The Time Is Now

I fully agree, except for the part about Steele.

The GOP doesn't have a road map anymore. They simply follow behind the Dems, offering a slightly modified version of liberalism -- manily because they're FOLLOWING so they lag somewhat behind.

But just look at Commiefornia to see where the road leads, and you're looking at America's future if things don't drastically change.


As to Steele, he's still the same moderate pig he's always been, simply trying to save his chairmanship, because a Senator jumping ship is a big black eye for him.

He's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Steele is no conservative and until the GOP gets rid of the RINOs, they can count on being the minority forever!

SpectRE is the "king of RINOs",...but McScamnesty runs a close second!
Let's see how many more RINOs there are besides those two clowns,.....Snowe, Collins,Grahamnesty, Lugar?,Martinez, Brownback,...I can't seem to remember the rest of them, there are soooo many,...maybe you guys can "jog my memory"?

BTW Flag,.......an excellent and thoughtful essay!

Interesting essay and interesting comments.

While I agree with you that Specter's departure was solely for personal political gain and not out of conviction, I also believe that the GOP has gone to far to the right. Your party is disappearing from the Northeast rapidly. Honestly, your party's demographics are shrinking day by day. Sorry, but this country is getting more diverse while your party is getting whiter than Michael Jackson. The millions of young people today are increasingly identifying with the Democratic Party and its ideals. The majority of Americans are in favor of things like abortion rights, national health care, higher taxes on corporations and upper income individuals, immigration reform, and gay civil unions. The scare tactics of "evil gay terrorist abortionist 95% of income taxing" Democrats just doesn't fly anymore. I mean, I understand that you want a more "conservative" party, but at what expense? What is your plan for the economy? health care? energy?

Furthermore, what is your party's plan for expanding it's base into the Northeast? West Coast? among minorities? young people? GLBT people?

Also, you party always states that govt is the problem, yet never the solution. Honestly, does that still hold water? What is the solution then? Is your only hope to root for America and the President falling? What if the reforms of the Obama administration works? Where does that leave your party and your philosophy?

Now I realize these are many questions that I'm sure you don't feel like answering. Yet, these questions are pertinent on the minds of many voters. Truth is Flag your party has lost 54 house seats, 14 Senate seats, and the Presidency in the last 2 election cycles. Is it because your party isn't conservative enough? I would beg to differ.

If your party wants to pursue the strategy of having a party full of elderly, all white, paranoid, hateful, overly religious, tin foil hat wearing ditto head teabaggers devoid of any philosophical, regional, or racial diversity, then go ahead. On behalf of every Democrat, I implore you to do so. lol

Who would have ever thought I would see the downfall of a major political party....first there were the Whigs.....now the GOP???

We shall see. I await your response my friend.

Good essay,at least HE was honest for once,unlike the rest of the RINO's. "I can't win as a Republican". WHAT kind of guarantee he can win as a democrat,either? The democrats of Pennsylvania who are thinking about voting for this clown would be well-served to remember he was a DEMOCRAT before he was a republican. What would keep him from jumping ship for self-preservation YET AGAIN? As to the party going too far right,Ralph,what leads you to that conclusion?Seems to us like they've gone too far left,if anything. And,given a choice between dem-lite,and the real thing,we see what they will choose.McCain ring a bell? Can't much blame them,either. Nothing worse than a fake,eh?

Brian, i am not saying that Steele is the answer, just that he hit the nail on the head when he called Specter out. Besides which, this defection has been in the works for three years at least...so it can not be laid solely at the feet of Michael Steele.

Tazz, there are way too many RINOs to name because they keep running as conservatives, then going over to the left when they get to DC.

Clyde, the Democrats will support Specter only because he has name recognition and could possibly win in Pennsylvania. He is of no real use to these people other than as a political pawn and a symbol of how the GOP is allegedly running out the 'moderates'.

Ralph, thanks for coming by...it's been awhile. As I see it, the problem with the GOP is not that it is filled with right wing zealots, as you seem to believe. The problem I, and other conservatives have is that the Party claims to have conservative credentials, yet conducts itself as a watered down version of the Democratis Party. That doesn't work, as we saw in the last presidential election; if voters want a Democrat, they will vote for the authentic Dem and not the imposter.

As for the idea that conservatives want America to fail, that is a Democrat talking point and you know it. As for wanting the president to fail, I want every policy that he proposes that I believe is not in the best interest of this nation to fail...just as liberals wanted the Bush era policies they opposed to fail. That is the way politics works, and the way it should work; we are not obligated to support a person if we do not agree with them. Because I did not hear one Democrat...including you...supporting the policies of the Bush-Cheney White House.

As for winning the Northeast and California, those states have long been liberal strongholds and not much is going to change. The party cannot continue to list left in an effort to pick up voters, because if they do they will continue to lose. The GOP needs to make a clear distinction in who they are as opposed to the Democrats and not try to become the Democrats.

Flag, great response to Ralph.

Ralph, here's the crux of the issue. As Flag said, the GOP isn't offering any real alternative to Dem/liberalism, and IMO that's why they're failing.


But if your assertion is true -- that conservatism per se is a failing philosophy in this country -- then it really doesn't matter much WHAT the GOP does, because this country will have totally capitulated to liberalism, and for traditional conservatives like me, the war will be over, and we will have lost.

In which case the issue of who wins elections -- a liberal Dem or a liberal GOPer -- is simply an uninteresting intellectual exercise with no real meaning or import.

And hey! You may be right! There's no God-given guarantee to the survival of this country as one with traditional conservative values as expressed by the Founders. That idea may well go the way of the dodo.

"When the people awaken to the fact that they can vote to themselves the largesse of the Treasury, democracies fail" -- Tytler (pop attrib)

So we end up as a Euro-socialist mess.

"The People have abdicated their responsibilities for promises of bread and circuses" -- Juvenal (1st C. AD)

And the American Empire falls.

Well Flag. I think we see the problem differently. As a liberal, I have not seen the GOP over the past 10 to 15 years as “Democrats Lite”. I don’t see how a party that has called for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, has been for continued military escalation/occupation across the globe, has cut many social programs and funding to key domestic programs, with a utter disregard for diplomacy and international cooperation (ie. UN), has sought to hasten the end of public education (ie.school vouchers), has racked up huge amounts of debt through defense spending (quite Reagan-esque, has pursued a policy of Christian dominionism under the guise of "family values", and has had the audacity to call certain parts of the nation "un-American". I mean, I could go on and on. These are not policies and ideas we liberals follow. They are conservative in nature, most times resulting from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, etc. As for right wing zealots, I believe that in many ways this is true. Your party is dominated by Christian evangelicals; I think what you cons are upset with is not that the GOPers haven't been conservative enough. It is that your philosophy has been a failure over the past 8 years and has helped lead the country to its current plight.

As for my supposed talking point, I actually take great offense to that. I mean it is my observation that the GOP is hinging its political future on having Obama's Stimulus package fail miserably. They have made a concerted effort to not have their names attached to the bill in the hope it backfires and they appear from the damage unscathed. It is not a talking point. It is your party's strategy bud.

As for Democrats supporting GWB, some Democrats supported his failed war policy. On almost every major policy decision of the Bush years, the Democratic Party fought against it. In the end, we were correct. Instead of derision, I think the Dems deserve credit and respect. Obviously, the country feels the same way as I do. Look at the past 2 elections sir.

Finally, in order to be a ruling party again, the GOP MUST expand into the Northeast & West Coast again. While these areas are liberal, they also have elected moderate respected Republicans in the past. You can't win without moderates. Pure and simple.

Interesting response. I, as a liberal, disagree with your end of the world assessment. Big surprise eh?

It is my opinion (and that of the majority of American voters) that the conservative policies of the last administration have failed and have put this country in the current situation it is in.

The crux to me is why should the American people trust a party and a philosohpy that has failed and is somewhat responsible for our current situation. I mean, fool me once...shame on you...fool me twice.....well you get the idea. lol

On a serious note, I want to knwo from you or Flag what the conservative solutions are for the nation exactly? Explain to me the underlying philosophy behind these solutions and well as fact based examples. I'm am always open to new ideas and better understanding conservative thought and solutions.

Well, first of all, you come from a point of view that I need to address, when you write: "the conservative policies of the last administration"

That's exactly the problem; the last administration WASN'T conservative. It was modified liberalism wrapped in Rightist statism.

There's a big difference between traditional conservatism and what the GOP's been offering for about the last decade at least.

Traditional conservatism can be symbolized by Reaganism: small government; fiscal responsibility; individual accountability; states rights; true federalism.

Was any of that visible under Bush? No. So don't look to me to defend Bush policies.

Rather than try to explain a complex topic in a post here, let me refer you to some essays I wrote on this at my blog.

"Considerations on Conservatism": http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/2007/11/19/consi derations_on_conservatism.thtml

"'Original Intent' and the Dynamic Tension of Liberty": http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/2007/12/10/origi nal_intent_and_the_dynamic_tension_of_liberty.thtml

"Does (R) Mean Anything Anymore?": http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/2007/07/16/does_ r_mean_anything_anymore.thtml

I think those essays will answer your questions.

Your statement that the "majority of the American voters" support Obama is also a misstatement of the situation.

He won a majority of the votes in the election THAT WERE CAST. I can guarantee you that a LOT of people either sat it out or voted third party. And those voters would most probably have been conservatives.

If losing the last two elections were evidence of the failure of conservatism writ large, then we should have declared liberalism dead aand buried starting in the 1994 midterm elections, when the GOP won control of the House, or in the 2000 & 2004 presidential elections when GWB beat Gore and Kerry. The loss of elections is simply part of the political process, and both sides have to go through it...losses aren't the signal that principles have failed, but a snapshot of the concerns of voters at that particular time.

As for the GOP moving right over the last 10-15 years, I think your perspective is slightly skewed and reflects not reality but your personal perceptions. The last person to lead the GOP who could be rightly described as conservative is Reagan. Both of the Bush presidents were only conservative on certain issues, not consistently conservatives. Take GWB: he was conservative on tax cuts and believed in military funding, but he authored the huge increase in Medicare and pushed an amnesty program as his immigration policy. Conservatives such as myself were disappointed in many of his actions and supported him on others, but a party dominated by Bush, McCain, Graham, and Specter was not one that was moving to the far right. Indeed, they were moving more to the left, and combined with reckless spending from a GOP Congress alienated the base and cost them serious voter support when it counted.

“The loss of elections is simply part of the political process, and both sides have to go through it...losses aren't the signal that principles have failed, but a snapshot of the concerns of voters at that particular time.”

Somewhat true Flag. The history of political power in this nation is best characterized by the notion of a swinging pendulum that goes from liberal to conservative. However I still insist that while the GOP has indeed become rather out of touch with the concerns of the American voter, the main reason the party is out of power today is the failed policies of the Bush administration as well as the dramatic demographic shift the country is undergoing at the moment.

“As for the GOP moving right over the last 10-15 years, I think your perspective is slightly skewed and reflects not reality but your personal perceptions.”

I would suggest that you re-read what I said sir. You asserted that the GOP was “Diet Democrats”. I pointed out several areas where the party took a rather hard-right stance that was far from liberal. Look, I understand you don’t want to claim the past 8 years. That’s fine. However, numerous Republicans have stated that the party has moved increasingly to the right on many social issues as well as fiscal issues (ie. Bush tax cuts during wartime) in such a way that has alienated moderates. Again, I state in order to be a ruling party again, the GOP MUST expand into the Northeast & West Coast again. You can't win without moderates. Pure and simple

“The last person to lead the GOP who could be rightly described as conservative is Reagan.”

Umm…somewhat so. However, Reagan was no fiscal conservative in the least bit, pursued an interventionist foreign policy (not exactly a cons trait right?), and IMO is one of the most overrated presidents of all time. Here is an interesting non-partisan take on Reagan’s “conservative legacy”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.h tml

“Both of the Bush presidents were only conservative on certain issues, not consistently conservatives. Take GWB: he was conservative on tax cuts and believed in military funding, but he authored the huge increase in Medicare and pushed an amnesty program as his immigration policy.”

Well Dday Bush was a moderate on some issues. True. I respect the man. As for GWB, you make mention of huge spending and amnesty. Yet, didn’t Reagan do the EXACT same thing?

“Conservatives such as myself were disappointed in many of his actions and supported him on others,”

Sure……..

“but a party dominated by Bush, McCain, Graham, and Specter was not one that was moving to the far right.”

Did Specter, Graham, and McCain really dominate the party Flag? That’s re-writing history.

Bush was president for 8 years, McCain and Graham were probably the most vocal leaders in the Senate, and Specter was the chairman of the judiciary committee, so yeah...they dominated the party. And not one of them was what anyone would call a conservative; McCain & Graham were joined at the hip, with McCain being hailed as a maverick for constantly berating the conservative base of the GOP. Bush was a moderate stretching back to his days as governor of Texas, and Specter spent more time voting with the Democrats than with the party he belonged to!

And the fact of the matter is that the GOP over the past decade has drifted closer to the Democrats and has blurred the lines between the two parties. The Democrats are quite open about their belief in government spending for domestic/social programs and have no problem advocating for the government coffers to be thrown open. The GOP claimed to be for reducing spending, but in reality spent money like it was going out of style and that alienated the base of the party.

As for the idea that the GOP needs to attract more 'moderates', that is open to debate. If attracting moderates to the party means abandoning what you stand for, then it is better to not have the moderates in your midst. The Democrats do not abandon their core principles to attract voters, so why should the GOP?

Every time the GOP has run a candidate who is a constitutional conservative, on a platform of small, SMALL government, Small government, and even less intervention by government,(get my point), they have won, BIGTIME.

It is when the GOP starts drifting to the center to try and include these or those that the people reject them.

The true conservatives are, mostly Republicans, and the Party needs to reflect that. We can very succinctly state our position and what defines us. It starts, "We, the People...", and has George Washington's signature as president of the congress. Our platform has seven original articles and the first ten ammendments are known, fondly, as the Bill of Rights.

Anything you have a question about regarding conservative principles or positions on anything, that document will answer it completely.

Great post Sir.
Glenn Flowers

Most of my comment was directed not at Flagwaver, but at those who want to define conservatism for us. I just used his name as the subject.

There is NO tent, big or small. Just a shining city on the hill.

Thank you for your post, it is appreciated. It is amazing how Democrats always have all this great advice about how to build the GOP...and all the suggestions boil down to "Be like us!" The reason we continue to lose elections is that we become like them and our voters reject that change. McCain was more Democrat than conservative...and lost; the GOP Congress spent money like drunken Democrats...and lost. Yet Democrats always want us to become ever more like them, which would consign us to permanent minority status.

As you know, that's actually my mantra. To hell with "Big Tents" if they have to become big by redefining themselves Leftward.

That's trying to be all things to all people, and that never works; it's impossible.

If you stand for everything, you actually stand for nothing.

If you build it, they will come. Seems more appropriate than ever. When you offer something that has appeal, people buy it.

On the other hand, a camel is a horse built by committee, which is what the GOP's become as it tries to chase after some mythical, ill-defined, and non-existent "uncommitted" moderate demographic.




THAT is probably the most cliche-riddled comment I've ever written. I'm proud of myself! A new world's record!

I actually took that theme and turned it into a new essay I just posted at my place. I think it's quite relevant to this discussion both at this essay and your other one, too.

I wrote an essay here awhile back about the GOP's 'big-tent' strategy being more like a big top because constantly attempting to define yourself as whatever people want you to be...instead of what you are. If you try to be everything to everyone, then you're really no one because you have no true identity.

Specter has always been a riddle.

1. Next time I hear "Compassionate conservative," I'll turn around and Run! Jesus! We should have known when he said that.
2. McCain is not a RINO. He is a Democrat sitting on the Republican side of the aisle. He has always been a Democrat. Back when he decided to enter politics he was going to enter as a Democrat but his advisors told him he would never get elected as a Democrat in Arizona so he entered as a Republican...and has been the Democrat's most successful mole. Why else would it be so easy for him to be the "maverick" or to "stick his thumb in his party's eye" or to "reach across the aisle" to the most liberal of libs all the time?
3. The GOP has never done things like that because the RINO's have run the party for a long, long time and the RINO's are, as the acronym implies, Democrats at heart so don't really care which party gets in so long as their liberal platform is accomplished.
4. Steele...give him a chance to get his "sea legs" under him. He may come through yet. It is still wait and see for me

that liberals show up on conservative sites and try to preach to us what's wrong with conservativism.

Liberalism/socialism is a mental disease!