GOP Left Holds Right Hostage

Insight Magazine ^ | September 16th, 2002 | Rod D. Martin

[gunshy]

You're right, this is a marathon. Unfortunately the republicans are running in the wrong direction.

[Poohbah]

You're right, this is a marathon. Unfortunately the republicans are running in the wrong direction.

No, some conservatives are refusing to do anything useful, period, then b!tching about the direction the party takes in their absence.

[Darth Sidious]

What I mean is, we do need patience... but neither party (especially the Republicans) is willing to sacrifice the moment for the long-term vision.

[hchutch]

"Forcing the party to adopt divisive policies is divisive.

If tomorrow, President Bush wanted national handgun confiscation or a federally funded abortion entitlement, and the GOP was predictably divided over it, with whom would the responsibility for that division lay?

Let me guess, the "unappeasables?" "

The fault with the analagies you draw in that post is that NEITHER of those policies are REMOTELY considered by the GOP. NIETHER of them. Both of those are, in fact, rejected in GENERAL by Republicans. They are, in essense, straw man arguments trying to paint me as an "appeaser."

In short, you are CREATING a false premise. The fact is, good conservatives disagree on immigration in general, and even to an extent on how to handle Illegals. That last one has been argued to death. You will NOT convince me to adopt the Buchanan-Tancredo-Malkin line on immigration, and I won't talk you out of it. The question is, will YOU hold a Republican hostage over a disagreement on that issue, as some of the "unappeasables" are doing to a Republican in Louisiana (URL below this paragraph)?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/753470/posts

Are you willing to take THESE dividers on? They are holding the GOP hostage, too.

"You missed the metaphor: mules are sterile, mares are not."

It all depends on what you NEED the mule/mare for. If you just need to haul things, then me trading one mare for a couple of mules benefits me a lot more, particularly since the mules can't get preganant and cause me to LOSE the ability to haul things during the pregnancy.

It depends on what the priorities are. If you're breeding horses or donkeys, mares are more valuable than mules. For hauling things, a mule is better.

[nanny]

As one soon to be senior citizen, I DO NOT want the government furnishing my prescription drugs. I do not want my son and other working fathers having to pay for my medicene. That is my job - if I can't - so be it.

If all employers would annouce that at the end of 30 days, all employees would be given a raise of a certain amount and would have to find their own medical insurance, I guarantee the cost of all medical care would drop. You would find doctor's visits, prescription drugs, and hospital costs drastically reduced. If and when private individuals went shopping for healtcare insurance and healthcare, you can bet there would be reductions and fast.

[hchutch]

The problem is, you have to also keep the short-term in mind, too. Every two years, we elect a whole new House of Representatives and a third of the Senate. Every four years, we have to elect a President.

For organizational control, you need 218 people in the 435-member House, and 51 in the Senate (50 Senators and the VP is the BARE minimum). That's just to have the folks with an R next to their name.

Now, in the Senate, it can get more complicated. That's due to a weapon called the filibuster - you need 60 votes to shut one of those down. And then there is the off chance that the President decides to veto a bill. Then you need 290 Representatives and 67 Senators to override the veto.

It is, to a large extent, a numbers game. Organizational control dictates who controls the agenda. Contolling the agenda and the legislative schedule means you can dictate the major issues of the next election to an extent (you can be constrained by events outside your control).

In a sense, you need a good short-term game plan AND a good long-term plan. You need both of them.

[gunshy]

In 1992, a large number of americans voted for ross perot, I was among them. I didn't believe that perot would win, but I did think that sending a message about GHWB's performence "read my lips", to the republican party was important. In 1994 we all turned out to support the republican party and returned the pubbies to power in both the house and senate. In 1996, the RINO's paid us back by running Bob Dole for president. In 1998, the RINO's paid us back with that joke of a trial in the senate. In 2000 the RINO's paid us back by running Bush II. I'm tired and no one is listening, all I here is that I am a RINO. Well, if that's the case I will be happy to take my vote elsewhere. Then at least no one will call me a RINO.

[Sabertooth]

The fault with the analagies you draw in that post is that NEITHER of those policies are REMOTELY considered by the GOP. NIETHER of them. Both of those are, in fact, rejected in GENERAL by Republicans. They are, in essense, straw man arguments trying to paint me as an "appeaser."

I'm not attempting to create an analogy, I was making the case that there must be at least some point where even you would hold politicians accountable for taking positions that cost them support.

A policy or a person can be considered divisive by the breadth and depth of the antipathy generated withing a given population. It has nothing to do with whether or not hchutch personally likes whatever is causing the division.

There are certain issues that are non-negotiable for various members of the Republican coalition. It may be the Second Amendment, ors Abortion, or Taxes, or Illegals, etc. If the GOP leadership puts a plank in their platform that predictably alienates one of those constituencies, and it costs Republican votes as a result, then the leadership is to blame for the failure of their strategy.

If the leadership divides the coalition, then the leadership is to blame for the disaffection of the given constituencies.

[gunshy]

Can I have some of that stuff you're smoking?

[hchutch]

"There are certain issues that are non-negotiable for various members of the Republican coalition. It may be the Second Amendment, ors Abortion, or Taxes, or Illegals, etc. If the GOP leadership puts a plank in their platform that predictably alienates one of those constituencies, and it costs Republican votes as a result, then the leadership is to blame for the failure of their strategy.

If the leadership divides the coalition, then the leadership is to blame for the disaffection of the given constituencies."

In other words, YOU would hold the Party hostage over one of these "non-negotiable" issues, as the article accuses the "GOP Left" of doing. Pretty much that is the issue at hand. I dare say BOTH sides have held the entire Republican party hostage at various times. If it isn't a Lincoln Chafee or Jim Jeffords, it's a Tom Tancredo or Pat Buchanan doing it.

Or you can ask Poohbah about his experience. Or look at Louisiana. Now, I do NOT think Terrell is pro-abortion as Landrieu is. Heck, I think she'd be a big step up, but the "unappeasables" are going to sink her because they THINK she is slightly "impure."

I don't like EITHER situation one iota, and I'll take on ANYONE who does that. The place to settle disputes over the "non-negotiable" issues in the GOP is the primaries. After then, we ought to be team players. A RINO is better than a Democrat. That's not just my words, that's from Jim Robinson himself:

"If we don't vote out the Democrats they will maintain the control over the agenda. You can count on liberal activists judges for the next 40 years. There's too much at stake here. Vote out the RATS!"

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/745759/posts?page=2401#2401

Primaries are RINO season. Any other time, it's RAT season. Any questions?

[hchutch]

Help the RATs if you wish. But don't try to argue otherwise.

[Sabertooth]

In other words, YOU would hold the Party hostage over one of these "non-negotiable" issues, as the article accuses the "GOP Left" of doing.

No, let's try again.

I have my lines in the sand, and so, if you're being honest, do you.

The GOP Left isn't being accused of drawing lines in the sand in defense of conservative principles, which was the point of my earlier comment to which you are referring.

The GOP Left is accused of insisting on appeasement.

I'm suggesting that is not a wise nor viable electoral strategy in the long term, nor probably in the short term.

[Poohbah]

In 1992, a large number of americans voted for ross perot, I was among them. I didn't believe that perot would win, but I did think that sending a message about GHWB's performence "read my lips", to the republican party was important.

Yup. They listened to you.

In 1994 we all turned out to support the republican party and returned the pubbies to power in both the house and senate.

You skipped 1995: you paid the GOP back for its support of conservative principle by...letting them get run over and sandbagged by the Democrats without a peep. Y'all were nowhere to be seen when the GOP tried to organize letter-writing campaigns.

In 1996, the RINO's paid us back by running Bob Dole for president.

Translation: your guy lost in the primaries, you demanded 100% control of the platform after making sure that the Congressional races would be a shambles, and the GOP was heartily sick of your refusal to back them up in the 1995 crunch. Political parties remember their friends. They also remember their enemies.

In 1998, the RINO's paid us back with that joke of a trial in the senate.

After your non-support in two consecutive elections, why should the GOP have listened to you?

In 2000 the RINO's paid us back by running Bush II.

Who is as conservative as you're going to get after leaving the GOP in the lurch since 1992. Anything you get at this point is a freebie.

I'm tired and no one is listening, all I here is that I am a RINO.

Some of us who did the heavy lifting in previous campaigns are a wee bit sick and tired of you and your ilk being a bunch of idlers.

Well, if that's the case I will be happy to take my vote elsewhere.

I'd personally suggest that you use it as a suppository.

Then at least no one will call me a RINO.

After ten years of your whining and crying, that's the LAST thing you're getting called--most of the names are unprintable.

[hchutch]

And you are missing MY point.

If a conservative who supported section 245(i) won the primary, and thereby the Republican nomination for the House, what would you do?

[Sabertooth]

If a conservative who supported section 245(i) won the primary, and thereby the Republican nomination for the House, what would you do?

I won't vote for Republicans who support Section 245(i), which as you know, is part of the Clinton legacy.

If a "conservative" who supported Clinton's anti-Second Amendment legacy won the Republican House primary in your district, would you vote for him?

[Poohbah]

I won't vote for Republicans who support Section 245(i), which as you know, is part of the Clinton legacy.

You have two choices for who gets the seat: a Republican who supports all of your major issues EXCEPT 245(i), or a Democrat who supports 245(i) and OPPOSES most of your oter major issues.

Which way do you vote, Saber?

[sayfer bullets]

"The truth is when the Republicans move far enough to the right to get the fringe they lose all of the middle and a far out leftist like LBJ gets elected in a cakewalk. That is what Barry Goldwater proved. You can't win with a candidate that only appeals to 1/3 of the voters. "

This excessive reliance on the left-right continuum for analyzing elections,...let alone winning them, is ridiculous.

The data supports, and makes argument out of the assertion that 1994's "angry white male" election was thanks to the mobilization of conservatives. I predict the conservative turnout this year will approach, but not equal 1994's because of 9/11 and because the democrats have politicized both the war on terrorism and the nomination of judges beyond that which is acceptable.

The numbers show the historical performance to be true. 1996, 1998, and 2000's shoddy to mixed results are not in question. The media and the left are quick to jump on Republican in-fighting, because it's conflict primarily but also because the wedge issues are beneficial to democrats if republicans are split. Was the key candidate in 1996 a staunch "right-wing" repbulican? Hell no. He was an establishment, Rockefeller-type SENATOR. In every election our party buckles under pressure, or out of design...runs away from it's base... it dies an ugly death - then tries to blame it on the very people it dismissed (or took for granted) during the election campaign.

In 1994, there was no handwringing. There was a mission, and we got it done. Gingrich did his job, at least that year. Reagan did it continually without apology. The eleventh commandment reigned supreme.

Now this is not the case, and we pay for it.

[Sabertooth]

You have two choices... Which way do you vote, Saber?

There are never only two choices. I will not vote for Republicans who support Section 245(i), which was originally passed by a Democrat Senate and House and signed into law by Clinton. I might vote third party that time out, or I might leave that box blank.

What the GOP ought to ask themselves is whether fielding Clinton Legacy candidates is a good strategy.

Would you vote for a Republican who supported Clinton's anti-Second Amendment policies?

[Snake65]

But I haven't seen a single argument about why the Republicans deserve to be given power.

Boy can I sympathize with that statement. This is a great debate, and there's better thinking and more passion on this website than in Washington.

Outside of Ron Paul (R-Tex, 14th Congressional District) and his small group, it seems like no one in the Executive and the Legislative, and only a couple in the Judiciary, even pay attention to the Constitution.

My problem with the Republicans is that they're so busy concentrating on tactics, they don't have a strategy that I can discern. But I keep voting Republican because the alternative (Democrats in office) is worse.

We need a Constitutionalist movement on the grass roots level, to put people in statehouses and governor's chairs that will make an argument for 10th amendment state's rights, and try and sieze control that way. I don't want to re-argue the civil war here, but I'm sure we're agreed that the federal government needs some serious paring. It's all about checks and balances, and I don't see anything checking the power of Washington. Once there's a thriving Constitutionalist movement at that level, we can think about national offices. I realize this is pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye thinking, but it's my solution and I'm sticking to it.

[Poohbah]

There are never only two choices.

In reality, instead of your airy-fairy world, there's either going to be a Dem or a Pub in the seat. Which one do you want, someone who agrees with you 90+% of the time, or someone who agrees 0% of the time?

I will not vote for Republicans who support Section 245(i), which was originally passed by a Democrat Senate and House and signed into law by Clinton. I might vote third party that time out, or I might leave that box blank.

Thank you for proving hchutch's point. Folks like you are the liberal's best friends--you can be relied upon to cut off your nose in order to spite your face.