Chip McLean
The organization formerly known as "The Party of Reagan"
By Chip McLean
There is a rumbling throughout the land — or perhaps I should say grumbling — of discontent. Many conservative pundits have found themselves becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Republican Party for a number of reasons. They of course are not alone — grassroots conservatives find themselves in a similar thought process. Add to that the fact that "Joe Six-Pack," influenced mainly by soundbites on the evening news, is "angry" (although he probably has no idea why), and you have all the ingredients for a major fall-out in the November elections.
A year ago I wrote a column called "We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us" (1) in which I laid out some of my own frustrations with the GOP. My view has not changed much since then, other than to become further convinced that the organization once known as "The Party of Reagan" no longer can claim any right to that title. Indeed, the Gipper must be spinning in his grave, seeing what has become of the Republican Party.
There are several arguments made by a number of well-meaning conservatives for voting Republican — one example is "The Democrats will raise our taxes!" That's true, but here's the dirty little secret — if Congress doesn't rein in spending, and soon, they will ultimately increase taxes anyway — even if the GOP manages to hang on to a majority in November.
Then there's the related one that goes "Sure the Republicans are spending too much but the Dems will spend more!" Really? Since taking control of the White House and both branches of Congress, federal spending has increased at the fastest pace since the days of LBJ's "Great Society" (truly one of the all-time great misnomers). I've heard folks in the past decry "gridlock," but there is something to be said for government not "getting anything done" — at least when they're not passing bills they aren't wasting our money on the latest Ted Stevens bridge to nowhere or the newest Robert Byrd memorial anything.
What about the "War on Terror"? Well, what about it? It's an undeclared war (congressionally speaking) against an un-named enemy. President Bush finally found the stones to say Islamo-fascists one day, and then quickly dropped the phrase (presumably after getting some "sensitivity training" from the fine peace-loving folks at CAIR). Besides, the "War on Terror" has been sidetracked by the seemingly endless "War in Iraq."
Speaking of Iraq, I'm getting rather weary of hearing the phrase "cut and run." Immediate withdrawal would qualify as "cutting and running" — attempting to find some plausible exit strategy would not. John Leboutillier wrote a recent column (2) in which he proposed a strategy based upon the Western Europe model used at the conclusion of WWII. Leboutillier followed his outline with, "Will this plan work? Well, it would be better than the drifting, aimless strategy we continue to pursue today." Indeed.
I'm not going to pile on the President as the Democrats have about Iraq. The Dems have selective memory concerning the intelligence concerning Iraq prior to the invasion — intelligence that may have been faulty but was believed to be true by Republicans, Democrats and our allies. Even Saddam's generals thought they had more in their arsenal than they apparently did. To fault Bush for the intelligence is purely motivated by politics. But it is also politically motivated to characterize all those critical of the current policy as being advocates of "cut and run." Given what we know now, and especially in light of the nuclear aspirations of both North Korea and Iran, I believe that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. For this reason it is all the more important that we find a way to successfully (if possible) wind down the Iraq mission. To find such a way requires some open minds — something in short supply in Washington.
Then there's the immigration issue. "Sure the President has done nothing to secure the border but at least the Republicans in Congress are trying." Well, sort of. To their credit, House Republicans did stop (for the moment) the wholesale amnesty plan approved by the Senate and favored by Mr. Bush, but will they continue to hold out? Who knows? Will the fence the Senate voted for (finally, under public pressure) actually get built? Don't hold your breath.
So what to do in November? Stay at home? Vote third party? Frankly my sentiments are with the Constitution Party (3). Can they win where they are on the ballot? In most cases, the realistic answer is no. Does that mean it's "wasting a vote" as many naysayers suggest? Depends on your point of view. I would much rather vote for someone who stood for the things I believe in, rather than voting for liberal Rhinos such as Lincoln Chaffee, or like in my home state of South Carolina, Lindsay Graham (not up for re-election this year), simply because "they're Republicans." That too is "wasting a vote."
I'm not suggesting we should totally abandon the GOP — certainly not some of its members. The real key for true conservatives this November is to vote for true conservatives, regardless of party affiliation. Examine the voting records and positions of the candidates. A true conservative Republican like Tom Tancredo, deserves the votes of conservatives. Someone like Lincoln Chaffee doesn't. If the major party candidate doesn't fit the bill, consider a third party candidate or find someone suitable as a write-in candidate. What counts is the man (or woman), not the party.
There is a rumbling throughout the land — or perhaps I should say grumbling — of discontent. Many conservative pundits have found themselves becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Republican Party for a number of reasons. They of course are not alone — grassroots conservatives find themselves in a similar thought process. Add to that the fact that "Joe Six-Pack," influenced mainly by soundbites on the evening news, is "angry" (although he probably has no idea why), and you have all the ingredients for a major fall-out in the November elections.
A year ago I wrote a column called "We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us" (1) in which I laid out some of my own frustrations with the GOP. My view has not changed much since then, other than to become further convinced that the organization once known as "The Party of Reagan" no longer can claim any right to that title. Indeed, the Gipper must be spinning in his grave, seeing what has become of the Republican Party.
There are several arguments made by a number of well-meaning conservatives for voting Republican — one example is "The Democrats will raise our taxes!" That's true, but here's the dirty little secret — if Congress doesn't rein in spending, and soon, they will ultimately increase taxes anyway — even if the GOP manages to hang on to a majority in November.
Then there's the related one that goes "Sure the Republicans are spending too much but the Dems will spend more!" Really? Since taking control of the White House and both branches of Congress, federal spending has increased at the fastest pace since the days of LBJ's "Great Society" (truly one of the all-time great misnomers). I've heard folks in the past decry "gridlock," but there is something to be said for government not "getting anything done" — at least when they're not passing bills they aren't wasting our money on the latest Ted Stevens bridge to nowhere or the newest Robert Byrd memorial anything.
What about the "War on Terror"? Well, what about it? It's an undeclared war (congressionally speaking) against an un-named enemy. President Bush finally found the stones to say Islamo-fascists one day, and then quickly dropped the phrase (presumably after getting some "sensitivity training" from the fine peace-loving folks at CAIR). Besides, the "War on Terror" has been sidetracked by the seemingly endless "War in Iraq."
Speaking of Iraq, I'm getting rather weary of hearing the phrase "cut and run." Immediate withdrawal would qualify as "cutting and running" — attempting to find some plausible exit strategy would not. John Leboutillier wrote a recent column (2) in which he proposed a strategy based upon the Western Europe model used at the conclusion of WWII. Leboutillier followed his outline with, "Will this plan work? Well, it would be better than the drifting, aimless strategy we continue to pursue today." Indeed.
I'm not going to pile on the President as the Democrats have about Iraq. The Dems have selective memory concerning the intelligence concerning Iraq prior to the invasion — intelligence that may have been faulty but was believed to be true by Republicans, Democrats and our allies. Even Saddam's generals thought they had more in their arsenal than they apparently did. To fault Bush for the intelligence is purely motivated by politics. But it is also politically motivated to characterize all those critical of the current policy as being advocates of "cut and run." Given what we know now, and especially in light of the nuclear aspirations of both North Korea and Iran, I believe that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. For this reason it is all the more important that we find a way to successfully (if possible) wind down the Iraq mission. To find such a way requires some open minds — something in short supply in Washington.
Then there's the immigration issue. "Sure the President has done nothing to secure the border but at least the Republicans in Congress are trying." Well, sort of. To their credit, House Republicans did stop (for the moment) the wholesale amnesty plan approved by the Senate and favored by Mr. Bush, but will they continue to hold out? Who knows? Will the fence the Senate voted for (finally, under public pressure) actually get built? Don't hold your breath.
So what to do in November? Stay at home? Vote third party? Frankly my sentiments are with the Constitution Party (3). Can they win where they are on the ballot? In most cases, the realistic answer is no. Does that mean it's "wasting a vote" as many naysayers suggest? Depends on your point of view. I would much rather vote for someone who stood for the things I believe in, rather than voting for liberal Rhinos such as Lincoln Chaffee, or like in my home state of South Carolina, Lindsay Graham (not up for re-election this year), simply because "they're Republicans." That too is "wasting a vote."
I'm not suggesting we should totally abandon the GOP — certainly not some of its members. The real key for true conservatives this November is to vote for true conservatives, regardless of party affiliation. Examine the voting records and positions of the candidates. A true conservative Republican like Tom Tancredo, deserves the votes of conservatives. Someone like Lincoln Chaffee doesn't. If the major party candidate doesn't fit the bill, consider a third party candidate or find someone suitable as a write-in candidate. What counts is the man (or woman), not the party.
- http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/chch_news_201.htm
- http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=A1383_0_1_0_M
- http://www.constitutionparty.com/
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
