New conservative movement?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frandy

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
1,354
Location
NC
For your consumption...


Published on Sunday, May 21, 2006 by the Agence France Presse
In Open Split with Bush, Top US Conservative Calls for Independent Movement


The patriarch of US conservatives has urged his followers to halt their financial support of the Republican Party and start an independent movement, signaling a major political shift that could result in heavy losses for the US ruling party in upcoming elections.

Richard Viguerie, who was instrumental in cementing the winning coalitions behind Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000, declared that conservatives were "downright fed up" with both the president and Republican-controlled Congress.

"At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups," Viguerie wrote in a lengthy essay in The Washington Post Sunday.

He suggested conservatives "redirect their anger into building a third force," which he defined as a movement independent of any party, and laying the groundwork for the 2008 election campaign.

Traditional conservatives, who abhor big government and excessive spending, equate abortion with murder and emphasize individualism over collectivism, have always formed the so-called "base" of the Republican Party and determined its viability as a political organizations.

The integrity and loyalty of this core is considered key to the party's success in any election.

The defeat of George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in the 1992 election is largely attributed to being abandoned by conservatives.

Viguerie's public outburst and his suggestion that conservatives should sit out the next election is seen as another ominous sign for the party less than six months before the November congressional vote.

A Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll released last week found that Republican disapproval of Bush's presidency had increased from 16 percent to 30 percent in just one month.

Viguerie acknowledged that a conservative boycott in November will likely spell defeat for the Republicans, but insisted it would be for the long-term good of the conservative movement.

"If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done," he reasoned. "Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat."

Conservatives have privately grumbled about some of Bush's decisions, but his immigration reform, announced in a nationally televised address last Monday, appeared to have marked the breaking point.

The plan calls for a series of measures to bolster security at the US-Mexican border, including deploying up to 6,000 National Guard troops.

But Bush also called on Americans to allow many of the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants to eventually become citizens, a move that most conservatives see as tantamount to a presidential pardon for lawbreakers.

Viguerie insisted that Bush only "talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative."

He lamented that the conservative movement has been rewarded by the president for its support with "an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants."

"We've been rewarded with a war in Iraq that drags on because of the failure to provide adequate resources at the beginning, and with exactly the sort of 'nation-building' that candidate Bush said he opposed," the conservative patriarch went on to say.

He also called congressional Republicans "unprincipled power brokers", whose agenda "comes from big business".

Often referred to as "the conservative voice of America", Viguerie gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s when he pioneered political and ideological direct mail, an innovation that helped conservatives organize and gain their voice.

He is the author of numerous books and credited with forming dozens of political organizations.

© Copyright 2006 AFP
 
With the Republican Party seriously fractured, the 2006 elections are the Democrat's to lose.
I will be amazed if the Republicans hold on to either house of Congress.
 
I agree with everything he said also.

"If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done," he reasoned. "Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat."

This statement sums up exactly how I feel. I admittedly fell into the trap of voting for the lesser of two evils in 2000 and 2004... and will not do that again.
 
I sympathize with the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils because you still get evil.

But will our nation survive if we wind up with a completely commie congress instead of just a half commie one? Plus Hitlery in the White House?

Time will tell, I guess. I'll likely vote Constitution Party.
 
RocketMan said:
With the Republican Party seriously fractured...

There are a number of alleged Republicans who simply can't keep their big mouths shut, diagree with leadership often and for little reason, and make speaking their differences to the media a career path. For them we will blame any Democrat wins in 2006 elections! While I and others may disagree with minor GOP leadership planks, there is a forum for such disagreement and it is not the media...Supporting the party is first and foremost, even though minor planks may be subject to discussion internally. It may be time for the GOP to shed itself of the fair-weather conservatives who are simply Democrats in GOP skin... simply disgusting that these alleged Republicans not convey their ideas through proper channels but rather use the media to massage their ego.
 
Personally I dont want another President Clinton in the Oral Office.

And I'd be pretty pissed off at my fellow conservatives who'd abandon the Republican party and allow it to happen.
 
Do y'all really think the republicans and Democrats are any different?

Let's see.

Republicans are fiscal conservatives, and will rein in Federal Spending! Uh, maybe not.

Republicans have our back on Gun Control! :scrutiny:

Republicans aren't corrupt, like the Dems! :eek:

If you have a better idea for getting the republicans back on the righteous path, lets hear it. Politicians understand one thing: winning elections. If they don't start losing elections due to their rapidly degenerating agenda, they aren't going to change.

I can't stand the side of American Politics that turns every election into the friggen Superbowl, with each side howling for one party or the other, regardless of what that party stands for. It doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as they are wearing the right color jersey.

Party Loyalty is what gets us into these messes.
 
Last edited:
And I'd be pretty pissed off at my fellow conservatives who'd abandon the Republican party and allow it to happen.

Why be mad at your fellow conservatives?

Conservatives haven't changed. We want what we have always wanted: Small government, limited spending, decreased social welfare, secure borders, and preservation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We want the government to treat us with "benign neglect".

We now have the exact opposite: larger government, more spending, the largest increase in social welfare since LBJ, porous, undefended borders, and significant limitation of rights granted by the Constitution. I challenge you to argue that this has not happened.

The Republican party has left us, we didnt leave them.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
We want what we have always wanted: Small government, limited spending, decreased social welfare, secure borders, and preservation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We want the government to treat us with "benign neglect".

Off the top, I doubt you want the government to treat you with "benign neglect" for starters; instead you want limited government, as every conservative seeks. We need to do this, however, hand-in-hand with national security. Ronald Reagan, admired by all conservatives, increased Pentagon spending 100% and nobody questioned his conservative credentials! He did it to end Cold War!

President Bush's tax cuts have reduced the federal burden upon taxpayers and urged private investment. Bush's spending during the War on Terror has indeed increased the deficit, yet not spending such would have jeopardized that national security. I am unaware of any action by the current administration which treds on Constitutional rights abridgment. And which social welfare programs advancement are you alleging?
 
camp david....economics ended the Cold War.

The article is right in that the "change your party from within" attitude will not work and just rewards the broken party even more.

and as far as Tax Cuts are concerned, seems the current GOP attitude is 'lets give some tax cuts so we can spend and grow the Federal Govt'

NOT very conservative.

you work for me remember George!? I dont work for YOU.
 
I agree with it all too! I sincerely hope that this either teaches the Rs to act conservative, or that they are simply destroyed in favor of a new, true conservative party.

(Note: the reason Big Media publicizes this story is most certainly to encourage the shift, and thus promote D victories in November. Also note, however, that the way Rs are now, they are no different than Ds, and it makes no difference who wins. Make a statement by going for a third party like America First!)

simply disgusting that these alleged Republicans not convey their ideas through proper channels but rather use the media to massage their ego.

There's a big difference between modern Republicans and conservatives. And sitting on a sinking ship while begging it not to take on water is...well, you get the idea.
Bush's spending during the War on Terror has indeed increased the deficit, yet not spending such would have jeopardized that national security.

Says who? And by the way, WHAT national security? Our entire southern border is wide open! Do you really consider our nation secure?
 
Camp D, Puppy et al

Some of the contents in the link may be the stuff of tin-foil but if the author is 1/2 right rewarding the Rs in the future with elected office is a very bad thing indeed.

Here is W at work and here, perhaps, is your party:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017

I agree with the author listed in my link, W would have been unelectable if many that voted for him had know this would happen ahead of time.

Question directly to you.
Do you support these actions on the part of the PoUS?
I find them very worrisome.

No flame intended gents and no attack on either of you.. :)
S-
 
Gun owners need to care about GOP (anti-Democrat) majorities in Congress. The place to start is for registered Republicans to make sure primaries are won by pro-gun candidates. That wouldn't necessarily be an incumbent.
 
There are a number of alleged Republicans who simply can't keep their big mouths shut, diagree with leadership often and for little reason, and make speaking their differences to the media a career path.

On the contrary, I think it's the leadership that's the "alleged Republicans". How does open borders, ballooning government and spending like a drunken sailor mesh with traditional Republican platforms, exactly?

President Bush's tax cuts have reduced the federal burden upon taxpayers and urged private investment. Bush's spending during the War on Terror has indeed increased the deficit, yet not spending such would have jeopardized that national security

Man. You do like the taste of those predigested, distributed talking points, don't you. Stop regurgitating and reciting. THINK. Evaluate, compare Goldwater conservatives to now, even Reagan conservatives to now, and see what matches. There isn't much!
 
Phetro said:
And by the way, WHAT national security?
I take it you have forgotten two (2) points; (1) we are at war, and (2) we have not been attached domestically since 09/11/01 or such attacks have been thwarted and/or prevented. While (1) costs money, (2) also adds to deficit, as Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan added to deficit, indeed every presdient ran deficit up during war.

"WHAT national security"? The kind we didn't get under William Jefferson Clinton!
 
Gun owners need to care about GOP (anti-Democrat) majorities in Congress. The place to start is for registered Republicans to make sure primaries are won by pro-gun candidates. That wouldn't necessarily be an incumbent.
Giving lip service to the Second Amendment is not going to get my vote any longer. If the only thing they are "conservative" on is guns, you can bet that their pro-gun stance is not sincere. I look for a track record of solid conservatism across a broad spectrum of issues. That's the only way to know you are dealing with a true conservative, and an authentic pro-gun candidate. The rest are just trying to use the pro-gun issue to get your votes, and will, when convenient, sell you down the river like George Bush the elder did with the Assault Weapons Ban.
 
indeed every presdient ran deficit up during war.
Are you referring to the never ending so called war on terror, or the war started by Bush against the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq, which nation never attacked the United States?
 
national security? Like the 10 fold increase in earmarks during the Republican reign? I'm sure the Ketchup Studies Institute appreciates your support.
 
Maybe a good whipping for the Republicans in the 2006 elections will get them straightened out by the presidential elections in 2008.

If not, maybe a good whipping in 2006 and 2008 will straighten them out.

I have never forgiven Bush for campaigning for Arlen Specter in his last primary fight against a Republican challenger who was actually a Republican.

I agree with Bush on the Iraq war and tax cuts, but he falls off rather quickly after that.
 
Just remember that Ross Perot bought us the first Clinton... (and his 40% MANDATE according to the MSM).

Be careful of what you wish for. I am NOT happy with several events and trends in our government, but I will guarantee that I would be ENRAGED by what Gore or the "war hero" would have done.

No choice, no choice.

Oh and BTW. I really don't care what the "Agence France Presse" has to say. They should clean up their burned out cars and get ready for the next set of riots...
 
/*sovereign nation of Iraq*/

"Sovereign nation" is one of the most misused and abused phrases in political discourse today. Poland was a nation of Poles even when split up into new provinces for three different countries over parts of three different centuries, even though they didn't have the prerequisite government and borders.

Vietnam violated the sovereignty of Cambodia when even its hard core sensibilities were shocked enough to invade and thwart Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge government's efforts at destroying the country and people. The people of Cambodia certainly had no use for "sovereignty" or integrity of their borders when they were being sent to the killing fields.

I guess we have to decide if an illegitimate government can plead protection of being a "sovereign" nation to protect their reigns of terror. Is a sovereign nation considered the government and the borders, or the people?
 
Quote from Camp David:
"There are a number of alleged Republicans who simply can't keep their big mouths shut, diagree with leadership often and for little reason, and make speaking their differences to the media a career path. For them we will blame any Democrat wins in 2006 elections!"


This is an interesting thread, and an interesting topic. Regarding Camp David's statement above, that sentiment/opinion/attitude expressed by him, is shared also by the "leaders" in our party, and it is exactly why I declined this morning to be a delegate to our State party convention. Just this morning, I sent e-mail to cancel my reservations, and informed the kind folks who honored me with the invitation, that I am going to be voting Liberatarian until the party comes to it's senses, and that it would not be honorable of me to attend the convention.

I have been cured of voting for the curent crowd, by the lack of backbone displayed by our incumbents as a whole, constantly giving in to the leftist socialist crowd in D.C., for the sole reason of not being labeled as "engaging in partisan politics".

Engaging in partisanship, is EXACTLY what we said we wanted (supporting the party platform) when we voted them in as a majority. We handed it to them on a silver platter. So Camp David, when the Democrats win in '06, it wil not be the fault of us "alleged" Republicans. It will be directly due to "alleged" Republican officeholders failures to do as they promised.

Saying party members need to "keep their mouths shut" is not a great method of endearing a party to the type of people wanting America governed as a sovereign nation, under Constitutional rule. That is normally reserved to the exclusive use of the "Global Village/Celebrate Diversity" crowd.

Our "alleged" Party Representatives in Government, have brought about a fiscally irresponsible hog-trough feeding frenzy unparalleled in history, (even by the likes of such astute statesmen as Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy) passed and signed into law the McCain-Feingold First Amendment Cancellation Act, all while allowing the Constitutional right to privacy to be stamped null and void by the administration we hoped would support our views.

If we keep our mouths shut much longer, we will be as irresponsible as the "moderates" who allowed the left wing socialist nutcases take over the Democrat party.

Yes, if all Republicans think like me, and vote Liberatarian, the Democrats will win in '06. But again, it would not be our fault. It will be the fault of the same "leadership" that has totally disregard us, time and time again.

At some point, the Republican party has to take it's base seriously, and the only way to do that, is for us "alleged" Republicans to send them home for a "time out".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top