Delegates clash over abortion at GOP gathering [Bob Packwood RINO Alert]

The Oregonian ^ | 03/07/04 | DAN HORTSCH

[Siobhan]

Bob Packwood's hands are covered with the blood of murdered children.

[ninenot]

Are you really surprised?

Packwood's extramarital victims were, perhaps, in NEED of abortion services. He simply wants the Republican Party to endorse his vices.

[Dajjal]

Pro-life bump

[Fledermaus]

Packwood believes in abortion only because he's probably impregnated more young women than he could afford.

[tame]

when it comes to a governing majority the GOP has to put up with them just as the Dems have to put up with guys like Zell Miller. In congress it is a numbers game and it dictates who heads committees, and who controls the agenda.

I understand the "numbers game" with regard to committees, etc., but putting up with leftist Rinos is not the same as so-called conservatives selling out their beliefs when they don't even have to do so to win! That's what the issue is here.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"(4) Too bad about Brian Boquist - he's been overseas in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan), and hasn't been able to campaign. Neither Zupancic nor (particularly) Winters can hold a candle to him, as a committed conservative. (He's not enough of a campaigner, though...)."

---

Jackie Winters is pro-life and opposes enviromental extremism. IIRC, she's pro-gun as well. While she is not as anti-tax as I would like (she voted in favor of a tax raise in order to balance the budget last year), she is far from RINO territory. And, being a black woman, she can cut into Darlene Hooley's base among female voters and suburbanites who wrongly believe that the GOP is somehow racist (and thus vote Democrat to "feel good"; voting for Hooley will make them "feel better"). Bush carried the 4th district in 2000, but unfortunately Boquist was unable to unseat Hooley neither in 2000 nor in 2002. I think it's time we give someone else a chance, and Jackie Winters seems like our best chance of winning the seat and become the first black female Republican ever elected to Congress.

[fire_eye]

Yeah, Winters is probably more "electable" than the other two, as long as her handlers can keep her from screwing up too badly when she gets the heat on her. Unfortunately, her electability stems more from her combination of sex and skin color than from anything else. There's no question I'd prefer her over what we have now (ugh...).

She votes the way NRA tells her to (literally), as long as they tell her something - but she doesn't have a clue about the firearms issue one way or the other. Again, that's better than what we have now, but nowhere near what we'd have with Boquist (or probably even Zupancic).

Electing someone for their sex, or skin color, is just as bad as discriminating *against* them for either of those things.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Electing someone for their sex, or skin color, is just as bad as discriminating *against* them for either of those things."

---

So you don't think the GOP should take into account how well a potential nominee would do in a general election? If you lived in the black-majority 2nd Congressional District in Mississippi, wouldn't the smart thing be to nominate black conservative Clinton LeSueur because he might be able to cut into the black's monopoly on the Democrat vote? And if Winters "race and gender," combined with her experience as a state senator and other attributes, gives her the best chance to unseat Darlene Hooley, I think that nominating her hardly qualifies as "reverse discrimination." On the other hand, not taking into account the respective "electability" of two candidates, each of whom stands for our party's basic principles, is downright suicidal. We've lost plenty of races in the Salem-based congressional district; it's about time we won one.

And what's so wrong about considering the effect of electing a particular candidate would have on the party nationwide? If we want to build a permanent majority, we need to get all conservatives, regardless of skin color, to join our party. Wouldn't you agree? And the best way to convince black conservatives (of which there are plenty who don't even know they are conservative and who reflexively vote Democrat) is to prove to them that it is possible to be black and Republican at the same time. Electing Gary Franks from CT and JC Watts from OK to Congress helped us, but Franks lost in 1996 and Watts was seen as a "token" because he was the only black Republican in Congress. We need to elect a half-dozen black Republicans to the House and Senate if we are going to increase our percentage of the black vote from 10% to 30%; and once we get 30% of the black vote, the Democrats won't be able to elect any Senators in the South (or in many Northern states, for that matter) and black Republicans will be able to win in over a dozen black-majority or black-influence districts around the nation. And *that's* how we can obtain a permanent majority in the House and Senate. But we need to take that first step of supporting qualified black conservative candidates who have a good chance of winning the general election.

If you think Jackie Winters is a closet liberal or is not qualified to serve in Congress, then say so, and present the evidence. But I don't think conservatives should refrain from supporting her just because she is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan. If we used that standard, we could almost never support *any* Republican candidate, especially in a swing district such as the one held by Darlene Hooley.

[AuH2ORepublican]

BTW, I love your tagline.

[fire_eye]

If you think Jackie Winters is a closet liberal or is not qualified to serve in Congress, then say so, and present the evidence.

I'm going to hold my tongue, because, even as you say, she's a better choice than Darlene Fooley.

However, you're arguing pragmatically, and I'm arguing ideologically. Yes, nominating and electing people because of their sex or skin color is tactically useful. But it's still no less racist or sexist than discriminating against them because of their sex or skin color. Demonrats (and other Lieberals) may be too stupid to undersatand that, but *we* shouldn't be.

BTW, I love your tagline.

I wish I could claim it's original, but it's not - I appropriated it from someone else... not sure where they got it.

Colin Powell is where he is because of his skin color. Condoleeza Rice is not. Guess which one is the Demonrats' worst case, industrial-strength, cold-sweat nightmare?