Growth through dismemberment doesn’t work
posted at 10:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If someone said that the best way to restore health would be to cut off an arm and a leg to make the torso more pure, would you sign up for that surgery? Or would you send that adviser off to either medical school or a therapist? Christine Todd Whitman and Robert Bostock try to make that argument to the Republican Party, giving the reverse of the “kill the RINOs” arguments heard elsewhere:
Four years ago, in the week after the 2004 presidential election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, “It’s My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.”
Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.
At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the “base” at all costs was the way to go. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the McCain campaign this year, called the book “airy blather” and said its argument fell somewhere between “insufferable snobbery” and “complete cluelessness.” Gary Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a “Michael Moore radical.” National Review said its warnings were, “at best, counterintuitive,” and Ann Coulter said the book was “based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false.”
What a difference four years makes — and the data show it.
Bollocks. The data shows that moderates moved to Barack Obama, which comes as no surprise after eight years of Republican control of the White House. Unless Whitman shows that Bush’s position on embryonic stem-cell research was the leading issue on voters’ minds, her extrapolation that the shift in moderates came from a sudden allergy to social conservatism is the worst kind of statistical manipulation. It’s correlation without causation.
What were the issues foremost on the minds of voters? The failing economy, ethics, and national security. In Rasmussen’s polling on issues, abortion didn’t even make the top five:
- Economy
- Ethics & corruption
- National security
- Education
- Health care
- Taxes
- Iraq
- Social Security
- Abortion
- Immigration
Only the last two have anything to do with social conservatism, and they hardly drove the election. Rightly or not, voters saw the outgoing Bush administration as inept, and wanted a change. In fact, two years after Whitman and Bostock wrote their book, a majority of Americans saw abortion as morally wrong in most instances by a wide margin (55%-32%), and only a small minority favors the kind of unfettered abortions Obama proposes to allow with the Freedom of Choice act (24%, according to Gallup’s poll earlier this year).
Beyond the statistical sleight-of-hand, though, Whitman gives yet another voice for the destruction of the Republican Party as a coalition of interests centered on shared principles. She wants dismemberment as a purity drive, much the same as Ted Nugent’s call for open season on RINOs. Neither will help create a national party able to govern as a majority.
In order to regain the majority, we need to stop attacking each other and start focusing on those issues that unite us. The only way to achieve real change is to combine our strengths and put ourselves back in position to change policy. It may feel good to stand alone with our ideological purity, but in the end, it will never afford us the leverage to make real changes. Only by agreeing to pursue what unites us can we forge an alliance that can achieve any positive change for America.
What unites us, then? We need to get back to those First Principles of fiscal responsibility (which we blew when we had the opportunity), smaller government (which we betrayed with the K Street Project and other lobbyist pandering), national security, free market economics, federalism, and lower taxes. If we can agree to pursue those as priorities, and if we can rebuild our credibility on those goals, then we can convince moderates to once again support Republicans, especially if the Democrats run off the rails in the next two years.
Dismemberment doesn’t bring strength. It almost always creates a corpse.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I agree we should wear seat belts. But I vehemently oppose seat belt laws, motorcycle laws, transfat laws, etc. I believe we have the right to thoroughly abuse ourselves. We have the right to make as many mistakes and totally ruin our lives without government interference. We ought to be free to be as miserable and unsuccessful as possible. I also believe the government shouldn’t be standing there to pick up the pieces when we make those mistakes. I believe the best government is one we barely notice.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM
The problem I have with RINOS is they want social Conservatives exterminated from the party. Since McCain lost the election, these RINOS have been coming out in force demanding social Conservatives be cast out of the party because of our RELIGIOUS beliefs. Call me crazy, but any party formed along those lines is not democratic thinking. I believe without social Conservatism in our party we become Democrat-Lite and there will be little difference between the two parties. Some have said there was little difference between McCain and Obama, so they went with the Democrat.
Yes, most of us are wanting to rid ourselves of the RINOS who have been in charge of either the White House since 1988 and Congress since around 1996. We have given the RINOS a chance to be bipartisan to the maximum, and in charge. What did it get us? A party in disarray, a Marxist for POTUS, packed Courts with justices that rule against our Constitution every chance they get, a Supreme Court that favors European laws, and political leaders that no longer listen to the voices of the American people. This last reason is exactly why Sarah Palin was and is so popular. What a miracle! A politician that listens to the people!
RINOS can be in the party, but I do not want them in leadership roles in the GOP, or in national positions. The states can elect them to Congressional offices is that is their desire, but not as POTUS. RINOS are moderates and will bend with the wind whenever it benefits their personal interest. I want a staunch American Conservative to lead. I want all the things you listed Ed, but it has been proven most RINOS rarely if ever follow through with a delivery of those principles. Granted we cannot survive without them when it comes to elections, but America was not such a bad place when social Conservatives were more powerful and were in charge of the party, the Congress and POTUS. As El Rushbo says “Conservatism wins every time it is tried.”
freeus on November 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM
You can live without arms and legs.
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
BOO!! It’s not Halloween anymore.
The RINOs have been using that scare tactic against us since Clinton. Well, y’know what? The Worst Case Scenario is here.
Here’s more metaphors: Evolution and Dinosaurs. Phoenix rising from the ashes. New Kid on the Block. Lilliputians. Army of Davids. Whatev.
Personally, I think we need a Balkanization of political parties, since that’s what we have now, anyway amongst the factions within each. More, not less, political parties.
It’ll make people work harder to understand narrow positions and find a way to collaborate if they need to. No more Us and Them and Good and Bad, just political strategies born of varied interests.
Plus, it’ll put more pollsters out of business.
And effin’ States’ Rights, people! If you want to regain a bit of sovereignty and a sense of self-reliance, vote out the spineless RINO governors and elect a good former Executive Assistant who knows how to draw a boundary on NO! and make grown men toe the line.
Box-thinking got us killed already.
Joan of Argghh on November 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I disagree with illegal immigration considered to be a social issue. That’s more of a national defense issue.
eforhan on November 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Only if you have someone else with arms and legs to feed and protect you.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM
+1/2
Only half because I think some drugs could do with regulation (to the point where the label matches the product), but it’s wrong and inconsistent to “ban” any drug. There’s no real difference between “drugs” and alcohol. If someone wants to get high or get drunk, I don’t see that as society’s business.
Lehosh on November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM
The Deomcrats hid their wackos in the closet this go round.
The Farrkhans, Ayers, Deans and Michelle Obama were nowhere to be found. The culture wars will be fought were it counts…in judicial appointments and in the trenches. Where no on ecan see and the most damage is done.
The religious right needs to shut the hell up, go under ground and start fighting it’s culture war in the courts by building ACLU type groups and the like.
Get off the TV, get the hell out of the newspapers and fight the war where it counts: online and in the courts.
mylegsareswollen on November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Unfortunately, everything, it seems, is becoming a “Constitutional” issue. What we need is a leader that has the gumption to say, “Let the people decide what they want in their own communities.” If you want to legalize pot, leave it up to the states (who may, in turn, leave it up to the counties). What happens then? Well, you’ll have counties that allow people to smoke pot. You’ll have counties who do not allow it. Let’s see how that works out for them. You’ll have social experiments going on all across the country. Some will work, some will not. But, in any event, you’ll have templates to build upon. And you’ll avoid further homogenizing the country and stripping it of the wonderfully different customs/flavors that we are so richly blessed with. And hey, if you don’t like the way your city does things, you can always move to the next city. It’s tough to move to the next country.
Matticus Finch on November 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM
The seat belt laws were put in place by the auto industry because they didn’t want to incur the cost of putting (new and expensive) air bags in cars at the time. The seat belt law was a result of pandering by the auto industry on DC. Seat belt laws should be repealed.
ThackerAgency on November 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM
+1
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM
That’s pretty much what the dems want to do with their nanny-state.
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM
What Whitman and her ilk don’t understand is that conservatism is roughly a seamless garment. If you’re going to be a fiscal conservative but a social issues liberal, you’re cutting your own feet off. By sharing your bed with NARAL,gay marriage advocates, Gore disciples, etc., you end up empowering the very people who will come back to increase your taxes, confiscate your capital gains, kill your senile grandmother and seize your property.
whitetop on November 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
To a certain extent, that would be fine, as long as you are not on public roads. Sure, go crazy out in the wilderness. But we can neither allow people to endanger others on the highways, nor allow merchants to sell defective products.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Yes, Captain Ed, ‘Growth through dismemberment doesn’t work’.
US Catholics, bishops & lay realized the loss of Pro-Life McCain/Palin need a clear and narrow goal to overcome the culture of death. These are a few bishop’s at this week’ USCCB conference.
atemely on November 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM
ThackerAgency on November 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM
+1
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM
“Ethics & corruption” is number two? Puhleeze. Why do they keep electing the same corrupt morons over and over?
Tom
marinetbryant on November 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Unless you’re The Black Knight. Political parties sometimes act like that – “‘Tis but a scratch”…”Just a flesh woumd!”. And after resounding defeat at the polls – “Running away, eh? Come back here you yellow bastards and take what’s comin’ to ya!”
eeyore on November 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Agreed. Just didn’t care for it being a federal mandate to states tied to highway funds.
Goody2Shoes on November 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I disagree I know people on both ends of the seat belt rule some alive because they didn’t have it on some alive because they did I personally believe it should be my choice if I wear one or not. They are law because of the insurance company lobby.
tee866 on November 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Regarding the 55% Rasmussen says is opposed to abortion…I fall into that 55%, at least insofar as I oppose abortion as a form of irresponsible birth control, but it’s not a major criterion in how I vote.
I think there are plenty of moral people out there who’d vote Republican but get turned off by what they perceive as moral fundamentalists cramming their morality down their throat. The left is highly effective in their narrative that all social cons are doing that, whether it’s accurate or not.
flipflop on November 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
To a certain extent, that would be fine, as long as you are not on public roads. Sure, go crazy out in the wilderness. But we can neither allow people to endanger others on the highways, nor allow merchants to sell defective products.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Again seat belt use does not cause crazy driving. If anything people not using seat belts drive safer because they pay more attention.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The Republican Party failed in 2006 and 2008 because it failed to lead, and failed to articulate a message of inspiration to the American people.
Multiple scandals, no courage in the trenches, and no answer to Moveon.org and the Center for American Progress is what killed the party’s chances. Top down management failed abysmally.
Our country needs strong leadership that represents its core values.
It needs a counterpunch to the overwhelming liberal bias in the education system.
It needs a counterpunch to the overwhelming liberal bias in the media.
When your message is weak and drowned out by a pack of lies and empty promises, this is what you get.
eaglesdontflock on November 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The seatbelt wearer may be safer when an accident occurs, but I do not believe I am safer in my car because you are wearing a seat belt in yours.
P.S. I don’t think you are a conservative.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The core is the Constitution. The Republican party needs defend and uphold the Constitution and the rights of the people it represents.
We defend the people’s rights by limiting government as the Constitution demands. The Federal government is to defend the people of the states, provide a common defense and ensure the states transact and interact on a rational non-tariff basis, no more, no less. Otherwise the states are free to compete for businesses and citizens based on their fiscal and social policies. Inherent competition is the basis of our strength as a people and as a nation. (and don’t get me started on schools who don’t grade or keep scores at athletic events)
Strong National Defense
Limited government
- Fiscal responsibility
- Liberty of the people including the right of free religious observance, self-defense, protection from the government
phreshone on November 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Any empirical evidence of that?
flipflop on November 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Isn’t the emphasis of Conservatism to limit Federal Gov’t? Let the states do the deciding on issues of “social” matters. Drugs, abortion, marriage…that is a state’s right to decide, and the less the Federal Gov’t gets involved, the better.
jwehman on November 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The problem with your theory Ed, is that you are likening RINOs to an arm or a leg. They are not.
The more accurate description of RINOs would that of a cancerous lesion. One does not “attempt to heal” and “come together” with cancer. One cuts it out of one’s body to prevent it from polluting healthy cells and spreading.
RINO-ism is a cancer on the GOP. We MUST excise it if we are to survive. RINOs need to understand that if they do not stand for all THREE pillars of Conservatism, (Small government, strong military and Judeo-Christian values) then they are simply NOT WELCOME in our party and are to be marginalized until they leave.
There can be no quarter given. The RINOs ran things for EIGHT YEARS and look where we are now. Out of power, out of time, and out of luck. No thank you, I’m not interested in ANYTHING RINOs have to say.
The only thing I have for a RINO is an ideological bullet. Uncle Ted has it right. Saddle up, it’s RINO huntin’ time!
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Trimming a tree is necessary to keep it healthy. It spurs growth. As a social conservative, you can cut me loose or speak to my interests. I will no longer give my backing and money to moderate Republicans. I will no longer vote for the “better than the alternative” candidate. That candidate ALWAYS LOSES because people want to vote FOR candidates, not against alternatives. You can’t raise money shadow boxing.
Small government is not a tough sell, but McCain had a hard time selling small government after his signature legislative achievements were:
– cap and trade,
– campaign finance reform,
– amnesty for illegal aliens,
- and the largest ongoing government bailout of the private sector in the history of the world.
To call McCain a conservative obliterates the meaning of the word. McCain was the “better than the alternative” candidate and no more.
Angry Dumbo on November 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I disagree with illegal immigration considered to be a social issue. That’s more of a national defense issue.
eforhan on November 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
true but it is also a moral issue. Illegal imigration is the slavery of our time IMO. It allows evil people to take advantage of others by paying them less, by not following the laws of the regions etc.
If the rep were smart thay would make this argument. as well as the national security issue. I have no problem with massive immigration as long as they assimilate into OUR society. They are coming here they need to check their culture at the door. their culture is the reason they must flee their country to find work.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Via newsbusters,
“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”
Letter from Father Newman to his St. Mary’s parish in upstate SC
http://www.stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2008-dedication-of-the-lateran-basilica-in-rome
Goody2Shoes on November 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM
How exactly does my not wearing a seatbelt endanger other drivers?
Lehosh on November 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM
You’ll find it exceedingly difficult to get anything done in your life once you do this.
I invite you to try it out and report back to us with the results.
:-)
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I do NOT want social cons banished from the Party. Not. Not. Not. I lean too far that way myself. What I DO want banished is James Dobson and Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer, these self-appointed arbiters of ideological and moral purity. Those clowns have gotten a stranglehold on the Republican nomination process, and by making every candidate ritually come and kiss their asses they make every candidate radioactive in the general election.
rockmom on November 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
It really is time for a third party. That is the only way to save the country and keep the government honest.
eaglesdontflock on November 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The problem isn’t RINOs existing in the party, it’s RINOs running the party, as you noted in your 3rd paragraph.
Look at the dems. They need their blue dogs to get legislation passed. But they don’t promote them to leadership, they don’t put them in charge of anything. The three legged conservative you describe is only effective in 40% of the country. That alone doesn’t win you anything.
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Any empirical evidence of that?
flipflop on November 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
In a famous article published thirty years ago, an economist named Sam Peltzman argued that seatbelts and other mandated safety devices in cars had done little good. Sure, they made crashes less dangerous. But drivers responded by taking less care. The result was only a modest drop in driver and passenger fatalities, fully offset by a rise in pedestrian deaths — at best no net benefit and arguably a change for the worse. The article caused a sensation. The results were attractively counterintuitive, the argument was ingenious, the underlying idea about human behavior made a certain amount of sense, and the implications were wide-ranging. The narrow lesson was that people had stubborn preferences, including for the risks they ran, and those preferences resisted modifications imposed from above. The broader lesson was that there were more things in heaven and earth than regulators understood. Social complexity undid social engineering.
http://www…harvardlawreview.org/forum/issues/119/jan06/sklansky.shtml
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM
You made my point for me. The three legs of conservatism are the heart, lungs and brain. You need them to survive. RINOs are the arms and legs, each further from the core to various degrees. Conservatism can survive without them, but it’s a lot better at passing legislation with them.
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Totally agree. I know of a man who got rich by employing illegals for his construction clean-up business during the 90’s. He also provides other businesses with illegals for day labor. The illegals live in his barn, he pays them less than minimum wage, and he pays them in cash. Apparently those businessmen who contract with this man don’t care where he gets his “employees.” They are all scum.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Perhaps. To be honest, I tend to think of my self as a classical liberal–but that is what conservatism is trying to conserve.
I would as if you are arriving at your stances by way of your principles, or arriving at your principles by way of your stances.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Principles…it’s why I can never run for office.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
The three legged stool I described was Ronald Reagan’s description of how the GOP should be run. You gonna question Ronaldus Magnus? He got WAY more than 40% of the country to vote for him, that’s for damn sure.
I’m sorry Badgerhawk, but you are wrong.
We need a return to being the “Party of Reagan”. This “Party of Bush” thing isn’t working out for us very well.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Want to try that again–the link doesn’t go anywhere.
From your comment, though, this would argue for better training, not removal of seat belts.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
We need a return to being the “Party of Reagan”. This “Party of Bush” thing isn’t working out for us very well.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Agreed Bush tried to buy votes. He tried to pander to the seniors, he tried to pander to the CEO’s, He tried to pander to the social cons, he tried to pander to the big government crowd. and in the end it got him nothing. They all abandoned him. He even lost the naitona security hawks for his management of the war.
Bush showed that without principles no one trusts you. No one knew what Bush was going to do from one day to the next. Anything was on the table if it got him the votes he needed to pass the law of the day.
If it took 50 billion in pork to pass the no child left behind bill. No problem. if it took 50 billion in pork to pass the farm bill bill no problem we need those farmer votes etc.
A man of no principles will govern for power and nothing else.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Want to try that again–the link doesn’t go anywhere.
From your comment, though, this would argue for better training, not removal of seat belts.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
just remove the periods after www. for some reason links have a tendency not to allow posts.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM
This is the problem, the narrative. The current narrative is that since McCain lost, then conservatism is dead.
McCain was the head of the Republican party, not the head of conservatism. McCain losing has ZERO to do with conservative values or principles and whether or not it is gaining or losing strength in America. We haven’t had any conservative views in legislation since the contract with America in 1994.
Until we can change the narrative equating McCain with conservatism. And change the narrative that people against abortion and homosexuality are hateful people, the media will continue to chant this narrative. Jerry Falwell never hated anyone, certainly not homosexuals. He disagreed with them. He wished them well, peace, and happiness, but he didn’t stray from his core convictions and beliefs just because they wanted to feel ‘accepted’. Conservative issues aren’t hateful.
Again, I guess I’ll just have to wait until Islam becomes more prominent. At least that way the bile will be directed at someone other than Christians. I’ll just get my popcorn and find out who is the most oppressed.
Christians (American Christians) are far more tolerant toward homosexuality than anywhere else in the world. Didn’t the Episcopalians (Catholic lite) break up the world church because the American Church wanted to recognize homosexuals as preachers? The rest of the world said, heck no.
ThackerAgency on November 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Just a further note on the “Three Legs” and RINOs:
The RINOs seem to think we can do without one or more of the three legs. As we have seen, they attempt to remove BOTH Fiscal conservatism AND Judeo-Christian values from the stool. All they have left is Strong Defense. I’m sorry, but it’s been proven with the elections of 2006 and 2008 that having only ONE leg in your stool does NOT make it stable!
RINOs would ignore the Social Cons AND the Fiscal Cons and focus solely on Defense Cons. While that works well when you are under imminent threat, As we have well seen, that threat, once disposed of, NO LONGER WORKS as an object to rally around and get votes with. Americans do not want to be constantly on a “War footing” politically. Bush, Cheney, and McCain have been trying this for 8 years. it worked initially, but once we reduced the threat to something minor happening “over there” it was USELESS as a campaign issue.
This is why the RINOs need to be marginalized and, when possible, removed from the GOP. We need people that are stong on ALL THREE counts, NOT JUST ONE.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM
And her comments in the radical right wing WAPO!
Take that social conservatives!!!!! HA!
Amendment X on November 14, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Principles:
If the only reason people vote are for THESE , and the republican party truly sticks to these principles, then the future of the Republican Party looks promising; however, there are people that are fixated on social issues (e.g. abortion, stem cell research, etc.) so much so that they change their vote based exclusively on them.
Concerning the social issues, the real question is, “What stance is the Republican Party supposed to take?”
In other words, when the issues of abortion, stem cell research, or gay marriage are addressed, what stance is the Republican Party supposed to take?
It seems to me that a true conservative would say that we are federalist and that the states should determine policy concerning gay marriage and abortion. Concerning stem cell research (a much larger issue IMO), our stance should be consistent; however, our reasoning should not focus on the moral implications. Instead, the federal government is not responsible for funding it.
(I humbly stand corrected)
TightAggressive on November 14, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Just like the self-appointed “base” who are screaming for the so-called “RINOs” to be booted. Decreasing the number of voters is not the way to win elections, but ideologues are always idiots.
rightwingprof on November 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The issue isn’t about cutting off of excluding thing or anybody, it’s about Conservative principles or no and whose guidance, leads.
Are we led and guided by the RINO debacle we know doesn’t work, again, or do we understand that when Conservatives lead that RINOS follow?
It’s the principles stupid. Unwavering principles.
Speakup on November 14, 2008 at 11:41 AM
After reading these comments, I can’t help but wonder who is not a RINO?
Pam on November 14, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Not when the arm has gangrene. As long as you have the RINO’s in charge of the party you will never get to
The Republican leadership – including GWB and 80 percent of the Rs in congress led us away from those “basic principles” Unless we get rid of the gangrene of the RINO leadership, we will stay democrat lite and lose elections. Or a third party will form that supports those basic principles. If that is needed it will take longer than 4 years to dislodge the democrats, but will be necessary. The next year or so will make or break the republican party. If we continue in the same RINO direction, many conservatives will split off.
Corsair on November 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM
From your comment, though, this would argue for better training, not removal of seat belts.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
As a child I learned to drive in a beat up car. that would not start if you stalled the clutch. i learned to drive in snow, in rain etc.
From that learning I can now drive in any amount of snow, ice, rain. i can drive a manual, an automatic.
when the roads are bad I buckle up. when its sunny and not a cloud in the sky and little traffic I don’t. i’m an adult and I know when it is dangerous to be driving and when it isn’t.
I do not need nor want the government to protect my from myself. I am a free man and I expect my children to grow up as free people.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Exactly.
Matticus Finch on November 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM
They did drive the election, but not in the way you think. I’ve been going on and on about re-prioritization on issues in the GOP for a reason. The intense focus of conservative activists in the GOP on the social issues at the bottom of that list gives voters the (not completely incorrect) impression that such issues are all Republicans really care about. There’s only so much time and space each party has to make its case to the electorate, and Republicans waste too much of it going on about “core principles” and how abortion defines whether or not an individual can be nominated for an office. If abortion and gay marriage are all you talk about, sooner or later people are going to think that they are all you really care about.
This is not rocket science.
Big S on November 14, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Illegal immigration is an issue for conservatives because it is by definition against the law. Speak up to change the law, but don’t split issues into social, national security and fiscal conservatism.
It makes no more sense to classify conservatives as social and fiscal conservatives than it did to suggest that conservatism needed the modifier “compassionate.”
Think back to the early 1990s, was cutting head start a social, national security, or fiscal conservative issue? Was cutting school lunch programs a fiscal, national security or social conservative issue? Was cutting midnight basketball programs a social, national security or fiscal conservative issue?
More recently debates on
campaign finance reform,
global warming,
and the fannie/freddy/AIG bailout
have been supported by so called “fiscal conservative/social liberal” Republicans who see a role for government to correct these perceived ills.
Excuse me, but where does it say that in the Constitution?
We need to return to first wave conservatism.
Angry Dumbo on November 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
My basic desires are free enterprise, a foreign policy that doesn’t kowtow to the most evil dictatorships, and a good environmental policy. The GOP only gives me two out of three of those. Further, the most important environmental issue to me is stopping the further growth of human overpopulation–which put my values in direct conflict with the anti-abortionists. It’s tough to paper over conflict in our most important values, but abortion is such a small percentage of votes in Congress and the Supreme Court has pretty much limited to the edges of abortion policy. It doesn’t seem that hard to me to work for a big tent Republican Party. An anti-RINO Republican Party would make me vote Democratic.
thuja on November 14, 2008 at 11:46 AM
As much as I disagree with Christie Whitman now, I have to tell you, she is the reason I even became a Republican.
I was in college at a small women’s college back when she was governor. I was a typical college feminist, I volunteered for NARAL and I bought into the Democrat party line all the way. I had also grown up in a pro-Democrat family.
Now, I didn’t live in New Jersey, so I didn’t know what she was actually doing in the state house, but she got a lot of national publicity and I started to read more and more about her. Her public statements and her Republican response to a STOTU turned my head. Whitman was the first person to convince me that taxes should and could be lower, among other things. Again, I wasn’t in New Jersey, so I had no idea she wasn’t actually governing as she spoke, but it didn’t matter at the time.
At the time, I also appreciated the idea that I could vote Republican and have Republican thoughts and still be pro-choice. Gov. Whitman allowed me to think that, not Rep. Henry Hyde. The thing is, once I accepted the fact that I was a Republican, I became open to even more of the Republican principles and ideals. I’m pro-life today, adamently so. But it was a journey to get to this position.
I am no fan of RINO’s because they always seem to vote against my position when I need them the most (judges, taxes). I wasn’t sad when Chris Shays gave up the last Republican seat in the northeast. But I do recognize that RINO’s are useful, to a certain extent.
A RINO helped turn me into a Republican and then showed me that I am actually a conservative.
myrenovations on November 14, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Here’s some of my thought, worth approximately nothing but not completely nothing.
McCain was a terrible candidate for President. Most of you know this. An infinitely honorable man with a great life story, no doubt, but a bad candidate. Dry as a bone, boring, old, and not terribly inspiring or capable of selling the small government conservative/libertarian message. Attacking Wall Street is not exactly the best way to get fiscally and government-wary conservative moderates to swing and stay on your side. I’m not sure what Obama said tha tswung them his way (maybe talking about tax
cutscredits hit a note with some people, even though there was a lot you had to ignore/overlook to actually believe that bull-hooey, but that’s another discussion…)Palin was refreshing to me personally, but rubbed many moderates the wrong way. This is a fact. The base loved here, the moderates did not. I’ve heard this from many of the people I work with in my small media outlet. Some of them were actually on the fence until Palin was put on the ticket, at which point they swung hard to Obama. Yes, most were Democrats, but there was a legitimate chance at getting them (unless they were all lying to me, which I have no reason to believe they were). Maybe. Who’s to say.
Moderates say social cons are the problem, social cons say vice-versa. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the McCain campaign was disjointed, hodge-podge, unfocused, and ultimately unable to sell what needed to be sold.
I was a Romney guy, personally (fiscal con, essentially social con but not in his policy prescriptions, effective communicator and manager, and was rejected for the most part by those who thought his beliefs about the mystical man in the sky – as opposed to others’ beliefs about the mystical man in the sky – disqualified him as President). I don’t care about religious beliefs because I personally don’t care what religious beliefs you have as long as you keep them out of government and/or to yourself or your congregation. McCain did not have this problem – in fact, there are probably many people who wanted him to talk MORE about his religion. But he didn’t. Fweh
I think what many people here refer to as “RINOs” are actually fiscal and nat’l security conservatives who simply put more emphasis on what is happening in this world rather than the next (assuming there is one). It does not make one a RINO to disagree with your religious doctrines, or not to hold one at all (hey, AllahP!). If growing the tent and forming coalitions is your goal, then giving RINO litmus tests to individuals who are your natural political allies is not the way to do it. Likewise, jettisoning social cons essentially renders the GOP nothing at the national level because of the sheer numbers of people that think religions is more important than politics. Well, if that’s what you believe, you got your wish. Your religion is still important to you, but politics were more important to the other guy. And they won because more people who may have been sympathetic to a conservative message got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the right thought religion was more important than finding a way to stop the hemorrhaging in our financial system. Perception is reality in politics, unfortunately. And the other side gave off the perception of being more pragmatic in a time perceived as a national crisis, and they won. HANDILY.
So rather than hacking at each other, or chasing the tails of bitter campaign staffers, or pointing the fingers at the other guys on your side who you were weeks ago trying to hang together with, take a step back and think about what you can do and say to persuade people to join you for the common goal of wining the elections – not what you can do to “test” their ideological or religious purity and expel them from your group if they don’t meet some arbitrary standard you’ve developed. We need to hang together (as individuals with mutually beneficial political goals in mind), or we’ll all hang separately.
Divided we fall. McCain/Palin 2008, exhibit A.
/steps down from dumb soapbox
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Not to derail the thread, but this is why I ALWAYS buckle up.
Not because the Government tells me to, but because, as a Free Man and an Adult, I know that there are PLENTY of people out there on the road who are Facking Morons. People who will TEXT MESSAGE while driving! People who will, on a beautiful sunny day, under perfect driving conditions, put my life and my loved one’s lives at risk by doing stupid and dangerous things that I might not be able to anticipate and avoid in time, no matter HOW good my driving skills are (and they are considerable).
I wish to live as long as possible. So I buckle up every time I drive.
And now back to your regularly scheduled political discussion.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
From the article you linked:
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Why are you arguing with me? I described the three legs of conservatism as all being vital to survival, which seems to be the same thing you’re saying.
But under your standards, who the hell isn’t a RINO? If you only accept people who are strong on all 3 stool legs (as opposed to strong on 2, weak on 1/ strong on 1, pretty good on 2) you’re going to marginalize the party into perpetual minority status.
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
And in a free country you are able to do that. I have no problem with education, I have no problem with seat belt use. My problem is the fact that the government thinks it has the power to force people to use them. It does not. It is a mistake to think it does and leads to a slippery slope. If the gov has the power to tell you to wear a seatbelt it also has the power to tell you what to eat. It also has the power to tell you you must use trigger locks, you must keep your gun locked up, you must not day trade, you must brush your teeth three times a day, you must wear a helmet to ride a bike, etc
It is a right and power the government does not have. It is a symbol for me of government overreach.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Wouldn’t that be nice? Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th Commandment anyway?
meltenn on November 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Exactly. If I disagree with the platform on anything, I’m somehow not pure enough? What the hell?
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
The wrong part of the body analogy is that humans lack the ability to regenerate a lost limb, whereas a political body can grow (or regrow) new ones.
eforhan on November 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I’m a RINO, I guess. Meaning that I failed the ideological/religious litmus test for what constitutes a “true” Republican.
-Evangelical intent on forcing Christian beliefs/morays on an unwilling electorate through government policy
-opponent of collectivism and leftism
-Small government proponent
-Constitutional originalist
-Fiscal conservative
-Nat’l policy conservative
-America-firster, America-bester
I didn’t check box 1.
So I guess I’m a RINO. Maybe I’m Spartacus.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM
It’s not a matter of people’s varying strength on one leg or another. I can accept people wanting to focus MORE on one area or another, provided they are willing to ultimately stand up for all three as CORE principles.
The RINOs I’m talking about choose to totally REJECT one or more of the three as a CORE principle, and to drive away those who have a preference for them. Like Christine Todd Whitman, who wants to drive away Social Cons. Or people like Bush, who, whiel ostensibly accepted all three legs, didn’t stand up for any of them but Strong Defense as a CORE principle. McCain is the same way. He won’t accept ALL THREE.
That’s the real rub. The GOP, unlike the Democrats, is not (traditionally) a loose coalition of disparate groups. We are traditionally a group united around a set of core principles. The RINOs tried to turn us into another “Big tent” party like the Dems. They did it by abandoning one or more of our core principles and becoming “Democrat Lite”. THAT is what failed. we didn’t stick to our principles, and the electorate just looked at us as yet another group of lying politicians.
And if the GOP is just another group of lying politicians, then why WOULDN’T people vote for the Democrats, who may be lying politicians, but who have prettier and more emotionally satisfying lies?
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
RINO would categorize those that have policy differences from Democrats, but not ideological differences. A lot of the other arguments amount to looking at the same set of principles from a different angle, or emphasizing one area over the others.
There are a lot of Libertarians (aka Ron Paul supporter types) on this thread, so that might confuse things.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
**Should have been Nat’l SECURITY conservative
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Good points. The GOP needs to find its connection to the suburban parents and explain why its principles are going to make life better for their kids. After 9/11 George Bush had that connection since physical safety became paramount and the Dems lack credibility on that issue. But when the focus shifts to other issues, the GOP has fumbled at explaining their purpose. Joe-the-Plumber was a good effort to that end, but it was too little too late.
Abortion and gay marriage don’t effect most voters on a daily basis the way that terrorist attacks do or a collapsing economy. Hopefully, a congressional Republican will find his/her voice during the debates with Obama in 2009 over the size and shape of government aid to the economy.
dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
There are other factors involved in the last 30 years besides seatbelts. Including better safer roads. better cars that react quicker, anti-lock brakes, better crash design in cars to reduce impact, air bags etc.
However, saying all that the numbers form 1997-2005 the period of the wave of seatbelt laws shows a pretty stable amount of deaths regardless of more seatbelt use.
http://www…car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html
same thing with periods.
unseen on November 14, 2008 at 12:01 PM
There is a narrative problem here. The Social cons are not using government to force their morals on you, they are trying to prevent the forcing of opposing morals on themselves via the government. They do not want to be a party to murder, nor support it through taxes. They do not want their children indoctrinated into amoral ideology in public schools. They do not want the government endorsing immoral behavior.
This is all small government stuff. If falls to those of us that are not really social cons to understand this.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM
There’s a lot of people who have been making that assertion on this site recently. There is a serious need for weeding out of not only a lot of new registration trolls, but some deranged posters who are still in shock from the election.
MadisonConservative on November 14, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Legalizing behavior is different than endorsing behavior. People should look to their families or churches for moral endorsements. Governments should fix potholes and protect the borders.
dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM
As a social con, I refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-choice (i.e. pro-infanticide) or who is favorable toward the gay lobbying. The real problem starts on finding those who are also conservative on the economy and national security. Finding all three in a candidate is great – I just wish the majority of the US thought the same way.
Princeps on November 14, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Christine Todd Whitman is so incompetent that we should do the opposite of what she recommends, if we listen to her at all.
Limit all primaries to closed contests, and have the first primaries in RED states – not in Iowa or NH. That is vital to keep the democrats’ favorite RINOs out of the driver’s seat.
In congressional leadership, Mitch McConnel has skills using Senate rules. Make him ‘Minority Parlimentarian’ instead of Minority Leader if he won’t back off on earmarks.
Keep RINOs in their place (as pets), and encourage conservative challengers to RINOs in primary elections to reduce their numbers and give Republicans a clear message true to conservative principles. The Bush RNC discouraged conservative challengers.
Right_of_Attila on November 14, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Here’s where the problem lies:
Immoral according to whom? Immoral based on what?
I understand what you mean, and I think the “not with our taxes” stuff is actually a more persuasive argument than a purely “moral” one.
The problem is that many MANY people perceive talk about morality as a religious discussion. What is immoral or “murder” to you is not perceived that way by a good chunk of the populace on purely religuous ground (even though I’d suspect that most people aren’t personally in favor of aborting their children at any given opportunity).
And again, this issue was also 9th out of 10 on a Rasmussen list Ed cited as concerning to the electorate. So it only affects a small group of people comparatively.
Just sayin is all.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
What illegal behavior are you talking about here?
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
And I wish money grew on trees. But this is politics. There is no perfect fit. You have to judge candidates on the whole. If you can’t/won’t support candidates who fulfill two of the three requirements, and instead allow for the election of those who fulfill NONE of them, then you’re cutting off your nose despite your face.
Of course, you’re free to do so, but it gives you little ground to complain upon once it happens.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Respectfully, rockmom, your posts always make sense. This one is no different. I just disagree that McCain who once famously called social conservatives “agents of intolerance” could be properly classified as a social conservative himself or even less having kissed social conservative ass during this election cycle.
If you are talking about media perception, that is a different matter. I’ll be happy to rant on the media’s abdication of its role with you on a different string.
Dobson, Perkins, and Bauer, like William Donohue speak for their constituents. Attack Dobson, Perkins, and Bauer, like Allah attacked Donohue yesterday, you attack their constituents. If you don’t want the Republican party to promote social conservative issues, that is fine, you just don’t get to select our leaders.
Angry Dumbo on November 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I think this is precisely the problem rockmom was alluding to :-)
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Yes, that’s the ticket. More purges! The beatings will continue until morale improves!
rockmom on November 14, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I think the Republican Party should unite around a message of decentralization (Federalism). We’ve got to grit our teeth and accept that some states are going to permit gay marriage and unfettered abortions.
Where our social conservative message needs to be, with regard to religion, is to preserve it and protect it. And make sure that the federal government has no authority, say, to prevent the Catholic church from closing their hospitals in states who attempt to force them to perform abortions.
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 12:19 PM
We conservatives/Republicans (not the same, but very overlapping) need, like a married couple that’s fallen out of love, to remember what it was that brought us together in the first place. I would argue that, at it’s base, that thing is a love of liberty.
Now, different ones of us want it for different reasons; some want to be free to amass wealth. Some want to be free to pursue unorthodox behavior of one sort or another. Some just want to be free of the enormous dragging anchor that is our federal bureaucracy. For myself, religious liberty is the ultimate non-negotiable. But at base, what we have in common is a love of freedom.
The thing is, I believe a lot of people who oppose us are ALSO believers in liberty, but feel — in some cases rightly — that we oppose their liberties. I’m not speaking about the abortion debate here; the right to life not only must also be upheld, it is supreme. But how many people might sign onto our “small government, big liberty” cause, who are currently on the left because they see Republicans as merely people who want to hunt them down and beat them to death with a Bible?
I’ve suggested this before (and count on it: I’ll keep on saying it), but we need to embrace liberty for everyone. That means some people will do things that are anathema to many of us. That’s just the way freedom works.
We’d really only be becoming more consistent. Consider two things that we (I know many of you are not part of “we” in this case) Evangelical Christians consider sin: adultery and homosexuality. Between the two, I’d have to say adultery causes far more harm to innocent parties, including many millions of children; yet we are much tougher on, and much more excluding of, homosexuals. If we’re going to allow people to commit adultery with little or no consequence, why do we then try to make life miserable for gay people?
I’m not suggesting we quit speaking our beliefs about right and wrong. But if we want to preserve liberty, we need to extend it to everyone, in order to gain their support and get control of our government — a “Liberty Coalition”, if you will.
RegularJoe on November 14, 2008 at 12:21 PM
A party that no longer respects its base is no longer a party. Take the foundation away and the walls come crashing down.
jims on November 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
FREEEEEEDOM!
And all the brilliant, nasty, beautiful, horrible, wonderful, detestable things that go with it.
Please. Thanks.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
The problem with your approach Good Lt. is that it INEVITABLY leads to a “McCain” candidate. Social Cons see what compromise has gotten them: No seat at the table. They are no longer willing (nor should they have ever been willing) to compromise their principles.
I’ll say it again: If you are to call yourself a Republican, you MUST embrace (politically, if not personally) ALL THREE of Reagan’s core GOP principles. Understand that the morals and religion of the Social Cons informs and guides the Fiscal cons into fiscal responsibility, and tempers the Security Cons into sticking only to vital national interests.
All THREE parts are vital to the whole. If you drop one because you have some kind of personal problem with that particular principle, then you hobble the party and the stool of principle the Nation sits upon falls over into Chaos and Dictatorship.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
True, but base without something on top of it is nothing but a slab of concrete.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM
How do we do that?
Matticus Finch on November 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Count to 10 covered number 1.
If you look at the rest and compare them to the current Republican leadership in congress and pres, how many can they check?
Let’s take Bush, I can see him checking one, maybe two of those boxes. The leadership in congress the same way. The problem is not the electorate, (other than we keep electing these people), the problem is the elected. Many of them ran as conservatives, yet when it was time for them to vote in congress, they kept voting against the things on your list. We need to elect people that will do what they talked about when they were running, and if they don’t, we the people need to vote them out, preferably in the primaries. In my opinion, the main problem that keeps us from making those changes is that the RNC keeps promoting the RINOs and running them as Conservatives. And when the RNC isn’t supporting you in the primaries, it is very hard to overcome moneywise.
Corsair on November 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Behaviors that don’t harm anyone other than willing participants. My point is that something being legal–say gambling or smoking–shouldn’t be construed as a government endorsement. It is acceptable, even advantageous, for something to be objectionable or immoral to many people yet still be legal–so long as innocent bystanders are not harmed.
dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I don’t want to be seen as attacking their constituents, AT ALL. Really! I love ANYONE who wants to call themselves a Republican and help us rebuild a majority! I even sorta like Christie Whitman, though I think she is an attention whore on this stuff and playing too much to the liberal media.
I will gladly take her vote in the next election.
I just think that we have gone too far in allowing these men like Dobson to make THEMSELVES the arbiters of conservative thought and action. Grassroots conservatives can decide for ourselves who we like and should support. These men are moral leaders FIRST, and Republicans SECOND. That’s why I don’t want them selecting OUR leaders. I think we have made a big mistake allowing them to do so. Their endorsement may be a “Good Housekeeping seal of approval” to you, but it’s as good as a KKK stamp to a lot of independent voters who might otherwise support the very same candidate you do.
rockmom on November 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM and Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM I guess the point of the question I aked and you two seemed to grasp, was lost on those answering with this:
What are those 3 core principals?
No, I don’t think the Libertarians have anything to do with the confusion..
Pam on November 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »