And the Republican Party stands for...?

Ever since BHO's poll numbers began their slide the Left has wrung its hands, worried that the Republicans may come back to power while the Republicans salivate for a return to power.

Am I to understand that the Republicans should come back to power simply because the DNC has done its best to blow a huge hole through the heart of America and our culture?

Ever since my wife began to vote, I told her to vote for someone, not against someone. This is sometimes hard to do, especially with the last choice of characters. I can say that I voted for Palin and McCain just happened to also be on the ticket. Otherwise I really would have been holding my nose while I voted.

In my opinion, the RNC has not been the RNC of Reagan ever since Ron left office. The DNC may be killing off America with the speed and efficiency of a shotgun blast to the heart, but the RNC has been slowly poisoning its heart and soul.

I was in Slovakia in the fall of 1994 when the RNC swept to power in the wake of Clinton's disastrous assaults on our country. Newt came to the American people and drew up a contract that every Conservative could get behind. Democrats unhappy with what Clinton was doing crossed over and voted for the people they thought would get the job done right.

They drew up legislation that the President signed. They may have twisted his arm on more than one occasion, but things got done, the budget was actually balanced for the first time in decades, and the Republicans looked like the responsible people we like to have in office.

However, Washington D.C. seems to do terrible things to people. There seems to be a relationship between the amount of time you stay in Washington and their character being warped by Liberalism. Elected officials that spend more than one or two terms there grow to enjoy the trappings of power, the whispers of flattery, and the ego boosting of being in possession of so much money and influence. They grow to like it very much and then the desire to stay there overcomes their desire to serve those that elected them. Like the ring of power in the Lord of the Rings, the power corrupts your soul.

Being a conservative is hard. It is intellectual. Anything that makes you think feels a lot like work. Just try to pull out one of your old textbooks and try reading it for "fun". There is a reason why romance books have been pushing my Sci Fi books down the shelf at my local book store.

For a Conservative, what is right and wrong can sometimes feel counter intuitive. I'll use an example from the 1990's. One of the things Congress did was to force Clinton to begin moving people off of the welfare rolls. Not working has a way of destroying an otherwise promising intellect. It rots your soul. To borrow from Rush, a democrat thinks that compassion is measured by the number of people on welfare. A republican measures compassion by the number of people who don't need welfare. An important difference, there. As Benjamin Franklin once said, we should not make poverty too comfortable. Likewise, when the US government sends all this food aid and monetary aid to 3rd world countries that are dominated by dictators and thugs. All we are doing is enabling those in power to pocket and skim the cash and goods and tighten their grip on their people. Those people need to be hungry and ticked off at their condition in life. That is the only way meaningful change can be enacted. Does that mean that I don't care about the children starving in the streets of Haiti or Lebanon? Of course not. It just means that we must do everything in our power, as a nation, to see to it that those people free themselves from their condition as rapidly as possible. Anything else is cruel.

The RNC in the late 90's drifted away from their base. The more established republicans learned how to wield power and not just play defence (like they had for decades). The new members of congress learned what it was like to be powerful, and they liked it.

George Bush may be a good and honorable man, but he lost touch with is Conservative roots. His foreign policy was good, but his domestic policies were down right "progressive". He mirrored the slide of the party as a whole (he was the leader of the party after all). The whole concept of "Compassionate Conservatism" cedes ground to the Liberals. If Bush's "new" angle is "Compassionate Conservatism", then the old angle was cruel and heartless. I beg to disagree strongly.

Under his presidency, even as the Left called him Hitler and assaulted him day and night and on and on, he moved the country to the left in a steady and even march. He cut taxes, but raised spending. I'm not sure if there were many spending bills that he didn't sign off on. Medicare D, Stimulus 1, and on and on. He grew the size of government and increased spending (and the debt load of our children). He passed tax cuts, but could not make them permanent. He did not clean house when he took office and paid for it over and over again as he was sabotaged from within for 8 years.

So should anyone vote for the Republicans simply because they are not Democrats? Hell no. Should they vote for the Republicans because they stand for lower taxes and limited government? If I see that party again, I'll vote for it. Will I vote 3rd party? No, that will just split the ticket and rocket us towards Marxism (unless BHO gets us there before the next "election").

The Republicans of today are Democrat-lite. If you want a Coke, drink a Coke. Diet Coke stinks.

I'll speak more on this in the days to come. Maybe the RNC is getting a clue. Unfortunately, they can not block anything in Washington, despite what is in the news every day. The DNC can not agree within its own ranks, so rather than drag each other through the mud, they go and kick the sleeping Republican dog. The one that has been castrated and had its teeth filed down.

--Zavost