Conservatives vs. Republicans: A History

As a conservative, I'm in a tremendous amount of pain as I watch the Democrats tear down my country. And, like many others, I'm asking how we could have allowed this to happen. It's a long story, actually. I've given some thought to it, and I've come to a startling conclusion. At least it's startling to me. This may come as no suprise to some, but I lay the blame at the feet of the Republican Party itself. I have concluded that Barack Hussien Obama can thank one man for his election. That man is Lee Harvey Oswald. Stay with me here....

In November 1963, it was becoming clear that John Kennedy may be vulnerable to a strong Republican candidate in 1964. That was the reason he went to Dallas in the first place, to shore up support in the south where he was weakest. The Republicans were chomping at the bit to take him on, believing that they could use a growing conservative movement to beat Kennedy. The White House had a long list of southern visits scheduled for the president, and he had just been to Tampa, Florida before visiting cities in Texas. The conventional wisdom was that the November elections would be a re-visit of the close race Kennedy and Nixon ran four years earlier, but the south would come through for a Republican this time.

With Kennedy's assassination at the hands of the "lone nut," Oswald, Lyndon Johnson was poised to pop the Republicans bubble. As a southerner, he took some of the wind out of the
Republican strategy. The party looked to Richard Nixon to run again. Nixon was considered a moderate in the party, and that's what the Republican "establishment" was looking for. Nixon passed on running again, so the party promoted the candidacy of New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, another moderate. But the conservative wing of the party rallied behind Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a champion of smaller government, lower taxes, and states rights. The primaries proved that both men had strong support in their respective corners of the party, but it looked like the issue wouldn't be decided until they faced off at the national convention. It was a Rockefeller family matter that decided the race. He had recently married a divorced woman, and there were rumors that he had been having an affair with her, prompting a quick divorce and marriage to Rockefeller. While neck and neck going into the final primary in California, Rockefellers wife gave birth to Nelson Rockefeller Jr. three days before the vote, and that opened the adultry issue all over again. Goldwater won, and went to the convention with the delegates to win the nomination. But the Establishment Republicans were not going down without a fight, and the convention turned nasty. Goldwater survived, only to be crushed by Johnson. He was never able to get the support of his vanquished foes. Rockefeller and his moderates sat silently while Johnson destroyed Goldwaters reputation.

Four years later, Johnson was forced out of running for re-election because he was so unpopular in escalating the war in Viet Nam and having no plan to end it. Richard Nixon returned to the stage in 1968 and was the front runner from the start. With the Democrats in disarray following the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the primaries, and war protesters outside their Chicago convention, Nixon looked like a winner. The opposition came in the person of Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. Nixon was ready this time, and with superior campaign orginization, he narrowly beat Humphrey. Again, Nixon was considered a moderate, and his main rival had been conservative California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, not content to sit on their hands, flocked to the cause of Alabama Gov. George Wallace. Wallace was percieved by many to be racist due to his opposition to segregation in public schools. He insisted that this opposition was more about states rights to decide these issues, rather than the federal government forcing the states hand in deciding such things. Nearly ten million voters pulled the lever for Wallace, making him the first third party candidate to win a state in a national election.

The election of 1972 saw Nixon roll over liberal S. Dakota Sen. George McGovern. The Republican Party was riding high, the Establishment had the power to crush any conservative candidate who threatened to challenge the status quo. But things got messy after 1973, when the Watergate burglary took center stage in American politics. Nixon's vice-president, Spiro Agnew resigned amidst charges that he had accepted bribes in excess of $100,000. Nixon, who was already feeling the heat of the Watergate investigation, calculated that if he chose someone that would be unacceptable as president to be his vice-president, he would never be impeached. So he chose a man that he considered dull and "not very smart," Gerald Ford. The Republican Establishment assured him that the people would never get rid of him now. He was safe.

Well, not so much. Nixon is out in disgrace in 1974 and Ford is President. By 1976, the party decides that the moderate Ford should be in good shape for re-election, and works to help him defeat the increasingly popular Ronald Reagan in the primaries. Reagan, again the conservative choice, arrived at the convention within striking distance of Ford. But, in what I consider his biggest gaffe, he chose Pa. Sen. Richard Schweiker, a liberal, as his running mate. Why? To appease the moderates. Bad move for Reagan. It caused the conservatives, who had brought him this far, to bolt and throw their votes behind a New York senator who had not even run. Republican Party 4, Conservatives 0.

Ford was a likable guy, who filled in nicely. He did nothing to help or hurt himself as president. he did get into some trouble by saying silly things during the presidential debate, namely that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination at the time. That pretty much wrapped the election. Jimmy Carter dispatched Ford by being a "Washington outsider." Republicans wandered around scratching their heads and wondering how a peanut farmer from Georgia could oust a sitting president. By 1980, Ronald Reagan knew the answer to that, and put together a strategy to build a coalition that the party could not block. He went into the primaries with such momentum that the moderates, who supported George H.W. Bush, found themselves overwhelmed. While Bush won a few primaries, Reagan swept to the nomination. Carter had basically forfeited the office by being inept and allowing the economy to tank, the Iranians to hold Americans hostage at our embassy, watching interest rates climb to over 20%, and blaming all our ills on...us! Reagan gave him an electoral beating, and suddenly the Republican Party was in love with him.

Reagan gave way to his vice-president after eight successful years that saw him win re-election in 1984, this time putting a whipping on the very liberal Walter Mondale. Everybody knew that Bush was going to be "Reagan Lite", but the party gathered behind him and on he went to win the nomination. This time the conservatives had supported N.Y. Congressman Jack Kemp, who they felt would be closer to Reagan in economic policy than Bush. Bush then faced a political light-weight in Massachusetts Gov. Mike Dukakis, and beats him and the democrats senseless. It looks good for the Republicans, and the party is nearly fearless. They have their moderate president and now they go for the congress.

Bush goes back on a campaign promise not to raise taxes, thus ending any chance he has at a second term. The Establishment is scrambling, because they fear that the democrats will be swept into power. After all, they were the ones who insisted that Bush raise those taxes. They got enough moderates to see things their way, and the conservatives were shut out again. Now comes William Jefferson Clinton, and it really looks bleak. He took Bush to task for breaking the tax pledge and being out of touch with average Americans. Conservatives, for some of the same reasons, rally behind political commentator Patrick Buchanan. A surprise entry by third party candidate Ross Perot shook things up considerably. Perot touched on the disappointment members of both parties felt about the choices they had. He argued that it was time to "clean out the barn" in Washington, and millions of Americans agreed. Clinton squeaked out a win and we all thought we'd heard the end of the Bush's.

The election of 1996 was when I personally decided that the Republican Party was a mess. I have been one to say that the voters should have complete control over who a party nominates. During the '96 election, I heard party leaders start saying that Kansas senator and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole "deserved" the nomination, and I nearly screamed. It didn't stop there. More and more of the party leadership got behind Dole, with the phrase "he has earned it" being espoused. I don't care who you are, you have earned nothing unless you have fought for it. Bob Dole was a great guy. But we had a very popular and relatively young Clinton in office, and throwing a 70-year old senator who had a reputation for being boring and crotchety was hardly the best we could do. But the Party says Bob deserves it, and throws it's support behind him. There were several other candidates that began to prove themselves capable money raisers and campaigners, but the decision had been made. Dole, a moderate, chose Jack Kemp as his VP, but to no avail. The two were trounced by Clinton.

But a storm had been brewing in the country. While the party had made a poor choice in pushing Dole on the voters, it had cultivated some strong congressional candidates. Republicans had taken over the House of Representitives for the first time in decades, lead by southern conservatives. Just as Clinton was preparing to take the country to the left, Newt Gingrich and his crew put the brakes on and began challenging the presidents agenda. National health insurance, tax hikes, and a larger federal deficit were all put on hold. Conservatives were pretty sure the 2000 election would be their next chance at holding the White House. They were wrong again.

Well, here we are. After that little trip down memery lane, we're back to something most of us remember pretty well. We watched the Republicans lick their chops and set their sights on power. All that stood in the way was Vice-President Al Gore. There was no shortage of republicans standing in line for the race. Once again there would be the Establishment candidate, and in this case it would be George W. Bush, son of the former president. The party leadership got together and made the decision that this would be the nominee before any votes had been cast. All of the old Bush cabinet came out for him, as did much of the GOP congressional leadership. Conservatives were leary, again, and chose to follow Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was then considered to be more conservative than Bush. The primaries got ugly when Bush ran a push poll in South Carolina indicating that the child McCain adopted from Bangladesh was his own, born out of wedlock. The party looked the other way and Bush successfully slowed the McCain surge that had been building. He went on to win the nomination, and then lost to Gore. Or at least 500,000 more people voted for Gore than Bush, but....oh, nevermind.

Bush would have likely been a quiet and slightly liberal president, if not for the attacks of September 11, 2001. But his response to that day gave him unprecidented popularity, and he soon found himself unable to do any wrong. He began hosting Ted Kennedy to talk about education, and other liberals also found the White House door mysteriously open to them. Bush was busy growing the deficit and fighting a war that became increasingly unpopular, but the party was happy to let him go against nearly everything the conservative wing supported. The "No Child Left Behind" bill was written by Kennedy and Bush gladly signed it, snubbing his "base" in the process. A new Medicare prescription bill was passed without conservative support, and the race to explode the budget deficit was on. And explode it did. Let's see, where does that leave the score?
Republicans 8 Conservatives 2

Bush pulled off an upset by beating back challenger John Kerry in 2004. Not by being conservative, but by being less liberal than Kerry. It may have been the party's last hurrah for some time. Now, in 2009, the Republicans are again scratching their collective heads wondering how the election of 2008 could have happened. The moderate Bush hands off to the moderate McCain in 2008. The party decided that McCain had "earned it" and threw their full support behind him, snubbing conservatives Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Liberal candidates Rudy Guliani and Sam Brownback fell off the radar screen after a few primaries. The party got their man the nomination by allowing early primary states to throw open the Republican balloting, thus letting anyone vote in the primary, regardless of party affiliation. Plenty of democrats did just that, and voted for McCain. The republican establishment chuckled and said that the democrats voted for McCain because he was an attractive candidate. The truth was that they were doing whatever they could to have Republicans nominate the weakest candidate possible. And they went ahead and did just that. Obama went on to crush McCain.

So, it really all started on that November day in 1963 when a disgruntled 24 year old punk took history into his own hands. Welcome to the White House, President Obama. The next time you stare at that portrait of JFK, you should thank your lucky stars.

W's Legacy Finds It's Footing

I've never been a big George W. Bush fan. He always appeared to be a puppet of those who he surrounded himself with. His dad's buddies filled the important positions in government, especially in offices of the State and Defense Departments. He never seemed to have the intellect to undertand the compexities of the geopolitical world. Nice guy. Kind of a good ol' boy who would seem right at home at the neighborhood country bar, drinking a Budweiser and talking about NASCAR.

My bigger problem with him in the early days, was that he seemed eager to go after Saddam Hussein, the thug who apparently had planned an assassination attempt on Bush's father when he visited the Middle East some years before. When he decided we would fight the war on terror on Iraqi soil, I protested that we were chasing the wrong enemy. We knew who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and it wasn't Saddam Hussein. Why were we letting Bin Laden off the hook? I still have questions about this today, and I still feel vengeance had something to do with it.

But today, as I watch the unfolding drama in Iran, I find myself looking back at the Bush agenda in the Middle East. Remove a vicious dictator, and bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. For the most part this has been successful. Although things remain shaky on the ground in Iraq, who can forget the purple fingers jutting in the air as millions of Iraqi's went to the polls? The scene was witnessed by billions of us around the world. As a result, we have seen significant change around the region. In Libya, Ghaddafi has become a legitimate player and brought his nation into the 21st century. Hezbollah is struggling to maintain support in Lebanon, and the Syrians have gone home altogether.

Well, guess who's been watching all this? The Iranian people. And they have decided they want some. It's going to be a tough road for them, but they are on the march. And I find myself looking back and realizing that this is what Bush was looking for when he took after Saddam. A platform. Somewhere for freedom to take wings in this part of the world. Freedom is a concept, not something you can hold in your hand. It's something that grows in your heart, and the Iranians are telling the rest of the world that their hearts are bursting.

The Wisdom Of Obama's Delay on Iran

There has been alot of posturing on the right regarding President Obama's slow response to the upheaval in Iran. You won't find much support for the president on my pages, but in this case, I find myself being in agreement with him. I think that the administration has acted wisely in this instance.

One goal of our middle east policy must be to allow any nations citizens the right to choose their own government, regardless of it's opinion of the U.S. or it's cooperation with us. We should be seen in the world as a people and government to be emulated, and that is the case with the Iranian people. They may have elected the opposition to the ruling class, and put themselves by danger doing so. What we must do as Americans, is allow them to voice their anger and frustration in the streets without giving the government any reason to crack down on them any harder than they are now. If the U.S. were to throw it's public support behind the protesters, then Khameni and the ayahtollahs can claim external influence on the demonstrations and begin a show of force that they could say was in response to our interference.

Today the president made a statement that allowed him to walk a thin line that is more PR than statesmanship. His comments were directed to the ruling Ayatollahs, requesting that they stop using deadly force in dealing with the protesters, who are legitimately voicing their opposition to an obviously rigged national election. The statement was directed at the governments unbalanced repsonse to what is happening in the streets of Iran. It did not address the election or the will of the rulers, but it allowed the U.S. to let the protesters know we are paying attention.

In addition, I want to say how moved I have been by the reports of ordinary Americans using the social networking system on the internet to keep informed of events on the streets of Tehran. It has been used as well to send support to those who are risking their lives. If you haven't had an opportunity to do so, I am urging everyone to use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and MySpace to send a message to the Iranian people that we are watching, and supporting their moment in the sun.

Sotomayor Giving Pro-Choicers Something to Think About

As Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor made her initial round of "Hola's" this week, it became clear that she has been pressed hard by Democratic Senators on the abortion issue. After initially falling head over heels in love with her, pro-abortion members became aware of just how few times Sotomayor had actually had opportuities to vote on life issues. This realization put a slight flutter into the hearts of liberals.

But, alas, California Senator Dianne Feinstein got to the bottom of it when she met with the judge. Not that there is any sort of litmus testing going on here, but the subject did come up. As reported in USA Today...

"We had a conversation in general about that,” Feinstein said.

My bet is that it was the first question out of Feinstein's mouth as soon as the door closed behind them. And I bet it's more than 50% of what they discussed. Especially since abortion rights groups had begun feeling squeamish with the little they could find in Sotomayors rulings on abortion issues. The senator then went before the camera's and announced that everything was just fine. This nominee passes the test, she assured them.

"I think she is a woman who is well-steeped in the law and well-steeped in precedent," Feinstein explained. "And I believe that she has a real respect for precedent, and that she was not just saying that. And if that is really true, then I would agree with her. And I believe it is."

Pro-abortion folks are aware that Roe v. Wade was bad law. They know that it could be overturned if enough conservative judges ended up on the Supreme Court. They know that it hangs by a string called "precidence." This is a term that allows judges to use old rulings on similar cases to make decisions on new cases. In other words, it's easy to just say that Roe v. Wade is settled law and we don't want to go back and review it. After all, Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, knows that if the court looked at the original case and determined that it was poorly written, there would be grounds to overturn it.

"I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal, and the lives of young desperate women were in jeopardy." She said she worries that "Americans no longer appreciate what it would mean if (abortion rights) were taken away."

Don't get me started on the lives of "young desperate women" being in jeopardy. This has nothing to do with that. Abortion remains a choice of convenience. Any young woman who chose to use a coat hanger to end the life of her fetus did so because she didn't want to be a mother, not because her life was in danger.

It will still be interesting to see how hard Sotomayor will be pressed on this in hearings. But for now, pro-choicers should be sleeping with one eye open.

Health Insurance: Can We Still Avoid A Single Payer Plan?

Washington is a busy place these days. With a Supreme Court nominee prepping to be grilled, two very ill stalwart Democratic senators (Byrd and Kennedy), the federal government taking over private industry at an alarming rate, and the focus on health care, it's as fast paced as I can remember in my lifetime. These folks have a lot going on.

With the debate on health care and the governments obsession with making sure everyone is insured, I was trying to remember what Medicaid is for. My understanding is that it was to cover the poor who otherwise would have no access to healthcare. Why isn't that program being used to take care of those Americans who aren't covered at work or due to unemployment? I realize that it has been expanded oer the years to include larger and larger groups of poor and disabled citizens, which may be why it's broke today.

Currently, we are spending about $43 billion yearly on uninsured people who go to emergency rooms for colds, flu, and other non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries. That money, added to what we currently spend on Medicaid, could help put these people into a basic health insurance policy paid by Medicaid, but purchased through a private insuror. This keeps the private sector active in coverage and makes sure that the government doesn't get involved in the insurance business. I don't want to see a single payer system in our country, with the federal government making decisions on my healthcare. Medicaid would have to undergo a major transformation, but we've been hearing that it was coming for the last 30 years. It would re-enforce what the program was supposed to do in the first place. Could something like this end up a win-win situation?