Thread: Newt, Sarah and a new GOP by Pat Buchanan

Newt, Sarah and a new GOP

Posted: October 27, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009

"Sometimes party loyalty asks too much," said JFK.

For Sarah Palin, party loyalty in New York's 23rd congressional district asks too much. Going rogue, Palin endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava.

On Oct. 1, Scozzafava was leading. Today, she trails Democrat Bill Owens and is only a few points ahead of Hoffman, as Empire State conservatives defect to vote their principles, not their party.

Newt Gingrich stayed on the reservation, endorsing Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and hauls water for the unions.

Scourged by the right, Newt accused conservatives of going over the hill in the battle to save the republic, just to get a buzz on. "If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision." How Scozzafava would prevent America's being "crushed" was unexplained.

The 23rd recalls a famous Senate race 40 years ago. Rep. Charles Goodell was picked by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill the seat of Robert Kennedy in 1968. To hold onto it, Goodell swerved sharp left, emerging as an upstate Xerox copy of Jacob Javits, the most liberal Republican in the Senate.

In 1970, Goodell got both the GOP and Liberal Party nominations, and faced liberal Democrat Richard Ottinger. This left a huge vacuum into which Conservative Party candidate James Buckley, brother of William F., smartly moved.

What would it look like if the federal behemoth were severely cut down to size? Read Wayne Allen Root's prescription for the nation in "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts"

Assessing the field, the Nixon White House concluded that, with liberals split, Goodell could not win. But Buckley might. Signals were flashed north that loyalty to the president was not inconsistent with voting for Buckley. To send the signal in the clear, Vice President Agnew described Charlie Goodell to a New Orleans newspaper as "the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party."

The former George Jorgensen, Christine had undergone the most radical sex-change operation in recorded history.

Liberals went berserk, calling on New Yorkers to rally to Goodell, who began surging, at Ottinger's expense. Buckley scooted between them both to win. Hoffman may also. But even if he does not, Palin, a conservative of the heart, did the right thing.

And the GOP has been sent a necessary message.

For, according to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans now identify as conservatives – only 20 percent as Republicans. If the GOP is not the conservative party, it will never be America's Party.

But what does "conservative" mean in 2009? And where do conservatives come down on the great issues? For what the right is against – any repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the $787 billion stimulus, Obamacare – is much clearer than what the right stands for.

In 2010, this may not matter, as the Obamakins rule the roost and will be held accountable, and Republicans can unite around what they oppose. Year 2012, however, is problematic.

Then the party must declare itself. And the reality is that the GOP remains a house divided.

What, for example, is the conservative view of the war in Iraq and the Bush economic policies that cost the party both Houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008?

Why did President Bush leave with 27 percent approval? Did Bush policies the GOP once applauded have anything to do with it?

Was Bush free trade responsible for the decline of the dollar and the loss of one in four manufacturing jobs? Is globalization still good for America and NAFTA the deal of the century?

What is the conservative position on reaching out to Russia, as Barack Obama has done, on bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and on canceling that anti-missile system Bush planned in Poland?

"We're all Georgians now!" John McCain declared. Are we?

What is the party position on a "long war" in Afghanistan?

For if America has soured on the war and opposes more troops today, will America be enthusiastic about soldiering on in 2012, after 1,000 or 2,000 more American dead have been shipped home?

Do Republicans support negotiating with Tehran, or cutting off gasoline and starting up the escalator to air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities that are today under U.N. inspection?

Will the GOP propose to stimulate the economy with tax cuts after four straight trillion-dollar deficits? Will the Bush line, "They'll pay for themselves," still be credible after Bush's deficits?

If the largest federal outlays are for Medicare, Medicaid, Social security, defense and interest on the debt, followed by education, housing, homeland security and transportation, where would the GOP use the knife to balance the budget?

According to Gallup, America is moving closer to the Republican position on regulations, abortion, guns and union power. But half of all Americans now favor cuts in legal immigration. Are Republicans willing to call for a moratorium on immigration to tighten the labor market and force wages up? Or does the Chamber of Commerce still call the tune?

Ronald Reagan arrived with new ideas that fit the needs of his time. Where are the Republican ideas that fit the needs of this time?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114155

John (the progressive in GOP disguise) McCain MUST BE REMOVED from office, along with those like him. They are puppets to lobbying and have no interest in helping citizens.

NAFTA must be destroyed as well. This is absolutely NO GOOD for American citizens and workers, and is only good for greedy, globalist, corporate scum.

Originally Posted by Tbow009

John (the progressive in GOP disguise) McCain MUST BE REMOVED from office, along with those like him. They are puppets to lobbying and have no interest in helping citizens.

NAFTA must be destroyed as well. This is absolutely NO GOOD for American citizens and workers, and is only good for greedy, globalist, corporate scum.

Its unfortunate that Progressive McCain's buddy Grahamnesty isn't up for re-election in 2010 also. Why oh why did South Carolinians re-elect Grahamnesty just last year? Maybe he put on a good "I'm a conservative" show just before the election.

vote their principles, not their party.

Great Quote!

Newt Gingrich seems like a snake in the grass to me. There are a lot of things not right about him.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

vote their principles, not their party.

Great Quote!

Newt Gingrich seems like a snake in the grass to me. There are a lot of things not right about him.

Dixie

Yeah he is a front man put out there to put us into the same old trap. They think we are idiots out here!!!

People need to proceed with caution and skepticism when supporting Independent candidates since both the Repubs and Dems are attempting to hijack the independent movement. Organizations such as Freedomworks already have been compromised and infiltrated by the OBL, so be careful who you support. The hell with Palin and Newt Gingrich .

Originally Posted by Reciprocity

People need to proceed with caution and skepticism when supporting Independent candidates since both the Repubs and Dems are attempting to hijack the independent movement. Organizations such as Freedomworks already have been compromised and infiltrated by the OBL, so be careful who you support. The hell with Palin and Newt Gingrich .

I always make sure I know where the candidate stands specifically on illegal immigration. You do have to be careful. Some of them, especially if trying to appeal to all conservatives, will make it sound like they are all FOR enforcement. They will talk about "border security", but they will NOT be specific, clear, and adamant about NO amnesty, penalizing employers, etc.

I think thats one way you can distinguish between a REAL pro-enforcement candidate, and one who is more of an open-borders libertarian. The REAL pro-enforcement candidate will talk about E-verify and employer sanctions, etc. The open borders libertarians will NOT talk about E-verify or any employer sanctions. In fact, that is probably a good test question - ask them about their stance on employer sanctions and/or E-verify. If they say they're against it and give the standard C of C explanation as to why, then you know where they really stand on illegal immigration. They are likely FOR the free flow of migrants, NO border restrictions, and NO employer sanctions.

I have been checking out candidates' websites for this info. If they are OBL, you probably can't find quotes on illegal immigration, because they avoid the topic if possible.

BTW, no offense to any libertarians here. Generally speaking, I consider myself philosophically more libertarian than conservative. However, unfortunately the National Libertarian Party, and many libertarians, are so big on free and open markets, that it is the priority, even at the expense of other things, such as national sovereignty or culture. The priority seems to be open borders, and the free flow of people and goods and labor. These libertarians are NOT really too interested in preserving national culture or sovereignty.

Originally Posted by April

Originally Posted by Dixie

vote their principles, not their party.

Great Quote!

Newt Gingrich seems like a snake in the grass to me. There are a lot of things not right about him.

Dixie

Yeah he is a front man put out there to put us into the same old trap. They think we are idiots out here!!!

I agree. I don't trust Gingrich a bit. I think he is a RINO-in-waiting, who will simply do and say what he needs to get elected.

I don't think he would campaign or govern on principles. Other than maybe reducing taxes, especially on the wealthy, not so much the middle-class. Reducing gov regulation of all business. I think the C of C would love him, as well as big-business and the globalists. He would be a hawk on national defense. That would be overseas, NOT at defending our own borders. I think he could go either way on MANY issues, depending on what he thought would get him the most votes.

[quote]“Scourged by the right, Newt accused conservatives of going over the hill in the battle to save the republic, just to get a buzz on.â€