Posted on 08/01/2007 11:24:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
Over the weekend, Kansas Republican leaders formed what they’re calling a “loyalty committee,” a move that’s ticking off moderates and conservatives alike.
It is never a sign of strength when your group, country or otherwise starts imposing loyalty oaths, or so I told Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach over the phone on Tuesday.
“That’s probably a fair criticism,” he said.
Yet, beginning next January, the state GOP will begin purging its leadership — all the way down to the precinct level — of any party official who actively supports non-Republicans for office.
“One weakness we’ve had is that on game day, a few of our leaders have gone out and supported the other team,” Kobach said. “I’m trying to basically take in two years a team that got skunked in 2006 to a winning team in 2008.”
You can see why the Kansas GOP is heading this way.
Republican moderates and conservatives have been at each other for decades. But it’s getting worse, from Kobach’s point of view. Ronald Reagan’s commandment, “Thou Shall Not Speak Ill of a Fellow Republican,” gets no respect.
Every couple of years, for instance, a group calling itself Republicans for Moore buys ads in support of 3rd District Congressman Dennis Moore, a Democrat. Then Moore goes on to beat the Republican.
In 2004, the loser was Kobach, who couldn’t even win in heavily Republican Johnson County. But this sort of thing isn’t confined to JoCo. Cross-party endorsements have been flying in other parts of the state.
More worrisome for the GOP have been the high-profile defections we saw in 2006. First, the former head of the Kansas Republican Party, Mark Parkinson, left the party to become the running mate of Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. The pair won easily.
Then former Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison left the GOP to run for state attorney general, trouncing the Republican incumbent, Phill Kline.
There were others, and there are bound to be more now that moderate Republicans have learned the secret to beating their conservative adversaries: Avoid a losing battle in the primary, where the most-conservative voters hold sway. Switch parties and eke it out in the general, winning the support of Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans.
As the trend accelerates, so will the number of “loyal” Republicans eager to support their party-switching friends — or so goes the logic.
Hence, the new rule (to be enforced by a new committee) aimed at dissuading public displays of affection across party lines.
“We’re not compelling anyone to make a pledge to the GOP,” said Christian Morgan, executive director of the state party. “You’ve just got to not endorse a Democrat.”
Not everyone is happy about this. Some mods are squawking. The chairman of the Kansas Democrats smugly said his party had no plans to form its own loyalty committee.
But frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with the Republicans or any other group purging themselves of turncoats. As long as it doesn’t apply to the average party member, who can switch parties at will, I say let the cleansing begin.
Only here’s the most interesting wrinkle of all. Most upset by the new rule weren’t the Republican moderates. (Hey, they’re used to being pushed around, right?).
More angry were the pro-life conservatives, the very folks who turned the Republican Party into the lovefest it is today.
Among the loudest objections, Kobach said, was that from former Kansans for Life president Tim Golba.
Golba has proudly supported pro-life Democrats for office while continuing to vote on internal GOP matters, and he thinks he ought to be able to continue doing so.
“I helped lead tons of Bible-believing Christians into the Republican Party,” Golba told me. “And what they’re saying is they don’t want us in the party anymore.”
That’s not at all what they’re saying. But party loyalty comes first, Kobach said, adding, “I think it’s a long time coming,”
If a right to life leader has a need to support a democrat in a particular year as a leader of THAT organization then they simply should not be in a leadership position of the republican party. It is that simple.
Party leadership is for the party, NOT personal political power. Ticket splitting when you are a republican party leader is a blatent form of personal power.
Boyda has only squeaked by once. That problem will be remedied next year.
Bump
The townhouse issue didn’t come to the fore until this past election, and it just simply looked bad. The Foley thing was simply absurd, with the rodents making him out to be some sort of boogeyman. They have how many perverts in Congress and this guy, who wasn’t even guilty of criminal wrongdoing, all of a sudden was worse than a homocidal maniac like Ted Kennedy ? Gimme a break !
I’d prefer another candidate to run against Boyda, but if the establishment drags a pro-abort liberal into the race, such as Lynn Jenkins, that’s going to make Ryun look far more palatable. Boyda looks infinitely beatable at this point. That’s not a moonbat seat, and if she had any sense, she’d vote with that in mind.
I'd like to say we would, but I don't see Kris Kobach as the leader to bring that about. After 2004 he has no credibility among the moderate wing, and this seems to be annoying the conservative wing.
Kris wants to be Senator. The only reason he went after the leadership position is to line up support for 2010, and the only election he has to strut his stuff in is 2008. So look at what's on the plate. No major state offices. Roberts is a lock for re-election in the Senate. Unless Moore runs against Roberts, he has to be considered a lock for the re-election in the 3rd district. The only races left with any visibility are Kansas 2nd Congressional and the Johnson County DA. Phill Kline will run again and if he's the candidate in the general then he's dead meat. He lost Johnson County by a 2:1 margin last year. Boyda will be vulnerable in the 2nd, but a bitter primary will weaken the chances of getting that back. The party leader has to show some leadership to unite the party in those two races. I don't think Kris can do that.
If nothing else, we have to stop having party leaders publicly supporting opposing party candidates. We won't get rid of "Republicans for Moore" but we can prevent Republican committemen from putting their name on it.
Gonna send in the troops and overthrow her?
See, that's the difference between you and me. I'd rather see a Republican in there than Boyda, even if I don't agree with them on every single issue. You'd prefer to see Boyda re-elected rather than a Republican that does not agree with you on abortion 110%. Which is why I'm convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that you would vote for Hillary Clinton if you were sure she was anti-abortion enough.
Bump
Gonna continue to make an ass of yourself all over this thread, or do you want a serious conversation ? Your choice.
The difference between you and me is that I support and prefer Conservative candidates, I have no use for liberal phonies who wrap themselves in a Republican cloak and berate Conservatives for not supporting them.
After all, if you have two pro-aborts for candidates, where’s the CHOICE ?
Oh, and btw, my preeminent issue is the illegal invasion, thank you. And I don’t vote for criminal rodents like Evita Rodham, thank you, again.
I'm having a serious conversation on this thread with several people. You don't seem to be interested.
No. You will support only candidates who agree with you completely on one single issue. Any candidate who does not, regardless on their positions in all other areas, will not get your support. To you, conservatism has been boiled down to one issue and one issue alone, and you would rather see a Democrat win that someone who fails your litimus test by a fraction of an inch. You had the nerve to quote Reagan earlier? Well wasn't he the one who said something to the effect that a candidate that differs from his position on 5 percent of the issues still agrees with him on 95 percent? And I happen to believe with him that 95% is better than nothing. Which is where you and I disagree, and why I'm still firmly convinced that if Hillary only hewed to your line on abortion, then you'd be out there voting for her.
You seem to just want to bait me, as your responses have been overtly hostile and heavily sarcastic. If you hadn’t noticed, I didn’t take a definitive position on the loyalty oath. I don’t believe that would necessarily solve the problem, since what would you do if they violated it ? Can’t put ‘em in prison or any other really serious sanction (save perhaps a monetary one). Plus, I wouldn’t want to apply sanctions in the instance of a RINO being nominated and they being worse than the rodent (such as, for example, the case of the 1990 Governor’s race between RINO Gov. Mike Hayden and DINO Joan Finney).
they should borrow the Viking Kitties.
Are you blind or just stupid ? You repeated your canned copy & paste talking points crapola that you spew at me and BlackElk and conveniently delete and ignore where I said I have more than one issue. The issue of abortion is merely a test of telling me whether a candidate has a basic shred of respect for humanity or not. If they don’t, it tells me all I need to know about their character. As for your obsession with Evita, I’ve already addressed that, too, but I expect your next robotic response to include her name once more since you’ve got nothing else in your arsenal of wit. Like I said, either be intellectually honest or stop wasting my time.
They'll be here September 23rd for the Chief's opener.
Like I said. One issue. The be-all and end-all of conservative poltics, so far as you are concerned, boils down to that. Big government, taxes, spending, defence, foreign policy, the Constitution, all other positions are meaningless unless the candidate in question completely meets your line on that one issue, and I mean lock-step, don't-deviate-from-the-line-by-a-fraction-of-an-inch compliance. And if they don't meet that 110% test, regardless of their position on every single other issue, well they're a RINO and you'd rather see the opposition win. It's people like you who put Moore in office and who will keep Boyda in Washington, and who may send Sebelius to the Senate in 2010. Ninty-nine percent of the loaf isn't good enough, it's 100% or nothing. Well that insufferable sense of superiority may keep you warm at night, but it's also what keeps the Democrats winning in this state and a whole lot of others besides. And if enough of these more moderate Democrats are elected and they manage to wrest their party away from their looney left wing then watch out.
Copy and paste.
"but it's also what keeps the Democrats winning in this state and a whole lot of others besides."
KS has consistently demonstrated since 1966 that it generally prefers a member of the opposite political party in the Governor's mansion. There hasn't been a Conservative Republican Governor elected since 1964. When we have prime opportunities to elevate them, as we did in 2002, we get liberal RINO traitor pukes ready to knife them and elect rodentry Socialist carpetbaggers like Gilligan of Ohio who dares to use the name of a respected and deceased Republican Congressman who is as far afield from her as can be.
"And if enough of these more moderate Democrats are elected"
There hasn't been one elected since Finney, and the rodents hated her and ran her out of office after one term. This current Gov is a moonbat, so is Boyda, and so is Moore and Dr. Death Tiller's #1 protector, Morrison. And as for your laughable comment that "people like me" put Moore in office, I supported Vince Snowbarger. It was RINOs like you who turned that superb Congressman and former legislative leader out of office, not us Conservatives. Ditto turning out another fine man by the name of Phill Kline. But, hey, don't let a little thing like intellectual honesty get in the way of a silly diatribe.
By your definition, and we know what that definition is. Or perhaps you can tell us what it was, exactly, that made Bill Avery, Bob Bennett, and Mike Hayden RINOs while leaving abortion out of it?
When we have prime opportunities to elevate them, as we did in 2002...
I know why I voted for him, but what was it, exactly, that convinced you that Tim Shallenberger was a rock-solid conservative? And if his views on abortion differed had from your's, which of his primary opponents would you have voted for and why?
...rodentry Socialist carpetbaggers like Gilligan of Ohio who dares to use the name of a respected and deceased Republican Congressman who is as far afield from her as can be.
She's lived here for 33 years so I think you can drop the 'carpetbagger' label. And I think she got her name from her husband.
And as for your laughable comment that "people like me" put Moore in office, I supported Vince Snowbarger.
And a whole lot of good that did you, all the way from Tennessee. But it was people like you, single issue Republicans from the moderate end of the party, who stayed home or defected that put Moore in. The same kind of people who stayed home when Phill ran two years later. And then it was the single-issue Republicans from the opposite end who sat out the Taff-Moore race. And the rest is history. And oh yes, there are people just like you, people who make abortion the single deciding factor in their support for a candidate as well. Those are the ones who won't vote for an abortion opponent regardless of their other political beliefs. They're no different in their way than you are in your's.
It was RINOs like you who turned that superb Congressman and former legislative leader out of office, not us Conservatives.
Shows what you know. I voted for Vince twice.
Ditto turning out another fine man by the name of Phill Kline.
I keep telling you, have Phill come out there and run for something if you're so enamored with him. He'll be free in about 17 months.
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.