Thursday, November 13, 2008

Conservative vs. Republican

Sorry about my absence, folks, I was sick for a week, then preparing for a political speech in Illinois this weekend, so my blogging time has had to take a back seat.

I do have a few things I must say though, and a couple spare moments to say them so here we go.

First, the Republican party absolutely must return to Reagan Conservatism, or it will die in the political wilderness.

I don't know why it is so hard for the Republican establishment to see what we conservatives see so clearly; Reagan and Gingrich are the only two leaders to put us on the map as a national party, and the only two people who we refuse to emulate are Reagan and Gingrich.

We will emulate Democrats, Socialists,(bailout), Marxist thugs at our conventions, and communists.(environmentalists).

But not Reagan or Gingrich.

That's too simplistic for the elite Republican class. Why, the NYT might write mean things about you if you act too conservative. Or worse, they might call you intolerant, racist, bigoted, homophobic, or too patriotic.(unless you object to higher taxes. Then you obviously are not patriotic).

Bush lost some of the best opportunities ever to put away liberalism as a national force, and in fact, actually made more hay for liberalism in some areas than did his predecessor.

And he did this with Republican majorities!

McCain spent the better part of the last 15 years insulting and opposing everything conservative he could find to pee on, and look where it got him with the Dem's and mainstream media.

I have much more to say and a fix to propose, so I will do that as soon as I return from Illinois.


momma read said...

I am sort of confused, I thought McCain was who you were encouraging others to vote for, but you comments about him don't seem to respectful? If Obama wasn't good, and McCain wasn't doing much- who was really the best choice?

tim boyer said...

Hey there, Momma read;

I will try to clear up the confusion if I can;
I supported McCain (after he was the nominee) as a last resort to prevent Obama from ruining our freedom faster than even our own party has been for the last few years.

If you have followed my blog very long, you will notice I have never been complimentary of McCain's political positions, or his view of conservatives and conservatism.

Under normal circumstances I would never support John McCain for dogcatcher, much less POTUS.
Obama was able to sell his fraudulent message of "change" only because our party has lost all credibility on issues of importance to the people under the leadership of people like McCain and Bush.

Unlike Reagan's Republican party, our Republican party either cannot or will not articulate principled positions on issues, or they are unprincipled in actuality, and therefore cannot articulate principles, which to them are really nothing more than vote buyers.
If we want the people to trust us again, we must earn their trust by governing as we claim we believe when campaigning, which is what Reagan did, and we do not.

McCain has always been a liberal politician rather than a principled statesman, and that is why he cannot sell himself to conservatives; He has carefully crafted a political history that offends the constitution greatly, which many conservatives could not get past when trying to swallow his new-found conservative rhetoric.We are political sex slaves as far as he is concerned...people who " have nowhere else to go", so we will always continue to pimp ourselves for a party who, for the most part have no more investment in conservatism or the constitution than do the Dem's, except that they realize that they need our votes in order to win.
That all being true, I supported him still, after he won the nomination, because the prospect of an Obama White House scared me to the point that I could not abide one; Hence my late support for JM.
Hope this helps!!

tim boyer said...

Sorry, I forgot to answer the last part of your question;
The best guy to support was never in the race; Mark Sanford or Bobby Jindal would have been a tremendous choice for conservatives, for the nation, and for ultimate electoral victory.
But since they were not in the race, I think Fred Thompson, had he not mis-timed his entry into the race would have been a far better choice than McCain.

Better still would have been Duncan Hunter or Tancredo, both of whom were in the race.
Unfortunately, they being the only two real conservatives in the race, were buried by the media, and a Republican establishment who has no desire to see this party led by a true Reagan conservative.

The dirty little secret is this;
The establishment of our party hated Reagan from the day he challenged Ford, and have never gotten over it.;
They use his name to help themselves get elected, but that is where the correlation stops.

It is time to take our party back.
Reagan's values and principles are the only thing to put this party in national prominence, and without those, it will never be regained.
Anyway, I am preaching!
Out of the field of folks who actually ran, I wanted Hunter or Tancredo.
To answer the question that always comes after this, yes, I think they could have beaten Obama.

It is time to stop letting moderates tell us that conservatives cannot win a general election.

I give you Reagan, Bush 41, who won only because of Reagan, and Bush 43, whom everyone thought was a conservative until the last three years or so.

And I give you Dole and McCain.
I rest my case!!


momma read said...

I have one last Q. It seems clear that the republican party has taken the path AWAY from conserved and constitutional. I don't understand why people don't just support the person who fits the desires of the voter instead of voting in a certain party. By voting in that party, even if you don't support the person and what he stands for, are you not still supporting em, and if you vote for who you think is strong on the right issues, aren't you telling the others that you don't support their agenda and you won't vote for an agenda that is against your values?
I quess I just don't understand why we are so stuck in "parties" and why we don't just vote by values and agenda. What if they were not labeled by a party, and we just voted by the record and what they were telling us they were going to do? Who whould you have voted for in the end, if in fact there was to "R" or "D" behind the name? Whould you have looked at all the names?!
Tell me why you don't see Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin as moral choices? Ron Paul ran R, and I don't know how any man was more conservative or constitutional, more solid and strong understanding of the issues.
thanks for answering,

"Government is not the solution to our problem.Government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, first Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981