Point to Ponder: Does anyone (besides Ann and I) remember when it was called the Conservative WING of the Republican Party?

As the increasingly dismal primaries roll on, I've been consoling myself with reading - mostly Party history. I'm struck, also, by the increasingly "irrelevance" of Reagan amongst those who think Mr. McCain is, for all intents and purposes, his heir apparent. To anyone who feels that the mantle of Reaganism can be gloriously draped across the shoulders of a self described "foot soldier" to the movement, let me point out that John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. It's not a criticism, just a fact. He has not the temperament, the skills, the mindset, the intellect, nor the vision of Ronald Reagan. He has nowhere near the communication ability, the pragmatism, the negotiating experience, or the humility (yes, I said humility) to be compared to what is arguably the most revolutionary President of modern times (and I am leaving no one out). As a conservative, Reagan did what even Goldwater was unable to do: he crystallized, as never before, what Conservatism stands for, and what it means, in historical, legal, and moral terms that moved people as never before. John McCain has yet to do that, will never do that, because that task is, quite frankly, beyond him. I can hear the howls of protests coming from the Moderates - how dare you! - but the facts are plain. John McCain voted with the Party most times, except when he was partnering in various and disastrous pieces of co-engineered liberal tripe that no self-respecting Reaganite would have been a party to. His excuse with regards voting against the tax cuts - that it needed to be balanced with spending cuts - is classic moderate-speak from the elite 'Rockefeller Wing' of the Republican Party.

Oh, I'll vote for him - I just won't like it. Because it will be like voting for Jerry Ford in 1976 - and I fear that the same fate that overcame Jerry will overcome John.

Speaking of 1976, I'm reminded that Mitt Romney gave up as he was completing his conversion to conservatism. Mitt, who is a decent man, finally found an eloquent message late in the race, which says something about him as a manager and not a visionary leader. I'm also reminded that, in 1976, Ronald Reagan refused to give up, even in the face of numerous back-to-back losses to Jerry Ford, when everyone (and I do mean everyone, including every Cabinet Secretary in the Ford Administration, save for George Bush) told him to throw in the towel and give it up. He was broke, almost out of hope, and he told his staff they were going all the way to the Convention, no matter what, and he did. Why did he do this? Because he believed that Jerry Ford was the wrong man, and that the conservative message was the right one. He fought all the way to the Convention, and lost the first ballot by almost nothing. He did it - for principle. He did it - because the Country meant more to him than to give up. He did it - because he saw the conservative movement as being vastly different than the "status quo" that looked just a little less liberal than our pals the Democrats. In that moment, he fused a political movement with destiny.

Mitt Romney, in suspending his campaign, said that he did it "for the good of the Party". Ronald Reagan was willing to tear the Party apart for what he believed in, what he stood for, what he believed to be right. He did it, knowing that we were in grave mortal danger from an enemy who made islamofascists look like rank amateurs. For me, the "time of war" comment was good cover for a man who lacked true conviction and vision about how he would change the country, the direction that he wanted to move the country in, and what he thought the country should be, or even could be. A manager, then, not a leader.

I cannot bestow any conservative laurels, then, on Mitt Romney. There is no heir apparent, and Reaganism, which is a viable and vibrant political philosophy that has been watered down ever since he left office, remains without a leader. Would someone please step up and lead us forward before it's too late? I'm, of course, not speaking of this election cycle. I'm speaking of 2012.

I've long held the suspicion that rank-and-file Conservatives hold a minority position within the Republican Party. This is a viewpoint that is most likely held in contempt by many of my fellow Conservatives, and a critical self assessment of this viewpoint is called for in the wake of McCain’s' victories. Many talk-show hosts will undoubtedly be scratching their heads over the outcome of the Florida election results. I sympathize with and understand their confusion. Much of what John McCain has said and done is a contradiction of what it means to be a right-of-center Republican in the modern sense. Indeed, he has been called the Anti-Conservative Republican (and his disdain, dare I say contempt, for Conservatives has been well-documented, regardless of what his campaign says). There are, in fact, rumblings from some talk show hosts, all of whom I respect mightily (and one of whom wrote a book on the Supreme Court), that they might sit out this election cycle if John McCain wins the Republican nomination. Sadly, based on my analysis of the Florida results, I find it unlikely that Mitt Romney will win over enough moderates to add to his appeal among traditional Conservatives. This means that, with the continued exit of candidates (Rudy will be out most likely within hours) McCain is rapidly consolidating a position of power within the Party that will see him to the nomination. And so, we have what could be billed as a Conservative crisis brewing within the Grand Old Party. Let me be plain: Conservative talk show hosts who advocate a pack-up-and-go strategy, rather than working within the party as a powerful minority, are indeed handing the Democrats, who have never been so close to achieving their progressive/socialist agenda before, a bonanza of unimaginable riches, as they will likely control at least one if not both branches of the Congress, the Presidency and, by default, complete control over Judicial appointments. The outcome will be horrific: we will lose control of the judiciary at the highest level for the next thirty years. This is something that Republicans of all stripes, colors, persuasions, interests, and backgrounds need to fight as aggressively as possible. Abandoning the field of political combat over pure principle, while admirable in the abstract, is a road to oblivion, and will usher in an era of liberalism unseen in our history. Regardless of anything else, it has to be considered that McCain judicial nominations will, at the least, be more palatable to Conservatives than anything that would come from a Democrat in The White House. It is for this reason and this reason alone that Republicans may need to swallow hard and vote for a man that many of us simply detest because of the center-left positions he has advocated over the years. Somehow I am reminded of LBJ's famous, off-color remark about a tent. We do indeed to be inside it, affecting outcomes, rather than standing by helplessly as a juggernaut of truly frightening "change" sears the landscape for generations to come.

I've been away - computer issues. Looks like I will have to pony up for the Mac Mini very shortly. The Mel Martinez endorsement smelled very funny, if you look at it from the standpoint of the amnesty legislation which we Conservatives managed to defeat. Can you see the synergism going on between McCain and his Senate colleague? We'll be fighting it all over again, mark my words. How can Republicans be so short-sighted? Watching election returns is, for me, as exciting as a Yankees fan watching his favorite team beat the Red Sox. So, here I sit, remotes in hand, FOX on the tube, Hewitt on the radio, back and forth, using my home theatre setup as my War Room. Ahhhh politics! It's probably been said by others, but it strikes me (as it has for more than a couple of years) that Conservatives - real Conservatives, of all stripes, you know who you are - are a minority with the 'big tent' of the Republican Party. And yes, to affirm what the breathless media lefties chortle, even within the Conservative ranks, we have differences. Of course, these same stooges for the DNC don't know enough about us to realize that true Conservatives - smaller government, lower taxes, less government regulation, pro-business, traditional values - will band together, even as a minority within the Party, to affect change and the direction of the GOP. With time, the Republican Coalition has become less conservative and more moderate. Witness the divisions between, say, Cubans, who appear to be voting overwhelmingly for John McCain in the Florida, primarily because of or in spite of his stand on amnesty (John, take note: IT WAS AMNESTY!) and traditional Conservatives, who disdain McCain because of McCain (Insert Democtratic Senator Name HERE), not to mention his bizarre stand, almost anti-Republican, on tax-cuts, judges, unsecured borders, terrorist rights, and a whole host of core issues. And to that we can add older Republicans (a sympathy vote, clearly) and what are known, at least to the media, as independent or moderate Republicans. I would call them confused. We Conservatives are no longer driving the bus. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who is. Does this mean we cannot win elections, or secure The White House in 2008? Of course not. What it does mean, though, is that Conservatives, long considered the 'base' of the Republican Party, are being gently elbowed to one side in favor of an unfocused moderate wing of the Party that traces its roots back to the elitist Rockefeller Wing of the party. The lines continue to blur. Conservatives really do not have a candidate they they can rally to. Fred Thompson was, for all intents and purposes, virtually comatose on the road, inspiring about as much excitement as your average building inspector (all he needed was the gum). Mitt Romney is the most potent of the candidates, but, based on the votes he is getting, is clearly not able to muster moderates to us in the numbers necessary to decisively spank McCain and end his campaign. Huckabee is a Pro-Life Democrat. Ron Paul is an isolationist loon. And Rudy is well... Rudy is a sentimental favorite for me, because he's decisive, but I wonder how he'd look after twenty-plus years in the Senate. To his credit, he probably would choose strict constructionist judges - something that worries me with Senator McCain. John McCain has shown no respect for free speech (McCain-Feingold). He has shown little regard for the competitiveness of the American worker (McCain-Liebermann). He's more interested in open borders than in protecting our borders (McCain-Kennedy). And yet, as I sit here tonight, he is leading in Florida. What is happening to the Republican Party? Beware, the Moderates have arrived. The media will love this, but it isn't over yet.

Noun

wilderness - (politics) a state of disfavor; "he led the Republican party back from the wilderness", see REAGAN, Ronald.

A State of Disfavor would appear to be a mammoth understatement from my current un-restful residence on the Colorado Front Range. As I write this, I'm represented in the Colorado Legislature by two avowed Leftists, one a former teacher who has done everything in her power to kill charter schools, the other.. well, you get the idea. At the Federal level, I have a Congressman who thinks enriching Fidel Castro's personal wealth by drilling for oil and gas off Cuban shores by American companies is a good idea (even though he doesn't think drilling for oil and gas ANYWHERE in these United States is a good idea), and a Senator whose public statements ooze the medicating drowsiness of "moderation" while he charges head-long into virtual 100% compliance with anything "The Leadership" (and his far-left-of-center-Party) dictates. Last but not least, I have a Governor who, admittedly, is master of the media (gosh, can he talk!!) but is just as wedded to the specials interests of MoveOn.Org, the DNC, trial lawyers, unions of all stripes, teachers, Planned Parenthood, NOW, NEA, ad nauseam, as his colleagues.