Dear kabar,
EternalVigilance may express certain truths in ways that are insulting and anti-social, yet nonetheless, there are some important facts in what he says.
There is a conservative base to the Republican Party. I'm a registered, card-carrying Republican, but I'm also a conservative. The conservative base is a coalition of different sorts of conservatives. Most conservatives are conservative on more than one set of issues. It's not unusual to see social conservatives who are also fiscally-conservative, or economic conservatives who might have libertarian leanings, and so on.
The job of the nominee is to represent as much of the conservative coalition as is possible, and hopefully, to even fire up the base.
A nominee who breaks faith with a significant part of the coalition is a poor nominee. If the party nominates someone who wants low taxes and wants to cut government spending, but is not committed to defending marriage, outlawing abortion, defending the right to bear arms, and so on, then the nominee will be unable to hold the coalition together. And he'll probably lose the general election.
The trouble I see is that folks want to blame that part of the coalition that's left out of the equation. So, I've read countless threads where social conservatives have been excoriated because we generally refuse to consider voting for Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney. "You're not really Republicans!" we're told.
Well, many of us ARE Republicans, and we ARE part of the Republican base. The problem isn't that we won't support Mr. Giuliani or others. The problem is that in nominating someone who is diametrically opposed to perhaps 40% of the folks who make up the base of the party's voters, THE PARTY HAS WALKED AWAY from a key part of its coalition. That's what Mr. Bush, pere, did when he raised taxes. He walked away from the supply-siders, who represented a significant part of the Republican base, who were critical to the Reagan Revolution.
If Sen. Allen turns out to be willing to get across the message that he will work to overturn Roe, especially through Supreme Court nominees, if he's willing to make clear that he'll defend marriage, and so on, I suspect that he'll get a lot of support from social conservatives. Most social conservatives are willing to accept a good candidate, even if, from our perspective, he's flawed.
But if Sen. Allen doesn't give us the assurances that we need that our primary issues will be addressed, then he will be abandoning a crucial part of the Republican coalition that elects Republican presidents.
In that case, don't blame folks who have been left out in the cold by the candidate and the party if they don't vote for the candidate.
sitetest
I don't need to be lectured about the Rep Party. I am a registered, card carrying Rep who has contributed time and money to the getting candidates elected. I am also a conservative and have been for 40 years.
But if Sen. Allen doesn't give us the assurances that we need that our primary issues will be addressed, then he will be abandoning a crucial part of the Republican coalition that elects Republican presidents. In that case, don't blame folks who have been left out in the cold by the candidate and the party if they don't vote for the candidate.
I'm not blaming anyone. I will vote Rep for the successful candidate who emerges from the primaries, regardless of who it is. Presumably, that candidate will represent the views of the majority of the Reps. As I stated previously, you have four choices: sit the election out, vote for the Democrat, vote for a third party candidate, or vote for the Republican.