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 ...
Excellent point. Many conservatives held their noses and voted for McCain - at least, after Palin joined the ticket. But how many ‘moderates’ support conservatives?
Here in AZ-8, the party opposed the conservative in the primary, then did everything they could to torpedo him in the general election. Result? Rep Giffords (D). Our ‘moderates’ prefer her to a conservative.
Well, that is OK by me. Until we have a Party that stands for something, it isn’t worth supporting. I’ve no interest in marching to hell in half-time. I won’t vote or give to the party of slightly-less-liberal.
And if anyone wants to know why, my answer is ARNOLD!
Perhaps because the “moderates” were statesmen, pro-American and not weak appeasers when it came to upholding basic American values.
If it's pre-determined, then it's probably Mitt Romney's turn.
One might recall 1964, when the Rockefeller and Scranton Republicans sat on their hands after Goldwater won the party's nod. Richard Nixon, a certified "moderate" who stumped the country, making 100+ speeches in behalf of the ticket, was a notable exception
Hate to break this to you, but the people selected Bob Dole. He got the nomination by winning in primaries.
Just like ‘the people’ wanted John McCain.
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.