Skip to comments.In GOP base, a 'rebellion brewing'
Posted on 04/26/2009 6:03:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
In GOP base, a 'rebellion brewing' By: Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin April 26, 2009 07:03 AM EST
A quick tour through the weeks headlines suggests the Republican Party is beginning to come to terms with the last election and that consensus is emerging among GOP elites that the party needs to move away from discordant social issues.
There was Sen. John McCain's daughter and his campaign manager who last week demanded that their fellow Republicans embrace same-sex marriage. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman the most devoted modernizer among the party's 2012 hopefuls won approving words from New York Times columnist Frank Rich for his call to downplay divisive values issues. The partys top elected leaders in Congress, meanwhile, spooked by being attacked as the party of no, were recasting themselves as a constructive, respectful opposition to a popular president.
But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the partys own leaders on familiar issues taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Thank you. You are correct. Everyone else is jumping to conclusions without reading the article.
The "party elites" wish those of us who are Christians to stop believing what God says, and blindly follow them?
We know the Democrats are Marxist tyrants. It is the wolf in sheep's clothing Republican who is also dangerous.
Sadly they don’t get it. Our “experts” don’t even know history and when they do they present it with extreme bias.
On top of that, the nation elected a president whose stated position is against gay marriage.
But everyone knew he was lying.
"There used to be muscular and vocal disagreement in the party on our pro-life plank," he recalled. "That has largely been resolved. Nobody raises the issue of changing the pro-life plank."
What a piece of CRAP! IF that plank had been resolved, McCain and the other dips who claimed to be Republican but did NOT hold to being solidly PRO-LIFE, would NOT have been in the Republican Party! Not only were they allowed in the party...they RAN AS CANDIDATES for the party!! Is everyone so BLIND that they do not see this?!
This is in the R party?! And they call themselves Republican??!! conservative??!! WHICH plank was that??!!! Perhaps they came to the WRONG party and took the plank with them?!
And what happens to conservatives in the meantime?
The ONLY issues we have that we need to address is runaway socialism, government spending, immigration and protecting the country.
Leave what belongs to God to God.
I agree that moral issues should be taught in the home and church. As a Catholic, I sure don't want my kid taught Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal, Mormon, Jewish, or Muslim theology. And I'm reasonably sure that Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jews, or Muslims wouldn't want their kids to be taught Catholicism in school, either (though I did learn about a local Muslim family that wanted to enroll their kids in the local Catholic school: the Muslim school was too "strict" and the public schools were too perverse...but that's a different story altogether...no, I don't know if the Catholic school accepted them or not)
However, to say that moral issues should not be reflected in American cultural values and in American laws is foolish. It makes about as much sense as a Catholic politician saying that he/she is a staunch Catholic but doesn't want to push his/her Catholic values on non-Catholics (if he/she is really a staunch Catholic, he/she would recognize that abortion is murder: an issue that is pretty universally proscribed in all nations' laws)
My position is that morality should be taught in the home and church; however, that morality should be supported through its constitutional actions.
The other point is that morality is economically good, while immorality causes major structural economic problems.
For example, most systems of religion teach adherents to avoid materialism and to avoid excessive debt. In Judeo-Christian thought, debt should be forgiven after a set number of years (thus limiting the amount that would be loaned). Our lack of adherence to those principles has resulted in a staggering amount of debt and was the spur to this current economic situation -- all of those bad mortgages, due, in large part, to Congressional influence on the banking system...but also due to individuals' lust for a greater material standard of living than they had the means to support.
For example, all Christian denominations taught (up to the 1930s) that abortion was an evil and that contraception was an evil (alas, only the Catholic Church has maintained that stand -- but most Catholic adherents have likewise abandoned it). What could that have to do with economics? Look at the composite birth rate in this country and in Europe. There are some European countries that aren't even reproducing enough to maintain their population without immigration. Likewise, look at Social Security in this country -- there aren't enough younger workers in the system to pay in -- and, as a result, the system is going to suffer a catastrophic failure. Of course, there are the health care costs associated with the use of the pill and the health care costs associated with abortion (namely infertility, cancer, psychological depression, etc.)
For example, look at divorce and pre-marital sex. Judeo-Christian thought recognizes a spiritual bond that occurs between spouses and that there is a horrible break when that bond is broken through adultery or abused through pre-marital fornication. But our laws stand foursquare against these principles. What's the result?
And, then, yes...we have homosexuality and other perversions. Yes, homosexual sex is a perversion. (Perversion: A concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal). See all of the above. Homosexual behavior is inherently ego-centric (as is materialism). There can be no extended family, as homosexual sex is fruitless, by definition (of course, they can adopt). It is, by its very definition, fornication (or, if one/both of the partners are legitimately married, it involves adultery).
By the way, my reaction to a homosexual is not anger, nor is it (outside of a gay pride parade type of situation) disgust; rather I feel very sorry for the person because their brain wiring is so screwed up.
And, no, I don't propose such a severe set of rules where we start inspecting individuals' bedroom behavior.
I'm not primarily concerned about private behavior. I am concerned when private perversions are taught throughout society as the norm. And when perversions are not only tacitly approved but are actively approved and encouraged through the law. And I'm concerned that "diversity" is encouraged in the workplace and in school: as long as the "diverse" behavior is not one reflecting a traditional Christian viewpoint.
And I'm especially concerned when the laws of a society reflect not only acceptance, but endorsement, of immorality. It results in a utilitarian view of the human person and tends to push society farther down the road to economic ruin.
Nail has met hammer. Excellent!
I beg to differ. There are plenty of them and they are organized!
Two of MeInsane's pet projects...funded by George Soros.
Republican Main Street Partnership, where MeInsane is a long standing "elected" member.
The Reform Institute: Founded by MeInsane, who served as chairman until 2005, when he began gearing up for his FAILED presidential campaign.
International Republican Institute, chaired by MeInsane since 1992
Ummmm, okay John, whatever you say. Thanks for siding with our enemies.
15. Capture one or both political parties of U.S.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, promiscuity as normal, natural, healthy.
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious" crutch.
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
The Federal Observer also has these items:
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history.
Utilize the sexes. Stress equality, take away the masculinity of men and meld the roles of the sexes as one.
Concentrate the goals of success in material not in the success of the family structure, home and church or the "core" that makes up the traditional American background. Present everything in opposites.
I was agreeing with it. ;-)
It was his "turn" and if he didn't get it, he would continue to destroy our nation, what was left of the republican party and our duly elected choice.
He is a vengeful troll who worked tirelessly to destroy President Bush and his administration since he lost to President Bush in the 2000 primaries.
The so-called elites and their central committees set it up to declare him the winner after he received only 25.5% of the votes in only 7 states that had voted. No party could sustain his incessant attacks if he lost the nomination again.
He was selected, not elected!
BIG BUMP for a wonderful post!
I am struggling to understand the logic that underlies some Republicans’ thinking. 2008 was an election that was won by a party that catered to its most extreme constituents. The party championed those supporters who are so rabidly socialist/Marxist, emotional, and illogical that Al Franken may be one of their senators and the most unaccomplished and socialist member of their party was elected PRESIDENT!
And, some Republicans view this as a need to weaken their opinions on some matters. It would take a head injury for me to draw that conclusion.
By the way, one argument some Republicans are using to shift toward socialism is that the nation is undergoing an unstoppable demographic shift (toward more ignorant left-leaners I assume). But, what did those Republicans to avert that demographic shift and the lessening of education that leads to a socialist population? My recollection is that those Republicans supported such foolishness despite our warnings to them. Now they, and America, are struggling with the losses that come from such foolishness.
I agree but what I also think is happening is that the moderates and even some of the more liberal republicans are beginning to catch up in terms of having their eyes opened (maybe for the very first time ever) to really see the effects of things they may have spoken of or wished might come to pass, really happening and of course it's not helping their own personal situations in any way. We tried to warn them but as always, trauma teaches the best lessons in life.
Then the rest of us can start running conservatives...
“Its dead, Jim”
The self-destruct sequence alpha, alpha, alpha, one has been activated.... The Enterprise will self-destruct in T-minus 2 years.
“Did anyone ever come up with a good explanation of how John McCain ended up with the nomination? He was tied for last choice in my book.”
Same here. I am not a conspiracy guy but that was fishy.
CLOSE THE PRIMARIES.
A quick tour through the week's headlines suggests the Republican Party is beginning to come to terms with the last election and that consensus is emerging among GOP elites that the party needs to move away from discordant social issues... But outside [the NY Times op-ed pages and] Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party's own leaders on familiar issues -- taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.
I know EXACTLY how the GOP can start winning again:
Stop apologizing for policies they know to be both Constitutional, and that work.
If they can’t comprehend that, they can try this instead:
Yeah, most capable of critical thought saw the GOP as being dead some years ago. After Bush, and then Schwarzenegger heading up the GOP here, it only helped finish off what was left of that party.
lol...If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
Their lying, corruption, they're arrogant, big government, big spending, and open borders positions, is exactly what sent that party into the toilet.
My point is, there was no opposition from the Republican insiders.
They already have one. It’s called the Democrat party.
The MSM lavishing praise on him plus a split conservative vote.
Your objections to the side, you will stop *nothing* without the Christian Right. They are, by far, the largest voting bloc in the country. There is *no* Conservative way to victory without them. It is mathematically impossible.
On the other hand, it is relatively easy to support a candidate who is both a libertarian, and thereby supports your views necessarily, and supports the basic principles that the Social conservatives require, not to mention also supporting the principles of the Fiscal and Defense conservative factions as well.
That is the agreement which brought us Reagan Conservatism, and it's vast success. *No* conservative principle need be compromised, including the prerequisites of the Christian Right.
To demand that any faction must take a back seat, or be thrown under the bus, is not Conservative, is not good, and will not be successful.
This is a good sign, and indicative of rallying the base in the way Reagan did. Who will step up nationally to do so? 2010 comes first however.
It is also false. The moderates are still very much in charge of the Republican party - both the leadership in Congressional houses, and the RNC. The Republican message is certainly being crafted, and certainly has not changed from before the election, unless it has become even more liberal than before.
If the Republicans hadn’t turned into an extension of Jerry Farwell then we wouldn’t have half the kooks we have in Congress and certainly not a Socialist in the White House.
Republican party has been ruined by the all of gay rights, abortion crap.
Let’s worry about governing and teaching our kids right from wrong rather what some perverts are doing.
Have the doctor check your meds, you’re out in left field.
That voting bloc did a really good job of stopping Obama.
They stayed home in 2006 and gave up Congress and then set on their hands doing the last election.
How do you like having an illegal alien and Communist in the White House?
The majority of Republicans in Congress, and our last Presidential candidate pander to the gay mafia, and think abortion is a “crap” issue. As did the Republicans under Bob Michel years ago.
And the evidence shows they cannot govern, cannot lead, have no spine, no principles, and battle the rightwing more than the commies.
They are useless.
Yes... hmmm. For the first time since Reagan, the Republican candidate and VP candidate did not support the full Pro-life agenda, and both candidates were less than stalwart on battling the homosexual agenda. The traditional Value Voters forum was ignored, and intentionally replaced with Rick Warren and the inarguably liberal Saddleback forum. And you WONDER why the Christians didn't show up in strength?
They stayed home in 2006 and gave up Congress and then set on their hands doing the last election.
That is not just the Christian Right, but ALL Conservatives. Every faction, including libertarians and the Reaganites too. Conservatives vote *FOR* Conservatives, not against others... That is a quintessentially Conservative trait which Republicans have never been able to understand, and will never be able to control with bogeyman politics.
That is why the politics of "pragmatism" never work. If a candidate cannot successfully harness all three pillars of Conservatism (which is done in the ability to stand upon the principles of all of those factions), the factions which are *not* represented will fall back into the turbulent ocean of the general electorate. There is *no Conservatism* without *all of Conservatism*.
That IS the lesson of '06, which has been reiterated in '08.
How is that question related to your specious bullfeathers spittled out to insult people of Faith and those opposed to slaughtering alive unborn children? Again, have your meds adjusted.
Iowahawk skewers the better class of Republicans in his T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII pieces.
“It is also false. The moderates are still very much in charge of the Republican party - both the leadership in Congressional houses, and the RNC. The Republican message is certainly being crafted, and certainly has not changed from before the election, unless it has become even more liberal than before.”
Do you advocate for a 3rd party?
For a particular third party? No, I do not, though I probably will be soon. I have been an independent since the summer of 2007, and was a Republican for the 27 years previous to that.
I’m very interested in what people think is a practical way to move the conservative voting block forward in this environment. I think the liberal dream is to keep conservatives and independents well away from each other and maintain power for the next 25 years. But we have a dream too. That principled conservatism would have its seat in the marketplace of ideas - where we *know* it will win the day. That said, and this is being said in various ways, I think we should focus on 3 broad issues and address *all* of the rest only as the arise in specific contexts (i.e. we can hold our own on the social issues, whilst not focusing on them to the detriment of the movement.) The 3 issues I think we need to focus on and that we can get a majority of voters behind us on are:
—fiscal restraint/responsibility (including some kind of flat or fair tax)
—national security (constitutional role of government, plus most or all Americans agree to this.)
—sound immigration policy
I say we we call this new 3rd Party - the Tea Party...:)
Snoop around the links I provided. Start here:
Elected members of the Republican Main Street Partnership
37 House members, 5 listed SINators and 2 governors are on their elected members list. Prior to the '06 election, there were 5 governors and there were more than 45 House members, IIRC. I firmly believe they have at least 5 alternate SINators that are not listed. If you watch their votes, I think you will see 10 that change off voting with the demonRATS.
Also, there were 21 SINators listed in the 107th Senate Centrist Coalition, during President Bush's first 2 years in office. By the 109th the group had been drastically reduced. I guess they thought they had effectively neutered President Bush and could simply use that damage to effect the '06 election. There was also a House Centrist Coalition, but I can no longer find info about them.
However, there is The Centrist Coalition.
The first National Centrist Meeting was held in the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace Home in New York on May 6, 2006. It would appear they took the place of the of the so-called Centrist Coalitions in both Houses.
Check out their favorites under the "Candidates" link.
Also note, where ever you find the word "centrist" there will you also find the name, McCain.
Another very interesting web site:
Close to half of the independents ARE the Conservatives. Where do you think all the Republicans have gone?
(i.e. we can hold our own on the social issues, whilst not focusing on them to the detriment of the movement.)
Big mistake. I am a Reaganite, and as such, I know that the winning strategy is to stand on Conservative principles. ALL of them. To suggest that "social issues" are to the "detriment of the movement" is wholly and utterly false.
Social issues govern the votes of the largest segment of the Conservative movement. Do you expect them to "shut up and vote", while their issues are tamped down out of sight?
The issues you champion are good issues, don't get me wrong, but not any better as issues than the rest of the principled stands that Reagan Conservatives have promised to defend among the three pillars.
“Close to half of the independents ARE the Conservatives. Where do you think all the Republicans have gone?”
OK, but conservatives (I am one) haven’t figured out a way to win many competitive races since about 1994 - or perhaps we just didn’t know how to govern and hold our own party together. So we need to figure out a way to coalesce with the other independents - the so called Reagan Democrats. How would you suggest we do that now? We can either remake the Republican Party, or start a powerful 3rd party movement (remake the Republican Party by a different name). So let’s you and me not split hairs here. :)
“To suggest that “social issues” are to the “detriment of the movement” is wholly and utterly false.”
Listen to what I said - ‘whilst not focusing on them...to the detriment of the party.’ While not focusing on them, to such a degree and with such an intensity, that those social issues end of peeling away people that are not as inclined to them as we are. That is not to say that we are not standing up for them, or standing on our principles as social and fiscal conservatives. But it is saying we need to find a way to coalesce with the Reagan Democrats again - how would you suggest we do that? I think Reagan did it well - with his populism and optimism. That’s the difference, see. Reagan knew how to focus on populism, while still standing on socially conservative values like pro-life. He didn’t focus on them to such an extent that he limited to too great a degree his populist message with Reagan Democrats. We need to re-learn that approach. That’s really my point, I suppose.
That said, I’ve marched in pickets at Valley Hospital in Kent, WA and stood in pickets in Olympia protesting abortion and adovcating for the sacredness of life. You can do both well.
My views on the subject should be self-evident.
I have already abandoned the Republican party because I think it is hopelessly and irretrievably without value as a vehicle for the Conservative movement. It has positioned itself in a way which is extremely biased against Conservatives rising through it's ranks. It has become a gigantic heat sink, effectively cooling Conservative dissent, and co-opting the Conservative message.
The old proverb, "A house divided cannot stand," serves to describe the Republicans well. There is no sense in continuing to prop up what must fall down (a ready piece of logic to use throughout this Union, and to include even the Union itself).
As to the question, "What to do otherwise", my own efforts are soon to be joined to one of two parties: Either the Falcon Party, or the American Independent Party, both based solidly in Reagan Conservatism, and the only two fully Conservative offerings, to my knowledge.
I am leaning quite heavily toward the AIP at this point. It is not only Conservative, but activist, putting it's money where it's mouth is. And in less than a year, it has grown to be the third largest party in the nation, according to member registration.
I will make that decision with finality in early summer, and at that time, I WILL advocate. I will convince regional and small national funding sources I am involved with to come with me, and I may also become involved in party structure, to the degree that I can without creating a conflict of interests with my primary political role.
In my opinion, it is not a matter of crafting "a message". It is about getting out "the message" in an honest and reliable way. It is about putting our trust in statesmen, not politicians, statesmen who regard their charge as a sacred oath, and are duty bound to express the will of the people and the states, within the boundaries of the law.
What Reagan did to attract the people was "MEAN IT". What the "Contract with America" did to earn the trust of the people was "MEAN IT". Unfortunately, the Republican party, under which these two revolutionary uprisings took place, does not "mean it". They are not devoted to the Conservative cause, in fact, they stand against it.
Conservatives tend to think linearly: If this, then this.; Here is what was attempted, here are the results.; Based on experience, this works and this does not work. Etc.
Liberals do not think that way. Liberals are easily conned and manipulated, and relentlessly unwilling to admit when they are wrong. Democrat correspondents’ obsession with attempting to elicit apologies from Republicans all the time is an offshoot of these strained thought processes.
Liberals, when confronted with a bare-bones truth that challenges their world view, will scrunch their eyes shut, shake their heads, and chant nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah until whatever truth it is they find offensive goes away, rather than revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to the truth before their very eyes.
Certainly, there are notable exceptions such as David Horowitz, PJ ORourke, Bernie Goldberg, and others who were smart enough to lift themselves out of the silly liberal mindset but these are, unfortunately, rare exceptions.
Being an unashamed liberal is a matter of character (or more accurately, a lack of character). Liberals are mostly humorless and bitter. Everybody else is ______ (richer, happier, luckier, fill-in-the-blank) than they deserve to be and its not fair. True liberals (as opposed to the self-serving parasites who comprise the Democrat party base) are often either permanently victimized malcontents or white, guilt-ridden heirs who feel that their own good fortune is undeserved.
Interestingly, true liberals are often physically slow and unathletic - - make that downright clumsy - - and have no interest whatsoever in competetive sports. Additionally, liberals really dont get jokes, even if they chuckle as if they do.
Liberals can appear to be normal people, and are often able to handle their jobs and academic endeavors competently, and socialize normally with others, even if their self-centeredness prevents them from ever having real, honest-to-God friends.
But the most troubling thing about liberals is that they see no problem in walking into the polling place on election day and voting for big government to confiscate more money - - from their NEIGHBORS. Normal people would view this behavior as selfish and rude, but liberals actually believe that they are somehow accomplishing something - - perhaps they soothe their irrational guilt with the tragic misbelief that they are helping others, notably, the poor. Apparently, voting for government to take more money from their neighbors so that their Democrat politicians may use that money to buy votes makes liberals feel good about themselves. (Dont ask me - - figuring out liberals would best be left to a team of psychiatrists.)
Thanks Roamer. I think we need to throw our efforts behind a 3rd party movement at the state level - and support conservative Republicans everywhere we can, especially nationally (not to prop up Republicans, but to support conservatives.) I think done well (perhaps Perot was a recent interesting example, though not a conservative one), this can succeed electorally and create a coalition force to be reckoned with, for perhaps the first time since 1854.
The problem nationally is that the laws and rules relegate against all 3rd parties.
For instance the lack of any proportional representation prevents 3rd parties from receiving any electoral representation. This is why we see 3rd parties laboring for 50, 75 years for NOTHING.
Also, 3rd party candidates now need to be polling 15% prior to the debates to be included. That would have eliminated both Perot and Anderson from the debates the participated in in 1992 and 1980. What chance is there if we’re not even included at all in a seat at the table? Do you relish laboring and financing a national 3rd party candidate that’s marginalized? If someone can show me a strategy that would bring a 3rd party candidate to the debates - I’m willing to listen.
Better option would be work within particular states that are most amendable to 3rd party candidates and begin there to field candidates and win electorally. The Reform Party did this (MN), but didn’t have a lasting vision/energy. Without some strategy toward electoral success, forget about it, it’s just a waste of time, treasure and talent.
You can certainly advocate for for changes to the laws (hmmm, tough to do without any electoral power), but I think remaking the Republican party is a better short to medium term goal, perhaps in conjunction with changing laws related to 3rd parties.