Posted on 08/07/2007 3:53:12 AM PDT by monomaniac
As the Republican National Committee (RNC) wrapped up its four-day annual summer meeting in Minneapolis over the weekend, some leaders were left wondering if the party is straying from its conservative stance on social and religious issues.
"Evangelical and pro-life Catholics are a critical part of the GOP's electoral coalition," James Bopp Jr., an Indiana member of the RNC, told The Washington Times. "The GOP cannot win in 2008 without their enthusiastic support. It remains to be seen whether the GOP is moving away from them. Whether the GOP is doing so will be determined by who is nominated for president."
Most RNC members either swore they would not let the national party distance itself from religious and social conservatives stands or saw no indications of that happening.
"Not as long as I'm in this party," longtime Oklahoma RNC member Bunny Chambers told the newspaper.
Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said the party is not drifting from its social conservatism.
"The religious Right and social conservatives are still a very big part of the party and will be for a long time to come," Anuzis said. "The Democrat policies clearly are antithetical to what religious and social conservatives believe in. The Left that controls the Democratic Party is very much pro-choice on abortion and anti-traditional marriage."
You mean the Senator who was defeated by an avowedly pro-life social conservative who happened to be the son and namesake of a political pro-life icon?
The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter
Written like a liberal parrot who does not know the first thing about conservatism.
That's like saying fiscal conservatives are by definition single-issue voters who only care about taxes.
Put 'em together, and the whole conservative movement is made up of social and fiscal conservatives, people who only care about either abortion OR taxes.
That is absolutely correct.
Is GOP Straying from Conservative Base?
When was it ever possible to answer that question “No”?
They will relinquish leadership if voted out of office.
The Republican party will run conservative candidates in most of the nation if it realize that only conservatives are acceptable to the base and can get elected to office.
Republicans largely advanced a liberal, big-government agenda for the six years they were in charge of Congress. Any real change was thwarted by RINOs, many in the most conservative of states.
In fact, about the only good thing that occurred in six years of Republican power was the nomination of conservative judges to the Federal courts, something that was only accomplished because the base stood on principle and made it clear RINOs that oppose such judges would not be re-elected.
Did you strategy work for the six years Republicans were in charge? RINOs thwarted any significant change and the size of government and government spending was worse than it has been since Johnson administration.
The only area any real change occurred in was in the courts, that only because conservatives made it clear that certain Republicans would lose their jobs if they didn't approve conservative judges to the court.
Having said that. You posted several remarks that clearly expressed disdain for social conservatives. You made that abundantly clear. Your post at #62 is ALL yours. My response was to correct your illusionary claim and to set the record straight. Social conservatives aren't one issue voters. Far from it.
However, the Founding Fathers did place a fundamental right to life in America's first governing document that began to break our ties from the tyrannical British Empire. They clearly state that in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
If you support freedom and liberty, a right to life is a pretty easy concept to grasp. You appear to have a serious problem with Constitutional conservatives who agree in principle with the Founders and the priority they gave to life, as written down in the Republic`s earliest governing document. I really don't know what you tell you. In this regard, the Founders original intent was crystal clear. Clearly, abortion on demand and partial birth abortion aren't found in any of America's founding documents. Killing the unborn is not a fundamental right. The right to life, is a fundamental right.
I have never pulled the lever for a Third Party candidate or a democrat. I’m comfortable with that strategy.
That said, I’m disappointed in the alarming growth of government under the Bush administration. But, I still strongly believe Nader or Gore or Kerry would have been a far worse vote.
Did government grow faster when Bill Clinton was office and the government was divided or under Republican control? I think you know the answer to that.
============================
You say that like that's a bad thing.
===================
"The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter."
==================
Nonsense. Just because I am unbending on abortion does not make me a single issue voter, it makes me a man of principle.
I don't believe conservatism can be split between social and fiscal, and here's why:
I don't believe someone can be considered a conservative unless they embrace the entire ball of wax.
ANY deviation makes them a liberal with some conservative leanings, but a liberal nonetheless.
There is no such thing as a conservative with some liberal leanings.
They are NOT moderates. They are liberals.
A liberal could be a moderate one, but they are still liberals.
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal.
I welcome RINO votes, but they are liberals and have no business telling conservatives how to run the GOP.
You tell him!
It’s “Security and Socialism, Stupid”!
Of course they will, but then you turn over their office to an even more liberal Democrat for at least 4 or 6 years.
They will also relinquish power if they lose the primary to a more conservative Republican candidate, and if that Republican wins you don't suffer under the liberal Democrat being in office.
If you can't beat the RINO incumbent in the primary, your chances of getting a conservative candidate to win the following primary when the RINOs who control party influence and money are working against them isn't that great either.
While there are exceptions, politicians especially big government advocates such as RINOs and Democrats will fight to build and maintain their own power over building and maintaining the party's power.
Having a RINO lose to a Democrat in the general election may shake things up a bit, but that doesn't mean that the next Republican candidate won't also be a RINO. If you want a conservative Republican in the general election, then they have to win the primary.
If you don't vote in the primaries you also aren't going to change the party leadership. I don't know how it works in your state, but precinct representatives are who chooses the party leadership here, and they are elected in the primaries. Most run unopposed, and few people even know who they are. I doubt most people know how their own political party works and how those in control attain and maintain their power.
Republicans largely advanced a liberal, big-government agenda for the six years they were in charge of Congress. Any real change was thwarted by RINOs, many in the most conservative of states.
Absolutely true. So what are you going to do about it? Voting out some RINOs might scare some other RINOs into active a bit more conservative for a little while, but putting Democrats in office isn't going to make things better. Instead it will make things worse in the short run with the hopes that things might change for the better 4 or 6 years down the line. However, even then the battle is won or lost in the primary elections.
If you think you are making things better by voting against RINOs or staying home in the general election while you don't bother voting in the primaries, you are delusional and counterproductive.
Two to six year...But, so what? The Republicans were in the minority and stood on conservative principles in the early 1990s and ended up sweeping into power.
If RINOs are swept out and liberals assume power, it will set the stage for a true conservative revolution.
It may do that. However, it is almost impossible to take away entitlements from a society once they are established. It is difficult to recover rights once they are surrendered. It is very difficult to cut programs once they are in place.
If the liberals gain a lot of power and screw things up even worse than the RINOs have, it will likely produce a backlash and a conservative renewal. That however doesn't mean that the damage will be undone. It doesn't mean that we won't be paying the price for many decades to come.
Some of the programs might get cut, and the growth of big government might be slowed, but actually shrinking the reach of the government is a nearly impossible task in most situations, and depending on which conservatives you are talking about they might not even seek to shrink the the reach of the government. Much of the religious right seems to advocate increasing the reach of the government, just into different areas than the Democrats typically do.
Suggesting that you have to make our government more liberal before people will rebel against is is counter-productive. It is saying that we much be defeated before we have any hopes of victory. If your victory depends on backlash after a defeat, your victory will likely be fleeting at best.
If you want to win a lasting victory, you need to build a solid foundation and expand it.
Stop talking about how things might get better sometime in the future, and work to make them better now. If you are always saying things will be better in the future that future is likely to remain a long way off.
A rallying cry of "don't worry, things are going to get bad enough soon that people will have to revolt" just isn't something I can get behind.
“Evangelical and pro-life Catholics are a critical part of the GOP’s electoral coalition,” James Bopp Jr., an Indiana member of the RNC, told The Washington Times. “The GOP cannot win in 2008 without their enthusiastic support. It remains to be seen whether the GOP is moving away from them. Whether the GOP is doing so will be determined by who is nominated for president.”
Give that man a cigar, he is right on!
Uh, Poppy Bush & Bob Dole weren't exactly torch-bearers of conservatism.
I would agree with you if Rudi were actually better than Hillary. But considering that there is not a nickel worth of difference between them, I do not see how I could be held "accountable"....
I am sick of being offered two tickets - both to the same destination (Hell) - the only difference being the mode of transportation...
Nope, totally disagree. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. In many ways the “R”’s fooled us, and we will not be fooled again. We do not believe ANYTHING the Rats say, nor do we believe anything a RINO says. And many have shown themselves to be exactly that, RINO’s.
For the record, when we voted for President Bush, it was about a LOT more than abortion and being born again. Factors yes, but there was a lot more to it than that.
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.