Posted on 03/31/2005 7:39:11 AM PST by 1stFreedom
For over a decade I’ve tried to convince people in the pro-life movement that leaving the Republican Party wasn’t a good move. The past few days has changed my mind, and I started to write this article when the news broke that Terri died.
Florida has shown us that the best that the GOP has to offer is a losing strategy.
For decades abortion has remained “legal” due to the same problems which were present in Florida: an arrogant judiciary and an unwilling executive branch.
The call for Jeb to refuse to enforce the illicit orders of Judge Greer went unheeded. As a direct result, Jeb’s actions sanctioned the starvation of Terri Schiavo. His Pontius Pilate approach to saving her life hasn’t fooled the pro-life base.
His public denial that there wasn’t anything more he could do was a slap in the face to the pro-life movement and to Terri’s parents. It is well known that he indeed had these ORDINARY powers as the Governor of the State of Florida.
If this is the strategy the GOP has to reign in the Judiciary, then it’s time to find another party. It is simply not acceptable that someone could be starved to death in the United States of America with “legal” sanction.
But where does one go? Many of the alternative parties are too idealistic or too focused on history to reach a broad spectrum of people. And some of the names are quite silly….
In my mind, an ideal third party candidate would appeal to socially conservative Republicans, Regan democrats, and minorities. A coalition party can indeed win…
What are your thoughts?
Recent third party history does not give those who want a viable alternative much encouragement. They all want to start at the top, rather than doing the hard grassroots work.
Not quite yet time, but it's five minutes to midnight.
The Bush boys caved completely, but George is term-limited out. Folks like you and me will never vote for Jeb now, and that ends any prospect of further office for him.
The Republican Party as such performed very, very badly in the past few weeks, but let's keep our eye on the prize here: the Judiciary. If the Judiciary were pro-life, this would not have happened. Indeed, given the tremendous power of our Judiciary (clearly evidenced by the Schiavo case) if we get a pro-life Judiciary, it will be able to overrule a Democratic President and Congress when we get one again, just as it just overruled the Republicans' half-hearted efforts with Schiavo.
The key to gaining control of the Judiciary is the Nuclear Option in the Senate. Bush's appointees have been reasonably conservative. If they were voted on, they would be installed, and the Judiciary would be moved further and further to the pro-life side. Democrats have been particularly focused on blocking Appellate Court judges, because they understand that its the Circuits where most constitutional law is made.
The Republicans just failed the pro-life movement catastrophically, and Christian pro-lifers should realize that, thus far, the Republicans actually haven't done anything more than Democrats to change the pro-death culture of our law, other than talk a better game (but then welch in the crunch).
But they have not yet failed to pass the Nuclear Option.
They need to do that soon.
If they do, the Republicans will have set the course that, over time, with successive Republican Administrations who will actually appoint pro-life judges, we will finally see the Judiciary dismantle the legal culture of death.
That's the only way to win long term.
The Republicans haven't COMPLETELY failed, but they just failed very badly.
They have one last shot at redemption: the nuclear option.
If they refuse to pass THAT, they will have truly abandoned the pro-lifers, and it will be time for the pro-lifers to walk out the door.
A third party?
That's a lot of trouble to organize.
More effective would be a narrowly focused, pro-life Christian PAC, whose voters commit as a group to support the pro-life candidates in an election, of whatever party, but to NOT support any pro-death candidate.
When I say narrowly tailored, I mean "No abortion, and no euthanasia".
Christians do not agree on the death penalty, so leave the innocent life/guilty life distinction out of it. Being a pro-life party that is staunchly pro-death penalty will alienate the Catholics, the biggest Christian bloc. Being a pro-life party that is staunchly anti-death penalty will alienate many conservative Protestants.
Guilty life is a different cadre from innocent life, and a different PAC can focus on that.
Likewise, other socially conservative issues such as immigration or the second amendment have no place on the platform of a pro-innocent-life PAC. Different people are very passionate about these things, but if your focus is preserving innocent life from the ravages of domestic law, worrying about stopping pro-life Mexican Catholics from coming across the border is a red herring. Besides, it alienates the Catholics. The gun issue provokes fanatical emotions on both sides. I note that the NRA is incredibly effective at its advocacy precisely BECAUSE it remains single issue focused. Suppose the NRA were to also become adamantly pro-union (lots of union hunters)? It would alienate 3/4ths of its members. Suppose it became anti-union? It would alienate 1/th of its members.
Either way, making a broad political platform detracts from the single issue of importance.
Why a pro-life PAC? There are plenty of them.
Yes, but they are mostly Church affiliated.
Jerry Falwell does wonderful work, but he alienates Catholics because of religious divergences.
The Pope and the staunchly pro-life Catholic bishops and their movements do wonderful work, but Baptists are just not going to flock to them.
What needs to happen is a pro-life NRA which is not denominational but welcomes ALL denominations, INCLUDING pro-life atheists (I know one), and all political persuasions. To do that, you have to focus on one issue: innocent life, and eschew all other issue advocacy.
There is no Pro-Innocent-Life "NRA".
If there were, heartbroken Christians would have a place to go, and it would be politically EFFECTIVE in a way that trying to form a general third party isn't.
The point of the NRA is to use money and huge membership as power to DIRECTLY THREATEN the political careers of politicians who oppose them, and to STRONGLY ADVANCE the political careers of the politicians who agree with their single cause. That is BRILLIANTLY effective.
If the NRA decided to form a third party, it would collapse as a political force.
Christian Pro-lifers have been loyal Republicans; too loyal as it turns out. We have been reduced to being the Republicans' Blacks: "Where else will they go?" is voiced right here, often.
The answer is to disinvest emotion in the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is not a vehicle into which we can trust the core beliefs about life that are the cornerstone of our faith. We trusted too much, and we just got horribly burnt. If the Republicans welch on the Nuclear Option too, a lot of Christians will simply leave politics.
The trick, then, before that happens, is to have a non-sectarian, non-conservative-or-liberal, straight up national Pro-Innocent-Life PAC, that focuses ONLY on abortion and euthanasia, and supports WHATEVER candidate who will embrace their message with money and votes.
This is the "pure" and relatively non-political way to do it.
It is paradoxical to consider a PAC non-political, but actually, the problem of trusting to a political party is that parties have to compromise. Christians CANNOT compromise on life. It makes more sense, therefore, for pro-life Christians to put together a PAC that PRECISELY echoes their shared values on life where they share them - and the only place most Christians agree is on abortion and killing the sick - leave off the places where Catholics and Protestants CAN'T agree (which is mostly everything else), and make a Pro-Innocent Life NRA.
Then there is no compromise necessary or even desireable. A great multi-million voter hyrda rears its head and does not seek compromise. It states its position, Christian beliefs on life purely, and promises full support for any politician of any party who agrees to help, and promises a hellstorm and political destruction on any politician who opposes life.
Thus, the need to compromise with the likes of an Arlen Specter goes by the wayside, and the Republicans (and Democrats) are far more "pinched" by the life issue, much in the same way that Democrats toe the NRA line in many jurisdictions.
That's the most effective way to do it.
Not a new party, but a new pan-Christian Innocent Life PAC.
Democrats would join, Republicans would join. You'd have Jerry Falwell supporters in the bleachers right next to Mackerel-snapping bingo players from Boston, and in complete agreement.
Of course, the Falwell and Catholic and other pro-life organizations would ALSO continue to exist, just as there are pro-second Amendment groups besides the NRA.
The point is to have an organization that states with simple, elegant, and overwhelmingly powerful purity, the message about innocent life that all Christians believe, and then to wield that pure issue as a great electoral club over the head of both parties.
It would be a good thing for the pro-life movement if the Republicans thought that it would vote as a bloc for Democrats in any election where a clear pro-life Democrat was running against a waffling Republican. It would advance the cause of life if Christian pro-life belief was not tied to one party which is not itself FULLY committed to the Christian pro-life position.
So, what we should do is stay Republicans (or Democrats) but form a PAC, not a party. And then use that PAC to beat the brains out of every Republican that steps out of line, just like the NRA does.
That's the model: the NRA, not Perot.
With such a PAC, Republican affiliation becomes secondary. If the Republicans don't deliver, there is still somewhere more important to go. And the cost to the Republicans of not delivering would be much more frightening and "mind-focusing".
excellent point, the only way hitlary wins is for the democrats to troll conservatives into a fruitless wacko third party.
The DNC tried that manure with libertarian candidates in dade,broward, and palm beach.
I think it's irrelevant.
I view him as appealing to more dissatified republicans than to liberals,
Thanks for making my case that Republicans are dissatisfied. I guess it was his fault that they were dissatisfied? LOL
thus syphoning off more republican votes than democrat.
Run candidates who appeal to the most people and you will be elected, run imbeciles who don't appeal to your base and not be elected. It's simple. No scapegoat needed, just good ideas and good candidates. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who didn't vote for your guy. Call them stupid like the Democrats do instead of addressing their concerns, that will work.....< /sarcasm>
That was may point exactly! We cannot go to the libertairian Party because they've gone off the political cliff. I like the Constitutional Party but they've got no members. Our only real choice is the Republicans. We need to work on the Senate Republicans, They're to soft and "Gentlemanly", not many have the backbone to take a position on anything!!
My husband is a democrat, but really began to reconsider when he watched the conventions this summer. He just couldn't watch the democrats b/c they were boring. He enjoyed the Republicans and found that he agreed with much that they were saying. While he's not yet ready to make the leap, and in truth may never get quite to that point, I have an idea what goes into making that type of change. And it's great to see someone from NYC join our ranks! Again, welcome!
>>You have the power as an ordinary citizen,
Two things.. I've tried citizens arrest before, and the problem is that the police have to be willing to take someone you arrest into custody.
Even in states, such as California, where it is illegal for an officer to refuse custody of someone being placed under citizens arrest, police routinely refuse to do so.
>> He failed to act on his power and you criticize - you fail to act on yours and you expect what?
Some famous guy (I forget his name) already tried to do this and was arrested. It won't work, and it's not the solution when the police are actively preventing one from making such an arrest. Jeb has an army, I don't.
>>Explain how you are not a hypocrite?
You need to think this through on a micro level -- not the macro as you are at the moment.
Well said too.
God Help us!!!!!
And Rome rotted from within.
I think the bisexual has a shot but it will be because of the ignorance of the electorate rather then some third party conspiracy, look how many idiots embraced Kerry (Hatred of Bush will = hatred of Repub candidate). The pant suit witch is too polarizing to pull votes away even off of the most disgruntled Republican voter (Me).
Dear sinkspur,
I see that you're now modifying your assertion. The conversation was originally:
"'Start a new party... it's been proven time and time again that there is a huge underrepresented segment of the electorate just waiting to vote against the establishment if given a chance.'
"Other than Ross Perot, who gave us Bill Clinton, name one other time."
You asked the poster to name one other time when a third party enjoyed some success. You didn't qualify it as "in recent history." You merely asked that one other time be named.
One other time has been named.
Can you now admit that you were in error, that in fact, there have been successful third party movements in our nation's history?
If you now wish to qualify your comments going forward, you're certainly entitled to do so.
sitetest
well, this whole incident has given me a much lower opinion of the Republican party, particularly Tom Delay and Senator Frist, but for the exact opposite reasons you state.
My opinion can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1366225/posts?page=108#108
But, as far as personal advice for you, you seem to be closest in ideology to the Constitution Party. http://www.constitutionparty.com/
I like everything about them economically, but the idea that government should be involved in our personal lives in all these various ways to obstensibly 'increase morality' is repuslive to me.
But, I think everyone should stand up for what they believe in and say it loud and clear. Do what you think is best. I am considering leaveing for the Libertarian party. :)
But your criticism of Jeb is on the macro level. . . why can't your own actions or lack of actions be subject to the same scrutiny? I agree a citizen's arrest would be challenging, but no more challenging and likely successful than Jeb using the national guard to rescue Terri.
Dear Vicomte13,
"If the Judiciary were pro-life, this would not have happened. Indeed, given the tremendous power of our Judiciary (clearly evidenced by the Schiavo case) if we get a pro-life Judiciary, it will be able to overrule a Democratic President and Congress when we get one again, just as it just overruled the Republicans' half-hearted efforts with Schiavo."
So, you want to replace pro-death tyrants with pro-life tyrants. That's nice.
Until the deathers get hold of the machinery of power again, and put some more pro-deathers in as tyrants.
Is it possible that we could try, instead, to work for reestiablishing constitutional order, where the judges were not tyrants?
sitetest
oh, and regardless I urge all of those unhappy with the GOP, but who still support them cuz other parties don't seem to have a chance to check out the Club For Growth. Take your money away from the bloated mainstreet Republicans and get a much better bang for your buck from a group that isn't afraid to challenge Republicans in primaries and upset the power broker Republicans in Congress:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/why.php
Okie doke.
>>But your criticism of Jeb is on the macro level. .
He did great in doing everything that was expected of him in the past, and guided the process if you will..
However, when push finally came to shove, he pulled a Pilate on Terri. It was the most crucial moment in which he could have continued his help, but he didn't. If this were over some piece of legislation, I'd pat him on the back and say "you can't win them all" -- but this was someone's life, an entirely different matter.
Well said!
Gov Bush is one of the best governors, if not the best governor in the entire United States. He has, as Cato recently illustrated consistently cut spending and taxes almost very year as Governor and as a result has overseen dramatic economic growth in florida. Most importantly, he has enabled Charter schools to grow and develop and (still limitingly) challenge the failed public school system.
Florida has also passed (semi) strict laws on mal practice and lawyer fees for trial lawyers.
I think Floridians can look forward to a good economy, good health, and good education for years to come.
Those of you that attempt to damn him for this Schivo thing have a very skewed set of priorities...
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.