Conservatives and ‘Line in the Sand’ Issues

Earlier today I had an exchange with a reader – who I respect a great deal – who doesn’t agree with my Twitter argument about the folly of conservatives staying home and not voting this cycle (or any cycle, really).

His Republican governor agreed to expand Medicaid coverage, as permitted under the Obamacare law, and he finds that a deep betrayal.

I can’t argue with that. If the issue of expanding Medicaid is your line in the sand – and there are good reasons for that! – then you have every right in the world to say, “I can’t vote for that guy.”

Of course, if you have too many “line in the sand” issues, you end up with few or no candidates you can support. And when determining your “line in the sand” issues, you probably ought to account for local issues and dynamics. It’s really hard for a Michigan Republican to be a loud-and-proud opponent of auto industry bailouts. A Congressman who represents beach towns is probably not going to be a full-throated supporter of offshore drilling. These guys do have to be the voice for their constituents, and their constituents are not always going to be down-the-line conservatives.

This reader made a reference to “all of the GOP governors expanding Medicare,” which I interpreted as a claim that all Republican governors agreed to it. They didn’t. A lot held the lines, and in places like Virginia, GOP state lawmakers held the line.

Have no illusions, opposing a Medicaid expansion is a heavy lift for most GOP governors. If a GOP governor signs on, they get rewarded now, and their state will pay later (probably after they’ve left office). If they oppose it, they’re painted as mean and uncaring about sick and poor people. Yes, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Susana Martinez signed on to the expansion. But Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker opposed it. You can’t paint the entire Republican Party with too broad a brush.

Ask yourself, why should a Republican governor take the political hit of opposing the Medicaid expansion when A) grassroots conservatives ignore them or pretend they don’t exist or B) self-described conservative Republicans who most strongly oppose the Medicaid expansion proudly announce they’re not going to vote?

It’s fair to fume at the “Democrats win, therefore we must be more like Democrats to win” philosophy, but if Republican voters stay home, the electorate that is guaranteed to show up shifts to the left. After a few cycles of conservatives declaring “I’m staying home because the candidates aren’t rightward enough for my tastes,” it makes absolute sense for Republicans to try to be more like Democrats, because self-described conservative Republicans announce they’re not going to vote.

A common lament of the “I’m staying home” crowd is the GOP’s failure to significantly reduce the size and cost of government at the state or federal levels. Right now there is not a public mandate for a dramatic reduction in the size and cost of government. I wish there was, but there isn’t. We have to build that. It is unrealistic to expect a Republican governor (or president!) to try to force through spending cuts that the public does not want.

You go to war with the army you have, and you govern with the electorate you have.

Finally, even if you find a GOP governor too squishy to support… is there anybody in the U.S. House, state legislature, city council/town council, mayor, or school board level that you find to be any better than any other option on the ballot?

Although I would not have agreed with this article going in, I find Geraghty's reasoning to have some merit. The money quote:

After a few cycles of conservatives declaring “I’m staying home because the candidates aren’t rightward enough for my tastes,” it makes absolute sense for Republicans to try to be more like Democrats, because self-described conservative Republicans announce they’re not going to vote.

So, all this does is unmask the GOP-E as being the Democrat-Lite, moderate, non-principled group of pretenders we have all been harping on lately.

I rather think this is the money quote:

Right now there is not a public mandate for a dramatic reduction in the size and cost of government. I wish there was, but there isn’t. We have to build that.

The author lists some of the Republican governors who have sold out perhaps he could list the Republican officeholders other than Cruz, Lee and maybe Paul who have sought to build that mandate for reduced government? Perhaps the author would be kind enough to list the Republicans who undercut these men when they acted:

[It is unrealistic to expect a Republican governor (or president!) to try to] force through spending cuts that the public does not want.

And when he has done that perhaps he can tell us what the point of having a Republican Party is?

Since the first election in which I voted, I have not missed voting. I will not miss this time, in November. That said, my Republican governor who is running for reelection, will not get my vote. Neither he, nor his opponent, nor any other democrat, will get my vote.

I will simply be an “under vote” in the governor portion of the ballot. NOTA is a valid choice.

Hispanics don’t vote Republican.

Yet the Republicans are still doing EVERYTHING they can to try to get the Hispanic vote.

Why can’t they do that for conservatives?

Compromising our principles, voting for RINOs, trying to “moderate” our tone is what got us Obamaland.

The elites in the Republican party HATE us just as much as Democrats do. And they can’t wait to run to cameras and microphones to tell us how much they hate us.

Then they’re shocked we won’t vote for them.

To many lines in the sand?

Border/immigration/amnesty: Ok I unline that and I am willing to allow my country to be stolen or worse yet attacked by subcversive immigrants.

Obamacare: I unline that and I get stuck with overwhelming tax burden and crappy care.

Abortion: I unline that I am condoning murdering babies, unacceptable.

2nd amendment: I unline that and they slowly disarm us until we cannot resist. Without the second all other amendments fall.

Strong defense: I unline that and we have no ability to fight off our soil.

Lowering taxes: I unline that and I cannot afford to live anymore.

The list goes on, so which line do I choose to not fight for them. That is BS.

With all the news about illegal youth crossing open borders, Muslim beheadings in the USA and elsewhere, ebola going thru porous borders, and raising costs of healthcare, the Democrats should be in position to lose many governor, representative, and senate seats in November.

But when you have a Republican elite that kinda isn’t bothered by the same issues, then why should a conservative care if a liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican is elected.

It is a losing proposition in either case.

The November election will be telling.

“Perhaps the author would be kind enough to list the Republicans who undercut these men when they acted: [It is unrealistic to expect a Republican governor (or president!) to try to] force through spending cuts that the public does not want.

“And when he has done that perhaps he can tell us what the point of having a Republican Party is?”

Excellent points.

“not a public mandate for a dramatic reduction in the size and cost of government. I wish there was, but there isn’t.”

Total trash! The polls ask that specific question and a big majority say the federal government is too big. What is this idiot talking about>?!

The more hazardous problems of today weren't caused in the span of a short time. The more influential constituents behind politicians of both political parties have been arranging their centralized control of this world slave market and western regime of recirculating debt for about 40 years. See the worldwide commuting, migrations and traffic in general.

Where are the honest candidates in favor of all Americans? There are none. We still have about 40 million people receiving incomes from various levels of government, about 30 million using the former to regulate against any new, small, domestic competition and about 100 million unemployed (the former true private sector).

There are no conservatives in politics. Conservatives are now nonpolitical, as the problem collapses upon itself.

American conservatism and Euro-flavored right-wing-ism are two opposing philosophies. One is moral, and the other is fascist. The original discussion continues behind the following link.

God Save Us from the Loud ‘I’m Staying Home This Year’ Conservatives
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3210036/posts

The problem with that quote is that it overlooks the purpose in conservatives staying home. It is to change the behavior of the candidates back in a conservative direction. They have 2 choices: reclaim their conservative base by turning back to conservatism, or, if they're of a liberal streak, they will use the above excuse because what they truly want to do is turn in a liberal direction.

That said, I think Kasich, my governor, has a good point for accepting additional Medicaid money. He knows that is money that's going to be spent anyway. It might not get spent on Medicaid elsewhere, but it will get spent.

NOT signing onto the state exchanges, on the other hand, made sense and was not a contradiction. The way the law was written is that states with exchanges are told how to spend the money and states without exchanges are not supposed to generate any money at all. The law says that federal subsidies are not given to enrollees in states without exchanges.

Then you end up with what we have now, one party rule. One flat out full bore communist and the GOP running along, wailing me too! me too!

Then again if the conservatives come out and vote in droves as the GOPE is demanding-—yet again, what is the result? Same as above, me too! me too!

Eventually the result will be the GOP dying off or being absorbed by the democrat party and a new party will fill the vacuum, probably a far more conservative party. Trouble is the country is destroyed in the process because of the slow death of the GOP. You can’t save it and it won’t die fast enough.

a big majority say the federal government is too big

Until there is a specific question about specific cuts.

Then it's "Whoa, Nellie!!! Go cut something else. Something that takes away somebody else's government cheese. Not Mine!!!!!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.