Hawk Makes Some Points to the RINOs  

Friday, November 28, 2008

In this piece that Hawk put up today, John Hawkins makes some great points about the Republican Party's run to the Left. He correctly points out the following:

1. We've already gone the moderate route - and lost.

Yes we have. Of course, by "moderate" we do mean liberal, and we really haven't had anything but liberals running on the Republican ticket during my voting lifetime. The only time we win is in the rare event we're able to put enough fear into people that voting for the other guy is worse. What kind of voter motivation is that? It's foolish, and for going that route, especially with a field of relatively good candidates and choosing the worst one available, the Republican Party is a bunch of fools. So yeah, all th is talk of the party having to move to the left because conservatives are hurting the party is, in a word, bullshit.

2. A "moderate" GOP can't generate the volunteers or the money to win.

Well, duh. Who would want to support a party/ticket that claims to be conservative, then gets into office and turns Democrat? For that, you might as well just vote for the Democrat and be done with it.

3. There can be no fiscal conservatism without social conservatism.

I only agree with this given the current climate in DC. There is absolutely NO reason that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism should be linked, but they are. Hawk put it pretty nicely:

Show me a Republican in Congress who's pro-abortion at least 75% of the time, I will show you a Republican who's a big spender, too.
Pretty sad state of affairs, but it is true. Can fiscal conservatism exist without social conservatism? I do believe it can, but will it? Hawk is right to point out that it's not likely. There are several reasons for this, but they are outside the scope of this post. The biggest one, though has to do with personal responsibility. There's no question that social conservatives believe what they do because they believe it's responsible, and that fiscal conservatives believe what they do for the same reason.

4. The GOP's drop amongst Hispanics hasn't been caused by opposition to illegal immigration.

I hate the term "illegal immigration". It implies that what these people are dong isn't really illegal, just illegal. There is no such thing as illegal immigration, because an immigrant comes to a new country to assimilate into its culture and become a citizen. These people have no intention of doing either. They are not immigrants. They are aliens.

That having been said, Hispanics in America who are here legitimately are NOT interested in allowing more people to enter the country illegally. Neither are the scores of other immigrants who had to play by the rules to get here. To imply otherwise is to imply that Hispanics are stupid and willing to defy the law. They are not, and they should be insulted that people consider them so. Hawk is again right.

5. The GOP cannot win without the conservative media.

Truth be told, the conservative media reflects the beliefs of conservative America, not the other way around. If your candidate isn't getting high marks from Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, et al, your candidate is not doing well with conservative America. Without the conservative media, including all of the above plus those of us contributing voices to the conservative blogosphere, the GOP (and any other conservative political party or faction) is toast - and burnt toast at that.

Hawk was right on all of the above points about whether the Republicans can win without conservatives. The next question that needs to be answered is this:

Can Conservatives win without the Republicans???

I believe we can do just that if we can bring conservatives together under one banner, and I do not believe the Republican Party is flying that banner at this time.