Newt SUCKS !!!
Micheal Steele is the DEVIL !!!
BUSH ruined EVERYTHING !!!
HOFFMAN for President !!!
Sczzzafzza whatever SUCKS !!!
You RINOS  all SUCK !!!
Palin is our only hope !!!
We're PRINCIPLED !!!!  YOU"RE NOT !!!
NO MORE MONEY TO THE GOP !!!  THEY SUCKS !!!!
The GOP has abandoned the "conservative base",
we hate them. 
Never again,
principle over party,
down with RINO's,
the party should FAIL.

Heard any more?  Probably so.  It's become the new "conservo-chic" to hate the GOP.  Glen Beck is making a fortune degrading the Republican Party as viciously as FCC regulations allow.  Most of the conservative talk radio, and the conservative "blogoshpere" have piled on.  A drinking game based on Hannity saying "I'm not a Republican" might induce alcohol poisoning.

The message, in general is; Republicans have lost their way and the Party abandoned conservative principles which is why our country is failing economically, politically, militarily, and even morally. 

So, is that true ?

Short answer.  Yes.

What's the solution?

Apparently, according to the self appointed right wing wizards of smart; the solution is to relentlessly bash the GOP, look for better candidates from competing parties, and demand that GOP officials "prove" their loyalty to conservatism by sabotaging the electoral chances of the candidates chosen by their own party. 

Ground zero in this right wing kerfuffle is NY 23. (In the interest of full disclosure, this writer has contributed to the Hoffman campaign)

For anyone unfamiliar with NY23; here's a quick recap of the situation: (if you are familiar - skip the red)

Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, lead a list of previous and sitting GOP members that are supporting Doug Hoffman.  Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee have given "wink and nod" support to Hoffman by declaring, "they will not endorse the GOP candidate in this race."  Newt Gingrich and Micheal Steele have publicly stated their support for the GOP nominee.

Gingrich and Steele have since been attacked for their positions.  They've been demonized as representing everything that is wrong with the GOP.  "All they care about is the R - they don't have any principles..." or something like that.  It seems that there is little limit to the vitriol cast toward Newt and Steele, and even those offering "wink and nod" support have generally been cast as "weak" or "voting present."   Glen Beck has been particularly pointed in his attack of the GOP, and is promoting a deliberate movement to destroy the Party, making Beck the likely winner of the "I hate the GOP" contest. 

So how did the GOP come to be the hated enemy?

It's Newt's fault right?

Yes, to some degree it is.  More precisely, it is the fault of Ronald Reagan, - Newt Gingrich/ Rush Limbaugh, and - Carl Rove/George Bush.

"That's right, it's Rove, Bush and Gingrich - but howdya figger its Reagan and Rush's fault?" comes the reply

They were successful at stopping liberal Democrats without  a low level Party apparatus.  They worked nationally. Reagan by  by combining brilliant skills and capitalizing on a dreadful economic climate.  Gingrich combined a National Congressional Campaign Strategy with Rush's new found radio prominence.  Bush's "strategery" of focusing the election on values rather than prosperity was good enough to beat the shadow of the morally bankrupt Bill Clinton .  These successes  allowed conservatives  to become complacent, sit on the sidelines, and wait for the next “stopper” to come along. The GOP not only abandoned conservatives, but conservatives also became increasingly less active in low level party politics. There was no need. Conservatives now view the nominating process as a spectator, rather than participatory sport. They heckle the quarterback, second guess the coach, and deride the ability of the players – all from the safe confines of the internet or radio waves..

Surprise, Surprise, conservatives you're not spectators, you're players. Politics isn't the NFL or NBA, you don't have to be 6'-9” or run a sub 4.5 forty to play. You only have to show up. For years during Reagan you put yourself on the bench, and since 1994 you've sat back in the stands and had a beer while watching the show. The cries for “third party” challenges are vapid and shallow. It doesn't matter how many parties one has; if conservatives think that their only role in the process is to write crap on the internet and spew venom on the radio waiting for their own savior to appear – they will continue to have few candidates in the race. That's because eventually activists will invade and control or at least heavily influence the nominations.

While conservatives are whining incessantly about the “RINO party” and calling Micheal Steele the devil, local GOP conventions are increasingly populated by activist “moderates” - even liberals. (A brief side bar here. GOP precincts usually consist of around 3,000 registered voters. In a typical precinct level convention, I've never seen more than 6 people present. Our local precinct was allocated 6 delegates to the county convention. At that particular meeting, there were only 5 people present – so everyone was a delegate. Two conservatives, one Log Cabin Republican, one moderate, and one mostly liberal. If even one more conservative showed up it would've changed the balance in the meeting. If two more had shown up, we could' have voted to keep the lib out of the county convention.) There seems to be a greater propensity for big government activist types to become activists at the local level. This probably has something to do with conservatives having jobs and owning businesses. With a Party that is committed to local controls and limited “top down” intervention, local GOP candidates have become increasingly moderate. Bottom line, conservatives can't expect any party to be conservative, if they don't participate in that party.

So – back to NY23 . . .

Steele and Gingrich both have made it abundantly clear that they have vast ideological differences with the GOP candidate. Both have been clear that their support is based on honoring the result of the local nominating process. The local nominating process has nominated a poor candidate, all people claiming even minimal conservatism agree on this. The disagreement lies in how it should be corrected.

Newt and Steele believe that it should be corrected, in the long term, by conservative activism at the local party level; but in the short term, the National Party should continue to honor the local nominating process.

Hannity, and most of the “I Hate the GOP” crowd seem to advocate that the National Leadership should review each local selection, and reject the selection if they disapprove. Of course, at the same time they decry the current nominations as being made by “party hacks,” presumably without realizing that is exactly what they are advocating.

In conclusion, it would seem to clear to an objective observer, that a political movement that is founded in individual freedom and liberty, cannot simultaneously support a central authority to unilaterally nullify local party nominations. To do so would likely lead to even less participation on the local level, and the central authority becoming increasingly disconnected with its constituents. In effect, this would create the “Party Hack” nominating system those who claim to “Hate the GOP” claim to despise. If conservatives want to maintain a voice in political power, the only expeditiously available route is to become active in the Republican Party, and make your voice heard.