I recently had a discussion with a fellow traveler in the “limited government” movement on Facebook about a particular aspect of the upcoming battle for the White House in 2012.President Obama boarding Air Force One

We should face this topic head on, because I think it strikes at the core, the heart, the essence, the raison d’etre of the Conservative movement and why we should think about things critically, not just politically, but philosophically and indeed pragmatically.

The particular aspect that I’m referring to is the concept of: “Anyone but Obama”

First, let me say that, as everyone knows, I’m not a fan of Obama.  I feel that in his policies, his stances, his beliefs, and his actions he represents everything in the area of public administration and Government that I stand against, and the mere fact that he’s in the White House believing what he believes should leave all of us with restless nights.

Second, since I haven’t posted on it explicitly it may or may not be surprising that I am very underwhelmed (not overwhelmed, and not even…whelmed) by the current field of candidates rounding out the GOP field of 2012 contenders.  My hope was that Daniels would get into the race so at least we’d see the POSSIBILITY of the right kind of candidate (and no, the fact that Bush likes him does not automatically cause me to dislike him), even though I was not thoroughly convinced that when it came platform plank and debate time that he would have fulfilled all of my dreamy expectations…the potential was there.

Nevertheless, the conversation with my friend started with this basic premise put forth by her:

“I don’t care who the GOP puts forth; as long as they can beat Obama.”

To cut to the chase, when we got more specific, Newt Gingrich was brought up as a shining example (by me) of THE most Progressive Republican in the field, and she would STILL support him.

My question…why?

Because he wouldn’t put Communists in the administration.

OK…so what? So that he could put people who AREN’T communists but still push big government policies in the administration.

Well it’ll give us some time to regroup and at least “live”?

Live? So the communists are going to kill us if we have Obama for four more years? Live for what? Live with the knowledge that a) half the limited government movement is going to go back to sleep, and b) the other half is going to have to fight people who AREN’T obvious communists when they continue to overreach their Constitutional boundaries?

And what are we fighting for anyway? Are we fighting for a “kinder gentler” Toquevillian type of tyranny, or are we fighting to finally rid ourselves of tyranny.  All you have to do is ask yourself this:

If you look forward 20 years from now, which situation would have been worse: Barack Obama being president for 8 years, or Newt Gingrich being President for 8 years, followed by some other nimby pamby Progressive (from either party) being President for another 8.

Because let me tell you…if Barack Obama is President for 8 years, this country will be BEGGING for some SERIOUS damn “change”.

This is not a battle that will be won in November of 2012; it will be won EVERY DAY for the next 20 years.  That battle will be EVEN HARDER with a Progressive Republican in the White House than it is with Obama in the White House.  It will be much easier to fight it with an administration that continues to overstep and misstep and is being fought tooth and nail by States that are turning increasingly against him.  Half those battle will STOP with a Republican in the White House (for a variety of very obvious reasons), so we BETTER make sure if we’re going to put an “R” in there, it’s the right guy.

Now all that being said, I DO believe we can replace Obama with someone who will fight for limited Government.  I DO believe it would be PREFERABLE for Obama to be defeated after his first term so that stories cannot be invented about his legacy (Noone pretends that Jimmy Carter was some great savior, but they can pretend that Clinton was…why? Because he won his second term. People like winners.)  So make no mistake, I want Obama defeated. But he HAS to be defeated by limited government ideas, not “compassionate conservatism”…or our Republic may be lost forever.

Don’t give up.

It’s not worth it…

5 thoughts on “It’s not worth it…

  • Amen, Butch. For years conservatives have turned to “who looks the best”, “who says the right things, even if they don’t believe them” and “who can beat the competition.” And now conservatives find themselves with a stable of these type of candidates and slim pickings when it comes to candidates who have a foundation of real beliefs and principles from which they operate.

    As little as I like Obama, I’d rather suffer through four more years of his tyrannic reign than eight years of some GOP statists tyrannic reign.

  • I don’t see what is so horrible or crazy about a Newt administration. I don’t know how serious his assertions about carbon tax are but beyond that what is so progressive about Newt? He did more to balance the budget than Clinton you don’t think he remembers what it took to do that? He’d be less progressive than Romney by far.

  • In a way, you’re probably right about the Romney part…but remember, there are different reasons why people do things. It’s VERY EASY to be limited Government when the opposing party is in the White House. Not so easy when your party is. I hold no illusions that his Teddy Roosevelt Progressive tendencies would be countered effectively by a Republican Congress, so I’m skeptical.

    Plus, Carbon Tax shows a disconnect from reality. It says a lot about him. Anyone who says “drill here, drill now, pay less” and then wants to tax what we breathe out does not have his anchor in the same ideals I have. He’s simply very political.

    And don’t forget, we’re talking about a guy who was, is, and forever shall be a supporter of Individual mandates on health insurance. He, the GOP majority, along with Heritage Foundation and other little think tanks were BIG fans of individual mandates back in the mid-90s. They’ve only found Jesus with a Democrat in the White House.

    There are a variety of things that can be described as evil when the other Party is doing it that is downright REASONABLE when your own party is doing it. Cap and Trade, Health Care, Education Grant Coersion…bailing out banks and auto companies. All these things were A-OK in the Bush Administration (and he wasn’t even really a Progressive in the strictest sense).

    Lastly, we’re in a battle of ideas. If you win with a Progressive Republican, then you’re telling the world, more importantly the voter, and most importantly those who are awake to this madness that the ONLY way you can win is “compromise” on CORE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL visions of freedom and property rights vs. central control. We’re not talking about “raising taxes” we’re talking about Cap and Trade, we’re not talking about little subsidies, but TRILLIONS of dollars spent (that we don’t have, and even if we did, we shouldn’t spend it) on “saving the free market from itself.”

    This is not a “well, we agree 90% of the time” type thing. It’s WHICH things we disagree on that are important. We’re not think tanks; we don’t do rankings. We prioritize. If you believe in Cap and Trade and individual mandates and bailing out Car Companies…it doesn’t MATTER if you’re pro-life and you want to keep taxes low on corporations. None of that matters if private property means nothing.

    This is why I believe we need to stop talking about taxes occasionally, but that’s just me and that’s another conversation for another day.

    Thanks for your comments.

  • Bonnie, I think your response is quite telling of the choices we have on the “conservative” side.
    “He did more to balance the budget than Clinton.”
    “He’d be less progressive than Romney.”

    I’m tired of settling for “not as bad” in our government. That’s like a battered wife saying, “well, it’s not so bad; Lisa’s husband is beating her and cheating on her.” Where’s the logic in this approach?

    Make no mistake: these people work for us. We recruit, hire, and fire them. It’s time for Conservatives to start standing up and demanding actual representation, instead of simply settling for the candidate who promises to do them the least harm.

  • Skipper and Butch: Spot on! So, Newt won’t have Communists? Perhaps. What he *may* have, though, are Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas supporter much as Bush did, Clinton did, and certainly Obama does. I don’t see Newt willing to stand tall and take on the truly tough issues of this day. This isn’t 1994; we aren’t the world’s superpower; and the litany of legislation he supported makes my skin crawl.
    what’s equally important is that he comes from the GOP machine and will mow over those in his way, and I’m not speaking strictly about Democrats.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *