood (AND PLAINLY DOESN'T NOW) is that winning an election, or climbing to the top of House leadership (by, for instance, championing No Child Left Behind in contradiction of everything Goldwater and Reagan ever stood for), without principle is the most disloyal behavior of all because you are then putting your own welfare above the good of the country.
This is not over.
Who do we have speaking for conservatives? Mitt Romney MAYBE, but I don't see anyone else among active Presidential hopefuls.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I don't see anyone else among active Presidential hopefuls.
Now you're going to get an earful about how opposition to free political speech, opposition to tax cuts, support for amnesty without enforcement, and putting rights for terrorists above intelligence gathering are very conservative positions.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Hear! Hear! I ditto Rhatican's thoughts. I also tend to think Mitt Romney is the more conservative of all the GOP presidential wannabes right now unless someone more conservative steps forward. The way I see it, we can do this one of two ways: 1) splitting off and forming a new Conservative Party distinct from the GOP; or 2) retake the GOP from within district by district. This will mean fielding conservative challengers against sitting GOP members in the primaries. It will mean risking being ostracized by local GOP establishments. However, we would also honor the memory of Goldwater and Reagan by doing so and ensure that their efforts were not in vain. We also owe it to ourselves, our posterity, and our nation.
We could begin by targeting and focusing our efforts on the most unprincipled member of the House GOP from each state...well, maybe the 48 continental states. Conservatives in each state would cross district lines and focus their funds and grass roots efforts in that particular district in which an unprincipled House GOP member is targeted.
For instance, in Michigan, there are 9 House GOP members. Conservatives in Michigan would caucus sooner rather than later and determine which of Michigan's 9 House GOP members is the most unprincipled and recruit an articulate and principled conservative to challenge that House GOP member. (I have my thoughts on who the most unprincipled Michigan House GOP member is but that will be for the Michigan Conservatives to agree upon.) Conservatives in Michigan would then be expected to raise funds for that challenger and provide campaign assistance including GOTV during the primary election. (As a former congressional campaign manager trained by the NRC and NRCC, I would be more than happy to volunteer "unofficial" assistance to any conservative challenger here in Michigan.)
Ideally, Conservative challengers who succeed in replacing sitting House GOP members would be expected to vote for genuine conservative House GOP members to assume leadership positions in Congress. I am not so naive as to think that all 48 would be Conservative challengers would be successful. However, I daresay a few would be successful and provide a foundation for grass roots Conservatives to build upon.
Is that Reagan was one voice for the conservative wing, where we have many competing (and less strong) voices now.
---
Say if ever thou didst find a woman with a constant mind