GOP Wages War Against Its Conservatives

GOPUSA ^ | June.28,2004 | Christopher G. Adamo

[Reagan Man]

Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo is in big trouble with the GOP leadership. And just what, you may be wondering, is his great sin? "Team America," a political action committee originally founded by Tancredo, worked to unseat Representative Chris Cannon, a liberal Republican from Utah, by supporting Matthew Throckmorton, his challenger in the Republican primary.

Chief among those organizations caterwauling about the actions of Tancredo is the liberal "Tuesday Group," a coalition of approximately thirty liberal Republican House members whose goal is to steer the party to the left. Hiding under the cloak of a grossly distorted rendition of Ronald Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), the Tuesday Group is now expressing concern that party conservatives are finally making efforts to strike back.

Apparently, undermining the conservative agenda by abandoning the party at key junctures during the legislative process is perfectly fine with these Republican "centrists." But any discussion of such matters by conservatives, who have tired of seeing their party abandoning its principles, is strictly taboo. By such hypocritical assertions, these liberal "Trojan Horses" hope to continue dominating party politics from within.

Of course Ronald Reagan never intended for his "Eleventh Commandment" to be arbitrarily invoked as a means of allowing liberalism to spread, unchecked, within the ranks of the GOP. Rather, it was supposed to prevent the sort of backbiting and mud slinging within party ranks, which can ultimately undermine the credibility of the entire party.

House Majority leader Tom Delay, a longtime champion of conservatism, has found himself in the middle of this row. Seeking to maintain a cohesive Republican majority, he is promoting themes of "team spirit" and "comity" among party members. Delay even referenced Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" in a meeting with Tancredo in which the Colorado Congressman was apparently warned to change his ways and endorse a unified party, or face retribution within Republican circles.

Unfortunately, such rhetoric fails to deal with the fact that it is the Republican liberals who regularly undermine party unity by voting with Democrats at critical junctures. With such people constantly placing the philosophies of liberalism ahead of traditional Republican principle, the only manner in which even a facade of "unity" can be maintained is for the entire party to shift to the left. This, of course, is precisely the strategy of the liberal Republicans.

Tancredo's major issue of concern is unchecked illegal immigration and the resulting compromise of America's borders. Hardly a miniscule "pet issue" of a fringe constituency, the immigration problem goes to the very core of maintaining America's national integrity and heritage. Little else of GOP principles or goals can be regarded as significant in any way, as long the party remains indifferent to the invasion of the nation's borders by a flood of illegal immigrants who, as soon as they are able to do so, will vote against such things. Yet, major forces within the GOP are once again actively working to insure that at best, the Republican counterpart to Democrat plans of opening the borders will only amount to a watered-down version of the very same thing.

By supporting truly conservative Republican challengers, Tancredo's PAC hopes to specifically target key players of the open borders advocacy for defeat during their respective state primaries. While it is not entirely clear whether or not Tancredo is still officially participating with the work of the PAC, his political ideology remains consistent with that of its members. Tancredo realizes that threats to the future of the nation are no less virulent when advanced by so-called "Republicans," than when spawned by their traditional advocates, the Democrats.

Tom Delay has, in the past, shown himself to be extremely principled, with the one notable exception being his support, under severe White House pressure, for an education bill that was essentially crafted by Ted Kennedy. He knows that if his party persists in its claims to uphold both high and low standards, only the low standards will prevail. Though presently striving to remain within the boundaries of party loyalty, he is surely aware that, as a principled conservative, his own future is no less threatened by the underhanded actions of the "moderates" than is Tancredo.

For Delay and Tancredo, whose differences are far outweighed by their political common ground, the most pressing matter is to maintain the party according to conservative principle rather than allowing the "centrists" to reinvent it in the image of the Democrats.

[Tamzee]

Such utter nonsense.

Yep... we hang together or we hang separately... and folks supposedly on our side are cheerfully donning nooses.

[Tamzee]

Thank you MOST kindly... I'd be honored to use it :-)

[Tamzee]

You can in turn list what you believe are Bush's Conservative accomplishments, but they really don't matter.

In other words you are a single-issue conservative.... utterly useless to conservatism as a whole.

[4Freedom]

One thing that's evident is that you have yet to answer a single question I've asked you, so why do you think you deserve answers from me?

Let's try, again.

1) If we secure our land borders, how many illegal aliens do you believe will still get in? Anything close to 3 million every year?

2) Do you agree that when a 3rd world, Leftist illegal alien votes that they will cancel a Conservative vote?

3) Can you see that once the 12 to 15 million Leftist, illegal aliens in this country are joined by their 20 million Leftist family members that they'll have the power to undue anything worthwhile that Conservatives have been able to accomplish?

4) Is California more or less Conservative than it was in the past?

5) Are the majority of legal and illegal immigrants voting Conservatively in California?

If you would have answered all of these questions one-at-a-time as I asked them, you wouldn't have so much work to do, now.

LOL!

[nopardons]

FYI...absolutely ALL of the South African legals,I know of,vote GOP,or shall,when they get their their citizenship papers.

You're a johnny one note,who ignores the vast panoply of illegals,that march in through Canada,fly in and then just disappear,and those who come in by boat.

[I_dmc]

So, who's in the Tuesday Group?

[NittanyLion]

It's pretty clear which side on this thread is trying to use facts/logic, and who employs nothing more than vitriol and emotion. Keep up the good work; the usual suspects are once again embarrassing themselves.

[Missouri]

4) Is California more or less Conservative than it was in the past?

Lets see, in national elections from 1952 till 1988, California voted for the republican in every election except 1964. Starting in 1992 till today its voted for a democrat. What is the common denominator? Increased immigration both legal and illegal which started about 1990. The same thing has happened in Illinois. I don't see GWB carrying either one of these states come Nov.

I will say that California (and Illinois) are less conservative. A blind man can see this.

I stand by your point 4Freedom.

[Tamzee]

I didn't ask a question, I remarked on how you are a single issue conservative useless to advancing conservatism as a whole.

As far as answering that long list of questions, I try not to waste too much time on folks like you.

[Consort]

Starting in 1992 till today its voted for a democrat.

What the connection to Bush?

What is the common denominator? Increased immigration both legal and illegal which started about 1990.

Your ignoring 1890 and 1790 and all the years in between. You can't do that. And, what's the connection to Bush?

I don't see GWB carrying either one of these states come Nov.

More faithless posturing by those who think Bush may lose. You seem to be blaming Bush because California and other states vote for Democrats. Maybe Democrats are winning the close elections because "conservative" losers are not voting GOP but are fragmenting the conservative vote across a bunch of loser Third Parties, thereby abandoning the GOP for something even less effective. Yes? No?

I will say that California (and Illinois) are less conservative. A blind man can see this.

What does that have to do with Bush? Some conservatives and a lot of disruptors are effectively using this issue against both the GOP and Conservatives....a Liberal dream scenario.

[jpsb]

"Well then I guess you're screwed", Yup me and you both.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Sabertooth]

Kerry DOES advocate immediate citizenship for any illegal alien that has been here for 5 years. They would get to vote as citizen

Source or link?

[Tamzee]

Amnesty eyed for illegal aliens


PHOENIX -- Sen. John Kerry yesterday promised an amnesty for most illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for at least five years.

"It is time to fulfill the promise of America, so that those who work hard and take responsibility and build a better life for them and their families, and live by the rules, and pay their taxes and raise their families have a right to share in America and its citizenship in the fullest," the Democratic candidate for president said.

(snipped)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162789/posts

[Zeroisanumber]

As the GOP gains power, it naturally pulls more centrist elements into the big tent. Good for the party, but in the long-term the centrists tend to alienate the hard core. Eventually the party eats itself in fratricidal infighting.

The Democrats went through this from about 1978-1994 or so and eventually it will be the GOP's turn. The good news is that the swing left lasted for about 30-40 years, so we still have a while left on our run.

[Once-Ler]

Call your mommy over to the computer. I'm sure any of us will be happy to help her explain them to you.

At least until we run out of patience ...

We? Are you pretending to have friends? Feel free to run out of patience. So far you have contributed nothing of substance in your responses to me.

[Sabertooth]

Well, you said "Kerry DOES advocate immediate citizenship for any illegal alien that has been here for 5 years."

The link you supplied says "most illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for at least five years," and specifiying that they hd to have paid their taxes.

I also don't see where he'd give them "immediate citizenship." Your link says:

"Mr. Kerry, speaking to the National Council of La Raza's national conference, said that within 100 days of taking office, he would propose a four-part plan that would give a citizenship path to illegal immigrants who have paid taxes while living here and who pass a security screening."

"Citizenship path" doesn't sound like "immediate citizenship."

In his "not an Amnesty" announcement of this past January 7th, President Bush also spoke of putting legalized Illegals on a "path of citizenship:

"The citizenship line, however, is too long, and our current limits on legal immigration are too low. My administration will work with the Congress to increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship. Those willing to take the difficult path of citizenship -- the path of work, and patience, and assimilation -- should be welcome in America, like generations of immigrants before them."

Now, while I'll certainly concede that Kerry's Amnesty would be worse than the one proposed by President Bush, the differences are of degree, not in kind.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"Unfortunately, such rhetoric fails to deal with the fact that it is the Republican liberals who regularly undermine party unity by voting with Democrats at critical junctures. With such people constantly placing the philosophies of liberalism ahead of traditional Republican principle, the only manner in which even a facade of "unity" can be maintained is for the entire party to shift to the left. This, of course, is precisely the strategy of the liberal Republicans."

Exactly. And God forbid if conservatives fight back.