The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Who’s really destroying the Republican Party?

Photo of Jack Hunter
Jack Hunter
Contributing Editor, Rare

I first became a conservative by listening to Rush Limbaugh as a teenager, a habit I picked up from my mother. Those were exciting times, and I remember Limbaugh, the fiery outsider, supporting renegade Republican Pat Buchanan and his presidential challenge to incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Four years later, I supported Buchanan’s 1996 presidential campaign, which Rush would have no part of, and as the years went by I would continue to support conservatives who challenged the status quo — while my one-time radio hero seemed to become more comfortable with it. For the next decade I spent my time looking for the next Buchanan, while Rush would reflexively defend George W. Bush and constantly praise Donald Rumsfeld. He even broke his no-interviews rule for an hour-long interview with Karl Rove.

In 2007, I found my new Buchanan: Ron Paul. After the GOP presidential debate in Iowa last week, Limbaugh said the following about Paul on his program: “I’m sorry, but this Ron Paul is going to destroy this party … this is nuts on parade …” Limbaugh criticized Paul’s foreign policy and particularly the Texas congressman’s hands-off position towards Iran. But Limbaugh did not criticize the positions taken by the other candidates — many of whom strongly implied that war with Iran would be necessary to prevent its regime from promoting terrorism or producing weapons of mass destruction.

Launching full-scale wars with Middle Eastern nations to fight terrorism or to find weapons of mass destruction? Haven’t we been there before? It was the Iraq War and the foreign policy of George W. Bush that destroyed the Republican Party. Why did Barack Obama try to fashion himself as the “peace candidate” in 2008? Because he knew the war was unpopular with the American people. Now that Obama’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are just as unpopular, why would it destroy the Republican Party to oppose them?

Bush’s foreign policy not only destroyed the Republican Party, it all but obliterated conservatism. Why did Republicans go along with Bush’s big-government agenda, which nearly doubled the size of government and the debt? Because at the time foreign policy was the only thing Republicans cared about: “Bush kept us safe,” we were told. When critics asked why Bush spent so much money, even self-described conservatives would say, “Well, we were fighting two wars.”

Now that “Obama keeps us safe” by fighting three wars, Republican presidential candidates from Rick Perry to Rick Santorum want a fourth war with Iran.

Who, exactly, are the “nuts on parade” again?

The Seattle Times’s Bruce Ramsey explains what Republican sanity might look like:

“I don’t like the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon any more than I like the idea of Pakistan having one. But Pakistan does have one. India has one. China has one. Russia has one. Israel has one. If Iran has one, maybe it won’t feel so threatened, and it will have a good effect on its government’s behavior. Maybe not. Anyway, if the leaders of Iran want a nuclear weapon the president of the United States is not in a position to guarantee they won’t get one, short of starting a war … Santorum is saying he’ll start a war with Iran.”

  • Anonymous

    “…Rush needs to start listening to Ron — and so does the rest of the Republican Party”

    Forget Ron Paul. The only fully sane GOP candidate is Jon Huntsman.

  • Glenda Zager

    The writer doesn’t get it. . . These other nuclear countries are not vowing to “wipe Israel and US off the  face of the earth.”  He is in la la land.

  • LordHowardHurts

    I am sorry to say, but I believe that this “slide” towards socialism has reached the “point of no return”. Theories are nice, but we need a leader who can enforce the necessary “hard” decisions, and this republican group is all talk and no strength. We need someone like retired MG, Paul E. Vallely. Don’t know him? Go to:  freedomfiles.blogspot.com  and read about him. There is not a dimes difference between this current crop of republicans and the democrats. 

  • LordHowardHurts

    I am sorry to say, but I believe that this “slide” towards socialism has reached the “point of no return”. Theories are nice, but we need a leader who can enforce the necessary “hard” decisions, and this republican group is all talk and no strength. We need someone like retired MG, Paul E. Vallely. Don’t know him? Go to:  freedomfiles.blogspot.com  and read about him. There is not a dimes difference between this current crop of republicans and the democrats. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BONT42STC55M7Y3SS2OHGHAI3Y Mark

    Mister Hunter is correct in some ways but wrong in others. REAL Republicans cannot be “conservatives.” Conservatives want to conserve the status quo which is huge intrusive unconstitutional government. REAL Republicans want a republican form of government, which by definition is one that abides by the constitution.

    Secondly, we are not involved in any wars. The word “war” has a specific legal meaning. We can only be in a state of war if congress so declares. What we are doing is committing crimes overseas. Every US service person involved is guilty of murder. REAL Republicans never support murder.

    The GOP has been infiltrated by theocons, religious nuts who believe that bible stories are true and the Jesus actually existed.The are ones to “worship” whether it be some fictional chariter from 2000 years ago of big intrusive omnipotent government. It doesn’t matter. All they want to do is to be told what to do and not have to think. I see it all the time since I an elected precinct committee officer in the GOP. What these infiltrating dullards don’t like it the independence and rational thought that the Ron Paul REAL Republicans exhibit. They consider it blasphemy to not worship government.

  • Zedoc

    The war in Iraq was the reason Iran was able to take control of th eMidEast. It used to be the Sadam kept them in check. We hanged our enemy’s enemy and now we and Israel are fcing the consequences. That is G. Bush’s legacy.
    I would like to ignore Iran, but I doubt it can be done, any more than Hitler could have been ignored. I also think that Ron Paul probably sees this and is talking a good game. I hav eto doubt that he would allow Iran to destroy either the U.s. or Israel by his own inaction. He’s more of a go-getter than that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-H-Smith/1491302672 Michael H Smith

    The Republican Party has already destroyed itself! Sure, there are pockets of resistance to, and some successes against, the Ruling Class leadership, but since Goldwater the Ruling Class has reigned more or less continuously, destroying the real conservative movement’s efforts to reverse America’s decline along the way. Foreign wars are always diversions for presidents wanting to divert attention from their domestic failures – or hidden motives, and for a public hungry to successes—- somewhere! Anywhere! against wickedness wherever found. But, look right here at home. We have more than we can handle right here, ridding the U. S. of the U. N, for example. And the unconstitutional departments, agencies, bureaus, etc. that are destroying us from within.

  • http://twitter.com/Rosanna_Texas Rosanna Garcia

    I see your point Jack. Although it appears to be all so simple that there’s no one who’s running that sets my heart a flame- I am expecting a Dark Horse to come in to change the Republican Party perhaps like the grande old days of Reagan- thought it could’ve been Perry. But I think not.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is totally unelectable.  A nice old man who makes a lot of sense but with paleo-isolationist views and a gold standard (when you owe $16.5 trillion you don’t back that dollar with ANYthing).  He would lose against Obama (even though I will vote for ANYbody that gets the Republican nomination)

  • Jim Mcgovern

    A lot to think about. Why are we using our soldiers to do the bidding of the United Nations globalists?