Kansas Republicans will demand loyalty oath

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.

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.”

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,”

"By your definition, and we know what that definition is."

Remember, by your definition, keeping a Communist/Soviet puppet regime in power is "Conservative." "My" definition is one shared by most Conservatives. ;-)

"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?"

Avery was not included. He was seemingly the last Conservative Republican. As for Bennett, Hayden & Graves, in the case of Bennett, he was clearly the Establishment choice and was to the left of his DINO opponent, Vern Miller. Bennett couldn't even manage to win reelection in 1978 in the heavily anti-Carter year, even as the GOP won back the legislature, held the Senate seat and knocked off a 'Rat incumbent in the 2nd. I don't know what Bennett's position on abortion was. Hayden was also a similar Establishment disappointment, and like Bennett, not only couldn't win reelection, but lost the House of Reps to the Dems, real brilliant. To prove his bonafides, he works as a department head for Gilligan-Sebelius. Oh, and yes, he was a prominent pro-abort. Less than useless. Graves was also another pro-abort whose "popularity" he used to halt a Conservative from succeeding him. As I wrote in an analysis last year, the RINO as a Governor almost uniformily fails to deliver a Republican successor no matter how ostensibly "popular" they are (and in what few instances that they do, it's usually because of a flawed Dem opponent). Of course, I predict, as usual, you will consider Bennett/Hayden/Graves "giants" instead of midgets.

"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?"

Shallenburger was the only logical choice. Too bad Graves and his RINOs sandbagged him. Can't let those filthy Conservatives win, y'know. They might actually accomplish something positive.

"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."

33 years, huh ? Interesting, since that happens to be the year that her daddy, the worst Governor of Ohio in the last 100 years, was unceremoniously dumped for reelection. Interesting, too, that she just happened to marry the dunce son of a respected Conservative GOP former Congressman. But since Keith Sebelius was deceased, there was no way he could give his opinion on his Socialist daughter-in-law using the name to get herself elected to statewide office.

"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."

Uh-uh, you can't have it both ways. Now YOU have the nerve to criticize your fellow pro-aborters for bringing down Snowbarger ?!? Tsk tsk.

"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."

You should be praising Conservatives for not voting for the RINO Taff, or did you forget he was later sentenced to prison ? It was also alleged that Taff was closeted gay. Yeah, he would've been a real bright star in Congress as a Republican. Of course, were he a rodent, all would be forgiven.

"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."

Nope, because one is voting based on basic morality and decency, the other on the polar opposite. Like I said, while other issues are important, if a candidate fails this basic test, it proves they have no moral grounding and can compromise away anything and everything else. Something you fail to grasp.

Bennett couldn't even manage to win reelection in 1978 in the heavily anti-Carter year, even as the GOP won back the legislature, held the Senate seat and knocked off a 'Rat incumbent in the 2nd...

Avery lost to Docking, a Democrat. And later lost to Dole, who must have been the Rat in the race since you claim Avery was the conservative. But you've avoided the original question entirely. What was it that made Bennett and Hayden RINOs?

Shallenburger was the only logical choice. Too bad Graves and his RINOs sandbagged him. Can't let those filthy Conservatives win, y'know. They might actually accomplish something positive.

That's not what I asked. What was it, exactly, that made Tim the conservative. And had he not shared your exact position on abortion, which of the other candidates would you have supported?

You should be praising Conservatives for not voting for the RINO Taff, or did you forget he was later sentenced to prison ?

Actually that problem came after his second campaign, the one against Kobach. Had the more conservative element of the party voted for him the first time around then he might well have won and the situation might not have occured. But I keep forgetting. In your view better a Democrat in the office than someone who doesn't share your exact views on abortion.

I grasp it very well, because you've made it clear over and over again. Unless the candidate is strictly in line with your views on a single issue, abortion, then you dismiss them as a Rino and would rather have a Democrat in the office. Something you refuse to admit.

"Avery lost to Docking, a Democrat. And later lost to Dole, who must have been the Rat in the race since you claim Avery was the conservative."

Where do you come up with that ? A Republican primary contest need not always be made up of two folks of different ideological stripes. Both Avery and Dole were from the more Conservative side, at least Socially, although Avery was vulnerable on the issue that cost him reelection in '66, and that's taxes. Bob Docking got to the right of him on taxes.

"What was it that made Bennett and Hayden RINOs?"

I already answered.

"What was it, exactly, that made Tim the conservative."

His support of Conservative issues.

"And had he not shared your exact position on abortion, which of the other candidates would you have supported?"

Neither of the other main primary candidates, Kerr or Knight, were Conservatives.

"In your view better a Democrat in the office than someone who doesn't share your exact views on abortion."

No, what you don't get is that a liberal Republican in office does double harm, both to the party itself, and to Conservatism. It advances neither, and helps the Democrat party. If you're going to elect a liberal, better it be a rodent, let them inflict the harm and pay for it at the ballot box at the next election when a real Conservative Republican can win. Ya dig ?

I already answered.

No you didn't. You called Bennett the 'establishment choice' and to the left of his opponent, without giving your reasons. You failed to mention that Hayden spent time in the first Bush cabinet and ran the American Sport Fishing association for 8 years. But then you said, "Oh, and yes, he was a prominent pro-abort" so the truth did finally come out.

His support of Conservative issues.

Other than opposition to abortion which conservative issues are you talking about?

Neither of the other main primary candidates, Kerr or Knight, were Conservatives.

You didn't answer. Had Tim been even mildly squishy on abortion would you still have supported him? Or would you have supported one of the others? Or supported nobody at all?

What I 'dig' is that to you unless the candidate is of the same mindset as you on abortion then he isn't a conservative. He could have detailed plans on how to shrink the size of government, spreadsheets showing how he would reduce taxes and where exactly he would cut spending to offset it, support a strong military, have detailed plans on how best to conduct a rational foreign policy, and unless he met your criteria on abortion then he's a RINO. Why is it so hard for you to admit that abortion is your sole criteria as to what constitutes a conservative? It plain in every post you make that you will not, under any circumstances, support someone who does not agree completely with you on aborition and you consider anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest degree to be a RINO. And yet you continue to insist you are not a one-issue voter.

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.