« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatives Thank the Republican Main Street Partnership

The wilderness is such a lovely place this time of year.

By: Wubbies (Diary)  |  November 5th, 2008 at 07:57 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

To quote one of our posts here on Red State, “the great moderate experiment in the Republican Party is over!” – Will someone please tell the moderate Republicans of the Republican Main Street Partnership!

In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president. The great Reagan Revolution was born with the melding of conservatives, evangelical Christians, and the “Reagan Democrats”. In 1994, Newt Gingrich engineered the take over of the Congress by the Reagan Revolution conservatives.

The history of The Republican Main Street Partnership starts with:

The November 1994 mid-term elections were commonly referred to as the “Republican Revolution.” Given the great gains made by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, a group of moderate House Republicans began informal meetings to discuss ways to further a centrist, pragmatic Republican agenda — one that could accommodate bipartisan legislative results. At that time, there was great concern that a dramatic shift to the right was quickly approaching, given the new congressional leadership. The discussion group began to craft a moderate Republican agenda with a fiscally conservative background.


By their own mission statement, their goal was to stop the slide into conservatism. This group was formed as a result of conservatives winning the day. Their mission is to combat conservatism and be “centrist”.

They have spent their time engineering the ouster of conservatives from party leadership. They wanted to bring the Republican Party “back to the center”. Our Presidential candidate John McCain is one of the prominent members of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

The Republican Main Street Partnership was successful in bringing the Republican Party back to it moderate ways – and right back into the wilderness. The moderates have had their chance after winning control of the party back, now they need to be held accountable for what they did to the Party of Reagan. They have shown us how to lose elections – big time! I don’t like the model they have shown us. Now it is time to take the party back to conservatism. It is the only model that has won in 50 years!

I am tired of “Unifying”! Now, I want to win!

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • SteveLA

    ww

    What is this “true” conservatism that you long for, that we moderates stand against?

    I’m a fiscal conservative
    Strong Military
    Law and Order
    Smaller government

    Republican

    Social conservatism is something I go out of my way to bash, but it is not why I am a Republican.

    I like the 10th, for both Liberal over reach and Conservative over reach.

    I am a moderate. Tell me where I am out of touch with your Conservative Nirvana.

    • Wubbies_World

      … you draw offense to my post. It was not intended to offend.

      However, I will point out that the party has been marching to the tune of bipartisan moderate king John McCain. The sirens song of “unity” and “bipartisanship” brought us to this point.

      I very much agree with your “so called fiscal conservative” charge. That is the big problem. Too many Republicans tell us how conservative they are, but act in every way but conservative. I am tired of it.

      I am no longer willing to be told to unite behind moderates, especially if this is what it has got us. Now it is time for moderates to take their turn behind conservatives. We might actually start winning elections again.

      If being told I will not march deeper into the wilderness in the name of bipartisanship and centrism offends you, I cannot help that. You will have to make your own decisions about that issue. I refuse to go deeper into the wilderness.

      PS: The arena of ideas is a great place to be. I enjoy the give and take. It is not meant to hurt or offend anyone. All I ask is that you present your ideas with the same goal. May the best ideas win.

      That is my objective. – what is yours.

      • SteveLA

        Should have said don’t go out of my way….that was dumb on my part!

        • Wubbies_World

          … “true” conservatism. I remember extensive threads on this very topic as John McCain got enominated. You and I can go round and round about what it means. I am not into that kind of silliness for a second time.

          I am a social and fiscal conservative. I do not believe those who oppose my social beliefs are bad people. I am not into driving those who believe differently than me from the party.

          In the Republican Main Street Partnership own web page states, they were formed to counter conservatism. Ronald Reagan advocated we are to work together as conservatives.

          Do you think that Republicans should form groups to undermine other Republicans? THAT IS WHAT I NOW RISE AGAINST!!!

          Johnny Mac showed us how to lose. Now can you try a conservative who doesn’t state as one of their goals as undermining other Republicans?

          I united behind Johnny Mac, even though I was not loving it. I even did some campaign stuff in my state for him. Why would you oppose a Non-Main Street Partnership conservative taking a shot at winning?

          • Wubbies_World

            I was a bit taken back by that.

            It is all good.

            Please understand that I am trying to engage the arena of ideas. The moderate ideas have now been tried, and now it is proven to not be working too well.

            I did as I was asked to unite behind McCain, now return the respect and unite behind a more conservative candidate.

            Who knows, it might be silly, but they might actually win. The Reagan Revolution wasn’t that big of a failure to you was it?

          • BigGator5

            Look, I’m a Moderate and I still roll my eyes when it comes to The Republican Main Street Partnership.

            Instead of demonizing them, why don’t we try to unite under the flag of Fiscal Conservatism? Why be a divider, when we can be uniters?

            Both Conservatives and Moderates need each other. Conservatives keep us grounded in common ideals and Moderates make sure we don’t go fringe. Let’s stop the intra-party partisanship. If you force Moderates to side with Liberals, well, that will only make Liberals more powerful.

          • SteveLA

            WW

            Reagan and even the 1995 Contract with America were based on the issues I listed, not a heavy social conservative agenda or message. There’s a truth for the times ahead for this party in that.

            Before I’m jumped, I do not mean to imply that Reagan or Newt were not socially conservative, no sir, but it was not what drove them or the party or the agenda that drove the party.

            But let me coin a new term, a 10th Amendment Republican. One that believes that the Federal government is best kept out of people’s private business, both from the Left and the Right.

          • Wubbies_World

            …Response. I agree that we should unite as a party. I believe that moderates belong in the party and even though I am a conservative on all fronts, I am glad to have a moderate beside me working together.

            One of the things about this last election that infuriated me, beside the media openly choosing sides, was John McCain not wanting to “offend” his opponent. He consistently brought a rubber knife to a gun fight. Sara Palin did a good job of using pointy sticks in her campaign stops, but it is not a secret that she was operating within the guidelines laid out by the McCain people.

            I am tired of bipartisanship and losing. I want to engage in partisan warfare and win. I am tired of “Gang of… ” deals that undermine other Republicans.

            A history reminder from this summer to what I am referring too, involves the “gang of…” deal to undermine the house Republicans on oil drilling this summer.

            The issue is not “moderates”. The issue is Republicans who betray Republicans. That is the stated goal of the Republican Main Street Partnership! It just happens that they are moderates who have undermined other Republicans. There is a difference!

            I want a wide array of beliefs in our party. I do think there plenty of room on the bus. It is a good idea to bring us all along, but there can be only one driver to that bus. The Main Street Partnership has had it chance to drive us off a cliff, now lets try a more conservative driver for the next election!

          • SteveLA

            WW

            Fine, the Republican party is a “big tent”, but is it really?

            Obama ran as a centralist, not a wild eyed Liberal.

            Any Republican to win has to run as a Centralist, and not a hard core social conservative.

            Reagan ran not on being a hard core social conservative but on getting government off of people’s back, cutting taxes and restoring the military. I’d be happy to back anyone that took that approach. Don’t see many of those on the horizon right now.

          • Wubbies_World

            It is called Federalism!!! -and I can gladly work for those principles!!!!

            That is what Fred was about, and I have always believed in deeply.

          • SteveLA

            WW

            But Fred lacked the fire in the belly to run in the primaries for some reason. There was some passion, but no real fire. Never figured that one out.

            I’m not quite sure what would have happened if Fred found that fire and won the nomination. Would we have a President elect Obama or not, would we have had Sara Palin, who knows what would have happened.

            He’s not going to be running in 2012 I’d dare say.

          • Wubbies_World

            I am not looking to Fred for leadership. I was disappointed in how it all unfolded. However, the principles of Federalism were refreshing to see in a candidate.

            I am glad Sarah came to the forefront too. I am hoping this is not the last we see of her.

          • Wubbies_World

            … but that is just my opinion.

          • BigGator5

            You know, I am still unconviced.

            Go join the Conservative Party. You’ll be happier there.

          • stang

            I don’t think any of us would try to spin FT’s campaign as anything even approaching effective.

            That said, I think a lot of folks missed, justifiably maybe, that the battle wasn’t about him and the other candidates but about having a government actually guided by those first, most fundamental principles he enumerated. I think those first principles are worth revisting now without FT the candidate.

            From May 12, 2007

            Hopefully there will be an opportunity to do all of those things but tonight instead of all of that, I want to talk a little about what should be the origin of all those talking points. This would be the principles on which they are based ? first principles. The principles you have been defending since 1981.

            For Americans, these are found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They include a recognition of God and the fact there are certain rights that come from Him and not the government. They are based upon a respect for the wisdom of the ages, and a belief that human beings are prone to err; that too much power must never rest in too few hands. The result is a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers that flow from our guiding documents and from the rule of law.

            Finally, if we want to change or alter these concepts or any provision in the Constitution, we are given a specific method to do that ? by Constitutional Amendment.

            See entire text

            The question he inherently raises is “Will we, as citizens of this nation, allow our elected representatives to break this contract established in those foundational documents, with its’ attendant chaos or will we insist that they honor all its’ tenets, the rule of law and not just the convenient ones.

            First Principles are enumerated here. September 27,2007

            I will not post them here on your diary WW, but I think they’re worthy of re-reading and further discussion. I also think it is worth noting the vitriol with which the message he was bearing was attacked. Remember, this was Setember ’07.

            12 Responses to ?Fred Thompson- Defining His First Principles? #12 of 12 – Opinionated

            “…I find running in this day and age on such ?principles?- and nothing else- insulting. They have in practice nothing to do with real life and real issues that are on the Presidents desk. Some are hypocritical and contradictory on their face.

            They are manna to the knee jerk base. They are a sure loser in the General.

            Moderate, political consultant, troll, jerk, whatever… it doesn’t matter who said it, this was how First Principles were greeted by many R’s(so called). It wasn’t Fred they were afraid of, they fear First Principles. Their orgy of self importance would be over if these First Principles were to gain a toehold in government. Can’t have that now can we?

            If you wish to hold moderate political beliefs in your personal life, that is your perogative and the Constitution was intended to protect that perogative. But the people who are entrusted with the duty to see that your rights and my rights and the rights of all others are protected have answered a higher calling and swear a solemn oath to uphold and protect that contract as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and by God, I expect them to do their sworn duty. The only defining characteristic I can see that moderate politicians have is their careerism.

          • Magnificat

            …. by being more conservative.

            He really should have opposed the bailout from the very beginning. Obama was in his usual “let’s try to find a solution that works for all of us” neutral mode on that issue. At that point, all he had to do was avoid mistakes and run out the clock. Mccain missed out on a golden opportunity to distinguish himself as a Reaganesque candidate there.

            Although seemingly counter intuitive, I also believe he would have won the moderates if he actively supported ballot measures banning gay marriage and affirmative action in battleground states. Most moderates are uneasy over ultra liberal agendas.

            IMO – Moderates aren’t perfectly positioned in the middle while taking a mild interest in the left and the right. They’re passionate about SOMETHING, and often it’s conservative issue. You might not like George Bush or the war, but maybe you’re totally against gay marriage and illegal immigration. Prop 8 passed in the blue bastion that is California. Imagine how many people voted yes on that meansure AND Obama. Family values and traditional marriage is OUR territory. Why didn’t Mccain seize the moment?

          • JSobieski

            So many people charactized as socially liberal but economically conservative.

            Yet, they are not conservative in any way.

            Look at the former Governor of Mass (Something) Weld. Endorsed Obama despite $1T in proposed spending.

            Look at the current mayor of NYC.

            When people bitch about moderates, they are bitching about the big spenders in DC.

          • JSobieski

            or trustworthy in so many cases.

            Not saying it about you, but even Obama calls himself a “fiscal conservative”

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • Wubbies_World

            I would rather work to retake the party I belong too — to take it back to the conservatism I think it should espouse. I will respectfully ask that you try to convince me otherwise with your ideas.

            However, after the last two elections, the results of your standard bearers will result in it being awfully difficult why moderates should keep getting their chances if all thy are going to do is lose.

            In that context, it is easier for you to convince me to leave, that way you won’t have to try and convince me why losing elections is preferable.

  • BigGator5

    I’m so happy I was unbanned for this…

    Look, I am so sick of this “Let’s Blame Moderate Republicans” bull.

    Hey, I have a novel idea! Let’s kick out “so-called” Fiscal Conservatives who allow $700 Billion Crap Sandwich to be forced on us!