Posted on 05/04/2009 2:25:32 PM PDT by AJKauf
Two recent events have served to highlight some of the problems facing the Republican Party as it gropes its way forward toward an uncertain future.
The defection of Arlen Specter and the death of Jack Kemp both highlight in their own way the biggest question that will face the GOP for the foreseeable future: whether to build a majority party based on an ever-narrowing definition of who can join and receive support from the Republican Party or accept that there are different kinds of Republicans in different areas of the country who should have a say in party affairs.
Arlen Specter’s defection says little about the GOP and much more about Specter himself, whom liberal Jonathan Chait referred to as an “unprincipled hack.” Nevertheless, Specter’s move across the aisle has intensified the conversation over ideological purity in the Republican Party and set off a bitter debate among conservatives and moderates over tactics and strategy.
Activists and ideologues will tell you that they want candidates to adhere to “first principles” and that anyone who strays from their narrow interpretation of those principles should be shown the door. But is our understanding of these principles an intellectual monolith that brooks no deviation and no independent thought about what they actually mean? Can Republicans from differing parts of the country define these principles in different ways and still be thought of as party members?...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
The Conservatives were in charge.
Reagan’s moderates are today’s Far right.
I think the conservatives do tolerate the moderates. The moderates are not tolerating us!
I remember reading where Jesse Helms opposed Reagan in 1976 (he supported a draft Buckley movement) because Reagan chose Schweiker to be his running mate.
Reagan won over many moderate Dems as well.
Because Reagan was a visionary who drew all sorts of people to his way of thinking. There are no strong conservative visionaries in the mix at the moment, so this is the inevitable result until someone surfaces.
Conservatives were in charge, not moderates.
Lincoln Chaffey gave Tom Daschle and the Democrats the majority. Specter gave them 60 votes. There’s always a Republican traitor handy when the Democrats need one. It has nothing to do with conservatism.
Did Reagan’s moderates aid and abet Democrats? Endorse Democrat candidates for President? Campaign for a Democrat President?
Today’s Republican moderates do.
Conservative principles are always in style.
Give the Great One a few more months...two things are gonna happen: people are catching on that big media is in the tank...most don’t believe them; second: the 9 trillion $ debt is going to take hold. We can’t run a free country this way...folks will begin to see the stagflation...Barry’s numbers are gonna drop.
Check back in October.
You mean like some former Reagan officials going ga ga over Obama?? You mean like some former Reagan officials going over to third parties??
Bingo we have a winner!
Sounds like RINO tolerance to me --rolls eyes
Reagan tolerated moderates but didn’t compromise his principles to appease them. I’d be happy to continue that arrangement if the moderates are.
Reagan’s moderates are today’s Far right.””
And today’s moderates are mostly left-wingers. The spectrum has shifted dramatically.
Yes, but why did he chose Schweiker in 1976 and Bush in 1980 to be on the ticket?
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.