Recently, a blogger called Hugh Hewitt’s radio talk show. He expressed disgust and anger at how Conservatives have turned on their own and the big part the media—and bloggers (like his self) has played in it.

“We lost” he said (and I’m paraphrasing) “because we got so full of ourselves. We’ve made demands we have no business making…acting like spoilt children looking toward our parents (aka the government) to give us what we want, right now. Even after losing, we are still expecting our representatives and senators to confer with us before picking their leader. We are a representative government, which means we elect people to represent us and to make the decisions. We need to start allowing the people that the voters elected to do their jobs.”

I smiled.

For I have always believed that most people have an intrinsic sense of fairness and right...and I knew it was only a matter of time before the lie we wore to ease the discomfort of doing something wrong would start to unravel.

Now most people expect their politicians to tell you what they want to hear but Bill Clinton took lying to a new level. And what got to most Conservatives wasn’t the lie, but the fact that Bill was able to make the lie believable—sort of.

When Bill said, “I didn’t inhale”…people’s forehead wrinkled as they pondered the idea that “inhaling” might, MIGHT be necessary to make the act wrong. When he went on to say, “…but I didn’t really have sex with her because it was oral sex.”…most men with reluctant wives/girl friends kind of got the distinction.

For 8 long years, Conservatives watched as slippery Willy dodged attacks…if Reagan was the Teflon king…Clinton was Pam cooking spray…going every where you wanted him and some places you didn’t.

So when Bush got in—and the Dems, acting like belligerent juveniles went after him—the Conservs fought back.. Only Conservatives never fought offense . Almost in the same way Western nations are trying to fight wars…they insisted on taking the high road when being attacked—and in donning a holier-than-thou veneer, they joined the Dems in making a big deal over what they “thought” a man meant when making a birthday toast. Every time the Libs pushed, the Conservs reacted—and SOMEBODY got thrown under the bus—this so that Conservs could say…”See? We’re better than the Liberals because we EXPECT better from ourselves.”

This desire to be above the Libs so consumed the Conservs that they began to look within. Like players who seek to weed out the weak in their team in order to have only the best and the brightest left to win the championship, the Coserv pundits told their listeners/readers that they were doing it for the cause…for the party of Reagan.

 

Below are some of these Bill-type spins—I’ve started with the Illegal Immigration issue because this spin is the most vitriolic and succeeded in portraying the GOP as racist and extreme.

AMNESTY—Bush’s guest worker program has a $2000 fine, plus 12 years probation. Now this may sound like “nothing” to the hard liners, but to someone in the “cheap labor” class…this is big time PENALTY. Amnesty by definition has no penalty—and is what Reagan, the blessed Conserv Icon, TRIED TO GIVE to 3 million illegals.

$2,000 + PROBATION IS A CHEAP FEE FOR AN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP—notice the above word “tried” in capital letters…Reagan TRIED to give 3 million illegals citizenship. The fact is that most Mexicans THEN and now DO NOT want citizenship. They LOVE their homeland in the way we love ours…that is the land of their ancestors and where all their family is. They have zero interest in giving up their country…they just want to work in ours.

WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS, WE SHOULD NOT BE “REWARDING” PEOPLE WHO BREAK OUR LAWS—This is truly a naïve or plainly stupid remark. Everyday, hundreds of thousands of criminals are “rewarded” with probation and fines…because logistically, we do not have the capability of imprisoning ALL those who break our laws. Yes, we are a nation of laws, but we are also intelligent and reasonable enough to know that we have to make distinctions between felonies and misdemeanours.

BUSH IS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION—Bush is a Republican. He believes that small business is the economic backbone of America. Illegals aren’t working for big rich companies; they are the labor force for millions of mom and pop shops and farms that can’t afford the $10 to $15 per hour American laborers think they are entitled to.

THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE FOR CONSERVATIVES—If it was, then there wasn’t enough conservatives in many states to re-elect illegal immigration hard liners like Hayworth and Santorum. In states where unemployment was high…unemployment was the top issue, right, NOT illegals? duh.

THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY AND IS NOT ABOUT RACISM—this is like Blacks claiming that affirmative action is NOT racist. And every time, I point out that National Security would demand a wall to the Liberal—and easy to cross--Northern Canadian border (which happens to be White), the argument changes to one of “culture” aka race.

JOB PROTECTION & CULTURE CHANGE—Republicans on the whole do not believe in the protection of jobs (especially not for medical professionals in this time of doctors, nurses, and technician shortages). Neither have they forgotten the immigration heritage they received from their grand parents—we are a nation of immigrants—be it Ireland, Italy, or France

IF BUSH PUSHES THRU AN AMNESTY BILL, THE GOP WILL BE HISTORY—Ah…Bush signed a bill to build the wall—and what happened? The GOP majority was history. The only collateral any group has is their vote. The illegal immigration demanders didn’t produce. In order to threaten, you have to have the capability of delivering. It’s as simple as that.

 

I’M NOT A REPUBLICAN…I’M A CONSERVATIVE—Has anyone noticed that “Republican” has become a dirty word.? Right up there with words like “loyalty” and “support” which is played to mean “blind and unthinking” aka “foolish and brain washed”.

Which brings me to the old “WE’RE LIKE A FAMILY, WE NEED TO BE HONEST WITH EACH OTHER AND SOMETIMES, WE WILL DISAGREE…THAT’S OK.” (the stand in for Hugh Hewitt used that line with the blogger I mentioned at the beginning of my post). This is so absurd, I scarce know where to begin…I do not know of ANYONE who thinks it’s ok to be criticized and disagreed with by a family member in PUBLIC. And anyone who is stupid enough to try it moments before fighting for their lives would be looking for a place to hide from the family members who survived.

THIS CONGRESS DID NOT STOP GOVERNMENT PORK SPENDING—Has ANY congress ever done that? Does anyone really believe that politicians that depend on contributions would actually STOP bringing home the pork?

THIS CONGRESS (AND BUSH) SPENT MONEY LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR—no this Congress and Bush spent money like a nation at war. Maintaining a good economy during war is what is unheard of.

BUSH WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE MOST HATED PRESIDENT EVER—Oh grow up…Bush isn’t anymore hated and vilified than Lincoln was during the Civil War, Churchill during WW2, and Reagan after he tried to hook up with the Soviets to fight space invaders.

THE GOP LOST BECAUSE THEY STOPPED ACTING LIKE CONSERVATIVES—The GOP lost because some of them forgot they were REPUBLICANS, ELECTED to make decisions for everyone in their state, not confer with and try to make happy their “base”.

WE ARE THE BASE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY—but they deny being Republicans. Most people dislike being used—and most people bark at the idea of using someone else. Yet, the hard liners have no problem using the Republican party for their political means. Something is very wrong here and I think most people, especially Republicans, feel uncomfortable with this double dealing.

THE GOP HAD TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON—The lesson learned was that the so called “base” would put aside their principle to elect the less of two evils (although one of the things that they claimed made the GOP evil was their putting aside “conservative” principles” to fund the military, get tax cuts, get judges appointed) and this reasonable use of their vote STILL DID NOT get Conservs re-elected. Plain and simple—and you can spin it anyway you wish—the group that really mattered was the Independents NOT the base.

THE GOP HAS NO ONE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR MESSAGE, CLEARLY AND ARTICULATELY—what a strange remark, considering that most people do not believe ANYTHING a politician says…and what exactly do the pundits want Bush and the GOP to do? Confer with them daily…allow the UNELECTED press to tell the White House and Congress what to do…reinstate Reagan’s old speech writers…ah.

 

1- The immigration con is dead. For all the blistering hoopla...most of the proponents of shutting down Mexico's borders and protecting jobs got canned...In politics the ONLY collateral you have is your vote--and sorry but the border control advocates didn't deliver. 2- The religious group was strong enough to tank some gay marriage bills...the Left will move cautiously around this issue: they don't want to alienate the "progressive" MSM upon whom they depend on...but they don't want to anger the Independents who actually put them in office and can boot them out. The Right knows they have to clean up their act. 3- People are tired of the war--but many are old enough to remember what "losing" felt like. Now that the Dems have "bought" a chunk of this war, they will now "want" to see it succeed. BUT they will use the threat of refusing funding for the troops because they know that Bush wants it more. 4- The tax cuts expire in 3 years. Democrats will let it run it's course. After all, they will need funds to run this war  so if they succeed, they can take credit for it.  Also, they do not want to be accused of tanking the economy. Bush's veto pen will be shaky precisely because the Dems hold the purse strings...BUT Bush can be stubborn about the 3 issues Conservatives should have been focusing on: the war, the courts, and taxes. Ironically, the man that the RINO pundits has picked on for 2 years, is now their only source of power 5- The American people have more access to information than ever before BUT the drive by media, ESPECIALLY on the Right has killed their interest in politics. Most who came out to vote, voted for moderate people who like them are a "little" bit to the Right on some issues, Left on others. Politicians will move to the center where the extremes do not reside.

 

To understand why the RINO pundits turned against Bush and the GOP, one has to comprehend two things:

Most pundits are elites; one has to think quite highly of one’s opinion to share it and think one should get paid for doing so, yes?

Second: After watching how his own father was stabbed in the back by his party and his so called allies, the second George Bush kept a tight circle of insiders around him.

So when NRO’s Big Boss Buckley didn’t get his usual special invite to the GOP White House dinner table, he wasn’t too happy. And when Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s speech writer extraordinaire took a leave of absence to “help” Bush win his second term…and her contributions never made it to print…well she wasn’t too pleased with him either.

Then came the Miers’ affair. Oh, I believe that many of the pundits were genuinely hurt to find that G.W. had not picked someone from their wish list. No doubt many felt it was a slap in their highly educated, ex-lawyer face. So they threw a hissy fit worthy of an adolescent used to getting their way. No, this wasn’t a simple “disagreeing” with the president…this was an out and out demand to tell the president what to do…appearing on t.v., and taking out full page ads.

They told anyone who would listen that this man who they had assured us just months before was the ONLY man that could be TRUSTED to send our sons and daughters to war, could NOT be trusted to choose a judge to sit on the SCOTUS. More, they did what they had spent 4 years condemning Liberals for doing…undermined a WAR TIME PRESIDENT.

And because most Conservatives have an inert sense of fairness and loyalty…in order to justify their obvious hypocrisy, they joined the Liberal press in bashing Bush…and the GOP.

Soon, “Republican” became a dirty word…they were “Conservatives” first, “Republicans” only in party or…to be perfectly honest…TRUE RINOs.

For Laura Ingraham…there was an added bonus. The doors of the Liberal media began to open. Oh she knew why…she even said that all that they wanted was to hear a Conservative bash Bush. But all of a sudden, her ratings were up…unfortunately for Ms. Ingraham, Alito was nominated and her “cause” was no longer valid.

Enter the immigration issue. Yes, she’s been wanting to close the borders for years…but the fact is that 9/11 happened in 2001, the “national security” and Bush’s failure to keep us safe ala the immigration issue became THE issue AFTER the Miers’ affair.

If closing the borders was so important to national security, why wasn’t she and her cohorts demanding this of Bush and the GOP in 2002…and definitely in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election?

And if it is the grand issue right now, why hasn’t this issue brought more border issue proponents thru the primary?

And why are the real stalwarts of border control, like Santorum and Hayworth fighting for their political lives?

Am I against enforcing the immigration laws? Absolutely not.

Then why do I continue to complain about this issue being brought up by the RINO pundits?

Because it has divided the only party that had a chance of beating the Dems. And it could have waited. Really. It has waited 25 years from when Reagan tried to give Mexicans a real amnesty. It has waited the 5 years from 9/11.

It could have waited until we had more GOPs in Congress…until we had the White House locked up for 8 more years and a few more judges on the SCOTUS…until we had won the war in Iraq and allowed our troops to come home as heroes…

 

Part of me realizes that the only way to rid the GOP of the RINOs are for the GOP to lose Congress. For it is RINOs (the REAL ones, the ones who deny being Republican except in name only.)that are hurting the only viable party that can stop the Liberals. Look at Santorum and Hayworth...both got snookered by the immigration issue...and BOTH are fighting for their political life. (Hayworth's opponent couldn't even get elected to some small time office but is now slated to win Hayworth's seat.) Both believed talk show host Laura Ingraham and the RINO pundits when they told them that the base cared about immigration MORE than the war in Iraq...that cutting spending during time of war was more important than turning the economy around after 9/11. They spun and you all bought it...and we will probably lose those really good Republicans. But the other part of me...remembers reading about those who had fought with our men side by side in Vietnam...only to be slaughtered when we left. And the part that talked to Vietnam Vets who told me about coming home to be spit upon and called baby killers. And of course the first Gulf war...when we left Saddam to mow down a million of his own people who believed us when we said...come fight with us and we will make you free. I told myself never...never would I stand there and not say something when America is getting ready to turn her back on her allies--and her troops AGAIN... So...I am here on record to say this to all of you who insists on giving the Republicans a fanny whipping...if the Dems take over Congress tomorrow...and San Fran Nan keeps her promise to cut the funding to the military...when the Iraqi people are once again slaughtered (as they were when we left Saddam in power in the first Gulf war-and as the 2 million Cambodians were killed when we cut and ran out of Vietnam)...I want you stand there and watch them die. Don't you dare turn away and turn off your t.v. set. Because you KNEW. Nancy told you she and her Democratic run Congress would cut the funding and bring our troops back. She may not have told you what we'd leave behind...but if you know anything about history, you KNOW. And if you don't have the decency to put humanity above your pet Conservative Utopia dreams, then at least have the courage to face the consequencies of your selfishness and short sightedness.

I'd like to believe that Reagan's America would vote for those who have kept them safe for 5 years after the worst attack on American soil...who turned around an impossible economy...and who put 2 great judges on the SCOTUS...but I belong to a state that voted for a dead woman even though it KNEW it would cost 4 million dollars to run an extra election and who has the dubious distinction of being one of a few states to actually vote Jimmy Carter a second term. Yes, I KNOW people too busy with their lives to care about anything other than who got voted off American Idol and what was the score of some football game.

Come Tuesday, it would sadden but not surprise me to find we have a Democratic Congress. Bush and the GOP have fought a war, the international governments in Europe and Asia, the Liberal press, AND (in the past 2 years since Bush cannot run again) the RINO press, Reaganites, Libertarins, Buchananites.

They are tired...and I suspect so are most of the base of Republicans.

They will not get Condi or another Roberts...most of the good ones have seen how Republicans are treated and will go into civilian positions...write books...chair companies that will give them million dollar salaries.

We will have the less and the least of the best and the brightest--and for the next year, the Dems will, as Newt did to Clinton, lock up Congress. Of course Clinton won because he had HIS media, but Bush who is battling everyone INCLUDING those that are suppose to be on his side WILL probably be tied up and will be lucky to get the basic funding for his troops...never mind getting any more Roberts and Alitos thru.

The real RINOs...those rEPUBLICAN iN nAME oNLY...will have no one in power to intimidate and threaten. They will be reduced to hoping for something really big--another 9/11--so that the Independents and Swing Voters will once again turn to the GOP.

And some time during the early morning hours, when lying to one's conscience is difficult, they will know how sick and pathetic that desire is...and will try to comfort themselves with the idea that "something" has to be done to remove the "evil" Liberals.

The GOPs will gather what is left of their party and move to the only place they can find enough people to put them back in power where they can actually do something--the center of the reasonable and the realistic.

Oh yes, the lost of a Republican Congress will teach many lessons...to the Reaganites, Buchananites, Libertarians who will learn to be grateful for a congress that supported our troops, tax cuts that fuel this economy, and good judges...to the GOP, who will learn that their base are mature people who understand that life is a series of choices and people on your side don't make unrealistic demands nor do they expect something for their support.

 

Ok, so what DID Reagan do for the Conservative cause—was it all a lie?

Not at all. Reagan was/is to Conservatives what JFK is to Liberals. Both were elite men who had great speechwriters and enough charisma to disarm the press. As JFK conjured up tales of Camelot…Reagan was reminiscent of Hollywood greats: John Wayne, Cary Grant, Errol Flynn…when men were men and leaders “felt” the pain of the fallen rather than actually experienced it.

And like JFK who inspired an entire generation to a new world of equality and civil rights…Reagan reminded another generation that tradition has its own value and should not be thrown away for the glittery and transitory.

Reagan was the eternal optimist. He taught this generation to believe and to trust. His reply to the Berlin wall being asked to be torn down was…WHY NOT?

Bush also asks “Why not?” Only he listens to the answer, rolls ups his sleeves and say…”Ok, now tell me what we CAN do…”

The Reaganites, Buchananites, and Libertarians…(and maybe Reagan), are like teenagers who don’t want to hear the answer and bark at the rolling up of the sleeves to make it happen.

If America is to survive…if Conservative values are to go forward, these people need to grow up—and put the fairy tales away—yes, even the one titled “Reagan.”

 

Reagan did NOT, read my lips (pun intended) stop government spending either. In fact he left the first Bush a huge deficit. True, the main reason behind all the grand spending was for all those cool weaponry that helped our military kick butt during the first Gulf war. However, the fact is he SPENT and not during a time of war.

Reagan also did NOT cut pork spending precisely because there were so many strings attached to bills—deals he had to make. Why do you think he wanted line veto powers? Yet, this fact doesn’t seem to bother those who want Bush tarred and feathered for not being able to accomplish the exact same goal; an accomplishment tantamount to a revolution in American politics.

Businessmen and Labor Unions are not idealists…they remain in business and in power by quid quo pro. They will support politicians who give them something in return. People send senators and representatives to Congress and keep reelecting those who have enough seniority to sit on committees precisely because they want “their share” of the government pot. To expect politicians to cut the pork spending is like asking a salesman to try to sell something without “sweetening” the sale with freebies.

Whenever someone talks about this slim majority of Republicans doing away with pork spending…I want to ask what planet that person lives on…more, how old is he and how did he get to be that old without realizing that life is a bunch of deals and “principles” are something only winners can afford to stand on.

Yes, Reagan did indeed use his veto pen. But that was because he didn’t have a ghost of a chance (without a majority Congress) of getting important funding and bills through, so why not anger the Democrats? It was tough rhetoric that risked nothing and gave him brownie points with the hard right.

Bush, on the other hand, has a slight majority and as long as the GOP holds that majority, it IS possible to actually get some Conservative agenda passed. To anger the other side of the aisle just to appease the Reaganites, Buchananites, Libertarians who deny being Republicans anyway would be down right stupid.

I fail to comprehend why Reaganites believe that their icon would NOT put aside the Conservative agenda to team up with Democrats in the fight against terrorists madmen when this man was very willing to put aside our American interest to team up with our Soviet counterparts in defending the earth against possible space invaders.

Did Reagan bust the unions? Again, yes and no. He went up against a little known group of air traffic controllers with a public that is dependant upon air travel backing him up. But he never took on the big guys nor did he bust unions in California when he was governor. Reagan, as an ex-union leader owed much of his political career to them, a fact Hillary pointed out when she told a teachers group in July of 2004…”Don’t you wish Ronald Reagan was still around?”

Did Reagan cut social spending? Yes, but in less than 2 years in office, he also rescinded on his tax cuts. Before one complains about the drugs for senior citizens put forth by Bush as being “unReagan like”, let them also remember that Bush’s refusal to rescind his tax cuts was ALSO unReagan like.

Political reality was that all too many people remembered Reagan’s uncompassionate handling of the poor—and Democrats were using the conservative dismissal of the blight of poor, fixed income grandma to attack the GOP. Bush HAD to take that off the table. Like buying weapons for our fight against the terrorists…he had to “spend” in order to focus the nation on the important issues: war and a strong economy.

 

First let me qualify what I am about to post with a clear understanding that I LIKE Ronald Reagan. As a leader, he gave to America something it hadn’t had for 20 years…pride in our nation and an unapologetic belief in our people.

But so much has been attributed to his “conservatism” that no politician, certainly not the one who now occupies the White House can ever hope to live up to his standard.

And it is tearing the GOP and this country apart.

For the record, Ronald Reagan, NEVER secured the borders…in fact his immigration law was a REAL amnesty. And yes, illegal immigration was a problem even back then. Maybe we weren’t too concerned with terrorists, but drug runners and criminals used the Mexican border with the same ease that Michigan citizens cross the Northern border to do their shopping, and unlike now where Welfare has a 5 year moratorium, back then, hundreds of thousands of illegals using E.R.s and getting food stamps begat generations of system abusers.

But Reagan had been governor of California—and he knew that most people do not consider the guy who mows his lawn or the woman who cleans his house as one of “those illegals” and trying to cut the flow of their good, cheap help would not be appreciated; would, in fact, cost him politically.

I am really, really sorry but this is STILL the political reality today. The Hispanic population in America is not only large and getting bigger; but the possibility of turning them into the new minority voting block for Democrats scares and SHOULD scare any thinking, realistic GOP politician. Like the Blacks who knee-jerk vote for the gravy train party (Democrat), Hispanics will turn away from their natural Conservative tendency and join the group that shows some appreciation for their concerns.

But do we want people we have to “bribe” to join us? So says the Reaganites, Buchananites, Libertarians, Evangelical Christians who demand “payment” for their own support of the GOP.

And here’s another political reality: if immigration WAS the big issue the above groups insist that it was going to be this election, Santorum should be the hero of the GOP and sailing right through his senate race and it should be the Senate, not the House in trouble. But of course, like it or not, the closing the borders is NOT on the priority list of concern of MOST voters—no matter how many times the “national security” tag is attached to it.

Did Reagan bring down the Soviet Union and end the Cold war? Yes…and no. Most historians, Left AND Right agree that communism as practiced by the Soviets was simply not working. Economically, the Soviets could not compete with America and as Reagan himself often mentioned, he believed that the Soviets was a nation on the brink of financial ruin. Reagan pushed—and Gorbachev was looking for an excuse to dismantle the financially crumbling empire. As Reagan’s icon predecessor JFK stared down a Soviet that didn’t want to face mutual nuclear destruction, Reagan called on a hand he believed held no aces and could not up the pot.

And after 9/11, can anyone seriously believe that we can in-your-face “call” on the hand of Canada and Mexico by closing our borders when these two hold the “aces” of being our number one and number two trading partners and suppliers of oil or the hands held by Muslim backed Iran and China backed North Korea?

Morally, second time married, ex-Democrat Reagan talked a good pro-life talk, but he never addressed pro-life groups or pushed the pro-life agenda—and has the distinction of appointing the great pro-abortionist Sandra Day O’Connor to the SCOTUS. To be fair, Reagan never claimed to be “Christian”. He never sought to change the courts and their grab for more power.

But the very people who bash Bush over his Miers’ nomination and his inability to get an marriage amendment bill through forget that Reagan was Hollywood royalty—and his morals were not as stringent as Bush’s OR the Christian Rights.

I come from a state so Blue that it was one of only two states to vote for Jimmy Carter in his bid for a second term (not even Carter's own state did that).

And talk about party affiliaton! In 2002, I watched as Fox reported a GOP sweep...and then our state...voting Democratic as usual...including voting for a dead woman who the voters KNEW that because she couldn't serve, we'd have to fork over an additional 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS to hold a second election for her seat (among her party). The Dems party leader called it a 3.5 million dollar "memorial". And the people bought it...geez.

But despite this lopsided party politics, in 2004, when ALL those under the Republican banner felt it was more important to keep the Dems from holding the purse strings to the war on terror than what Bush and the GOP DIDN'T give them...for the first time in 40 years, my state was in "danger" of voting Red.

Now, the Reaganites, Buchananites, and Libertarians are going to do what Conservatives NEVER do...cut and run...from politics and who will control a nation at war.

 

…or how to beat the Democrats and win it all.

Warning: the following plan may stun the reader with its simplistic logic, and even offend those who enjoy the frustration and drama of the in house fighting within the GOP.

1- KNOW THINE ENEMY.

Let us say that the Dems DO take both Houses of Congress. The first thing they will do (per San Fran Nan) is cut the funding to our military. All America will see is that the Dems brought their sons and daughters home. Within 100 days they will start impeachment proceedings that will tie up Congress long enough to forget about any wall or immigration reform and if a SCOTUS seat should become available…forget any possibility of another Roberts or Alito.

That is the good news…the bad will be that a neutralized Bush will embolden the terrorists and the madmen in N. Korea and Iran.

And if we get hit, the MSM will just blame Bush as they blame him for Clinton’s botched deal with Kim Jong-il.

Will all those who sit beneath the GOP tent FINALLY put their differences aside and focus on the things they DO agree on? Will the Laura Ingrahams, Glenn Becks, Charles Krauthhammers and the Pat Buchanans do as all fractions fighting a common foe, finally find some common ground with the party that brought them to the dance…and with their combined resources, fight to win? If so, let us go on to step 2.

2- THE COMMON GROUND

Most calling themselves “Conservatives” agree on 3 fundamental things:

a- the war on terror has to be fought aggressively and over “there”

b- the tax cuts have helped fuel our economy

c- our courts need to be equal not superior to the other two branches of

government.

If we focus on what binds us instead of what separates us, NO Democrat can stop us from winning the war on terror, cut spending, bringing sanity back to the courts…even solving the decades old problem of illegal immigration.

3- UNRAVEL THE SPIN

Instead of trying to win the “pissing game” of who can be more creative in bashing Bush and the GOP, the Reaganite Media should turn their ample talents to debunking the sound bites of the Liberals.

I like Bush’s reply to “are you calling into question their (Democrats) patriotism?” Bush’s “…no, I’m calling into question their judgment.”

“Jim” on Townhall pointed out that if “RINO” meant “Republicans In Name Only”, wouldn’t that apply to everyone that claimed to be Conservative but didn’t support the only Conservative party?

Surely, the professional pundits can come up with their own little clever comebacks that will put Liberal MSM in their place…and at the same time rejuvenate their base.

4- DROP THE NEGATIVITY

If the media would focus on what Bush and the GOP has done right instead of always harping on what they haven’t done, maybe the “base” wouldn’t be so disheartened and frustrated.

And there’s nothing wrong with being a “rah rah” person. One doesn’t stop supporting a team when they are failing to make a basket or run a touch down; a loyal supporter does so thru the good times and the bad.

As for honesty coming from true friends…believe me, your enemies are all too willing to be honest about your faults…real friends are “selective” in their “honest” criticism.

5- BE REALISTIC

Conservatives basically look within for solutions, but for some odd reason, the RINOs (as defined by Jim—see above) think Government—and most specifically George W. Bush, should fight a war, rearrange the SCOTUS, bring about the best economy in almost half a century, and solve a nearly as old problem of illegal immigration because he has a slim majority in both Houses. (And not even that if you discount McCain and his gang).

Bush is like a man dealing with his roof caving in (9/11), finding his foundation had pests (terrorists), kids sick and hospitalized (Katrina), co-workers trying to undermine him and get him fired (Dems &RINOS), and his wife and relatives are upset because he’s “spending money like a drunken sailor” with repairs and doctor bills…and (gasp) he refuses to fix that hole in the fence that’s been there for the last 25 years!

How’s this for an idea? Let the man deal with his roof and pest (the war on terror). We run interference with the Dems and really support him (support is another word that is NOT dirty) by putting in enough GOPs that it won’t matter if there are a dozen McCains. In 2004, we told Bush he could have the ball; it would be nice if we got people out there that will actually help him get to the end zone.

6- GOP HAS TO RECLAIM THEIR TENT

It’s THEIR party. They need to listen to their base…not those who refuse to even call themselves Republicans. The tent has to be big enough for many fractions to fit under it; but not so fluid that the sides are caving in. They need to dictate the parameters and place the pillars at whatever juncture fits their needs.

In the end, the GOP has to decide if it will be the party that wins—or a party of almost made it wannabes.

 

 

There’s a new poll out there, showing that previous “independents” are leaving the Conservative Tent.

I believe it.

There are all kinds of theories…most starting with “it’s Bush’s fault”…but I can only go by my own experience…and I am fairly certain that it holds true for other previously politically unaware-middle America-concern with work and family “independents.”

I have always voted, leaning toward Republican candidates because I am a Christian and pro-life. But being ultimately practical, I do not spend time on things I can neither control or affect. Politics, especially national politics is handled thousands of miles away…and one vote in an extremely Blue state has little or no impact.

But like hundreds of thousands, 9/11 changed all that. I began to listen to Conservative pundits, read their columns, and subscribe to their magazines. For four years, I became part of the guys in white hats fighting the “evil” Liberals who were trying to take down a wartime president. These bright and well educated pundits were careful to never come out and say it, but I believed and voiced the opinion that such political bashing when we are fighting for our American culture and our very existence was tantamount to treason.

And I clung to my new found “core” of Americans.

There was of course, one uncomfortable glitch in those four years when one man made a birthday toast, and the MSM took his words and made it mean something racist—and the Conservative media joined in, forcing that man to resign as Senate leader. This sanctimonious “mob job” of a loyal Republican smacked of disloyalty and Liberal type hypocrisy but as I said, it was just one among reams of good things about Conservatism and I was still a “believer”.

Then two pivotal things happened.

One-- Ronald Regan died—and his previous speech writers, rewrote his history. He became a paragon of Conservatism, a name of inspiration on a par with the likes of Lincoln, King, and JFK.

Two—Bush won his second election—which meant he could no longer win—or lose--another term.

And the Conservative pundits turned on the latter. It began slowly…complaining about his inability to “make” his slim majority held Congress cut big government…pork spending…deficits…as though they forgot there was a war going on—and all wars cost money and deals between those who hold opposite views need to be struck.

Then Bush nominated the same woman who had been the one to choose all those great judiciary appointees, including Roberts. But like spoilt children who didn’t get someone on their wish list, the pundits threw a hissy fit. This man, who they had assured us for 4 years was the ONLY man in America that should be trusted to send our sons and daughters to war, could NOT be trusted to appoint someone HE trusted to the Supreme Court.

Had they forgotten all the times they told us that the president had the absolute right to appoint judges and that the Liberals could “advise” but not dictate their own choice for judiciary seats?

And the woman who wrote a book about the Liberal “Elites” talked about how only the “best and the brightest” should sit on the SCOTUS…and how Miers did not have the “proper” education or judiciary pedigree.

The NRO who had spent a good portion of their columns bashing the Liberal press for using their newspapers to try to put pressure on the White House, took out full page ads to tell the world how Bush had let down the party of Reagan.

All of a sudden Laura Ingraham found doors previously closed to her opened…like O’Reiley, who had gained fame after his fight with actor George Clooney over the releasing of funds to the 9/11 families, Ingraham became the champion of those who like to see in your face irreverence for people in power.

After the removal of Miers’ nomination and the appointment of Alito, I waited to see if Ingraham would get back to supporting the man she told us to trust the lives of our children to. But Ingraham needed a reason to continue to be angry at Bush and the GOP and she pulled out her pet cause—the immigration issue.

Never mind that her idol Reagan NEVER solved this problem—and yes, it WAS a problem even back then. Oh it never had the tag of “national security”, but there were stories of hospitals and schools closing because of illegals using the welfare system.

It was during the ensuing fervor over the immigration issue that I began to realize that Reaganites did not like calling themselves “Republicans”. Or in the case of Ingraham, they claim to be “Conservatives” first, “Republicans” second…maybe.

And exactly what being “Conservative” meant became walking lock step with their opinions…based on the “sacred” writings and teachings of Reagan and Gingrich.

I will admit. I never knew the Reagan years. I was oblivious to Gingrich’s contract with America.

Imagine my shock when I learned that Reagan never lowered government spending, wanted line veto because he had no power to stop pork spending, did not break the unions when he was governor of California, enacted a true amnesty program, caved in to political pressure and “cut and ran” out of Libanon!

And the man who would be president, the guy Reaganites wished led the House during Reagan’s time instead of Clinton’s—and whom many desire to run in 2008-- had to resign because he lacked shall we say--“moral” clarity. The idea that 10 years later, we would want this man to run as president begs the question; in another decade, will we be pining away for a Foley return?

Ok, that was a low blow.

But the fact is, Gingrich (as one of his ardent supporters says) got snookered by the Clinton machine. And guess what machine Gingrich will have to face in 2008 if the GOP was stupid enough to put him on the ticket?

And another thing I noticed…Reaganites were always talking about a “Third party”…someone that wouldn’t care that half the nation didn’t share their beliefs or ideals…someone that would keep government out of people’s lives…

This sounded suspiciously like Libertarians…and I wondered…how Conservatives could be the core of the Republican party when they don’t even like admitting to BEING Republicans…and if they are not Republicans, why do they think they have a right to dictate how Republicans act?

A few days ago…a Libertarian told Ingraham that he didn’t like the Evangelical Christian hold on the Conservative Party. Ingraham told him that Republicans appreciated the inclusion and participation of Libertarians, BUT he should never forget who brought Republicans to the dance: Christian Conservatives.

She’s wrong. It’s not the Evangelical Christians, the Libertarians, OR the Reaganites that brought the Party to the Dance…it was REPUBLICANS. For there were only two parties who had tickets…and each of these groups got there under the GOP’s ticket.

But all three have forgotten that…

And with so much pushing—and backstabbing-- in their jostling for power, there is little room for the only base that really counts…people like me, ordinary American voters, who they gave no reason to believe

As the media expands to include the elites on the Right, sound bites as clever as any the Left have spun is being taught with zero tolerance for disagreement.

Like yesterday's children who chanted "Give Peace a Chance", today's Reaganites demand perfection in any politician wearing the GOP tag, but never stop to ask themselves at what price would one pay to attain the lofty goals set forth by these clever sound bites. 

Their use of simple but catchy one liners is rather ingenious...who doesn't want the entire world laying down their arms, coming together in harmony, and banishing poverty, sickness and polution?

Only in order for the world of billions of individuals to live in peace, all would have to share the SAME faith, values, ideals, and sense of justice. There can be no individual disagreement, no thinking outside the box. 

In other words, "give Peace a chance" comes with a price tag...freedom.

"Securing the borders" sound sane, practical, necessary.  Only the two borders of America are the number one and number two trading partner of the U.S. AND the number one and number two biggest suppliers of oil.  Deporting 11 million illegals and creating a 10% hole in our work force will tank this nation's economy.

So again, the wonderful sounding "Secure the borders" have a price tag...our economy and jobs.

"Standing up for one's principles."  Wow. Doesn't that bring up visions of brave men dying on a battle field, refusing to betray America and what she stands for?  But everyday, people go to jobs they don't particularly like and put up with bosses they loathe...all because they have families to care for and children to feed.  No one accuses them of "not standing up for their principles." 

Yet, "true" Conservatives are expected to stand on "principle" even if the bill has little less than a grand standing chance of passing and in angering their Liberal colleague, risk obstruction on vital issues like funding for the military and the war on terror and tax cuts that fuel this economy. 

Life is always a series of trade offs and no one makes it in the halls of power without knowing how to deal and how to pick one's battles. 

So...the frequent price for "standing up for one's principles" is losing...be it a job, a family, a battle, a war...and sometimes a whole nation.

***

Another blogger wrote a post about JFK and how his legacy is beginning to unravel. Time and a new generation is revisiting his presidency and the revision spun by a media that adored his good looks is getting a thorough and critical eye.

Likewise, Reagan's legacy has been rewritten by a new crop of Conservative media...glossed over is his failure to stop what was even then an immigration problem...his record deficits...his O'Connor appointment...his bowing to political pressure and cut and running out of Lebanon..."failures" at least when it applies to the current president. 

It is my firm belief that one day, as the old crop of media makes way for the new, unbias, detached eyes will revisit the true Reagan and see not a man of god-like perfect Conservatism...but a leader for his time...as JFK was.

Unfortunately, America cannot wait for this new crop of detached journalists...for like the old media...this group of Reaganites have little tolerance for anyone who disagrees with their version of Conservatism.  How many times have you heard that unless you walk, lock step with what they say is right and/or wrong...then you are not a true Conservative?

It is this intolerance for intellectual honesty that cost the Liberals who called on the sacred name of JFK, the base of the American people...the independents that make or break elections.

And it will come to pass, that this same type of intolerance from the Reaganites who call on the sacred name of Reagan who will lose the same base of fiercely independent thinkers.

And in so doing, may cost us all.