"Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

...

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues -- to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state -- that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation's ability to protect itself.

...

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy. Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked.

...

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

...

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the Great Society.

...

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap? Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge.

...

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos. We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels.

...

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

...

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government's coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price." We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."

(Ronald W. Reagan, "Let Them Go Their Way," delivered on March 1, 1975, to the 2nd Annual CPAC Convention)

Your error, Archie, seems to be in that big government only works when the republicans are doing it.

BZZZT . . . WRONG!  Big government doesn't work . . . period.  And that is what's driving the whole pushback against the Obama Agenda.

I, and many others, want a return to the founding principles of this country, those of strictly limited national government, state sovereignty, secure national borders, and truly free markets.  Unless the republican primary contender in question clearly and unequivocally advocates for those things, and can be proven by his or her own track record to be honest in that advocacy, then he or she will not be getting my vote.  I suspect that many others share my position.

In fact, I also suspect that any candidate who would get my primary vote, were he or she to survive into the general campaign, will mop the deck with the organizer-in-chief.

Jason is right.  Such a strong advocate of the founding principles of this country is not going to make it to the general ticket without a great deal of damage being done to the public perception of his or her character.  That's unfortunate, but it's also the absolute truth about how the progressivist-elites operate; if they can't win on the issues (and they rarely can), then they have no hesitation or compunction about getting personal or dirty.  Sarah Palin would be a case in point.