The Conservative's Dilemma: What About the GOP?

During the years leading up to the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and throughout his 2 terms of office, I had been a card-carrying member of the Republican Party.

As one of the original foot-soldiers in the Reagan Revolution, I had worked within William F. Buckley Jr.'s Young Americans for Freedom, which advocated for a fair hearing for conservative principles on college campuses, during almost the entirety of the 1970s.

One of the goals of that organization at that time was the election of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency.

Thus, I was proud to be a Republican and a very conservative one at that. I was even prouder when I watched Reagan take his first oath of office in 1981.

The GOP during those years was constrained by the sheer force of Reagan's personality to turn decidedly more conservative, although the liberal eastern establishment Republicans, such as those of the Rockefeller mindset, grumbled underneath their breaths.

Reagan's resounding success at home and abroad came with its downside. There is an aspect of winning that leads to a certain complacency...and a tendency to forget the core principles that led to the fight to win in the first place.

Unfortunately, the GOP exhibited (and still does) that complacency and that amnesia concerning the principles that made the Party so successful under Reagan.

Since the late 1990s I have not considered myself a Republican. I have rather enjoyed the freedom that goes with being Independent. But there is still a big part of me that longs for the GOP to recapture some of the greatness it achieved under Reagan.

It was the Party of distinct conservative values and ideas. Sometimes these ideas were entirely innovative and creative. But they were based upon sound OLD ideology born of the vision of the Founding Fathers--limited government, individual initiative and responsibility, individual liberty that is unfettered by oppressive government regulation, and free enterprise.

And this brings us to the present dilemma. The GOP seems to have forsaken its core values. Sure, the voices for liberty are still there, but right now they are in the minority, and they are being muzzled to a degree.

The answer for me is certainly not Democrats. And no, it is not the Libertarian Party, either.

There is a certain deep resistance yet toward abandoning the GOP altogether. And this goes much deeper than simply a nostalgic wish for the good old days. There is a very practical reason. To totally abandon the Republican Party at this point is to weaken the conservative voice and play directly into the hands of Democrats who WILL use it to their advantage.

Simply look at what happened in 2006 and 2008.

But one thing is for sure. Conservative patience with the GOP is not an endless virtue. Sooner or later, unless the GOP leadership gets the message, we will totally abandon the Party in order to forge a new venture somewhere else that values the conservative point of view.

For an even deeper look at this fascinating subject, read Larrey Anderson's excellent essay at American Thinker.

A Numbskull By Any Other Name...

...is still a numbskull.

A famous Indiana Republican, whom I shall not name due to the fact that I can't think of a better name for him than 'numbskull,' has stated that the GOP needs to 'get over' Reagan.

What a complete imbecile.

Reagan is responsible for launching the conservative revolution in this country which probably saved the Republic from tyranny from within and Communism from without. And by the sheer force of his personality and the success of his policies we enjoyed conservative majorities in the U.S. Congress for over 20 years.

But numbskulls within the GOP hate the Reagan legacy, and the sooner they can get people to 'get over it' the quicker they can continue to push the country toward the failed policies of 'moderate' Rockefeller and Jerry Ford-style Republicans who colluded with Democrats in bringing the nation to the brink of ruin.

I remember well the days before Reagan in the GOP. Failure was their legacy. They could never manage to get enough Republicans elected to stop the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, which means the Democrats were veto-proof. And they had trouble electing (and keeping) Presidents, i.e. Nixon and Ford.

Reagan proved that the conservative message, when delivered by effective communicators, is a winning message. When Reagan won in 1980 he swept TEN conservative GOP Senators into office with him.

Why do some within the GOP hate such success?

The answer is not far to find. They HATE the message behind the success.

And if the imbecilic 'gentleman' from Indiana is so loathe to remember and revere the Reagan message, then perhaps he should join the other Party where he'll find plenty of friendly company.

McCain May Not Get my Vote, Either...

Although I'm still not well, I felt compelled to comment on the McCain bandwagon in light of Rudy Giuliani's exit from the race.

In a recent post I stated that I could not endorse ANY of the present candidates in either Party, but that I would certainly vote for any of the GOP candidates over Hillary or Obama.

This was before Rudy pulled out of the race, meaning that moderate to liberal Republicans have jumped over to McCain. The conservative base of the Party is still split between Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, with none of them receiving enthusiastic support from the majority of this base.

This means, of course, that the moderate to liberal element within the GOP is having its way with the nomination process, leaving conservatives split and basically powerless, at least for now.

It occurred to me, why encourage the McCain bandwagon with assurances that he will get my vote, if not my endorsement, in a matchup with Hillary or Obama? This does nothing but encourage and reinforce his bad behavior.

I am not going to vote for John McCain unless MAJOR concessions are made to the conservative base, and that includes a complete repudiation of McCain-Feingold, an unfettered expression of support of the Second Amendment as an indiviual right WITH NO STIPULATIONS, and a promise of NO SPECIAL PATH to citizenship for dishonorable illegal aliens, who MUST get in the back of the line with those who are honorable enough to come here LEGALLY.

The ONLY 'path to citizenship' is the legal path already contained in the LAW!

McCain claims to have been a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution in 1980. If this is the case, then the former President must have rolled over in his grave enough times to creat an earthquake.

McCain's votes may have reflected the conservative principles of Reagan for the first 10 years of his service in the Senate, but since 1990 or so, he has shifted decidedly to the Left on various matters such as gun rights and free speech.

We conservatives won't have any of it!

Unless he reaches out to us with solid, verifiable promises to keep the conservative base of the Party intact, we will jump ship...throwing the election to Hillary or Obama. I have come to the conclusion that only such a threat will get the attention of the numbskulls who now run the GOP and who are running as fast as they can away from the Reagan Coalition.

On the Presiential ballot, one can add a write-in. A movement has begun in South Carolina to do exactly that. They are calling themselves 'The Conservative Party,' and they plan to type or write in the name of Fred Thompson on the ballot.

I just may well do that.

If McCain chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, that would be a great development, but McCain himself is going to have to personally address the conservative base of the GOP to make assurances that he will not throw us under the bus when it comes to taxes, illegal aliens, gun rights, and free speech.

If he cannot do that, then even Thompson on the ballot won't be enough.

Illness has caused me to do a lot of thinking over the past four days. And I have determined that I'll be damned before I let a group of turncoat RINOS destroy the Reagan Coalition without a fight.

Reagan 'Inner Circle' Supports Fred Thompson

Washington, DC (TLS). During Ronald Reagan's climb up the political ladder, and his subsequent attaining of the Presidential office, he was able to assemble around him a group of highly loyal and astute aides and political operatives. Among these are Michael Dever, Edwin Meece, and former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker.

The Liberty Sphere has learned that the Reagan 'inner circle,' as they are called, are backing former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson's bid to become the Republican nominee for President.

In addition, sources tell us that Nancy Reagan herself is supporting Fred Thompson.

This news is significant in that all of the Republican Presidential nominees have, in one way or another, attempted to link themselves to Ronald Reagan. Yet not everyone who makes that claim truly fits the bill.

Reagan embraced religious conservatives. He also embraced non-religious conservatives. He reached out to socially conservative 'blue collar' Democrats. In short, he was able to piece together a massive coalition of various groups who shared one common ideal--the belief that America's greatness lies in HER PEOPLE and not in big government.

Big government conservatism would be an oxymoron to Reagan.

Fred Thompson embodies all of the Reagan ideals--small government, lower taxes, a strong defense, pro-life, a belief in the autonomy of the individual, and an undying optimism and belief that America's greatness can only be preserved by a constant diligence against the forces of oppression and anti-freedom.

Having been a part of 'the Reagan Revolution' as far back as the early 1970s, when I began working for Young Americans for Freedom, naturally I have a great amount of respect and affinity for the Reagan inner circle. The Reagan people appear to be of the same mind when it comes to the Republican nomination.

Early on, The Liberty Sphere threw our support behind Duncan Hunter. We still believe he is a good man who is the best candidate among those who have declared. However, this was before Fred Thompson suggested he may be interested in running.

Mr. Hunter, I am sorry to say, has had trouble raising the necessary funds to be competitive. This goes for most of the candidates. If Fred Thompson announces his candidacy, this writer would enthusiastically throw our support behind Thompson.

Pro-Liberty Group Designated as 'Hate Group'

Charlotte, NC (TLS). The Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama outfit that has taken up every extremist, ultra-Leftwing cause imaginable, has designated a highly respected, long-standing conservative group as a 'hate group.'

In the April issue of its monthly publication, the Southern Poverty Law Center plans to name 'Young Americans for Freedom' at Michigan State University as a 'hate group' along with subversive groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, and the Nazis.

Young Americans for Freedom was founded in 1960 by venerable conservative intellectual William F. Buckley. The late actor John Wayne had been a member.

During the early 1970s as I was making one of my first forays into politics, I became a member of Young Americans for Freedom, primarily due to the fact that in those days the organization was raising funds for and promoting the candidacy of Ronald Reagan for the U.S. Presidency.

I had become profoundly disillusioned with both Democrats and Republicans during those years. It seemed that Democrats were slowly but surely embracing radical extremism represented by the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda, George McGovern, John Kerry, and dozens of others. Republicans had been moving leftward after the Watergate scandal under 'moderates' such as Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, and Henry Kissinger, who had decided the best we could do with Communism was declare a standoff--which back then was referred to as 'detente.'

'Detente' was the brain-child of appeasement-oriented advisers such as Kissinger, who believed that if the Soviet Union and the United States would simply agree that since we both had enough nukes to end the world, we should simply agree not to use them. The world could attain peace through the recognition that if either power launched a missile, the other would respond in kind, resulting in complete global annihilation.

The problem was that 'detente' did not result in peace.

The Soviet Union continued its march toward world domination through intimidation, such as the shooting down of civilian airliners and other such acts of barbarism--and, invading Afghanistan.

Reagan believed there was a better way.

And he was right. Reagan believed the only way to achieve a peaceful solution to the menace of Soviet Communism was to build up America's military and munitions arsenals so thoroughly that an economically unstable Soviet Union would crumble attempting to keep up.

Ever since Reagan delivered a keynote address on national TV in 1964 endorsing Presidential contender Barry Goldwater, I knew that this was a man who not only had the message but the communication skills to take that message to the American public in a highly effective manner.

Reagan believed in peace through strength; that America should accept nothing less than being the absolute best at everything we did, and that included becoming the world's ONLY superpower; that the average citizens were ultimately good and trustworthy and did not need 'big brother' watching over every move they made; that big government is bad and small government is good, as Jefferson maintained; and thus, that lower taxes were the only road to true economic prosperity, that when government is cut back to live within its means, the people are left with more of their own money to spend as they see fit.

For these reasons Young Americans for Freedom jumped on the Reagan bandwagon. And this was the primary reason for my involvement.

There was never any hate or animosity expressed toward anyone of any color, creed, or gender, or nationality. In fact, the Reagan revolution consisted of people from every walk of life--Caucasian, Black, American Indian, Hispanic, poor, middle class, upper class, blue collar workers and white collar workers.

One of Reagan's largest sources of support came from 'rust belt' blue collar workers who feared their jobs were endangered due to a small but growing phenomenon called 'overseas outsourcing.' These were known as 'Reagan Democrats' as they had traditionally voted for Democrat candidates but were solidly in Reagan's corner.

We didn't care about race, gender, religion, or nationality when it came to supporting Reagan. All we cared about was patriotism, optimism and hope, the belief that America's best days were ahead and not behind us, and a stubborn unwillingness to accept the intellectual elite's prognosis that America was in decline and that we had best accept our fate as a former world power.

This was what Young Americans for Freedom was all about.

Yet here comes that consortium of Leftist ideologues of the Southern Poverty Law Center who have now decided that Young Americans for Freedom is a 'hate group.'

Their reason? The Michigan State University chapter of Young Americans for Freedom stands for enforcing the nation's laws on illegal aliens, the definition of marriage as being that between a man and a woman, and the belief that affirmative action is a racist/sexist program that makes decisions based solely on race and gender when the goal is for persons to be selected for their intellect and skill no matter what their race or gender.

For this the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Young Americans for Freedom as a 'hate group.'

My friends, this should be an outrage to any sincere, patriotic American. The definition of what constitutes a 'hate group' according to the Southern Poverty Law Center includes the vast majority of American citizens! Most credible national surveys show the vast majority of Americans believe that the flow of illegal aliens into this country should stop, that marriage is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman, and that you don't correct past racism/sexism by perpetrating MORE racism/sexism through affirmative action.

If we let the Southern Poverty Law Center get away with this, you can rest assured they will not stop there. They will proceed to designate other groups as 'hate groups.'

Here are some examples:

If you attend a Baptist church, and your preacher reads from the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you can count on Southern Poverty Law Center to designate your church as a 'hate group.'

If you are a member of any gun rights group, such as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and other 2nd Amendment advocacy groups, then you can expect that the Southern Poverty Law Center will more than likely designate your group as a 'hate group.'

Remember, we've already had a Leftwing, gun-hating columnist in the Roanoke Times compare gun owners to child molesters!

Thus, if you believe that it is OK for a citizen to own a handgun and use a handgun in self-defense, then you will be labeled by these purveyors of hate in the name of stamping out hate.

Remember, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center affirms as a shining example of what a politician should be, given that he agrees with all of their views, has proposed legislation that would make your preacher guilty of uttering 'hate speech' if he publicly reads from the Bible in church that homosexuality is a sin.

I am thinking about putting together my own list to include such extremist mobs as the Southern Poverty Law Center. I will call it, 'The Anti-Freedom Black List of Subversives.'

And you can bet your last bowl of grits that heading that list will be the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Duncan Hunter on the Issues--Trade

Washington, DC (TLS). As reported previously, The Liberty Sphere is impressed with Republican Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, R-CA. The candidate is a true American hero, a patriot, a guardian of our borders, and one of the few left in Washington who has remained steadfastly faithful to the ideals of 'the Reagan Revolution.' Hunter was among the many conservatives who swept into power in 1981 with the election of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency.

The passage of time often leads us to forget that Reagan was adept at cultivating and winning the support of so-called 'blue collar Democrats'--those working class citizens in the Midwest in particular that traditionally voted for Democrats but felt betrayed by their Party's sharp turn to the Left on social issues. These blue collar workers saw in Reagan a genuine concern for their values, as well as a concern that American workers were about to be bamboozled in the infancy of the 'global economy.'

'Free Trade' was the mantra of those who jumped onto the globalization bandwagon, and they used that mantra to justify the outsourcing of American jobs to countries overseas that pay mere pennies on the dollar to their workers when compared to American workers. These countries became notorious for a callous indifference not only to workers but to the environment as well.

Since the Reagan era the problem has only gotten worse. Bill Clinton jumped on the globalization bandwagon and pushed for the passage of NAFTA, which only contributed to the outsourcing of American jobs in the name of 'free trade.'

However, a Constitutional Republic such as ours, which is based upon the principles of democracy, can remain free only if everyone plays by the same rules--rules that are fair and equally applied. This is one of the few legitimate roles of government, outside the provision for national security. Government was envisioned by our Founders as what we could describe as the referee in a football game. The playing field must be level for all sides. All sides must play by the same rules. When one decides to gain an unfair advantage, or begins to break those rules of engagement, then the referee must implement penalties.

In the name of 'free trade' American big business broke the rules and engaged in unfair practices that have hurt the American worker and helped America's enemies overseas. Government ceased to be a fair, impartial referee but became a complicit comrade in this grand ruse. In fact, in many ways the referee was paid off.

Thus, the issue is NOT 'free trade' but 'fair trade.' Fair trade does not negate free trade. Fair trade levels the playing field, insuring that ALL parties play by the same rules. The result is a better America and more American jobs...and a halt placed on the rampant outsourcing of labor.

Candidate Duncan Hunter believes in this concept of fair trade. It is actually the only way America can stop from being bamboozled by foreign governments who take advantage of our so-called 'free trade' policies, make billions of dollars, and then use that money we are sending them to oppose American liberty.

China has been one of the worst offenders.

Duncan Hunter would oppose such a raping and molestation of the American worker and the American ideal of freedom for all.

Here are the candidate's own words on the issue of fair trade:

“American workers are the most productive and innovative labor force in the world. Unfortunately, they are asked to compete in an unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any, responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of their employees. Our domestic manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign companies that benefit from their country’s currency and regulatory regimes. Ominously, China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the same time, taking millions of American jobs. I will reverse this “one-way street” with a new policy of fair trade for the American worker. "

The Liberty Sphere thinks this is a splendid idea.