Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?

National Review ^ | July 23, 2003 issue | National Review Editorial Board

[Kuksool]

{I will take Lincoln Chafee over Ted Kennedy}

There isn't much difference between these two gentlemen. Lincoln Chafee's voting record is a lot more liberal than some fellow Democrats in Congress. In fact in the 2000 election, Chafee's opponent, Robert Weygand, was a pro-life Democrat. I would be very surprised if Chafee runs for re-election in 2006 as a Republican. I suspect Chafee is waiting for the right moment to switch parties. Back in 2001, he hinted that he would consider following Jim Jeffords's lead if he was unhappy with President Bush. Thus, it is only a matter of time before Lincoln Chafee comes out of the closet as a Democrat or Independent-Aligning Democrat.

[Consort]

I guess the Republican Party is more important than conservative principles, right?

In a practical sense, yes, unfortunately. The political parties, and particularly the major parties, govern us all and, therefore, they have a much larger influence on our day-to-day lives, and the way the country is heading, and...you name it....then conservative principles or any other single set of principles for that matter. We are dealing with a hodge-podge of principles all competing with each other. I don't know if any one set of principles can dominate in a democracy or a republic where the electorate determines the ideology in power.

[Kryptonite]

What will the Democrats get you?

Where have the Repubicans gotten us?

[Jim Robinson]

Do you honestly believe that we'll stand a chance of getting conservatives appointed to the judiciary if the Democrats are in control?

[Jim Robinson]

I'll take the Republican over the Democrat if it means that the Republican Caucus holds the majority.

[Jim Robinson]

Or another way to say that is if it prevents the Democrats from holding majority control.

[Kryptonite]

You're not suggesting that encouraging folks to highlight the importance of stopping the filibuster of well-qualified Presidential appointees will inevitably lead to Democrat control, are you?

Jim, I respect you and appreciate this forum, but trying to convince me that unwavering support of Republicans is the best manner of accomplishing what we need within the judiciary just isn't gonna fly. I'd be much more receptive if the abject SCOTUS failures hadn't occurred, and if this forum didn't appear years behind the curve on this issue.

[Jim Robinson]

Stop the filibusters? Hell yes. I'm all in favor of it.

But voting out the Republicans only to give the majority control back to the Democrats is defeating our purposes and is a losing strategy as far as meeting our long-term or short-term goals is concerned.

[Captainpaintball]

I'll take the Republican over the Democrat if it means that the Republican Caucus holds the majority.

But they, with the majority, are doing exactly what the Democrats would do if in power..and in some cases...MORE!

Conservatism, when presented with sincerity, with no apologies offered, and with unwavering confidence, can and still will--beat liberalism every time the choice is offered to a reasonably intelligent voting public.

The sad thing is... no one is even offering Conservatism as a choice! Republicans are represented by pusilanimous pipsqueaks with neither a backbone, nor a working knowledge of the Constitution--the document which these pathetic elected officials swore to uphold and defend. Republicans are passing the liberal agenda, and claiming victory for doing so.

[Jim Robinson]

Furthermore, if we had a filibuster proof Republican Senate, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We need to hold tight to EVERY seat we have and take more!

[Jim Robinson]

We will have zero chance of ending liberal judiciary activism if we allow the liberals control of the appointment and confirmation processes. As long as we have liberals controlling the courts we will suffer under the "living" Constitution.

[ApesForEvolution]

Only a Republican (Nixon) could have kissed up to Red communist china. And only a Republican (Bush) could have accomplished the amount of federal expansion we've seen the last 2 1/2 years. When Bush sends up a true constitutionist conservative and then defends him with every ounce of political capital required to get him confirmed, I'll ligthen up. Forgive me if I'm not holding my breath after what we've seen from the GOP controlled nation's capitol.

[Captainpaintball]

I realize that. But there is no evidence to believe the Republicans will magically grow a spine and a set of brass b@lls if and when we gain control of both the House and the Senate. (which may not happen--18 months is an eternity)

What if they do? Will they "do a 180" and actually start fighting for Conservative issues?

(FEARLESS PREDICTION:)Or will they be portrayed as the the "monopoly" party--akin to a bunch of rich, eeeeeevil, greedy 'corporate' white guys intent on "turning back the clock" to the bad old days of Bull Connor, Segregation, women in bondage...etc now that they have a 'monopoly' on Washington.

The Republicans will be forced to PROVE to the liberals in the media, and the 'swing' voters that they are nice guys, so, once again, as not to offennnnnnd anyone, they will pass even more liberal legislation

The key is to DEMAND that our Republican representatives start promoting a CONSERVATIVE agenda. Unfortunately, I don't know how to 'punish' them if they do not. I believe the next few years are going to be some of the most crucial years we have ever faced--do we sit out the next few election cycles and give control to the Socalist Democrats--effectively sealing the country's fate? Or do we hold our nose and vote for the liberal Republicans--and pray they don't screw it up too much?

[Jim Robinson]

Oh yeah. And here's another guy who believes that he'll have a better chance of turning around the courts if the Democrats are in charge. It's like beating your head into a brick wall. Duh.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes please. I've been begging people to demand. Call. Visit. Write. Protest. Anything to tell them why we're sending them to Washington and what we want them to do when they get there. Also, to work in your local districts to recruit, train and support the best young conservative minds we can and to get them elected and moved up the ladder. There is no other possible way to turn this thing around.

But for crying out loud, in the meantime, let's not get so frustrated in the short-term that we lose sight of the goal. We cannot possibly allow the Democrats to take back control of the Senate or the House or the Presidency. There's way too much at stake!

[ApesForEvolution]

No, I simply have severe challenges finding a nickel's worth of difference between GOP and RAT ideology where the rubber meets the road:

Constitutional forebearance, smaller government, traditional American values/culture, robust border-defense, etc.

The GOP is more than willing to pander to the RINOs instead of persuading a nation - a pattern that has brought us the current predicament.

[Kryptonite]

So your answer to the filibuster is do nothing but vote Republican.

I figured as much months ago. G'Night.

[Jim Robinson]

How about abortion? Or Guns? Or National Security? Or homsosexual marriage? Or homosexual perversion forced down your kids throats? Or God being ruled unconstitutional? Or subjection to environmentalists? Or subjection to the United Nations? Or constitutional amendment by the courts? Or wealth redistribution through taxation? Or tax increases rather than tax cuts. Or national defense, etc, etc, etc. If you don't see any differences between the two parties standing on these issues then you are totally clueless.

[Jim Robinson]

Horse hockey!

[Jim Robinson]

Obviously, you haven't bothered to read my comments.