Conservatives Must Lead, Let the Moderates Follow

  I find it interesting in election after election conservatives continue to make the same mistake of rallying behind moderate/liberal candidates and expecting conservative results. In this primary election period, conservatives have an opportunity to select a candidate who clearly contrasts Barak Obama, yet I hear a constant drumbeat from many of the talking heads of a need for a continuous effort to jump on the Romney or Perry bandwagon at the exclusion of real conservatives. I realize that opinion polls matter, but this is the primary election cycle, and we (constitutional conservatives) need to carefully consider the ideas and records of each of these candidates and make up our own minds about who we believe will GOVERN as a conservative. We have found ourselves in this position before where we were so desperate to get rid of the democrat that we join in the "nominate the one who can win" crowd and regretted it for years.

   I hear this ongoing discussion about appealing to the independents. I am an independent. I am a conservative / independent registered republican, and republicans need to be concerned about appealing to me. Full disclosure: I am a Bachmann supporter.

   I regularly listen to Jeff Bolton, a talk show host on 570am KLIF-Dallas, and several months ago I recall him making a case for why he thought a Palin or Perry candidacy would be a terrible idea. While I don’t remember all of the details of his explanation, I do remember him making a good case for his position. Now amazingly, he seems to have recently jumped on the Perry/Romney bandwagon and joined the bash Bachmann crowd  because  of a statement Michelle Bachmann made in a press interview about the gardicil vaccine.
   Bachmann said that a lady came to her after the Tea Party/CNN debate and talked about the negative reactions her daughter had to the gardicil vaccine. According to Bachmann, the lady said that as a result of the vaccine, her daughter has suffered a mild case of mental retardation. (This has been a concern about vaccines by many parents in recent years) Bachmann then went on to talk about the violation of individual and parental rights by decisions such as Perry’s vaccine mandate. The news media and the establishment republicans quickly jumped on this opportunity to make Bachmann seem like she is against all vaccines, as they continue in their attempt to make her appear unelectable.
    It is no question that establishment republicans are as afraid of Bachmann as they are of Sarah Palin, and the real question that should be asked is why. I believe it is because they realize her conservative convictions are real, and she intends to do what she says in bringing back constitutional governance and gettimg rid of crony capitalism, something I haven’t heard Perry or Romney say. You would think most Americans would love a candidate who demonstrates a conviction about such issues.
   I, like many others, have issues of concern with all of the candidates, but I realize that in order to truly turn this country around we must elect someone who has a moral core, and has demonstrated a consistency in their decision making ability throughout the years that exemplifies a belief and understanding of the constitution from that core.
   As a conservative, I am carefully considering what the candidates voting records are on all the issues, and I also consider the things that I have to live with about the candidate that I don’t like. Of those things, I find that Romney’s inconsistency on the life issue, the 2^nd Amendment, his sellout position on homosexual marriage (it became law in Mass. while  he was governor), and his questionable commitment to effectively dealing with the illegal immigration problem, deal breakers, but we’re told he’ll be great for the economy.
   Rick Perry, on the other hand is a mixed bagged, and, in my opinion, more tolerable than Mitt Romney, but not much. Just think, had Debra Medina not made the PR mistake of a novice in the last republican primary, Rick Perry may not be the TX Governor right now. Consider that thought for a moment. Texans are sick of Rick Perry, but the closest thing he’s had to a real primary challenge was Debra Medina. While we consider Perry for US President, let’s imagine, if Perry could do to/for the country what he has done or tried to do to/for TX (i.e. Trans Texas Corridor, vaccine mandate, flip-flop border positions, support of in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants), do you believe he would improve the country? Compared to Obama or Romney, possibly so, but look at what you have to stomach for that POSSIBILITY.
   I am not a blind Bachmann supporter, I have a few issues with her as well, but I consider that she is a stark contrast to Obama. She has consistently made a case for constitutional governance, and I believe her when she says she “will not rest until Obama care is repealed”, and that she is committed to getting rid of the many of the economy stifling regulations implemented by the Obama administration. By the way, how clearly does Perry or Romney speak in regards to these issues?
   Back to the independents. I am sick and tired of being the one to compromise my greatest concerns in order to appeal to people who lack any real conviction. If we nominate a strong conservative, the independents will have a clear choice. Vote for our conservative, or live with 4 more years of Barak Obama.
   The debate rages on about how important this next election is to “save America”. While I believe that is true, I don’t believe it will be accomplished by electing someone who is lacking in their commitment to conservatism. I realize that in politics compromises have to be made, but if WE continue to compromise on laws that violate our constitutional liberties, pretty soon we won’t have anything left to compromise, and the establishment republicans will still be telling us that the most important concerns are lower taxes and the economy.
    While the economy and lower taxes are important, it’s equally important to consider a few other issues. The republicans passed G.W Bush off as a conservative, yet he expanded the dept. of education. Did that help the economy? G.W. Bush also developed the dept. of Homeland Security, expanded the TSA to include passenger screeners, passed the constitution violating PATRIOT ACT, and expanded the national heritage areas legislation (re: americanpolicy.org) which violates private property rights, with the help of many of those so called conservative republicans. (Former “conservative” republican Sen. George Allen (VA) comes to mind)  I don’t know how much more of these tax lowering, constitution violating conservatives America can take.
   The question that I ask is how far to the left must America move as we compromise away our freedom, liberty, moral decency, and constitutional fidelity before the so-called conservative talking heads, as well as rank and file conservative Americans draw a line in the sand that applies to ALL politicians, not just democrats. If the line is NOT drawn, there is truly no reason to believe there will be any REAL change in the direction that America is going.
    I realize that many Americans feel desperate to get rid of Barak Obama, and I understand that feeling. I have consistently said that, I believe that the Obama Presidency has been a blessing in disguise because it woke so many people up. But if your decision is simply to get rid of Obama, it is even more critical that you elect constitutionalists to the Congress and the Senate, because the Romney/Perry type of republican, regardless of their rhetoric, is in many ways more dangerous to America than Obama, and truthfully, those types of republicans are no friend to constitutional conservatives.

Tea Party, Don't be hoodwinked

    As I listen to this continuous pap from these so-called conservative talking heads, I see what is shaping up to be another loss to true conservatives as many of them allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the republican establishment. The republican talking heads continue to complain as if the present field of republican presidential candidates are not suitable for the nomination.They act as if they don't believe that they are capable of beating Obama. They continue to throw out names like Paul Ryan or Chris Cristie as people they would like to see enter the race. Cristie has already made a bad choice in his New Jersey Supreme court appointment and at best is a political moderate, and Ryan has said he's not interested.

    I find it interesting that when republicans are out of power, the talking heads get so conservative, but when given an opportunity to elect one, they always choose a RINO. Do you find it interesting that even after  Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll, she has taken a back seat  to Rick Perry in the minds of the so-called right wing media? Isn't it interesting that Perry chose to announce his candidacy in S.Carolina on the day of the Iowa straw poll in which Bachmann was expected to win. Most Texans know that Rick Perry is only a conservative at election time, although he's been acting and talking conservative for a while because he's obviously been planning this  presidential run for some time. Four years ago, these same people were heavily promoting Mitt Romney and we all know what a strong conservative he is (LOL). 

    And what about Rick Santorum? Rush Limbaugh has said for years that the Republican party needs someone who can articulate the message. Santorum can articulate the conservative message better than most, and he does it with conviction. He makes his case based on historical facts, and it doesn't take much to be inspired his message, if one is willing to listen.

   Say what you want about Michelle Bachmann, she's fearless, she has convictions, and she can articulate the message. I've watched Bachmann and Santorum for years. They are the real deal. It will be a fight to the finish if TRUE constitutional conservatives are going to win in the end. The talking heads will need to be ignored in most cases, and we will have to stand on our convictions.

   I've heard some conservatives say that a Romney or a Perry will be so much of an improvement over Obama, that we could live with the disagreements. Really? How many times must we go down this road? Romney is a flip-flopping liar that can't be trusted on any issue that matters to constitutional conservatives, and so is Perry. Remember Perrys' support for the Trans-national corridor, Gardasil , and his flip-flop on illegal immigration after one of his previous re-election victories?  Yes, they are better than Obama, but that's not saying much. We wanted somebody better than Gore, so we ran to G.W. Bush and we ended up here. Tax cuts that expire, nation building in Iraq and Afganistan, an expansion of the Dept. of Education (No Child Left Behind), Border Wars, and the continuous expansion of the Abortion and Homosexual Agendas, and we continue to fund Planned Parenthood. 

   The real question is, did we progress? Did the ideals of constitutional conservative government advance or regress under 8 years of Bush? The honest answer is they regressed. Now we so desperately want somebody other than Obama, we're being told that we have to settle for either a liberal establishment republican posing as a moderate, or a moderate establishment republican posing as a "Tea Party" conservative.

  As we ponder these candidates, just remember the definition of insanity (to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result). The Republican establishment only wants you to think about fiscal issues, but there are many other issues to be concerned about that can't be ignored, and can no longer be compromised on.

* We had this great debate about whether or not the gov't can constitutionally mandate individual Americans to purchase healthcare. Rick Perry attempted to mandate gardasil vaccines for 11 year old girls in TX public schools.

* Rick Perry tries to align himself with the tea party and says he supports securing the border, but he's soft on illegal immigration and supports in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens.

* Rick Perry and Bush supported the Trans-Texas corridor which would have virtually erased the border between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada in order to create the Security, & Prosperity, Partnership.(see below)

In 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs argued that the SPP was part of a plan to merge the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union similar to the European Union,^[12]. Dobbs claimed at the time that US President Bush, who left office on January 20, 2009, was to have bypassed Congress and ultimately create a Union based on a Texas highway corridor.^[13] One variation of this theory was that President Bush would declare a state of emergency to avoid leaving office, which, in fact, never came about; on January 20, 2009, his successor, Barack Obama, who had openly voiced misgivings about NAFTA, the predecessor to SPP, let alone SPP itself, took office as US President, but his anti-NAFTA views soon disappeared from his public persona.

"What differentiates the SPP from other security and trade agreements is that it is not subject to Congressional oversight or approval. The SPP establishes a corporate/government bureaucracy for implementation that excludes civil society participation. ... Facing a worrisome pact pushed forward in secrecy, it is time for Congress to halt this undemocratic approach and establish a process based on openness, accountability, and the participation of civil society.

On February 4, 2011, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President Barack Obama announced a new security and prosperity initiative. In it they planned to "to pursue a perimeter approach to security"^[24] "in ways that support economic competitiveness, job creation, and prosperity"^[24].

On March 13, 2011, the Canadian government announced it was beginning a five week consultation process "with all levels of government and with communities, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, as well as with our citizens"^[25] on the implementation of the shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness."

As you can see this fight continues on. So just how conservative is Rick Perry? Not very.

As for Mitt Romney, he says he doesn't support for the country, that which he supported (mandated healthcare) for the state that he governed. Isn't that the opposite position most former governors take? He was for abortion and gun control  before he was against them. I won't waste a lot of time on this guy. You should know Romney is worthless.

My whole point in all of this is, in order to get all of the things that a constitutional conservative government brings, we must elect TRUE constitutional conservatives to office or else this whole exercise is futile. All to often the republican establishment boils everything down to dollars and cents. If this is all that matters to you, then ignore the other realities, but if you love America, weigh them carefully, issue by issue, and what you'll find is that, on the more serious constitutional issues, rhetoric aside, Obama, and Romney are too close for comfort, and Perry is not far behind.


Eugene Ralph

Reply to: Reply to Ej Ralph

Send

Spineless Wimps

By: Eugene J. Ralph

After weeks of watching the U.S. House Republicans demonstrate to the world how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I only wonder how many of you are as disgusted as I am right now. Many of us have known since last November that the leadership of John Boehner would be questionable at best, but now he has proven just how spineless he is. He has allowed Obama and Reid to lambast him into submission and pass another piece of legislation without even considering the Cut, Cap, and Balance Bill. Both Boehner and Cantor are indeed a freak of nature. I'm amazed how they stand and give all those speeches, because they have no spine. 

I realize there may be some of you who do not agree, and if so, I ask you to consider, if not now, then WHEN should we expect the Republicans to actually stand for something. When Clinton was in office, we were told that we needed a Republican President. G.W. Bush got elected, and for 4 years (2002-2006), the republicans controlled Washington, yet we lost ground on the social issues, Planned Parenthood continued receiving tax dollars, an open homosexual was appointed as Aids Czar, they sold us out on Constitutional issues like the Patriot Act, and Campaign Finance Reform, wouldn't stand firm on the appointment of the BEST nominees for Federal Judgeship's, (remember the "gang of 14" judicial compromise) while they told us that big government run by republicans was a good thing. And of course we can't forget how Bush tried to give us Harriet Myers before nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court. With rare exception, have you noticed how republicans fall all over themselves voting for Obamas' Judicial nominees? Need I go on? 

We were told several months ago to wait until the debt ceiling debate before we would hold Obama to account fiscally. Of course that was after we watched the 100B $ budget cut turn to 380M. Now we get more excuses as to why they can't get the job done. That's right, they only control the house. Maybe they need to take notes from the democrats, and learn how to govern from the minority. Tom Daschle managed to govern pretty well from the minority from 2000-2002. 

Many of you are aware of the other very serious issues that need to be dealt with as they come up for debate (i.e. Illegal Immigration, The advancement of the Abortion and Homosexual Agenda, 2nd Amendment issues and the repeal of Obama care to name a few). My question is, do you really trust the republican leadership to make a worthwhile case to the American public on the issues WE care so much about? It doesn't seem to matter what level of government it is, the republican leadership (i.e. Strauss, Perry, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor) is always playing games to try to hoodwink the conservative electorate. 

I realize that this fight is a marathon, but we need some kind of real progress to show that we're moving in the right direction. I only hope that you're as fed up as I am, and you're keeping score because it is more obvious to me every day, that unless Patriotic Americans get fed up with these bunch of spineless wimps at every level of government, that talk so strong when it's election time and can't be heard from when it's crunch time, and primary their butts out of office next year with more Constitution loving Tea Party minded candidates, this nation is doomed.

God bless,

Eugene Ralph