Posted on 05/07/2009 3:37:24 PM PDT by pissant
Social conservatives are blasting the National Council for a New America, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) nascent effort to rebrand the Republican Party, as a misguided and weak-kneed initiative that is out of touch with the GOP rank and file.
The council, unveiled last week by Cantor and Sen. John McCain, is designed to be a “forward-looking, grass-roots caucus” that formulates policy prescriptions and communicates with voters in a way that could expand the Republican ranks. In announcing the formation of the group, McCain said he hoped the group would attract moderates and “like-minded Democrats” to a series of public forums around the country.
But social conservatives couldn’t help but notice that the policy areas the group will focus on included no mention of same-sex marriage, immigration or abortion. And the roster of GOP luminaries who signed on to the effort was missing a few of the pols who are most popular with values voters.
“The moderates have been saying the same thing all these years, and now they’re just seeing a renewed opportunity to push their ideas,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a leading opponent of gay marriage.
“It’s a losing proposition to try to divide social and economic conservatives,” Ken Blackwell, a one-time Ohio secretary of state and former candidate for Republican National Committee chairman, told POLITICO. “They will constantly find themselves backpedaling and apologizing and repositioning because the composition of that group does not reflect a basic reality, which is that social and economic conservatives complement one another.”
Blackwell noted that the slight did not go unnoticed among social conservatives, as they “have the experience of being used and then abused and then forgotten.”
Mike Huckabee, the former presidential candidate who was not invited to join the so-called GOP panel of experts involved with the effort — a list that included Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sarah Palin of Alaska and Haley Barbour of Mississippi and former Govs. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Jeb Bush of Florida — said that it was “sad day” in Republican politics when “we think it is necessary to form a ‘listening group’ to find out what Americans think we should be fighting for.”
“Our problem is not lack of ‘experts,’ but too many of them and not enough attention to the hard working people in our communities that aren’t connected to the Beltway, but to the heartland,” he said in a statement.
The former Republican presidential candidate also knocked Bush, who suggested at the group’s first town hall event on Saturday that it was time to get past “nostalgia” for the Reagan era.
“Frankly, the party was in pretty good shape then and can be again, but Ronald Reagan didn't summarily dismiss values voters like this new group of ‘experts’ has by not listing any of the issues that still matter to many of those common Americans this group wants to listen to,” Huckabee said.
Rob Collins, Cantor’s deputy chief of staff, said the expectation that every top national Republican would be included in the council would be “unrealistic.”
“Were we perfect in the rollout? No,” Collins said. “We want to get all these national leaders on board and we’re going to try to do that.”
Collins said the seeming omission of certain issues from the domestic policy categories the council is examining isn’t a sign that the group is excluding social conservatives or overlooking the issues that matter most to them.
“How is the life issue left off when we’re talking about the economy and education?” he asked.
Indeed, the council’s roster is stocked with prominent Republicans with nearly unassailable conservative credentials, ranging from Bush to Barbour to Jindal. Palin was also invited to join at the same time as the others, though she did not sign up until after the group’s rollout.
A source close to the group’s planning said McCain personally called Palin to urge her to join before the group’s announcement.
Cantor has insisted that no slight toward any of the party’s constituencies was intended.
“The National Council for a New America is meant to be a wide-open policy debate,” he said Monday during a CNN interview. “There is no exclusion about what we'll talk about.”
Still, for some the very creation of the council has proven to be a sore spot. Nearly a dozen conservative politicians and leaders contacted for this story either declined comment or did not return multiple calls.
“Too many Republican leaders are running scared on the claims of the left and the media that social conservatism is a dead-end for the GOP,” the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said in a statement. “If that were the case, why are pro-family leaders like Mike Huckabee creating such excitement in the conservative base? The Republican establishment doesn't draw a crowd.”
Another critic, influential conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, ripped the group’s proposed “listening tour” as a “scam” on his Tuesday show.
“Maybe we've gotten to the point where you have to scam the American people in order to get their votes. I hope not,” Limbaugh said. “See I'm enough of an idealist, probably a little naïve, and hopefully a bit of a realist, to understand that it really works out best if you respect your audience, respect their intelligence, approach them that way.”
Cantor’s team, which is planning a phased unveiling of the council, is not planning to announce any new members or appearances for a few weeks. In addition to Palin, the council has gotten Sens. John Ensign of Nevada and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas to sign on in recent days.
After the council’s initial events, invitations were also extended to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), though neither has agreed to sign on yet.
“We got the invite on fairly short notice,” said Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s communications director.
Sanford may join the group, Sawyer said, but will wait until the conclusion of his state’s legislative session to look more closely at the group and make his decision.
Collins, Cantor’s aide, said that despite some sniping, the overall response among the Republicans he has talked to has been very positive.
“It’s been an incredibly successful rollout,” he said, noting the inherent difficulty of organizing any group comprised of political figures. “There has been some grumbling, but there has been an incredibly positive response.”
What's "disturbing" is your inane remarks. If you honestly believe, (which I don't think is the case), that folks support Palin only because of her personality, (which is genuine and amicable), then I'd say you to be very inept at gauging people's intent.
He's attacking the NCNA because they want to:
1) Learn from the mistakes that led to the financial crisis. And no, Joe, no one in this group thinks it was caused by Bush's tax cuts.
2) Support Federal funding for scientific research. FYI, Joe, the vast majority of Federally-funded scientific research has nothing to do with stem cells.
3) Come up with some policy proposals that might make health insurance more affordable. FYI, Joe, wanting policys that result in cheaper health insurance doesn't automatically mean you support Hillarycare.
4)Come up with ways to to improve education. FYI, Joe, wanting better education doesn't make you Ted Kennedy.
5) Ensure the technological superiority of the military.
Apparently, Joe thinks we will be able to win elections if we:
1) Ignore the causes of the financial crisis and fight all efforts at reform
2) Cut funding for scientific research
3) Ignore the vast problems with our health insurance system
4) Ignore the crisis in primary and secondary education
5) Let our military fall behind in technology.
Tell me Joe, do you actually believe we can win if we do 1-5? Because if you do, then you have got to be one of the most deluded individuals I have ever met.
It is. What I was saying in a very indirect way, and you confirmed, is that sometimes it takes a while for the truth about abortion to sink in, and for a person to take the moral position.
Most people who support Palin do so because of: 1) her personality 2) her rural, working-class background 3) her sex and 4) her supposedly virtuous personal life.
Very few Palin supporters support her because of her competence as a stateswoman, for which there is virtually no evidence, or her political philosophy, in so far as it can be said she has one (she doesn't).
How has Palin damaged herself? Her performance in Alaska speaks volumns. She was only asked to join after Rush made a huge stink about her being left out. As to Huckabee being left out, he is social conservative and a fiscal liberal so I have mixed feelings there. Palin is a fiscal and social conservative. Last weekend 19 people showed up for the Cantor, Bush and Romney show, I’m looking forward to seeing how many show up when Palin is on the program.
Hate him all you want, but McCain is still a fiscal and social conservative... remember his vote and the Bush signing of TARP was at the urging of Romney — of all people.
Nope, I mean Fred Thompson. In the mid-1990's, he went on record as supporting legal abortion. That's a well-documented fact.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1815999/posts
People here love to read AP headlines and make assumptions about Palin instead of searching for the truth; kneejerk emotions seem to be order of the day.
I won't dispute her socail conservatism.
However, someone who uses taxpayer money to fund a sports facility is no fiscal conservative.
Neither is someone who wants to give Amnesty to illegals.
I am amazed at how Palin fans are willing to delude themselves about their messiah.
John McCain does. He voted against Bush's tax cuts "for the rich."
Joe, the vast majority of Federally-funded scientific research has nothing to do with stem cells.
Fetal stem cell research is the only government funded "science" which is a political issue. What other issue do you think they're talking about? John McCain supports government funding of fetal stem cell research.
Joe, wanting policys that result in cheaper health insurance doesn't automatically mean you support Hillarycare.
But Romneycare is okay right?
Joe, wanting better education doesn't make you Ted Kennedy.
No, but "compassionate conservatives" did let Ted Kennedy write the "no child left behind" education bill when they were in office.
Ensure technological superiority of the military.
By cutting troops levels and overall military spending? I think not.
I was mocking your post. There are some parallels with Reagan that Thompson can claim.
That's fine. I have no problem with someone coming around to the right position on an issue like abortion.
What I have a problem with is people who change their position pretending that they never changed and were always consistent. That is what Thompson tried to do, and many Freeper Fredheads abbetted.
At the very least one should be honest about the positions one's candidate espouses, as well as what that candidate espoused in the past.
OK, I guess I missed that part. I agree with you 100%.
Further, unless there is some ‘ownership’ of the prior (in this case pro-choice) position, it causes me to doubt the sincerity of the new (pro-life) position.
She has reduced Alaska State Spending 16.7% below the Murkowski budge — and remember HE was a Repblican. In addition when the state legislature wanted to spend, spend, spend the surplus the state had accumulated (during the oil boom) she said no, hang on to it for a rainy day fund. They did and now they are reeping the benifits of her insistence they save instead of spend. They have no state income or property tax and when other states are raising taxes to try and get out of their debt, Alaska doesn’t have to do that. So, yes, she is a fiscal conservative.
I defy you to find a single instance in which John McCain blames the financial crisis on the tax cuts.
Yes, he voted against the tax cuts. That does not mean he thinks the tax cuts caused the crisis.
Fetal stem cell research is the only government funded "science" which is a political issue. What other issue do you think they're talking about?
Funding for the NIH, NSF and other scientific research organizations are very much political issues.
Your assumption that any talk of funding scientific research automatically means stem cells is unwarranted and, quite frankly, betrays a profound ignorance on your behalf.
John McCain supports government funding of fetal stem cell research.
True, but other members of the group do not. John McCain is not the dictator of this group.
But Romneycare is okay right?
It is but one option. There are a lot of good things about Romney's healthcare plan, but not everyone in the policy group supports it. I don't see Jindal or Cantor stumping for it.
Just because the group wants to talk about health care policy does not automatically mean they support Romney's idea of healthcare.
No, but "compassionate conservatives" did let Ted Kennedy write the "no child left behind" education bill when they were in office.
I see. So according to Joe, just because some RINOs in the past supported a bad education bill means no True ConservativeTM would even discuss education.
Do you realize how stupid you are sounding?
By cutting troops levels and overall military spending? I think not.
And where, pray tell, has the group advocated cutting military spending?
People made a lot out of Romney's metamorphisis, but in many ways Thompson's was far more striking for precisely the reason you give.
At least Romney admitted he was wrong. Thompson tried to pass himself off as someone who has always been a strong, consistent conservative. In point of fact, when you look at the debates during his Senate campaigns, and look at his speachs and the policy positions he took, he very clearly positioned himself as a wish-washy moderate, and not just on abortion.
Then in 2008 he tries to come in as a conservative messiah who's always been a solid conservative. A lot of people bought it, in no small part due to the fact that he's an actor, and a pretty good one at that.
I didn’t follow him close enough to know, but you are shifting what you said and the time frame.
During the Presidential Campaign, did he try to say that he was always Pro-Life? Or, when confronted directly on the question did he admit to being Pro-Choice in his past?
He parsed his words very carefully so as to avoid saying it directly, while at the same time giving the impression that he was.
Or, when confronted directly on the question did he admit to being Pro-Choice in his past?
I'm not sure he was ever directly confronted by the question. Certainly he failed to own up to the change. I think if you do change, and it's a matter of public record, you have a duty to disclose it even if no one asks you about it.
Furthermore, he made a point of attacking Mitt Romney because he changed his position. Romney, unfortunately, never hit back by pointing out Thompson changed as well. He should have.
Actually, I was wrong. He was confronted, and no, he did not admit it. Here's what he said:
"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don’t remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice.” But, he adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.”
Source:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/528aylls.asp?pg=2
So it is pretty clear he failed to disclose that he changed.
Again, let me stress, I have no problem about his change. What I have a problem with is the fact that he has not been straightforward about admitting it. He always seems to parse his words in a very Clintonian manner when it comes to what he believed in the mid-1990's.
What you posted is more in line with my understanding of the situation.
If he was never directly confronted about it (which is surprising, but I gues he dropped out too soon) I read this very differently than you.
In a politcal fight, I would never admit a wrong position unless I was confronted.
If every Republican began a campiagn of confessions, as McCain did, we would have a McCain outcome also.
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.