The Looming GOP Rift: Will the Right Secede?

Self | 2/25/07 | Rudder

[Rudder]

My Dear Feepers,

It’s not just on Free Republic alone, the rift within the GOP perhaps more properly described as the rift between the GOP and one its constituents---Conservatives---has caught the attention of virtually all the major political prognosticators.

It’s a painful thing to endure, and likely it will not enhance our effectiveness as a party, as a political movement or in winning elections. And, at it’s current rate of development and the sometime nastiness of the invective on FR, I think it’s going to get worse long before it’s going to get better.

Think about this as a possible solution, one which allow all of us to still retain our own brand of conservatism and still push for a big win in 2008.

Consider the latest FR poll: 62% Hunter--27% Giuliani.

If the question could have been asked (perhaps it will in the future):
“Hunter is 15 points ahead of McCain and the rest of the pack fall further behind.
Giuliani shows ratings between 1 and 2% at this time, but with hard work and a creative campaign strategy, he just might pull it off in the next 22 months.

For whom would Freepers vote? My guess those going for Hunter would 99% of Freepers.

Can we do both? Support Hunter and yet, despite our best effort and he loses the primary, vote for a win in 2008 no matter who (except McCain) is our candidate?

I suspect the great majority of us could.

I propose this as one who wholeheartedly supports both candidates. Right now, Rudy looks like a winner and a guy who can best handle the job as CIC. Should it be Duncan, I would feel secure knowing that he represents my conservative philosophy and would govern as such.

I see two advantages obtained by this approach: 1. It may well reduce what could become damaging rifts within our community of Freepers. 2. If it works, it could spread and give conservatives in general (not just Freepers) unity---and a louder, focused voice (Re: Meiers?) that would influence the platform and the candidate.

I eagerly anticipate your comments and the flames.

R

[Old_Mil]

Can we do both? Support Hunter and yet, despite our best effort and he loses the primary, vote for a win in 2008 no matter who (except McCain) is our candidate?

I would point out that by stating, "except McCain", even you have instituted your litmus test. Substitute "except Rudy" into that sentence and you'll have mine. Duncan Hunter is not the only Republican nominee that I could support for President. Rudy is one who I could certainly never support.

[Kevmo]

I went to all that trouble to come up with a good analogy and you didn't even try it on. If Rudy supporters won't engage in debate, what are y'all doing here, pullin' our pickles?



"I've yet to read one post from a Giuliani supporter saying they will stay home if Hunter gets nominated. I've yet to converse with a single Hunter supporter who states he or she will vote for Rudy if he's nominated. "
***Using your own words, then, which candidate is more dangerous for the republican party? The one who doesn't generate division or the one who does? Your own words show that there is support for Hunter from the middle ranks, but no support for Rudy from the socon base. "You support the team you play for." The socon wing expects your support for the most socially conservative candidate. If you can't do that for your team, then maybe you have betrayed your team.

[Skip Ripley]

I'm NOT a Rudy supporter... I'm just trying to get you to folks to undertstand that sitting out solves nothing. I'm also firm in my belief that candidates are incapable of splitting a party. The only people who can split a party are the folks too stubborn to set aside their concerns (typically over a single issue) for the sake of the party.

The party is split by the people who leave...it is 100% on thier shoulders. You will not change my mind on that point and you will not get me to accept any rationalization that justifies damaging the party.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

I refuse to vote for ANOTHER big government, big spending RINO. Duncan Hunter's voting record in Congress shows him to be worse than even the deplorable record of the average Republican. No thanks.

American Conservative Union: 2005: 92%, 2004: 87%, Lifetime Score: 92%, That makes him tied for 120th place among active Congressmen in Lifetime Score

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW): 109th: 71%, 108th: 51%, Lifetime: 70%, 2% below the Republican House Average Lifetime Score of 73%

National Taxpayers Union (NTU): 2005: 56%, 2004: 56%, Lifetime: 63%, 1% below the Republican House Average of 64%, Average of 130th place among Representatives.

Club For Growth: 2005: 49%, 187th place out of roughly 230 Republicans: Here are some of the more troubling votes: YES on No Child Left Behind, YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit, YES on 2005 Highway Bill, YES on the 527 bill. Hunter also went 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments. Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets.

Wastewatcher, January 2006: "Buy America" Rips Off America “Buy America” provisions have been inserted into legislation, especially defense bills, for many years. Usually, such provisions are removed from the final version of the defense legislation. That happened late last year, when Senate leaders and administration officials convinced House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) to drop the provision from the fiscal 2006 Defense Authorization Act, which was then signed into law by President Bush. The Buy America clause would have blocked the Pentagon from buying military equipment from international companies that receive government subsidies. The removal of this language constitutes a victory for taxpayers and national security. More competition in Defense procurement can only result in better value for taxpayers and improved equipment for military personnel.

[Kevmo]

I'm NOT a Rudy supporter... I'm just trying to get you to folks to undertstand that sitting out solves nothing.
***Looks like it would make a good tag line. Especially after looking at some of what you stir up on the Rudy threads.

I'm also firm in my belief that candidates are incapable of splitting a party.
***Oh, why didn't you say so, up front? You won't explore the analogy that I post, you're basically saying you won't listen because you're a "firm believer". If only we could get all of that out of the way then we wouldn't waste each other's time.


The only people who can split a party are the folks too stubborn to set aside their concerns (typically over a single issue) for the sake of the party.
***Here, let me stop wasting your time. I'm a firm believer in knowing that once someone shows they have no intention of exploring the issue, I can't debate on an intelligent level with them and I consider it to be a waste of time. Why on earth would you spend 7 years on a socon forum trying to convince socons that they look at things the wrong way? What's in it for you?



The party is split by the people who leave...it is 100% on thier shoulders. You will not change my mind on that point and you will not get me to accept any rationalization that justifies damaging the party.
***History would be the judge in that regard. When the Whig party broke up, it was the moralist anti-slavery wing of the party that carried it into the republican party and it was the reed-in-the-wind Whig lemmings like yourself who were credited with the destruction of the party. I will take you at your word that I will not change your mind on such points and wish you the best in your pursuit of changing socon minds, Don Quixote.

[Skip Ripley]

I like to stir things up on the Rudy threads because I resent the small number of Hunter supporters waving the bloody shirt of conservatism for this obscure congressman. He does NOT define conservatism.

Yes...it is pointless to debate me about candidates splitting parties. You will not convince me that the burden falls anywhere but on the shoulders of those who choose to sit out. You'd have better luck trying to tell me water isn't wet.

You want to place the accountability for someone's actions on another person...I choose to keep it where it belongs, on the person committing the act. Unless one of us changes our perspective on that, this is pointless.

Thanks for being so civil...I hope we can focus on the numerous issues we agree on as opposed to the few we apparently disagree on.

[Kevmo]

Since you're not a socon and you admit to stirring things up with socons, perhaps you missed this message from JimRob:


As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.

[Skip Ripley]

That's wonderful news...show me a post where I denigrated any of those specific values.

[Kevmo]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
den•i•grate –verb (used with object), -grat•ed, -grat•ing.

1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone's character.
2. to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.


It didn’t take that long for me to find posts where you “speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame, and treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage. If anything I would characterize your overall posting behavior denigrating.





It boils down to this, "socons" want to dictate the stance of the nominee on a single issue (abortion).
***Putting the term “socons” in quotes is a denigration. Using straw argumentation denigrates the position as well as the gravitas of the issue.

If they don't get thier way, many will stay home rather thn support the ONLY party that has tried to do anything substantive to end abortion.
***This is criticizing in a derogatory manner – if they don’t get their way.


Once the nominating process ends, assuming he wins, Rudy will be the lead candidate for the party. You support the team you play for. Either that or you find anew team.
***This denigrates the choices we have. And pushes us to consider other alternatives at your suggestion. And in the same vein of argumentation, you end up denigrating socons for considering that choice.


The Looming GOP Rift: Will the Right Secede?

Posted by Skip Ripley to Kevmo
On Bloggers & Personal 02/27/2007 12:58:20 PM PST • 146 of 148
I like to stir things up on the Rudy threads because I resent the small number of Hunter supporters waving the bloody shirt of conservatism for this obscure congressman.
***This is a denigration of socons and an exaggeration of the language -- obscure congressman, bloody shirt, small numbers.



Just what ARE Rudy's qualifications that make him the "BEST man to lead as CIC?"

Posted by Skip Ripley to EternalVigilance
On News/Activism 02/26/2007 2:37:08 PM PST • 455 of 483
I'm not Giuliani supporter you dithering idiot...I've stated in numerous threads that I hae no intention of voting for him in the primaries.

And where the hell do you get off questioning how "classy" I am? You cast the first stone wonderboy, not me
***Insults are a denigration. Bad language, well, that’s not that big of a deal though it’s against the posted rules…


Just what ARE Rudy's qualifications that make him the "BEST man to lead as CIC?"

Posted by Skip Ripley to EternalVigilance
On News/Activism 02/26/2007 11:31:44 AM PST • 440 of 483
Please... the little temper tantrums and hissy fits put forth by some of the "socons" on this board are worse than anything I posted.

Frankly...I'm sick of the "RINO" term being tossed about willy nilly by a minority faction within the party at anyone who doesn't lock step with the complete socon agenda.

To be more brief...bite me
***Insults again, “bite me “ is disrespectful and a denigration. The RINO term isn’t “tossed about willy nilly by a minority faction within the party at anyone who doesn't lock step with the complete socon agenda.” That’s hyperbole, not necessarily denigrating, but what would possess you to come to a minority faction site and say such things? I contend it is a denigration of Free Republic.


Just what ARE Rudy's qualifications that make him the "BEST man to lead as CIC?"

Posted by Skip Ripley to takenoprisoner
On News/Activism 02/25/2007 11:15:56 PM PST • 397 of 483
Who cares what the demos say? That's some pretty specious logic you're employing there. By all means, don't vote for Rudy in the rimaries...I sure as hell ain't. But when the general elections roll around and if he's the nominee you shoud vote for him.

Or get the hell out of my party
***This “get the hell out of my party” thing is a denigration. It also goes right to the issue we’re discussing here, which is that a party split is looming due to such sentiments being expressed in similar fashion. Keep in mind that THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN website. It is a SOCON website, and since you’re an admitted ‘non-socon’, it’s up to you to act graciously if you want us to listen to you. So far the rudy team is completely missing the ball, and if anything, is proving to us that he is not suitable to be president. Team rudy fails miserably to make the case.

[Skip Ripley]

Yep...I've been testy towards some PEOPLE. Now...once again..show me where I have been critical of the conservative ideals that are the basis of this site.

Please understand...I do not accept the notion that "social conservative" and "conservative" are interchangeable. There are amany conservatives who don't consider themselves social conservatives...Dick Armey for one.

Oh...BTW, the use of quotation marks is not pejorative in and of itself. In this case the use of quotation marks around the term socon was intended to denote that it was a nickname...as in Rudolph "Rudy" Riuliani

[Kevmo]

Here's 2, just in the post that I put up.




what would possess you to come to a minority faction site and say such things? I contend it is a denigration of Free Republic.


Or get the hell out of my party
***This “get the hell out of my party” thing is a denigration. It also goes right to the issue we’re discussing here, which is that a party split is looming due to such sentiments being expressed in similar fashion. Keep in mind that THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN website. It is a SOCON website, and since you’re an admitted ‘non-socon’, it’s up to you to act graciously if you want us to listen to you.

[Skip Ripley]

Welcome to Free Republic! Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

I missed the part that says this is a "socon" website...I signed up in 1998 because I was told it was a conservative website. I moved over here from the CNN boards when they kicked everyone out because the impeachment boards had become too contentious.

As I have been doing on many threads of late, I will continue to resist the attempts of "socons" to limit the definiton of conservatism to their view of social issues.

So far as the "get the hell of my party" stuff goes...that was my hamhanded attempt to illustrate a couple of points. I'm tired of "socons" telling anyone who doesn't follow thier agenda to the letter that they're "Rinos" and that they should be removed from the party. I thought it might be nice to see if thoem that dishes it out are them that can take it. What's good for the goose...

The other aspect of the conversation that precipitated my outburst is my anger towards my fellow party members who want to issue threats about "staying home" if they don't get a candidate who is 100% in agreement with thier social agenda. Fight the fight in the primaries, but when that fight is over, you need to close ranks with the party. If you aren't willing to commit to that...and you can bet I will vote for Hunter, Giuliani, McCain, Romney or anyone else who gets the nomination...than you should quit pretending to be a part of the Republican party and just go on off and form your own party. It's patently obvious that you don't care about the well being of the party as a whole, you just want to advance your agenda. I have no use for that kind of sunshine Republican.

As a side note...you tend to use the royal "we" quite a bit...did someone elect you the group spokesman for the "socon" cause? Are you Duncan Hunter?

[Rudder]

I hadn't been aware of the information you presented. I have no interest in helping Hunter's enemies. However, keeping in mind that Know thy Enemy is worthy advice, I shall read your links.

Thank you.

[Kevmo]

I missed the part that says this is a "socon" website...
***Yes, it appears that you missed the "pro-life" thing, which was on my checklist when I joined. That's also one of the things I posted earlier and you casually overlooked it. So what else did you miss? Is it a big mystery to you why JimRob shows disdain for Rudy?

The other aspect of the conversation that precipitated my outburst is my anger towards my fellow party members who want to issue threats about "staying home" if they don't get a candidate who is 100% in agreement with thier social agenda.
***This is where you go off into the weeds. This assumption that it's 100% or nuthin'. Solibs like Rudy don't even give me 30%. Your statement is a tremendous exaggeration. This habit you have of hand-waving over what you read and then focusing on an exaggerated portion of it is called straw argumentation.


As a side note...you tend to use the royal "we" quite a bit...did someone elect you the group spokesman for the "socon" cause?
***Is that slot open? I'd like to throw my hat in the ring!

[Kevmo]

Skip's actions speak louder than his words. Here is what Skip Ripley says on his home page, while it's still up.

FreeRepublic.com has become little more than a bitchfest for disaffected social conservatives to whine about being ignored by the media, the evil RINOS and even thier pets. It's boring and dumb...so I'm out of here. Perhaps I'll come back in 2010







This was posted on another thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792854/posts



To: Kevmo; Jim Robinson
I wasn't going to post here...but you've given me such a concrete example of the stupidity I'm talking about that I really have no choice.

You have the gall to call me a "newfangled conservative" when you have no idea where I stand on any substantive issue within the conservative movement. The only thing you know about me is that I am critical of socons and thier attempts to fracture the party. So it has come to that. If you even criticize the folks who choose to call themselves "socons", you are not a real conservative.

Screw you

I am not a social conservative. I am a CONSERVATIVE. WE put Reagan in Washington and WE made the Contract with America a reality in 1994. WE kept the traitor John Kerry form becoming CIC.

No subgroup did that, the CONSERVATIVE movement did that.

Great site you have here Robinson...I hope it's turned into all you hoped it could be. Please delete my username



188 posted on 03/01/2007 7:07:51 AM PST by Skip Ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]