Saviors or “Dogs in the Manger?”

This is the question which should be bothering both Republicans, Conservatives and just about anybody who desires a return to constitutional governance. With the replacement of the entire House of Representatives, a possibility in just over a year, we are gradually moving into campaign mode again.

Provoked by the radical policies of the new administration, more people than usual are taking an interest in careful examination of the credentials of each candidate. The problem arises mostly on the Republican side. There we find unanimity on what the electorate doesn’t want but some confusion concerning just how far to turn policy to the right to please the voters. In an effort to present an electable person, the Republican Party often offers an individual too compromised to satisfy the rapidly emerging Tea Party types in their base.

For example, in New York’s 23rd, an interim election is required to replace Rep. John McHugh, NY-R, who resigned to take an appointment to be Secretary of the Army. The name of Dede Scozzafava was offered to represent the GOP. When it was revealed that she was pro-abortion, backed gay marriage, supported the stimulus package and abetted union organizers, many in the party felt betrayed since she looked more like a Democrat. One can only wonder what isolated position she had which verified her credentials as a Republican. The New York Conservative Party (yes, it is a viable entity in N.Y.) gave her a rating of 15 out of a possible 100.

In response they placed the name of Doug Hoffman on the ballot as a Conservative Party Candidate. His credentials are impeccable, his style more populist and his biggest plus—he is not a lawyer. He is also an avid Tea Party advocate and participant. While it is reassuring to those who share his views, his emergent strength has presented the conundrum. Is it wiser to stand steadfastly behind principle or regain the coveted seat in the House with a middle-left candidate?

In an Oct. 15 poll, the tally was Bill Owens, D – 33%, Scozzafava, R – 29% and Hoffman, C – 23%. With the election only three weeks away, the problem becomes obvious. Combined, Scozzafava and Hoffman easily eclipse Owens. This is not surprising in a district with 45,000 surplus Republican registrants. But, only one will win and no merger/runoff is available to the candidates. The result could easily be a Democrat taking the seat.

Here you have seen some of the details in this hotly contested race and in the upcoming elections, this scenario will more than likely be repeated over and over. Not only must those in the administration be overcome to return to the basics espoused by the founders but also the entrenched party leaders who see only the letter R behind the name on the roster as their goal. Career politicians often rely upon their party designations to sustain their employment first and the aims of Americans second.

In the Senate, the presence of RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) is equally appalling. In an evaluation by the American Conservative Union (ACU) in March ’09 we found the following ratings.

Olympia Snowe, Maine: (ACU Rating: 12)

Susan Collins, Maine: (ACU Rating: 20)

George Voinovich, Ohio: (ACU Rating: 52)

Lisa Murkowski, Alaska: (ACU Rating: 58)

Mel Martinez, Florida: (ACU Rating: 60)

John McCain, Arizona: (ACU Rating: 63)

Richard Lugar, Indiana: (ACU Rating: 63)

Robert Bennett, Utah: (ACU Rating: 64)

Thad Cochran, Mississippi: (ACU) Rating: 68)

Arlen Specter would have made the list except he changed his party. Snowe scored 1 point higher than Hillary Clinton and 4 points lower than Harry Reid. Collins scored the same as liberal Claire McCaskell and lower than Russ Feingold.

In short, the party is a mess! With friends like these in the Republican Party, the goals of millions of faithful in the Conservative are ill-served. There is a serious question of whether the Republican name is still a viable entity. With half the party leaning to the right and the other half favoring a compromise to keep their jobs, one will obviously question the leadership. Ignoring the will of the people is apparently not the exclusive province of the Democrat party. With the information above one concludes the Republicans are reducing it to an art form as well.

The traditionalists are inclined to ignore the emerging figures in the party who have that leadership capacity which is so missing at present. Palin is a cartoon to them. Huckabee is painted as more entertaining than patriot. Thompson was ignored to the point he got bored. Romney was feared for any number of reasons including being far too good as a leader of men. It appears that anyone with a scintilla of common sense and grasp of the constitution appears to the party leadership as a radical. If that were not enough they have demonstrated a disdain for “ground up” opinion input in favor of the “we are the wise, hear us” posture.

The former concept of the typical Republican being a top-hatted banker from the Monopoly board has been thoroughly put to the lie yet they continue to allow that false concept to be advanced by the opposition without any argument. It is long past time to inform the general public that Republicans are closer to the mainstream in finance than the party of “hope and change.”

All together, this is a serious issue and will require cooperation from every faction for a successful recovery of control by those who favor liberty over all other considerations. The cost of failure in this effort is the sacrifice of our liberties. It must be done and the sooner the better.


In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon