Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism

The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism; Chuck Baldwin; Campaign for Liberty

This dovetails into the first post of the day.

The GOP is frantically searching for the person who will lead them to the Promised Land (translate: White House) in 2012. Barack Obama is leaving a death stench so heavy that even most of the political allies in his own party are asking him to stay away from their reelection campaigns. You gotta give it to Obama: he has done in one term what most Presidents cannot accomplish until their second (lame duck) term. The problem is, the GOP just can't seem to find their Moses (or even their Ronald Reagan). That means, as far fetched as it sounds now, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. And, once again, when any Democrat candidate for President wins, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves. 2012 could be another example.

You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don't know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don't want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, "Ron Paul"?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a "Democrat in Drag" to borrow from Steve Farrell.

That brings me to one of the people that the talking heads at Fox News and other GOP propaganda centers are routinely discussing as their 2012 Presidential hopeful: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

According to Reuters News, "Republican former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday [July 25th] he will decide after November's congressional elections whether he will make a run for the White House in 2012."

Here's what Gingrich is looking at: he wants to see if the GOP makes significant gains in both houses of Congress in the November elections. If the GOP wins one house (especially if enough real conservatives win), I predict Gingrich will enter the race. So he can ride a conservative wave into the White House in 2012? No! So he can derail any potential conservative momentum that the Tea Parties might be able to create in this year's November elections. You see, Newt Gingrich is the Grinch Who Stole Conservatism from the GOP. ...

Read the rest of the very good editorial here.
Comment: If we stand any chance of repealing the 17th it has to come amidst the break up of the two (one) main parties. Setting one's hopes on resurrecting the GOP is useless. The time is now to move toward a new political party that represents liberty and freedom, limited government and noninterventionism. These are the norms and ideals needed for our nation's future: repealing the 17th Amendment is the mechanism that will safeguard them.


Idahoser said...

bull. Ron Paul would make a great chairman of the Fed, overseeing it's dismantling. But nobody who thinks you never go to war except in direct defense is not a leader, and I will vote against him even if the alternative is a democrat. If his ideas had been in charge in WWII, we'd all be speaking German now. At least the democrats pretend to care about how we interact with the rest of the world.
Now Ron Paul's ideas on domestic policy are the right ones, for the most part. Getting a RINO or democrat who does foreign policy halfway right, such as Bush, means getting a dam socialist/statist on domestic policy, and that's just as bad; with Paul we get invaded, with Bush we rot from the inside. Neither is the right choice.

Now about 'third party' nonsense. In your wildest dreams you might educate (just as a miraculously high possibility) 5% of the voters in America. The rest are going to vote for one of the two existing parties, and you can't change that. So don't fight it, USE it. Hijack one of the parties and win sometimes. It might feel better to go 'pure' and lose every time, but you accomplish less.
Think about this, for just a second, before you try to ignore this advice:
both of the existing parties were once 'pure' new parties.
Your "Constitution" party will get the same way, and even faster than before in this day and age. Then what do you do?
Use the existing party. It's the only way that isn't stupid.

Idahoser said...

oh, and one more thing about 'third party'.

Before you even think about putting serious hope on a third party white house, don't you think you should at least have ONE member of the legislature? Wouldn't that at least give you SOME justification for thinking you could get the WH?

And conversely, isn't there ANYTHING at all in having ZERO seats in congress that could tell you, NOBODY CARES?

Besides, there is no third party that isn't instantly identified as a wackjob bunch. Try to discuss anything at all with a Libertarian, they talk about drugs. With a Constitution Party wackjob, it's religion. You can't even discuss anything at all with them without getting proselytized. That doesn't mean they're wrong; but that isn't governing, and it needs to be set on the back burner while issues are discussed, or you aren't discussing are you!?

Anonymous said...

Yeah! I mean c'mon, when has there ever been a third party who could actually win an election and enjoy longevity?

Oh yeah, it was the Republican Party Party in 1856...ironically b/c the Whigs couldn't decide what or who they wanted to be.

Commie degenerates to the left, wussy girly-men to the right. Brian is right, there's no place for conservatives in either party. It's only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and another thing...


I can't imagine anyone wanting to talk w/you about anything. Your an abrasive, judgmental elitist who thinks he knows it all...

Good luck with that.