Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

Through my involvement in the Republican Party, I have come to realize that there is a distinction between those who call themselves Republicans and those who live by conservative principles. I do not wish to offend anyone with the points that I must make, as I know that many, if not most of our Republican leadership operate under the most admirable intentions. My demur lies not with this framework itself, but with the occasional lack of consideration for political principles within it.

I believe that the moral prerogative that charters the party cannot be cast aside merely at the bidding of the mechanism itself. I am of the belief that our party no longer serves principle, but is more focused on winning elections. I do not believe, as I have found many others do, that winning elections ought to be our ultimate goal. Winning an election is a means to an end, not an end itself. Our end, if it be just, is the implementation of sound policies -- those that are requisites for a free society. Certainly, the Republican Party realizes great victories in countless elections year after year, but seldom it seems are the principles that we find so reputable nearly as victorious. It saddens and concerns me that we often see that the most important standard that our candidates are held to, is one of mere victory. If this is our goal, then we really have no goal at all.

The message of America -- that of peace, liberty, and prosperity – has loosened its guard. The inclination of power, which inevitably seeks nothing but its own advance to victory has permeated our leadership. We are failing in our sacred duty of self-government, which is to offer compassionately to one another the contract of liberty, and to stand relentless in defense of the moral action which that ideal necessitates. Will we continue to mollify this decree, a responsibility as intrinsic to ourselves as the rights which it defends? If I see that my enemy is winning, my inclination ought to be to fight harder, not to drop my own flag, and lead the charge with theirs. But that is what many conservatives did in this last election. They have lost their faith in the Republican Party and of the once sacred values of conservatism that are no longer evident.

Our Republican candidates must adhere to some very basic criteria. The party must reject candidates who do not accept the fundamental precepts of natural rights, or the American notion of federalism. They must understand the moral consequences of human action as broadened to the wider sphere of economics, and the system that most effectively incorporates that action -- the free market system. We must see in them a deep respect and concern for human life, and a boundless consideration of the human spirit. They must value individualism over collectivism and statism. We should expect that they would do honor to the Republican Creed.

These candidates will be bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States to the best of their ability, and if that binding is weak, we should assume that their understanding of the proper functions of government is just as weak. The Constitution is not perfect nor is any human capable of being a perfect Constitutionalist. But without the constituting of a philosophically sound mandate on the purpose of government, there can be no rule of law by which justice is maintained, and no civilities by which we may improve our governance. Foremost, candidates must understand and abide by the mutual contract of liberty, the piPce de résistance of the American ideal. I believe this is a very broad and flexible set of standards.

One of the worst things that we can do is support more candidates who will dismantle and distort the message of limited government even further. There are Republicans , in name only, who show no qualms in vehemently declaring their "progressive" policies (in this context, this means Big Government). Over the years, I have preserved a portion of society's collective memory which reminds me that an alike vein of progressive "Maverick" policies brought no-holds-barred welfarism to the United States and that "Change" is what Hitler brought to Germany in 1933.

There is indeed an ideological lineage around and within the Republican party that I am proud to count myself as a subscriber to -- embraced whether wholly or in part by the likes of Barry Goldwater, Walter E. Williams, Howard Buffett, Jeff Flake, P. J. O'Rourke, Gary Johnson, Felix Morley, Robert Taft, Ron Paul, Bob Marshall, Ken Cuccinelli, Calvin Coolidge, and many others. But this gives no credence to the policy of rubber stamping.

If we are to save our Republic, it must be done by individuals such as ourselves, through education and political action. The former is my primary aim, and with the latter, I must proceed carefully. Thus, while I can vote for whomever I wish in the privacy of the voting booth, I do not want to be dishonest or misleading in my intentions. I would imagine more respect for me would be lost if I were to simply lie instead of making a principled decision that you might not agree with. It is regrettable that I cannot commit to always abide by the by-laws of the Republican Party, in particular the section that requires me to support the Republican nominee for every respective office if that candidate does not demonstrate through practice, adherence to the conservative principles that are the very foundation of our great nation and to the Republican Creed.

Views: 86

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wow. A lot to think about there. I couldn't find anything there that I disagree with, but a lot that I can. I think the basic message is not to sacrifice either the fiscal (free-market/small government) or the traditional values legs of the tripod of core Republican principles (a strong national defense being the other). I'm afraid there are some on this Web site advocating that the Party should mute its advocacy of pro-life and pro-marraige positions because they are too divisive. It turns out that those with the strongest fiscal restraint positions are the same people with the strongest pro-traditional values positions (for example Ken Cuccinelli and Bill Bolling). The people who fight the hardest against Republican positions on abortion, like John Chichester and Russelll Potts, are also the people who fight against Republican restraints on taxes and spending.

What I find most interesting, though, is the emphasis on how Republican success is thwarted by politicians who run for office for their own power, perk, and prestige reasons. Voter rejection of Mr Jefforson in Louisiana and Mr Stevens in Alaska is further evidence that voters care about honesty and integrity in their elected officials. If we are to make a come-back as a Party, we must get in front and lead on the issues of accountability and transparecy. We must stand up against those who want Party nominations by some kind of divine right, and insist that they answer every tough question meant to separate a self-serving from a public-serving candidate.

Les Gabriel
I will not support a Rupublican because he or she claims that title. The title should come with the responsibility to adhere to the parties original values. The power and importance of the individual. The idea that our freedom is of Divine Providence. That the constitution was written to limit government and not to empower it. I agree with your premise. Well written indeed.

The largest loss of the election was the hit that free market capitalism took. The banking failure was never the fault of the free market, rather government intrusion into that market. In the interest of being centrist our party neglected to call out those responsible for those intrusions and thus this has been painted as a failure of the capitalist model.
dljholt- You have written my exact thoughts and sentiments in such a well articulated manner, I could never hope to state my beliefs as well as you have. Congratulations on a masterpice.

I believe that those 4 million Republicans that stayed home on election day (according to Gingrich) would embrace your words wholehardly. The Republican Leadership did not get the message in 2006 and again in 2008. They supported and promoted Republican candidates that as you say, were Republican in name only. How many times I have read the definition of insanity written throughout this election cycle- "When you keep doing the same thing over and over, and hope for a different outcome." The voting population has gotten that message, why then have our Republican Leaders not gotten it.

The Republican Party Leaders must learn the lessons you so eloquently state above- "they must uphold the Constitution of the United States to the best of their ability, and must understand and abide by the mutual contract of liberty." All 3 legs of the stool must play a major part in their plans to lead us back into a nation that has enjoyed the greatest prosperity, fredooms and mutual respect for life in all it's stages. To not protect life, leaves all other considerations moot.

Only when those in Leadership embrace the above, and deny the moderate positions and candidates, which have cost us so dearly in these past elections, will the Republicans come out of the wilderness we are now in. It isn't about winning at all, it is about being right, and taking that message in a positive manner to the people.
I wasn't going to bring up the RNC but since phantom1982 did...

At the Republican National Convention, as the Ron Paul Delegates were taking a picture in front of the model White House inside the Convention Center, they were surrounded by Secret Service which proceeded to search the bags of all the delegates. They took any and everything related to Ron Paul including signs, buttons, videos, slim jims, cards, even books.

I thought Secret Service Agents are functionaries of the Federal Government and subject to the following regulation with which you may be familiar:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

One Virginia Delegate from Chesterfield County said "We were done taking the picture when Secret Service started walking into the room and surrounded us. There were about 30 of them. When they searched my bags they took my Ron Paul sign, my just-purchased autographed copy of "The Revolution a Manifesto", and all other materials I had with Ron Paul's name on it and turned a deaf ear to my complaints; they just walked away.”

Delegate Ron Warner from Fairbanks Alaska added that as he was walking into the convention center with about 15 Revolution Manifesto books, 20 DVD’s for Delegates, 20 Ron Paul buttons and a handful of other things, he was stopped by security which called on an obviously important higher up, who directed all the materials to be confiscated. She told him, and I quote “You can’t bring that in here, this is Mc Cain territory”

Countless Ron Paul delegates reported being openly followed by secret service. They had been monitored from the beginning of the convention, and shadowed constantly.

There were also reports of delegates being approached by security and told that they would be summarily thrown out if they left their assigned chair.

Ron Paul delegates were shadowed by Secret Service from the beginning of the RNC, following the confiscation of their political materials and were being surveilled openly with an agent assigned to each delegate. When one of the delegates asked if they could retrieve their property after the convention they were told, “No.” Not satisfied with that answer the delegate tried to follow the agent to make additional inquiries, he was told this action was causing a disturbance and a security agent was told to stay with him for the rest of the evening. For their safety the Ron Paul delegation decided to stick together as a group while approaching the media with their story.

McCain delegates at large approached Ron Paul delegates throughout the day in attempts to separate them from their all important delegate credentials. Adam Weigold, delegate from Minnesota, reported he was approached at least five times by other Republican delegates supporting McCain-Palin who asked him to borrow his pass to go the bathroom. Nathan Hanson (MN) delegate and attorney said he suspected it was an organized effort by the GOP establishment.

Mass confiscation of bumper stickers, literature and paper signs such as, “Calling the GOP back to its Roots” was reported. The GOP put together an organized machine of federal security forces, McCain operatives, delegates, floor monitors and other staff creating an effective political ministry.

The GOP operatives were using extreme measures to put, “Country First.”

Loyalist for McCain were hounding any Republican delegate known to support the conservative principles of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Delegates for Ron Paul are being kept silent, if they dare approach one of the microphones it is turned off and any attempt to discuss Ron Paul results in a threat of removal from the convention floor.

I experienced much the same as a Ron Paul delegate to the district and state conventions. I was deliberately excluded from being a delegate to the RNC so I attended as a visitor while I also attended Ron Paul's counter -convention in MN which drew 13,000+ supporters from across the country. My district put up a slate of delegates to be voted up or down that specifically excluded Ron Paul supporters. The same happened at the state convention.

I have voted Republican all of my life as did my father and my grandfather. I am an eighth generation Virginian. My 5th great-grandfather was Matthew Agee, one of the original Huguenots who founded Manakin Town in what is known as Powhatan today. They were patriots and believed in the principles handed down from the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and all the great statesmen who formed our Republic. There is even a bridge named after them along with a school, library, and on and on. Yet, I was disenfranchised along with so many others who believe in limited government, low taxes, a free market system, non-interventionist foreign policy, and the freedoms and unalienable rights of the people under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Republican Creed.

Is this what it means to be Republican?
dijholt- I did not realize you are a Ron Paul supporter. While I agreed with Paul on some issues, I vastly disagreed with him on so many others. I also found fault with the Paul supporters that were overbearing in the primaries such as those that stalked Hannity in NH, throwing snowballs at him and shouting obscenities when leaving a building. I also found fault with the Paul supporters taking over and intimidating many websites. Mostly, I had a serious issue with Paul's many many supporters who have bought into the Conspiracy Theories, and they are still out there posting that crap to this day. As much as many Obama supporters have been considered "cultists", I find the same can apply to the radical element of his gang. I agreed with you above in that no Republican should have to "go along, just to get along" as well as other things you have written. Freedom of speech is a sacred American tradition, but, when some choose to take that fight into radical arenas, I will and have backed off from thinking that Ron Paul was at any time a viable candidate, and I have have blamed mostly his most radical supporters. I am so sorry that you have become what Ron Paul has advised and wished his supporters to be- a radical element! Are you sure that it was McCain people that stopped the goings on of Paul supporters?
In fact, I need to add someting else to my above post. I had a real problem with Ron Paul saying that it was Americas fault that we are in the "trouble we are in." He stated that if we "didn't keep poking our noses in other country's affairs, we would not be in the position we are in today." That is just another blame America first mantra, which is mostly carried by the Liberals. And, close every military base we have around the globe, so others will like us and respect us more? Sounds like Reverand Wright to me! And, this is not the first time I am proud of my country, as stated by Michelle Obama, I have always been proud of my country. Dr Paul, when will you be proud of the United States of America.!

While I agree that there were some Ron Paul's supporters who were out of step with what Ron Paul himself stands for, I do not agree with your portrayal of what it is to be a Ron Paul Republican. Congressman Paul is not the radical you make him out to be, nor am I. In fact, he came out publicly against the inappropriate behavior of a small percentage of his supporters who behaved the way you describe.

Ron Paul has never exhibited radical behavior and has done nothing but discourage it. The very things I said at the start of my discussion are the things Ron Paul has said all along. He is a statesman who has ALWAYS voted for the principles our Republican party professes to adhere to and has never strayed from those principles handed down from our founding fathers nor have I ever heard Congressman Paul spout messages of the "conspiracy theories" you speak of. It is unfortunate that the only awareness of Ron Paul Republicans that you have are those you express. I don't know where you get your information but it is not anything I, personally, have ever experienced or would ever condone. Nor would Congressman Paul.

BTW - The Hannity in NH incident happened after Fox News refused to include Ron Paul in a debate he had every right as a candidate to be included in. I do not agree with the way the RP supporters dealt with it but the MSM from the start excluded mention of Ron Paul and dismissed him as a candidate. Much of what was said through MSM was untrue.

I guess you would also be surprised by those who in our state Republican leadership are also Ron Paul supporters.

Bottom line, I am not a member of a gang. I am an honest, pro-life, Christian who believes that "We the People" are the source of authority for government at all levels, and we must join together as citizens to hold elected servants (public officials) accountable for their actions of neglect or failure to act to protect and preserve our God given rights provided for in the U.S. Constitution. My mission is to support righteous men and women; for secular offices that understand and will support our Constitution, as it is written and according to its original intent with the meanings of the terms and words as defined at the time of its writing. I want to elect Statesmen not politicians. I will work to promote the education of the citizenry on the Constitution and our other primary founding documents.
There is absolutely no parallel between what Ron Paul said that if we "didn't keep poking our noses in other country's affairs, we would not be in the position we are in today." and Michelle Obama's statement "for the first time I am proud of my country".

What he said was "Our founding fathers would be ashamed of what they have allowed our country to become". He is for the same non-interventionist foreign policy that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington advocated.

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

In fact, if you look at EVERY statement Ron Paul EVER made regarding foreign policy, the economy, limited government, lower taxes, and everything else, you will find they are the same principles of our founding fathers and those who authored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I suppose you would consider them to be radical, too.
I like Ron Paul. He seems like a grounded person with deeply held beliefs. However....there's always a however when talking about libertarians. Even the founding fathers understood that Libertarian ideals could only work if the people were grounded in a belief in and a reverance for the almighty God. I agree that we need to stray from "entangling alliances". There's a HUGE difference between that and the type of isolationism that Paul was espousing. This is a much smaller world than when Jefferson said that. I do not believe the British or French could have wiped out his entire population in 15 minutes.

I think the best way to engage the Ron Paul supporters would have been for McCain, upon locking up the nomination, to have proposed that Paul be his secretary of commerce or of the treasury. I think Ron Paul had the best grasp on the Governments intended role in dealing with the private sector as it pertains to the economy. If only libertarians would'nt jump off the deep end on social issues and foreign affairs. You would think that Paul would understand that protecting the nation is one of the few roles that the federal government IS responsible for. In todays world keeping us safe means being engaged overseas. It also means being the economic engine of the world which I believe Mr Paul could be a great help with.
Isolationism is not what Ron Paul advocates. He advocates non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Iraq had no army, no navy, had no weapons of mass destruction, and had nothing to do with 9/11. We were falsely told there were weapons of mass destruction. CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction had “gone as far as feasible” and had found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion, a war declared by Bush not Congress. That is unconstitutional. And here we are with illegal immigration running rampant, depleting our resources, and no one policing our borders. Instead we're out policing the world. We have military bases in 130, mostly friendly countries. You don't see a problem with that while our borders are left wide open? Dr. Paul has said many times, he is for a strong defense but what are we defending ourselves from in Iraq?

It's really interesting how someone can agree with what I say or what I write until they learn I supported Ron Paul. It's also interesting how those who would condemn Ron Paul, would reach out to his supporters seeking support of their own campaign stating "I share the same concerns and views". I have heard those words many times. Bill Bolling has reached out to the RP supporters as did Ken Cuccinelli, and so did John McCain. McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate and she spoke in favor of Ron Paul publicly a number of times.

BTW, I don't agree100% with Ron Paul either. I doubt any of us would agree with anyone 100%...EVER. It was Ron Paul's view of the economy, limited government, and illegal immigration that I primarily agreed with.
Today is a new day and I wish I had lived in other times, but the reality is that I am here to stay. I am an American who was born in another country. I want you to comment on what to do with the “illegal immigrants” that are in this country (I will call them undocumented immigrants; for me they are humans first and immigrants second).
I would like your comments on how to take care of the growing Communist/socialist governments in Latin America south of the border (Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua,…..etc).
As a Colombian born, I know first hand what terrorists do, how they act, what is their purpose and eventually their final goal. The weapons of the terrorists are not weapons of mass destruction, it is the hysteria and the paranoia that they can inflict in society and they will not stop until their objective has been accomplished. Iran helps terrorist groups with money and money is the only source that a terrorist needs (Iraq had enough money as well as Iran, Syria and Venezuela). Venezuela is aiding the FARC, a terrorist organization that uses the traffic of narcotics to advance their cause. Explain what to do with Venezuela.
I don’t want to force anyone to understand why this is a dangerous world now and not the world of Thomas Jefferson (my favorite Founding Father), but if someone wants to go to Colombia and learn first hand what terrorists and narco guerrillas are (FARC, ELN) then I am the man to take you to the jungle of learning experience in Colombia.
dljholt, you said, "It's really interesting how someone can agree with what I say or what I write until they learn I supported Ron Paul."

As I was reading through this thread, I was thinking the exact same thing. People pile on in supporting the principles in your original post, but then begin to back off when they learn the candidate you supported. I bet some of these same folks actually voted for McCain, who has demonstrated very little support for these same principles with his votes in congress. Why? For the very same reason you spoke against, to win at all cost, even compromising principles.

These folks abhor the actions of a few radical RP supporters, yet don't seem too upset at the RNC treatment of folks by the SS at the convention and even question if they were "McCain people."

The road to hell is paved with compromise, and until this party actually promotes a platform that doesn't compromise our constitutional principles and promotes uncompromising candidates, this party (and country) will continue its move toward socialism/fascism.

I liked McCain's pick for VP running mate. My biggest concern for her was that, should they have won, she would either have to compromise her principles or step down from office in a McCain administration.

Reply to Discussion









(sales help fund this site)




© 2022   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service