The Pink Flamingo :: How “Conservatives” Are Destroying the GOP

“…"Forty to fifty percent of the conservative leaders that I talk to at the national and state level either want the Republican to lose in November, or are ambivalent about it." Since the beginning of the movement, "We took the long range view. We didn't put all our eggs in any one election. We said that this isn't a sprint, it's a marathon." Viguerie said that he's telling his conservative friends not "to fear defeat." After all, GOP loses in 1964, 1974, 1976 and 1992 "cleaned out a lot of dead wood" from the Republican Party. This afternoon while I was driving the parents back to my condo, I pointed out one of the Congressional campaign signs. “Conservative” Republican. “Look at that,” I complained, “Being Republican isn’t good enough for them now. “….” Richard Viguerie, 2006

Then – the eureka moment arrived: This is something new. I really don’t remember, up until the debacle of 2006 seeing “Conservative Republican” on more than a few limited wacko signs. It wasn’t part of the agenda. In fact, go back to Newt’s historic Contract with America. The word “conservative” is found NOWHERE on the document. NOWHERE. The word “Republican” is found 4 times. In fact, it isn’t called a “Conservative Contract with America”.

“REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:…”

Remember back in 2006 when Richard Viguerie decided it would help conservatives if the GOP was defeated?

“…Viguerie's stance is not new. It is, however, getting a lot more play than it did two years ago when, in an interview on PBS's "Now" less than a week before the November 2004 election, Viguerie told then-co-host Bill Moyers that after Bush won, "somewhere around ... the morning after the election ... the war starts for the heart and soul" of the Republican Party. "It's gonna be a war," Viguerie said. A war "between the traditional conservatives, those who identify with Ronald Reagan, people like myself. And, the big government Republicans. And then also maybe the Neo-cons."

While admitting that he was supporting Bush and would vote for him, Viguerie, the undisputed king of conservative direct mail, added: "When the voting is done and the ballots are counted, then we're going to choose up sides and fight for the heart and souls of the Republican Party."

"It would be on our side, the traditional conservatives [against] the other side, people like Rudy Giuliani, Governor of New York, Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's going to be an interesting battle. Normally Bill, it wouldn't be a fair fight," Viguerie told Moyers. "Cause we've got the troops, we've got the organization...the resources, the issues. One thing we lack, a horse. We've got no horse. Hopefully, someone will come on the scene soon. But, but we had a lot of advantages when we came along."

"When Goldwater was defeated in '64, Nixon's resignation in '74, Ford's defeat in '76. Swept away most of the older Republican leaders," Viguerie pointed out. "Those defeats were cathartic," Moyers noted. "Absolutely," Viguerie said. "And it allowed younger ones, people like Newt Gingrich and Ed Feulner and other young conservatives to rise up to positions of leadership that normally would have taken another 20 years to happen."

It took nearly two years, but Viguerie's prediction may finally be coming to fruition.

In the October issue of the Washington Monthly, "seven prominent conservatives dare to speak the unspeakable: They hope the Republicans lose in 2006." The seven essays, posted under the title, "Time For Us To Go: Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006," feature commentaries from: Christopher Buckley -- "Let's quit while we're behind"; Bruce Bartlett -- "Bring on Pelosi"; Joe Scarborough -- And we thought Clinton had no self-control"; William A. Niskanen -- "Give divided government a chance"; Bruce Fein -- "Restrain this White House"; Jeffrey Hart -- "Idéologie has taken over"; and Richard A. Viguerie -- "The show must not go on." "Of course, all of them [the writers] wish for the long-term health of conservatism, and most are loyal to the GOP. What they also believe, however, is that even if a Speaker Pelosi looms in the wings, sometimes the best remedy for a party gone astray is to give it a session in the time-out chair," the introduction to the forum maintains.

While all of these men have strong conservative credentials, none of them represent conservative evangelical Christians, who remain adamant about sticking with the president. One of the essayists who over the years has successfully bridged the gap between social and economic conservatives is Richard Viguerie. In addition to his Washington Monthly essay, Viguerie, the Chairman of American Target Advertising, Inc., and the president of ConservativeHQ.com: The Conservative Headquarters, Viguerie, who has obviously been chewing on these ideas for at least two years, has written a new book on the same subject, transparently titled "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause" (Bonus Books, 2006)….”

The problem with this canard from Viguerie is the fact that he betrayed Ronald Reagan, more than once.

If you google “conservative & 1996” you come up with few references to conservatives, politically. Doing the same thing for 1998, I came up with an interesting piece from the ADL about the CofCC. http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/ccc.asp

“…The fact that the CCC in the past invited mainstream politicians such as Mississippi Senator Trent Lott and Georgia Congressman Bob Barr (both of whom have since distanced themselves from the group) to be keynote speakers at its conferences lends the group a false air of legitimacy. However, many speakers who have addressed CCC meetings are unabashedly racist and anti-Semitic.

Jared Taylor, editor of the racist publication, American Renaissance (AR) has addressed CCC meetings numerous times in 1998. AR describes itself as a "literate, undeceived journal of race, immigration and the decline of civility." In reality, the publication uses pseudo-science to justify racism and white separatism.

In April 1998, Edward Butler, a Christian Identity preacher who publishes the vehemently anti-Semitic newsletter, "The New World Today," gave a talk to the Georgia chapter of the CCC. A recent issue of Butler’s newsletter reflects his views. He wrote, "…the U.S. government officials elected and appointed, are predominantly vassals of the Zionist New World Order. Jews control the wealth of the world and in turn they control the governments…Will you go on being a vassal of the Zionist slave state?"

In December 1998, Michael Collins Piper spoke at the meeting of the National Capital Chapter of the CCC in Washington, D.C. Piper is a correspondent for The Spotlight, a newspaper published by Liberty Lobby, the most active anti-Semitic propaganda organization in the United States. At the meeting, Piper made anti-Semitic comments and accused Israel’s Mossad and the Anti-Defamation League of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In July 1995, David Duke addressed the meeting of the South Carolina chapter of the CCC, held at Clemson University. At the meeting, Duke, who has once again openly embraced his early extremist views, urged followers to fight for their "white genes."

In April 1994, the Arkansas chapter of the CCC invited lawyer Kirk Lyons to speak to the group. Lyons has been a friend to and has represented numerous extremists in court cases, including white supremacist Louis Beam and James Wickstrom, a Christian Identity preacher and head of the Posse Commitatus, an anti-government group. Lyons has described himself as an "active sympathizer" of his clients’ causes. The spring 1998 newsletter of the CCC mentions that the organization has been working on a case with Southern Legal Resource Center, currently headed by Lyons….”

It was part of the ADL’s report – extremism in America for 1997. Currently - The Conservative Victory committee was founded in 1988. Evidently, considering the founding of the CofCC, something was up in conservative-ville.    It looks to me like the Clintons produced a breeding ground for the perfect storm.   I think it all started back during the Reagan years when Richard Viguerie turned on Ronald Reagan and started forming his own organizations, to bring about his own version of “conservative”. Only, in the early years he did not call it conservative.

WHERE IS THIS GOING?
This is a pathetically disjointed post, but there are reasons for it. During the next week or so, The Pink Flamingo is going to be sticking its beak where no reasonable blog should go. No one ever said The Pink Flamingo was reasonable. We are going to be exploring the problems facing Republicans because of the hijacking of the party by people who really don’t care about the Republican Party. They are all about their own agenda.

To achieve this agenda, they have lied, corrupted, manipulated, and prevaricated to a point where good decent people don’t know which end is up any more. It is only going to end when we realize that one heck of a P. T. Barnum job has been perpetrated on us. I keep going back to the Reagan years when Richard Viguerie   went off in a snit because Ronald Reagan did not do what Viguerie desired. Same thing with Howard Philips.   Viguerie made a deal with the devil – Sun Myung Moon, who supplied the financial backing for his carnival barking. I truly think this is where it began.

The real problems began early in the new century when, somehow, via the increasingly powerful internet, groups that were once marginalized, were given new respect. Reagan gave no quarter to these people. Now, thought they are considered “respectable”. During Reagan’s day, someone like Ron Paul would be toast. Today, aligned with people like the John Birch Society, he and his minions are out to destroy the GOP.

Today, conservatives are pushing the GOP agenda. The problem, is they are not the GOP base, they have taken their toys and gone elsewhere. Check out News With Views for more information and lunacy.    Unfortunately Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party is the new voice of conservatives.   Publications like the American Conservative have nothing to do with the Republican Party. The problem now is the fact that they are doing a tremendous amount of damage to the GOP. They do not have the best intentions for the Republican Party or for our elected officials. They have manipulated, through our gullible and willing multi-millionaire talking radio heads, cowardly conservatives in Congress into thinking they are Republicans and actually voting for them.

BACK TO REPUBLICANS
Up until four years ago or so, you did not see “Conservative” with Republican. This is something new. Conservatives were NEVER referred to as the REPUBLICAN BASE. This is something new. It is time Republicans took their party back from conservatives who do not have the best interest of the GOP as part of their agenda.

NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE REPUBLICAN

FROM PATRICK HYNES
The following is an email from Patrick Haynes who is working with the McCain campaign. It is in response to the Newsweek canonization of Barack Obama.

"In an email to Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham on Sunday, McCain adviser Mark Salter responded to this week's cover story.

Dear Jon,

A useful way to read the piece would be to try to imagine you were a Republican reading it. The characterization of Republican presidential campaigns as nothing more than attack machines that use 527s and other means to smear opponents strikes us as pretty offensive. Is that how Ronald Reagan won two terms? Do they really think other Republican presidential candidates were elected because they ran dirtier campaigns than their opponents? Or could it be that they were better candidates or ran better campaigns or maybe more voters agreed with their position on important issues? From the
beginning of their article, Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe offered a biased implication that Republicans have won elections and will try to win this one simply by tearing down through disreputable means their opponents. You can see why many Republicans and voters and our campaign might take issue with that.

Suggesting that that we can expect a whispering campaign from the McCain campaign or the Republican Party about Senator Obama’s race and the false charge that he is a Muslim is scurrilous. Has John McCain ever campaigned that way? On the contrary, he has on numerous occasions denounced tactics offensive tactics from campaigns, 527s and others, both Democratic and Republican. By the way, which party had more 527 and other independent expenditure ads made on its behalf in 2004? It wasn’t us.

By accepting the Obama campaign construct as if it were objective, Evan and Richard framed this race exactly as Senator Obama wants it to be framed – every issue that raises doubts about his policy views and judgment is part of a smear campaign intended to distract voters from the real issues at stake in the election, and, thus, illegitimate. And even if Senator McCain might not be inclined to support such advertising, if he can’t stop them from occurring then he will have succumbed to the temptation to put ambition before principle. How this notion could appear credible after MoveOn, the AFL-CIO and the DNC launched negative ad campaigns weeks ago, and after leaks from the Obama campaign that they would soon start running negative ads against McCain, is mystifying. When a conservative talk show host emphasized Senator Obama’s middle name, Senator McCain immediately denounced it himself in the strongest possible terms. When a left wing radio host called Senator McCain a “warmonger;” when Senator Rockefeller disparaged Senator McCain’s war record; and when Howard Dean consistently accused Senator McCain of corruption, dishonesty and various other smears, the response from the Obama campaign has been either silence or a spokesperson releases an anodyne statement saying they don’t agree with the characterization.

To see how completely Evan and Richard have accepted the Obama campaign spin look at the example of an illegitimate smear they cite: Senator McCain raising the Hamas spokesman’s comments welcoming Obama’s election. The Senator has never said that Senator Obama shares Hamas’ goals or values or proposed a relationship with Hamas different than the one he would propose. On the contrary, he publicly acknowledged that he doesn’t believe Senator Obama. He did note that there must be something about Obama’s positions, particularly his repeated insistence that he would meet with the President of Iran (Hamas’s chief state sponsor), that was welcomed by Hamas. Imagine if a right wing death squad spokesman announced that they welcomed McCain’s election. Would Evan or Richard treat that as an illegitimate issue or would they examine which of McCain’s stated positions might have found favor with the terrorists? That seems obvious on its face to me. Rather than argue that his position on Iran is the right one and has no bearing on how Hamas views him, Senator Obama makes a false charge that we accused him of advocating a different relationship with Hamas than Senator McCain’s supports. His false characterization of Senator McCain’s statement was accepted uncritically by Evan and Richard.

Democratic Party allied third parties have announced negative ad campaigns, which distort McCain’s statements and positions, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are already running them. Senator Obama himself and Democrats generally have taken out of context and distorted Senator McCain’s statements on a post war military presence in Iraq and his views on the economy. Our townhalls are now routinely salted with Obama supporters who are there to raise embarrassing questions for the Senator (we don’t screen people at our events). An Obama supporter asked him in Iowa if he called his wife a very vulgar name.

When the North Carolina party prepared to run an ad raising the Reverend Wright issue, Senator McCain again denounced it in the strongest possible terms, and was sharply criticized by conservative radio and pundits for doing so. And when the North Carolina party refused to withdraw it, the Obama campaign, Howard Dean and others charged that he was either being disingenuous or ineffective. I understand why they might employ that tactic, but isn’t it the job of reporters to ponder its implications to see if it is fair?

Senator McCain is not going to referee ads run by groups outside our control. The other side has no intention of reciprocating and has shown every inclination to tolerate and even encourage such attacks against us. Of course, he will denounce any use of race or calumnies against his opponent by anyone. But he won’t play traffic cop anymore. The other side uses the same tactics, with no opposition from the Obama campaign that I have seen. Also, were he to do so and be unable to discourage independent expenditures run by people who have no relationship with him or our campaign, (and, in some cases, had previously run attacks against him) the Obama campaign will denounce him as a phony or weak. If Evan and Richard’s piece represents a general attitude among their colleagues, the press will agree.

Evan and Richard noted, ominously, that our campaign includes Steve Schmidt and Charlie Black, characterizing them basically as noted Republican attack specialists. The Obama senior staffers were described as idealists and decent sorts, and jujitso experts who could use Republican Party smears and deceitful tactics against their authors. I’m sure both David Plouffle and David Axelrod are fine, upstanding citizens. But the former ran a campaign for Senator Torricelli and the latter worked on the campaigns of Mayor Daley. I don’t remember those campaigns being notable for their delicate courtesy and softball tactics toward their opponents.

Without a trace of skepticism, your reporters embraced the primary communications strategy the Obama campaign intends to follow: any criticism of their candidate is a below the belt, Republican attack machine distortion that should discredit the authors. And any attempt by our campaign to counter that suggestion will be dismissed as a rant. The other day, Senator Obama noted that Representative DeFazio’s accusation that Senator McCain was up to his neck in the Keating 5 scandal was a legitimate line of attack, despite the fact the Senator was largely exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee, whose special counsel declared he had been kept in the investigation only because of his party affiliation. Were we to raise the Rezko matter, their campaign would accuse us of distracting voters with a low blow by making more of a “flimsy relationship” than the facts warranted. Evan and Richard, I feel certain, would agree.

The McCain campaign will keep to the high standards of political debate Senator McCain demands of us. The Senator will not tolerate unfair attacks by anyone on our campaign. We won’t, however, abide by rules imposed on us by our opponents, and which pertain only to our campaign and not theirs, even if they manage to get reporters to call the deal fair...."

ALONG THIS LINE
I received an email from Chavez County GOP Chair, William Cavin. (Chavez County includes Roswell, New Mexico - FYI. New Mexico is also part of the United States, FYI). I think this is what it is all about. You will see there is a difference in what a real Republican is and isn't. It is the same theme echoed in the Hynes email.

"Hello Fellow Republicans,

I am today putting Rory McMinn and Dennis Kintigh on notice that their negative and destructive campaigns WILL NOT BE TOLERATED by the Republican Party of Chaves County. Either conduct your campaigns in ways that promote your qualifications or else. You do not have the right to destroy what has taken over 50 years to build, namely our Republican Party in this county.

In spite of the fact that I held a meeting with all candidates, discussing the importance of running positive campaigns, it didn't take long for Rory McMinn and Dennis Kintigh to start attacking Rod Adair and Dan Foley by running extremely negative push polls and destructive whisper campaigns. At that point I discussed the situation with one of the candidates who had conducted the negative phone polls and he informed me he would do "whatever it takes to win." Then came the Forum on May 6th, where Rory McMinn made extremely negative attacks on Senator Adair and the Chaves County Republican Party leadership. Now today Dennis Kintigh began running the most negative radio commercials we have ever seen in Chaves County. All these actions are destructive just for the purpose of being divisive.

I am writing to you today to inform you of this notice. I do so in hopes of finally putting a stop to what I as your Chairman see as divisive and destructive behavior by a few. When I became party chairman I heard talk, locally and statewide, of a "split" in our party. What I have come to learn is there really isn't a split, but a few, maybe a handful, misguided people who are stuck on dividing our party.

Two days after candidates filed to run for office, I held a meeting ALL local candidates were invited to attend. We discussed the importance of the upcoming elections locally, statewide and national. (Mike Kakuska, 2nd Congressional Representative to the state party, attended this meeting) We also discussed the importance of running positive campaigns and of candidates taking ownership of the message they and their supporters present! I would not tolerate this "well it wasn't me I can't control what someone else does" attitude. If you're running you will be held responsible for your campaign. Period.

I was asked what action would be taken if a candidate begins a negative, destructive campaign. I assured candidates this would not be tolerated and would be addressed. As Chairman, I know that I have little if any leverage over statewide or federal candidates, but I feel an obligation to try to uphold the character of the Chaves County Republican Party and to work hard to encourage integrity and civility of ALL our local campaigns.

I commend all our County Commission candidates, County Treasurer candidates, District Attorney candidates and incumbent legislators for respecting my directives. They have run positive and honorable campaigns to this date and I feel will carry on this way through the primary election on June 3rd.

As your Chairman I feel compelled to respect the very party we inherited from the hard work of many before us, is was my father or Robert O. Anderson, Colin McMillan, Jim Bruin, Chuck Coll, Sonny Stockton, or so many others. We have long prided ourselves as a party that works hard to elect Republicans, not destroy them for personal vendettas

I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this notice. If you find it important to our party please forward it with any comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me. I hope the Chaves County Republican Party is as important to you as it is to me!

Sincerely,

William E. Cavin
Chairman
Republican Party of Chaves County..."