We Fight On
Welcome Home to RedState
By The Directors Posted in 2006 — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you noticed, we were up all through the night on November 7th. We were back in the game on the 8th. And today we fight on. RedState is not going anywhere. We intend to expand on what we've built and wage war for the cause.
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said he felt liberated because he was "no longer going to have to carry the water for people who [he doesn't] think deserve having their water carried." A lot of people got bent out of shape by his candor, but we agree with him 100%, and deep down we think most of you do too. For the past several months, RedState has been critical of the GOP with a gentle prodding and we have been muted when we wanted to avoid shooting the party's electoral chances in the foot. We've been fighting the good fight knowing that the Democrat alternative was worse, even with the miserable state of the Republican party. Yes, it is liberating now. We don't have to worry that something we'll say will negatively impact turnout of the base in the midterms. That's just life. As We've said on the front page before, "Suck it up." We're conservatives first, but in the general election, we're on the Republican team.
Read on . . .
So, what is the future of RedState? Simple. We fight on. We're not going anywhere. RedState is unique from other blogs on the internet simply because we're not as "bloggy." We occasionally lose perspective and focus on the blogosphere and blog wars and things like that. But, we never forget that RedState is here as an internet home for the conservative grassroots. We remain committed to being conservative first and Republican second. We also remain committed to being a part of the Republican coalition, which is still the best vehicle to advance the conservative agenda.
On occasion, the party goes astray. We stand ready to poke, prod, and punch it back into line. That is why, while we like and respect Congressmen Blunt, Boehnor, and Cantor, we are committed to fighting for Representatives Pence and Shadegg -- we are conservative first, we recognize that the Republican base is too, and we think it is time to pick leaders who will be fighters in the minority by having proven their commitment to the cause while in the majority.
If the President wants to buddy up to save his legacy, good for him - but RedState's original position was anticipatory of a situation like this, and if we are to take the role of the remnant of the party of Reagan, the party of ideas, then we should do whatever we can to make sure that it's not President Bush and 220 Ds and 15 Rs who are deciding every policy issue. We will not, however, suffer the insufferable fool. Don't expect to be treated kindly here if you intend to spew venom or rope people into buying your Council on Foreign Relations or Illuminati filled conspiracies. There are places on the internet for the fringe of both parties. RedState is not that place.
So now, suck it up because we fight on.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Thought for the Day — Comments (3) »
We Fight On 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Words cannot describe the lunacy. It begins...
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
and wondered how his comments were going to go over w/ his audience.
I agree w/ him, too. Let's sink or swim w/ being who we are...i'm comfortable w/ our chances if we go w/ what got us here.
Further, I am convinced "bloggy" isn't a word. ;)
--bags.
Neither President Bush nor the Republican Congress (Senate more than House but both) stood up to fight for themselves.
I still can't figure out why Bush doesn't understand the concept of the Bully Pulpit.
---
Say if ever thou didst find a woman with a constant mind
He's incapable of communicating to the public in any persuasive way whatosever -- to sell a conservative ideology, to sell legislation, to defend against unwarranted attack like he's suffered over Kyoto, and stem cells.
I cannot stomach the incincere, silver tongued, windy glibness of WJC, and early on I found GWB's inarticulateness to be refreshing....as though it represented a certain honesty. But over the passage of his 6 years his inneffectiveness at communicating has done terrible harm to the party and to his presidency, and I'll never make that same mistake again. We need Republican presidents who can communicate with America.
I think the Peter Principle was at work. Bush was a pretty persuasive public speaker in Texas, and in the early videotapes of him that I've seen, he was more polished and less tongue-tied and gaffe prone than he has been as President.
And I think that is because he came out of a familiar environment onto a much bigger stage that he wasn't fully prepared to speak to. I think the bully pulpit hasn't been an option for him for the same reason that he restricted the number of his press conferences: as the President, the office is a little too big for him, at least as far as speeches and public appearances are concerned.
The problem with John Kerry was just the opposite: he's a terrific talker who talks about all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. That's why I could never have voted for him, even though watching Bush speak at times over the past six years has been painful.
That nobody could ever be as slick a talker as Bill Clinton. The public got used to hearing his soothing words and seeing that crooked index finger of his, pointing determinedly when he wanted to really get people to stand up and bend over think.
After the media was conditioned to a lurrrrver like that, Bush was a real cold shower, not to put too fine a point on it.
I agree, I don't think he is as comfortable on the national scene. When he was here in Montana a week ago, he portrayed his Texas style and seemed much more comfortable.
------------
The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
...that if I were a Senator and a vote came up to impeach him and VP Cheney, I'd vote for impeachment. These people are nothing more than power-lovers who've hijacked the conservative movement--and, in my opinion, have set us back 10-20 years. Do you realize that 60% of people under 30 voted democrat Tuesday? That's a whole generation we stand to lose thanks to this administration's incompetence.
...Do you realize that 60% of people under 30 voted democrat Tuesday? That's a whole generation we stand to lose thanks to this administration's incompetence.
Not to mention the slow flood of soon-to-be-legal voters who are going to be voting blue for generations.
It's going to be grim. '08 may be the last real chance at any type of majority for conservatives - and then it will be back to the special interest swamp for another 40 years.
Starting to look like the only guaranteed way that the country would swing sufficiently right again is if we're attacked ala 9/11.
I'd also like to mention that RedState made one of my local hometown newspapers yesterday, The Republican published in Springfield, Massachusetts. The coverage was limited to two paragraphs, but Erick got mentioned by name and the article was applauding the blogosphere for keeping a close eye on election irregularities around the country.
RedState.com was the first blog mentioned in the article and therefore we had "primacy." Sure, it was a small thing but until this point I hadn't seen RedState mentioned anywhere in Massachusetts. Eagle-eyed Republicans in Massachusetts (and others) no doubt caught the reference.
The article appeared on Page A10 of The Republican's Election 2006 coverage, written by Tom Zeller, Jr. of the New York Times (!!): [Note: I'm including the link to the Times' version of the article, but it was picked up here in Springfield.]
The conservative journal RedState.com heralded a "massive meltdown in Pennsylvania" early in the day, citing "widespread reports of an electoral nightmare shaping up in Pennsylvania with certain types of electronic voting machines."
Erick Erickson, RedState's chief blogger, also included a report of poll-watcher intimidation in Philadelphia, along with a link to YouTube video apparently showing a certified poll observer (armed with a video camera) being blocked from a polling station.
Elsewhere online..."
I have to love that we got first mention in this story, and that the author referred to Talking Points Memo in the next paragraph as being..."elsewhere online." :-)
Seriously, I need a RedState.com bumpersticker for my car. Here in the bluest of the blue states, not enough people know about our work and I can't talk to everybody, for pete's sake.
Somthing I am noticing more and more from all sides of this national dysfunction:
Very few people are speaking as Americans first, partisans second. The dhimmies sure as heck are not. And too few Conservative are, either.
This is not a condemnation, just an observation.
I think I like the idea of being an American first, a partisan second.
I think you all are misinterpreting the clear message from American voters this election cycle. They want more and bigger government. They have rejected both conservatism and libertarianism.
There is a Socialist in the United States Senate now. How much more proof do you want? JD Hayworth went down. Santorum wasn't even close. On my more libertarian side of the coalition, we lost just about every election nationwide, with very few exceptions. Tom McClintock lost in CA.
Look at the ballot initiatives. Minimum wage passed everywhere. Yeah, we got Property Rights through in most states, but they rejected it in California.
Until we admit that we can't move forward and effect change.
The solution? We need to "Oprah Winfrey-ize" the conservative and libertarian movements. Americans want fluff. They want celebrity. They want moderate gentle voices.
They don't want rugged individualism. As a rugged individualist it pains me to say this, but that's the only conclusion you can take out of these elections results.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
The Dems got to the majority by picking up GOP seats rife with scandal, personal corruption, etc.
They don't want libertarianism and never have, but conservatism is still desired.
Scandal/personal corruption covers MT-SEN, TX-22, FL-16, PA-07, PA-10, CA-11 and OH-18. Arguably OH-SEN, because of the statewise issues.
I don't see how it covers Chafee, Santorum, Talent or Allen in the Senate, or such House losses as Fitzpatrick, NJohnson, Hart, Hayworth, Shaw, Chocola, Hostettler, Sodrel, Ryun, Gutknecht, Bradley, Bass . . . .
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
REASON Magazin, 1975.
Yes, I oppose the Federal Marriage Ammendment, but not on any social justice grounds... I still believe in Federalism. I cannot read Barry Goldwater's mind, but I bet he would oppose it to.
Don't paint libertarians with a broad brush... I don't necessarily think legalizing Marijuana would be a good thing. I oppose Roe v. Wade b/c it violates Federalism. Decisions on abortion should be made at the local/state level. Many of us (at least in the Republican Party) still support the War on Terror, and Iraq's place in the fight. We are more vehemently supportive of property owners' rights and oppose to Eminent Domain than I think many other Republicans are. I don't think that is a bad thing. We strongly support Social Security Reform and Tax Reform.
Eric actually has a great site that you COULD take a look at to become more informed about libertarians (not just the Libertarian Party).
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
He articulated my position of libertarian conservatism better than I could ever do so.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I have seen two polls since the election. One CNN poll showed that Americans beleive goverment is to big and does to much. Another said Republicans are percieved as the party of big goverment.
Democrats did not run on a platform of big goverment. They ran as anti-Republicans. In no way can you construe this election as an endorsement for more goverment.
that the recent GOP congress was for limited government? I think that era ended with Speaker Gingrich's resignation in 1998, and was only confirmed with Bush's election.
This election was nothing more than a myriad of local races where conservatism (even if feigned) won over incumbents who had lost their way. Here's to Pence/Shadegg refocusing the GOP caucus.
---
Say if ever thou didst find a woman with a constant mind
I think you all are misinterpreting the clear message from American voters this election cycle. They want more and bigger government. They have rejected both conservatism and libertarianism.
I think you and anyone else who keeps pushing this idea needs to do it with facts and thoughtful analysis instead of with hipshot declarations, particularly after the exit poll data shared by Erick. Otherwise it's just shallow sour grapes chatter.
Or misinterpretation - D's may very well have voted for candidates they felt would increase the use of government to solve problems - after all, that party has a track record of delivering on that promise, right?
R's might have been more passionate this year had they been able to vote for candidates who they felt could deliver on decreasing the size and scope of goverment. But the track record there? All talk and very little walk. Not a very powerful attractor for votes.
I lived in his district until last November. I'm in John Shadegg's now. JD is generally perceived as a jerk and a loudmouth. The AZ Repugnant endorsed his opponent by referring to JD as "The Bully". It wasn't so much his conservatism or immigration that hurt him, it was the perception of his "style".
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
First of all, and most importantly, pass a by-law (or whatever their equivalent is) to prohibit the NRSC from taking sides in Republican Senate primaries involving incumbents.
We can now see what backing Chafee in the RI primary did for us: it set us back even further there. And if we had convinced Burns to step down, we at least could have held MT. Republican incumbent senators should be strong enough on their own to win their primary. If they need help from the NRSC in that department, they're not strong enough to win the general.
Second, we need to start working now to find good Republicans to run against these incumbent Dem senators in 2008:
Lautenberg of New Jersey -- Kean would be a good one here.
Levin of Michigan -- Saul, here's your next target.
Rockefeller of West Virginia
Harkin of Iowa
Johnson of South Dakota
Pryor of Arkansas
This isn't a long list, and some of those will be very hard to unseat, but this is the hand we've been dealt for 2008, so we'd best start thinking of how to play it now.
Also, we need to convince Ted Stevens of Alaska to retire. If he doesn't retire, we need to find someone to knock him off in the primary. It worked for the Alaska governorship, after all.
Third, and perhaps most important: you may have noticed an omission in the list of vulnerable Dems in 2008. That's because:
The Republican Senate caucus should invite Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to switch parties.
Why would she want to switch? And why would we want her to switch? The latter is easier to answer: 50 GOP Senators for one, and if you look at her ACU rating, it's been on the rise. Her rating of 44 in 2005 put her ahead of Chafee and both the Maine women (12, 32 and 32), and put her second-highest among Senate Dems, second only to Nelson of Nebraska (60). If she switched to the GOP, I'm confident that it would rise further.
It's also a logical move for her. Her fellow Lousiana senator, Vitter, is a Republican, her Democratic base in New Orleans was decimated by Katrina, and she's looking at a tough race in 2008 as a Democrat. As a Republican she'd stand a much easier re-election campaign.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I wonder how much the memory of the 2002 race will get in the way of such a concept - Bush and the GOP ruffled her feathers quite a bit in that race.
---
Say if ever thou didst find a woman with a constant mind
I don't see Landrieu switching, unless the dems really go left in the Senate. It would almost be like a Kennedy switching to republican in MA. The Landrieu name is code for democrat in LA. But she is a good target for pickoff in 2008
We are questioning our leadership - Michigan is a prime example of their failure in the campaign...
"Levin of Michigan -- Saul, here's your next target"
With all due respect to Saul - if we could not knock off Stabenow, which should have been a gimmee, how will our leadership take on Levin? He may be a D, but one must at least respect him for his competence and accomplishments - unlike Stabenow. Cripes! If she can be a US Senator, ANYBODY can.
Further - The MI House was lost to the Ds.
Question the leadership.
Not thanks with Mary. I will amend your 2008 list for the NRSC to include on for 2012 targets. There were at least 4 empty suits elected on Tuesday night and the work to defeat them should start today. My list includes McCaskill, Casey, Cardin and Webb. Could probably add Nelson of FL.
while I don't think the bloodbath of Tuesday was entirely preventable, I think the GOP made two huge mistakes.
#1 they had some of the worst recruitment ever for open and democratic incumbant seats. There were some districts and senate races where the GOP could have made a real challenge to the D incumbant, but we didn't do that well. Steele is one of the few positive candidates recruited and I hope that his loss on Tuesday doesn't end his future political aspirations.
#2 In addition to the first mistake we also ran some pretty terrible campaigns. I don't think anyone could argue that Allen ran a good campaign in Virginia, and I also think we overly depended on the power of incumbancy and did't really fight hard for some seats. The two GOP congressional seats in New Hampshire are good examples of this-I saw very little politicking going on until right before the election, I think they were overly confident until the polls started indicating otherwise.
because she's probably still angry about the bungling of the Katrina rescue, which she blames on President Bush, despite the shared blame of Democrat Gov. Blanco and Democrat Mayor Nagin.
But she is a good target for "reaching across the aisle" on specific issues by Senate Republicans. She did join the "Gang of 14" last year, and has voted with Republicans on a few issues, and is more vulnerable as a Democrat now that Katrina washed many of her voters into Texas.
On military/national security issues, Republicans can also get support from Ben Nelson (NE) and Joe Lieberman, whose hawkish stance was criticized by the far-left but upheld by the voters. Republican Senators might also want to look at Senator-elect Jim Webb, who was Secretary of the Navy (and a Republican) under President Reagan.
On social issues/judicial nominations, Republicans might get support from Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman (sometimes), Mark Pryor (AR), and might want to put pressure on Senator-elect Bob Casey Jr., who said he was pro-life (to avoid facing that issue against Santorum) but is vacillating and weak in his positions. Republicans might want to test him out, and find out where he really stands--he might be persuadable.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
...frankly Landrieu would be right in thinking that Bush bungled Katrina. He did. Just like he bungled the war on Iraq and like he's bungling the war in Afghanistan.
Bush is not competent. Luckily for us, he's also not a conservative. He just wants power. Watch him sell out to the Democrats over the course of the coming year. To be honest, I'd rather have an honest leftwing democrat in power than someone like Bush, who has succeeded in discrediting conservatism by becoming the face of a movement he doesn't actually represent.
I have had to swallow many difficult "pills" during the Bush years. Every time another "Big Government Republican" initiative passed (signed off by both houses of congress and a President of my party), it turned my stomach. The bills came due on Tuesday night - with accumulated interest.
Now is the time to clean house and refocus. The Dems didn't win anything, our side lost. Now it is time to go back to training camp, drop a few pounds, run a few extra windsprints, start figuring out who makes the team and who starts. And kick butt.
It IS liberating - and thank God for redstate.com!!!
I understand many won't like it, we must demand change in GOP leadership and governing, but we can't form anymore circular firing squads. Heck Republicans were attack many times from the right more than the left the last two years. How many times did the MSM report with glee about fights in republican ranks. Yes we should fight for conservative values, but lets try and keep the fights in the bedroom the next two years and not on the front lawn for the world to view.
Continue to fight the good fight.
Let's all commit ourslevs to a robust, meaningful primary season in '08. Hard fought primaries don't weaken candidates, just ask Corker.
audaces fortuna iuvata
I agree, we fight as conservatives. I will remain skeptical of the election survivors in congress who profess themselves as born-again conservatives who realize that the party lost its way. I dont trust them - they are not hungry, just stinging from defeat and clammoring for straws. We want the hungry principalled conservatives, not the desperate power-seeking RINOS. Right now, with a few exceptions, I dont know who is really who.
The next four years will have 40 GOP seats to defend and only 26 Dem seats to target. We will have a 23 seats to target in 2012. Let's just focus on building membership and stop focusing on the nose counting. Is there really anyone out there for 2008 to be the 800 lb. gorilla as a Presidential nominee? I don't think so. I will take another Clinton in the Whitehouse to wake us up. The big question is what can conservatives do on a steady, regular basis just to build the party. Taking back the House in 2008 and expanding on that majority in 2010 is realistic.
""Let's just focus on building membership and stop focusing on the nose counting.""""
Worth repeating.
Good, Accountable Leadership
Bravo. To be honest, what the right needs is a red version of myDD, not DailyKos. If you can emulate that, you'll play a significant role in shaping your party's strategy and keeping it honest. And that can only be good for the nation.
But first you have to decide between competing (and equally defensible) models: 1. big tent, or 2. ideological purity? I can see valid arguments or the effectiveness of both. In fact I would argue that the purity model plays better to the strengths of the conservative movement's largest blocs, especially the social conservatives. But the big tent approach will help stem bleeding of fiscally conservative social moderates who were disgusted by the profligate spending. And certainly the "RINOs" like Lincoln Chafee are more useful to the conservative movement from within than without.
I would in fact rephrase my question above as, what is conservatism? fiscal? social? or something meta under which the two variants are subsets? There is a ideological space to be occupied that can accomodate John Derbyshire and William Buckley Jr right alongside Sam Brownback and Bill Frist, I am sure.
Part of the reason that the GOP lost in 2006 was because too many of its party members felt that the party had betrayed their values. But there is dissent right here at RedState's editorial board, it seems, about what the core values are.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I second this sentiment. I'm not a republican, but I've allied myself with them in the past because I believe they share similar sentiments about things. One of the most important ideals was the big tent. Even though I realized the republicans would never give people of my persuasion everything we wanted, I felt respected and listened to.
I felt that way when I first started coming to this site earlier in the year. It seemed eminently sensible. It obviously played for the team, but once and while said "Hey, this doesn't jibe," and set about presenting it's opinion. Of late, I've been feeling like there's been a lot of intellectual contortioning among the conservative commentariat. It smacked of bad things, and it affected my vote more than what the people in the GOP did. Basically, it was the blind following that's been going on since the beginning of the war turned me off.(It may be hard to remember now, but I think the paleo's had the best chance of any group to have the Iraq policy reconsidered)
So, the GOP has the two choices above, as yourDD wisely mentions. It can go big tent, or it can go "maximum purity that still wins". Either's fine. Just remember that it's not only the integrity of the GOP captains (the reps, senators, presidents, etc...) that's getting judged, but the integrity of every person who calls themselves "Republican".
I think the GOP does need some consistent core values around which to build the big tent.
And there are some core values that can please everyone-
fiscal conservatism (I think this is something that killed the GOP with conservatives-the GOP stopped being the voice of fiscal conservatism and turned into porky pig at the trough). A true commitment to fiscal conservatism is a selling point to conservatives and libertarians/libertarian leaners and most centrists.
Limited/small government-I think the GOP also forgot this principal. I think the Federal government needs to stop being the nanny of the states, the states need to be responsible for the majority of stuff, the Fed's need to mostly stick to what they are mandated to do.
I realize that there are people out there who want the government to fund and be all things and all that-but this type of thinker I don't think I want in my party-I am not keen on creating federal programs to solve society's ills-and every time we create that big federal program, it becomes one more giant money suck that often doesn't really work all that well. I don't mind some federal programs, but I want thinkers who will admit when a program doesn't work and needs changing/eliminating. The "underfunded" meme doesn't really fly with me.
Social issues is often a sticking point, but even social conservatives and libertarian types can agree on some common goals. Strict constructionist/originalist type judges.
But we need to define the core principals, sell those principals to the electorate and build from there. Having people who don't share those principals inside the tent doesn't make the party strong, only weaker. I think the various RINO types hurt us more than helped us during the majority years. They more often than not were too busy playing maverick for media attention to realize they were hurting the party.
So I guess if we are going to play big tent, no shared principals required games, then we need to learn better party discipline, or our next chance at leadership will shove us quickly to the door once more. Party discipline is the one area where the dems have always out manuvuered the GOP, the GOP should take some pointers from the dems on this.
Here are my thoughts;
This site has consistent content value and a measured tolerance for discourse. To me, that is unique and one of its strongest qualities. The posters range in knowledge from erudite to the newbie believing GOTV is the next YouTube (humor, not a criticism). That is helpful to educate and build the base.
What do we need more of? True Grass Roots activities, explanations of how folks can contribute and a permanent front page placement or link listing associated opportunities. Proof you ask? Look at the RS contribution to the GOTV calling effort. That alone indicates the value of continuing to educate and line up resources, because the next election cycle started yesterday.
Generally, our party has a very good GOTV operation. Now you can argue that indifference, disappointment, midterm etc. led to the smaller turnout this election. However, if we want to energize this base and foster high turnout, we need to start building the pool of resources now!
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Clearly the "gloves can come off" now that we have a clear view of the conservative posers. Thank you for posting a rallying cry.
Cog
Atlanta, GA
How about starting that by getting RightRoots back up and running to raise money for conservatives facing reelection in 2008. Why not try to put as many seats out of reach as we can before challengers even have the chance to declare so that the 2008 election can be about taking back our turf rather than just trying to keep the seats we have, as we did this year?
Rep. Arthur Davis is considering a bid against Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008. How about making him think twice by making Sessions the first RightRoots candidate of the ´08 cycle?
Finally, I'll say one thing in regards to "fighting on."
RedState really needs to decide internally whether it is primarily a Conservative forum or a Republican forum, or will continue as a kind of hybrid with a heavy Conservative emphasis and editorial slant.
Speaking for myself, living in Massachusetts it's going to be very difficult for me to get people to read and become RedState members and contributors and members of the "community" if the site doesn't continue to respect people who (at least at the outset) would be characterized by a lot of people here as RINOs and "squishes."
When I first started posting on RedState, I was both on a lot of issues. In the two years I've been here, I've been persuaded to be more conservative than I otherwise would have been -- but only because RedState welcomed me.
If RedState is going to stake out a claim in the blogosphere as being a strictly Conservative forum, that's perfectly fine, but I can tell you that I'll have a very hard time getting people in Liberal states to read the blog.
I'm all for sticking to one's principles and consistently advocating for them. The part of Redstate which has disappointed me from the beginning is its insistence on being an arbiter of what, exactly, it means to be "a conservative". By shunning people who disagree on a particular issue with terms like "RINO" and other pejoratives, the site tends to assume that there's no basis for intra-party and intra-conservatism debate.
Take immigration. There's clearly a deep difference of opinion within the Republican Party and within the conservative movement on how best to handle illegal immigration to both protect our borders and prevent the development of French-like and British-like enclaves of unassimilated foreigners. Labelling someone a conservative turncoat simply because they disagree with one's own opinion on that subject is incredibly counter-productive. To its credit, the editorial board has been very careful with its official positions on that particular subject, recognizing the deep split within the conservative movement itself.
So I urge everybody to debate strongly, to stick to your own principles, but not to declare one issue or another a litmus test for being accepted as a conservative.
It really is. At this point in my life I aspire to that state of mind more than I can really testify that I live according to Conservative principles. The most important thing about RedState is that when I look back on my time here and especially when I read some of my earliest posts, a couple of things are very clear to me:
1) When I first started posting on RedState I was looking for a very new direction in my life and a new way of looking at the world. Some of that had come from myself, but I needed help and support in making that decision. If RS hadn't been welcoming to me, I don't know whether I would have continued along that path.
2) The articulate Conservatives on RedState have helped me enormously to refine and focus my thinking on issues that I had heretofore been very confused about. Immigration is one. Life issues are another.
My main point is that both of those developments took time because a) I am a pretty stubborn person and b) I had spent an awfully long time around liberals and leftists. If it hadn't been for RedState's tolerance of my "heresies" on certain subjects I would have gotten so angry and frustrated that I would have given up and gone elsewhere. But the people here didn't do that to me: they welcomed my occasional "heresies" and argued with me, but they kept me coming back. And in the fullness of time, I saw the light on a number of things that were previously areas of my thinking that had been hopelessly occluded.
Today I'm much closer to being a Conservative than I was when I first started reading and writing here. All of the credit goes to the patience and support of the people who realized that these kinds of things take time. I hope that stays as a part of RedState's self-definition.
It helped me! :)
I've been a member here at RedState for 1 year and 51 weeks, as of today. I literally "stumbled into" RedState through a Google search almost two years ago but the big point is this:
I had already started down the path of changing my way of thinking prior to finding RedState, but my previous life as a Teenage Moonbat had been going on for more than a decade.
In other words, with RedState's help, and the help of everyone who is a constitutent part of RedState, I have been able to right myself and straighten out my own thinking in 1/6th the time that it took to get me there in the first place.
RedState has been a potent antivenom for me, and I hope it stays that way, because there are far too many good people in this country who really need it.
As a libertarian conservative (and yes, I did vote L two days ago) who still looks to the possibility of the GOP reclaiming it's 1994 legacy (and my vote), I think this is important for this board to decide. My effort at posting previously was labeled as trolling which left me with the sense that this was a purely republican team board or at best a social conservative site (admitedly, this was in the context of the election and I did not present my case calmly).
There are still many issues (mostly fiscal) where I share common ground with GOP theory (if not recent practice), frankly, many more than I share with the dems. I don't know which direction this board or the GOP ends up moving, but I can only toss this out as one potential voice that may or may not have a place in the conversation you decide to have here.
I look forward to seeing if the Directors at some point can give their thinking along these lines.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The public in general is tired of the "lesser of two evils" approach to politics. Within my community, within my own family there was debate of what we should do on Tuesday. Some felt, we had to vote for the republican ticket, regardless if they deserved it or not. A liberal led congress was simply not an acceptable alternative. Others felt that they could not vote for anyone. Disgusted by the Republican Party, failing to do what they were elected to do, and yet fearful of the direction the democrats would lead us in. They either didn't vote or voted for anyone not in the 2 parties. The rest, felt like a message had to be sent and they held their nose and voted democrat. Some for the first time in there voting lives. What was the correct position to take? I don't know. I voted republican, but what do I know.
In order to advance conservative ideas, we need an elected body that will do just that, advance conservative ideas. It seems at times that we get caught up in a "catch 22" scenario. In order for the republicans to take control of congress, sometimes we need to vote in people who do not necessarily advance conservative ideas. In some cases, I wonder if they even agree with conservatives at all. If we try to run "pure" conservatives across the board, the risk of losing control of congress to Democrats sharply increases. Are we afraid of people that actually stand for something? Either scenario presents significant obstacles for conservatives. Whether you vote for officials that do not agree with your ideas, in order to win elections or vote for those who share your principals and lose elections, the end result is the same.
We also have to recognize that, while there are two major political parties governing, it isn't just Conservatives versus Liberals anymore. We have moderates and moonbats on both sides. There are “liberal-republicans” and “conservative-democrats”. There are those that want everything legal and those that want more government intervention. What boggles the mind is that sometimes they are the same group of people. Then, there are those that stand for nothing and those that just don't care.
I think we need to return to the principals and values that make us conservatives and go on the offensive. The progressives/liberals and “no position” moderates haven’t seen anything yet.
"""Liberals anymore. We have moderates and moonbats on both sides. There are “liberal-republicans” and “conservative-democrats”.""""
There are all kinds and it takes all kinds. Whoever thought of "kicking out" the evangelicals because our party went too far that way should also advise the Dems to kick out minorities. It would make as much sense! We need all those votes, but we can't please everyone. It's part of life.
Good, Accountable Leadership
I have enjoyed many conservative news sites for about a year now. Redstate is the only one on which I have had any desire to post. I think the people who post here do so with intelligence and without so much of the rancor against others of differing opinions. I like that.
As to the recent election, I think it's much too early to start predicting what's going to happen for the next two years. I personally pray that the democrats will extend a hand to the republicans and work to make this country better, but I won't hold my breath. What I will do is keep a very close eye on my so-called-newly-elected-by-the-slimmest-of-margins-possible-and-you-know-the-state-to-which-I-am-referring-Senetor, and make sure he is doing for the state what he promised. I did not vote for the man so I can be just as critical about him as the MSM is about Republicans.
I think God let this happen because He's coming back to take us all to heaven, leaving Nancy Pelosi as President......a girl can dream, can't she?
1MPTomb
"Be still and know that I am God"- God
I appreciate the post, and enjoyed the comments BUT...
I am an unapologetic hard-core conservative, with little interest in accommodating moderation on social or fiscal issues. Up thread, a suggestion was made that calling someone a rino was denigrating and likely to dissuade membership or interest in wanting to associate with Conservative-like counter-parts.
Conservative is exactly that-conservative.
Someone who suggests, for example, that embryonic stem cell research (while bad from the killing unborn life angle may be good from the saving current life angle) is not a conservative (by my definition)....and for these "I want to play but I am not AS conservative as others" types that suggest the debate should at least remain open. For me, the debate is closed. This, I fear from the Directors' words, makes me on the fringe...I hope I am wrong, but I am already in the wilderness, so what's the big deal.
I recently assigned myself the new "category" of paleo-theoconic confederalist. I am proud to consider myslf as such...and I will withdraw from the RS debate if you guys think this is farther to the right than where you want the community to go...
Sorry-I am no longer apologetic to anyone.
After the soul I sold in vain on Tuesday as 60 freaking percent of eligible voters stayed home because they could give a flip about our Soldiers or the future of our children's and grand children's lives, I am done "pacifying dissent" with compromise and capitulation.
I am tired of diluting my beliefs in order to "get along"...I am done.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
We shall not stop being Conservative's that is how we live our lives and by the way that does not always mean Religious Right sometimes it just means conservative. I am prepared to back any conservative candidate in the next Virginia elections and will provide monetary support to any conservative who runs in the country. RightRoots will be a much larger campaign next time because you will have to start early to gain more money. If I were you guys I would start it up in exactly 18 months from Tuesday for the 6 months leading up to the election.
Peace through superior fire power:)
Clearly we need to take stock, go back to first principles, and look at who we areputting forward.
How can we best signal what were's about? I submit it is through the people we choose to represent us - who who we DON'T choose to represent us.
Here are the Republican Senators whose seats are up for re-election in 08. Is there anyone here we should try to replace in the primary? Who is out of line with where we need to be going?
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)
I believe in small government
-- and the incredible expansion of government under George W. Bush has made us all more dependent on government and ultimately hinders our freedom and economic growth. Let's face it, Bush betrayed conservatism here.
I believe in lower taxes
-- especially capital gains taxes. Indeed, I support a flax tax with one single tax rate that completely exempts capital gains.
I believe the minimum wage should be abolished
-- for the simple reason that it makes no economic sense.
I believe in a responsible judiciary that follows the constitution and the rule of law
-- and that textulaism is the only proper method of legitimate adjudication. For the record, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones and Frank Easterbrook are my first choices for any vacancy on the Supreme Court.
I believe in the sanctity of human life
-- and although the Judiciary should not create a right to life whole clothe (sorry, but it just ain't in the constitution), the issue should be given back to the people and legislature, where I personally would vote to outlaw abortion in all cases except for maybe the imminent threat to the mother's life and even then only in the first trimester.
I believe in traditional marriage
-- and support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman and that no "civil union" can be approximated to that.
I believe that Colin Powell's "overwhelming force" doctrine is far more relevant and accurate than Rumfeld's "shock and awe" doctrine
-- and because of that, Rumsfeld should have resigned in 2004 at the latest. But better late than never.
I believe the Iraq war is and always was a mistake
-- and that it was the height of egotism to think that the Iraqi people would welcome us after Saddam was overthrown. Bush campaigned on "no nation-building" in 2000, yet that is exactly what he undertook in 2002. Somalia was wrong in 1993 and Iraq is wrong now. By invading Iraq, we've unleashed a Shi'ite fundamentalism more widespread, worse and powerful than al-Qaeda. Quite frankly, we would be better off if Sunni and Shi'ites were still killing each other and it is sad that many even in the White House today still don't seem to understand the differences between the two.
I believe that now that we're in Iraq, we must "win"
-- which means committing about at least three or four times the number of troops we have and killing all vestiges of the insurgents. And it also means that we may need to set up a puppet "strong man" government controlled by secularist Kurds and Sunni to act as a counterbalance to the Iraqi majority. We're playing with fire but we may need a "Shah of Iraq" type figure but neither we nor the Iraqi people have the stomach for that.
I believe that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay
-- nor be given any "amnesty" by any name. By definition, they broke the law and should not be rewarded or appeased but punished and deported. Period.
I believe in legal immigration
-- because it keeps are nation strong and prosperous. Yes, we should thoroughly screen those that want to come here but, quite frankly, economically speaking we either import the highly-skilled and motivated people here or we export the jobs "there": those are our only alternatives.
I believe that the only fair trade is free trade
-- without tariffs and restrictions. Sorry folks but protectionism does not work: 100% of Nobel Prize winners in economics (including Milton Friedman) will tell you that.
I believe I am a conservative
-- and this last election I voted the straight Republican ticket but because of all the high-spending of the last Republican Congress and incompetence and mismanagement of this Republican White House, I strangely am not upset about the election results.
"We fight on" but let's be certain we know what we are fighting for. I fight for the United States of America and conservatism; not necessarily for the Republican Party.
I understand that Bush needs to act all chummy with Nancy Pelosi and I understand that he needs to utter phrases such as 'bipartisanship' and say things that we all know he doesn't really mean.
But while Bush might feel the need to compromise on his values, we are under no such obligation. So I'm with you: I'll support and defend President Bush to liberals but among like-minded individuals we should all be free to push and prod as much as we want until Bush is on the Right course once again.
Fight on!
Julian
Republican leadership before it was cool.
I took some grief about it here also.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
of seeing Bush be "chummy" with the wicked witch makes my blood turn cold. I just hope that it is not the "thing-to-do" and that W turns his back completely on the people that voted for him...and the values that he is supposed to have...conservative values (of which I am more concerned about FISCAL conservative than the view the GOP seems to rally more often than not).
I would rather see W throw spitballs at Pelosi rather than shake her hand, look her in the eye, acknowledge her existence, or any other courtesy that he has NEVER been given by the Dems.
Stranded in a blue section of a red state.
I will never, ever, again vote for any candidate whom is not a firm fiscal, free market, conservative. That is my minimum requirement.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The problem is, they say they are conservatives, then turn around and spend like a sailor on leave. (no disrespect to any of of military,we love you guys!)
"Be still and know that I am God"- God
...having the guts to see it through. He didn't put in sufficient numbers of troops; he didn't upgrade the military's armor for this kind of desert warfare; and at some point he decided that it just wasn't worth making the effort to win it.
He's also racked up a massive deficit--even though he had a Republican congress.
I'm starting to believe the libbies are right (though for different reasons obviously): Bush is the worst president ever. I can think of at least three liberal democrats that would have made better conservative Republican presidents than Bush has. Hell, not even the San Francisco board of supervisors is as spending-happy as Bush has proven.
Dumping Rumsfeld, abandoning Iraq rather than having the decency to fix what he broke, is for me the straw that broke the camel's back of my support for President Bush.
Thank G_d we lost Tuesday. This gives us a chance to reinvent the Republican party as a real conservative party.
He's just like his liberal daddy, Bush 41 part II is a sham. But instead of eating Pork Rinds to show that he was just like the rest of us, he wore cowboy boots, and talked with a fake Texas accent. I got news for you "W", when the spoiled brat son of a New England millionaire has a multi-acre property without any animals, it's not called a "Ranch", it's called an "Estate." Keep that in mind the next time you go "home" to Crawford. He should resign, and let Cheney try to salvage what's left of the Presidency.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
... except Rumsfeld was part of the problem. It was Rumsfeld who kept insisting that we did not need more troops in Iraq. To be honest, I think Rumsfeld had a little p***s envy of Colin Powell: despite all the evidence to the contrary, Donald Rumsfeld wanted to prove that his military doctrine of "shock and awe" was superior to Colin Powell's military doctrine of "overwhelming force."
Sorry but Powell was right and Rumsfeld was wrong. Being honest, I don't think we should have gone in Iraq in the first place but now that we are there, our only acceptable alternative is to win. But because Rumsfeld was unwilling to admit that Powell was right and he was wrong and that we needed more troops, he did not make the necessary changes. Therefore Rumsfeld should have been gone a long time ago.
We have so much venting going on right now it is hard to tell...but your talking points are a little too pat!
Elizabeth Dole first and foremost, the way she gave good Republican money to beat up a conservative for Chafee was just criminal 2)John Warner because of the pathetic way he ran from the Iraq war and sounded like Levin when being interviewed on the Sunday morning talk shows 3)Ted Stevens no explanation needed, well what the hell (piggy) 4)Lindsay Graham he is pretty explanatory as well however I will say he will be the next Foley if he is not taken on, whenever I watch him on TV I need a shower afterwards he is sleaze personified. So Rightroots lets see if there is someone who needs our money to get started running against these "congresscritter" the sooner the better.
Peace through superior fire power:)
About Iraq: "This isn't a war to win, it's a situation to be solved."
Well, there you have it. Nothing else need be said!
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight