« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

All We Want From Our Party is Consistency and Contrast

It's not about the "purists;" it's about the hypocrites

When Republicans were completely shut out of power a few years ago, they railed against the absurd policies of Pelosi and Reid and the out of control spending proposed by Obama.  The Tea Party rallied to the cause of freedom and limited government, and helped elect a Republican majority to the House just two years after they were relegated to the ash heap of history.

Upon assumption of power, conservatives and tea partiers turned to the new Republican majority in anticipation that they would pull the trigger on the pledges that they so stridently pronounced during the campaign season.  At that point many leaders within the party looked at us as if we were from Mars.  They impugned our motives, marginalized us, and referred to us as “extremist” “purists” and “intransigent.” We were subjected to all sorts of ridicule and contumely: “You would have opposed Reagan too.”  You’re not team players.”  “You’re going to call him a RINO too?”

In reality, all we wanted from Republicans was consistency; a commitment to continue fighting alongside us against the Democrats’ socialist agenda – an agenda Republicans so emphatically condemned during the elections.  Instead, we got results that were antithetical to the agenda and the pledge that buoyed them into office in the first place.

While they talked incessantly about the unsustainable Obama debt, Republicans agreed to grant Obama another $2.1 trillion in debt issuance for nothing.  As a result, we are now on pace to incur the largest amount of debt ever amassed over a 12-month period.  We’ve already racked up over $1.1 trillion in additional debt in less than 7 months since the debt ceiling was raised.

During the elections, Republicans mocked Democrats for their failed stimulus and bailout programs, yet they support a highway bill that is being advertised as a Keynesian jobs stimulus, and that will require a massive general fund bailout.

They rebuked the Democrats for passing 1000-page omnibus bills without ever reading them, yet they did just that when they jettisoned the Ryan budget in favor of Harry Reid’s minibus and megabus bills, even though they weren’t posted online for 72 hours.

They warned the American people at every turn that if Obamacare is implemented, our economy and healthcare system will suffer irreversible damage.  Yet, when presented with the only opportunity to ensure that the program is thwarted (we can’t rely on the Supreme Court or taking back the White House and Senate), Republicans cowered and passed several budget bills funding Obamacare.

They mocked Obama for picking winners and losers in the market and for his “Solyndra economy,” yet many of them support subsidies for ethanol, Boone Pickens/Soros natural gas cars, and Big Wind.  Don’t even start with the Import-Export Bank.

Throughout the elections, Republicans laughed at the idea of super long-term unemployment benefits, yet they agreed to extend them.

As conservatives, we merely want Republicans to remain consistent, and not support things that they opposed during the elections.  We are not looking for purity; we are looking for consistency.  Unfortunately, they view us as mere pawns in their plans to assume power for power’s sake.  They want us to join them in feigning outrage over big government during the elections, but then they eschew our principles after the elections in order to keep cheering the red team.  Well, we’ve had it with the red vs. blue game.  We’re not going to sit on the sidelines and reelect members for 30 years just because they are incumbent Republicans.

On the surface, it is quite perplexing why Obama is not condemned to inevitable defeat, given the state of the economy and the extremist bent of his policies.  Additionally, Republicans should be a shoo-in to win back the Senate, possibly with a supermajority, given the political climate and the one-sided nature of the Senate election map this year.  Yet, Republicans are struggling to eke out enough wins for a simple majority.

However, in reality, the political landscape is no enigma.  Republicans are not offering a bold contrast to Obama on most issues.  They are muddling their message by supporting their own forms of stimulus, bailouts, and corporate welfare.  Voters see Republicans advancing the same budgets, the same debt, the same policies; albeit, with less alacrity.

The American people will always choose the more definitive path; they will ignore the pale pastels amidst the bold colors.

All we ask for is some consistency and a bold contrast from the party we are all supposed to be fighting.  If that is too much to ask for, we will find new members in the primaries.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • oldredtop

    Reagan won because he drew a contrast…the time for “go along to get along” by politicians is past.

    We have economically gone over the cliff, IMO…the only question left is how soft the landing will be. If we don’t stop this spending now, the market will make the correction for us…and it WON”T be pretty…

    Thanks for YOUR consistency in bringing these matters to light… :-)

  • trueconservative2012

    I’m no Ron Paul fan at all– i think he’s insane on a lot of things. But isn’t he by your definition the only candidate that has remained consistent? Santorum, by virtue of being in the Senate, has voted on a lot of compromises – even though he didn’t support everything in the bill. We can’t have someone so willing to compromise in the WH. Romney has been all over the map since his Taxachussets days and Newt is, well, Newt.. why can’t we get a candidate with this consistency we need? Mitch Daniels was part of the Bush WH that lost its way. Chris Christie doesn’t think sharia is a problem. Rubio is hispanic and has voted to raise the deficit ceiling and some suspect spending bills. Where’s our savior??

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      The presidential candidates are set and finite. There’s not much we can do. It is what it is. This is more of a rallying cry for the congressional elections.

      • trueconservative2012

        there’s always Americans Elect! lol

  • jaykali

    A governor from California? I am sure that would go over well. I don’t know enough Reagan history to know his positions when he ran for president and whether or not they were more moderate or not. But I know Reagan inspired and that more than anything is Romney’s problem.

    If Chris Christie were running he might have similar northeastern moderate positions but I think he would run away with the election because of his charisma and inspiring qualities. Newt fans try to argue that they support him bc he’s more conservative, and yet he has been all over the place on several issues. But he has charisma and can make the argument. That’s really what this is about.

    Now onto Santorum, who I feel like is winning more on the fact that he’s the only legitimate not-Romney than bc he a) is a pure conservative or b) is particularly inspring. When I look at Santorum I just say to myself- “Really? This guy?” I guess people might say the same thing about Romney. But wasn’t Santorum in charge with all the go-along to get along Republicans in the Bush era that has everyone up in arms now? I mean he was around with the ‘No child left behind’s and the prescription drug plans and all that kind of stuff.

    The blogosphere so much wants this to be a choice between a) a true conservative and b) the non-conservative establishment guy. The fact is it isn’t. There is no untarnished conservative running. There is no one who can consistently inspire. Newt is great at making the argument sometimes but he is a high volume shooter, and he has as many hits and he does misses. And he is mathematically out anyway.

    I feel like Santorum and Newt are just wasting everyone’s time.

  • benko

    The liberals will do whatever it takes (see passage Obamacare) and always stick to their guns. Repubs consistently have no spine, want to be reasonable/share/maintain power. Yes there were rare pauses.

    Please tell me what path anyone sees to avoid us becoming Greece?

  • kestrel

    The real entitlement problem is the politicians of both parties who feel entitled to rule over us. Like hypocrites everywhere, they blame the very people (We the People) whom they are constantly using and exploiting:

    In their view, the problem is that too many voters feel entitled to goodies provided by the government and financed by taxpayers… But a close look at the data shows that it’s not a voter sense of entitlement that is driving the process. Quite the contrary.

    (The emphasis is mine.) Using Social Security and Medicare as examples, Rasmussen illustrates that most voters are not expecting something for nothing. (Part of the problem with these two huge programs, of course, is “the fact that the way our politicians have defined ‘trust funds’ is fraudulent.”)

    Rasmussen concludes:

    Over the past 58 years, voters have consistently elected presidents, senators and congressman who promised to cut government spending, but it has never happened, not even once. As shown in my new book, “The People’s Money,” voters are ready to support the kind of long-term thoughtful changes needed to balance the budget and eliminate the federal debt. The only thing standing in the way of a solution is the nation’s political leaders from both parties.

    While most voters view excessive government spending as the problem, those who feel entitled to rule over the rest of us see the voters as the problem. And that’s the real entitlement crisis facing the nation today. The political class wants to govern like it’s 1775, a time when kings were kings and consent of the governed didn’t matter.

    Here’s Rasmussen’s piece.

  • surfcitysocal

    for articulating so well why I’m fed up with the Republican party and registering as a conservative.