Replies

Thank you for that perspective.

Thank you, and where we disagree here, please don't think it's a statement of universal discord.

I count Laura Bush among those with whom I may disagree on several issues, but who appears to hold those views in good faith. And if the former first lady holds such views as being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, we should realize that there are many other Republicans who feel the same way (I am NOT among them.) If there are enough of such Republicans it becomes difficult to refer to them as RINOs.

The term Repbulicans (i)n Name Only reflects the understanding that Republicans are supposed to stand for something more than what the person in focus is standing for. By your argument you seem to be saying that if the majority of the party thinks 'Choice' is okay, then it is we who may be out of step. Thus the initials RINO inappropriate for the majority.

Now if that argument is correct, and I'm not saying it is or isn't at this point, you and I don't have a party. Furthermore, if the Republican party stands for the same things (at least the majority of members do), as the Democrat party does, then we're in a world of hurt. And here you seem to be making somewhat of a case for that at least on the issue of 'Choice'.

My premise would be that we should evaluate issues on their merits. And it would seem to me that once an issue has been weighed on the merits, the party I choose to belong to should come down on the right side of that issue. If the Repbulican party is not that party, then perhaps you are right. I would in fact be a RINO by not buying into to what the party believes. Of course that ignores the fact that the Republican party leadership claims to be Conservative. Each and every election, they run to the right to proclaim they are one of us. And the day after every election, they right right back to the left.

So one of us is confused here. Is it me, or is it the leadership? Have I been in the wrong party my whole life? Perhaps so. And looking at the registration numbers, if I and other like minded individuals reach the end of our rope, the Republican party will have about 20% of the registered voters in this nation.

So here we are. The ball is really in the Republican party leadership's court right now. A decision is going to be made. Either it or people like me are going to make it. Either the party decides to stand for good solid wholesome moralistic things, or they don't. Either they are going to have a change of mind and decide they want folks like me, or they are going to remain where they are and lose me forever.

I have tried to play within the framework of the Republican party my whole life. It's with great sadness that I have come to the place where I have to make a Reaganesque statement, but we really have come to the place where the party has simply left me. I think someone could come along and point out that it never was what I had hoped it would be, and I think they would have a pretty good case. I would respond that with regard to 'Pro Life', it was in the platform at one time. It's supposed to be what we stand for.

I also think the party claims to be pro-small government, pro-low taxation, pro-military, pro sovereignty, and pro a lot of the things I want it to be in favor of. It's just that when push comes to shove, the party leadership doesn't actually support the candidates and policies I do. But they claim they do.

I guess that's why I still have some legitimate right to claim policies outside those bounds are the policies of a RINO. And when Laura says she's pro-Choice, or pro-Homosexual Marriage rights, I have to call her on it, and state that those are the views of a RINO. Until the party flat out states it's pro-Choice, and pro-Homosexual Agenda, and pro-Big government, and pro-Downsizing the Military, and pro a lot of things I don't stand for, those who stand for those things are going to be by their definition RINOs. I don't care if 99.98% of the party members think like the leadership does.

We have been lied to. We have been misled. We have been abused to the point, I am sick of it.

And after saying all this, I don't think you're really going to disagree. I don't see you and I as standing on oposite sides of the divide.

It is now a matter of education, or more education as to WHY we conservatives believe as we do, and not just WHETHER failure to adhere to those beliefs is acceptable or not. To that end:

I'm a little iffy on the education part. If you're a Republican, you should know what the hell that is. Don't get me wrong, I do belive in education, but the onus is on the voter. Too many shirk their duty to study the issues and candidates, and take the right stand.

*** There are behaviors that are wrong, regardless of whether we wish they were wrong or not. Among these are: abortion, homosexual conduct and illegal immigration. Abortion is wrong because it is the taking of a human life. That fact is uncomfortable for some, especially those who are close to people who have had, or financed for others, abortions.

Homosexual conduct is wrong. For some it is a matter of religious belief. For others, it is a long-held societal precept. For still others, it is a simple matter of natural order, biological logistics (at least in the case of male homosexulality) and reproductive biology 101.

I agree.

We conservatives need to understand that just as many liberals adopt that position unware of what it truly means, many conservatives do the same. Ask your close conservative friends why they are conservative (or ask why they are Republican) and listen to the inarticulate nature of the response in many cases.

I agree.

We cannot assume that those who believe as we do, or say they do, really know what or why they believe. I agree. That is a matter not to be ridiculed, but to be cured by education.

1. If a person is in a leadership, or highly visible postion within the party, they damned well better have their act together. If they don't, they deserve ridicule and robust criticism.

Other ctiziens are looking (either concsiously or sub-conciously) to others to buttress their own beliefs. It is especially critical for our youth to hear wholesome views from some quarter. And if they are not going to hear it from a person like Laura Bush, where will they? Millions of people saw an interview, or will read the book, and they will come away with the understanding that the wife of the former "Republican" President of the United States says in effect, it's okay to scrape that human life out of you, and enter into homosexual relationships. Young impressionable minds will be encouraged to let down their defenses to bisexual and homsexual experamentation by virtue (or not) of those words. Laura Bush was given a tremendous opportunity to send a great message, and instead she sent one of enablement for some of the worst possible life decisions. It honestly boggles the mind.

2. If a person is particpating in a conversation or on a forum and expresses a view that is not wholesome, I would agree that person should not be ridiculed or attacked. Even on this forum, that person should be presented with truth and then let it go.

3. If however a person in a conversation or more importantly on this forum and won't let go, we need to be prepared to debate the point. And if that person is trying to influence others, we need to use any means possible to make sure bystanders know what the correct stand is. Does the Republican party platform take a firm stand on 'Right to Life'? Does it take a firm stand on "Homosexuality" and "Bisexuality"? Why are these issues important? Why is it the right thing to do to oppose these lifestyles as mainstream alternative choices?

Even as we do this, we need to do it in a manner that is even handed and humane. We're not going to do away with homosexuality. We are going to have family members and friends who are homosexuals. We need to be able to explain why we don't support homosexual marriage rights, without also making it seem like we hate homosexuals. I have personally had to do this in the last few months. God will judge homosexuals. As far as living thier life and me living mine, I'm not here to make life tough on homosexuals. I don't approve of them being in positions of authority over children. I do not approve of children being desensitised regarding homosexuality, and I do not want them taught that homosexuality is just another alternative lifestyle on an equal footing with heterosexality. Other than that, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Of course that depends on whether bath-house and other behaviors get to the point that they affect the populace at large too. We need to remain rational beings on all issues.

Now educating the public...

How do we do this? Can we educate the public if the Republican party leadership doesn't want to play along? Why sure. We can tell everyone that abortion is wrong, and then watch one guy like the Director of the RNC say it's "a Matter of Choice". Is that education going to stick? Well, the RNC part will. Most of our education services won't.

If we talk up small governance and fiscal responsiblity, and our "Republican" president steps up with TARP, Medicare Part D, and a plan that gives the next guy $300 billion to waste on day one, our lesson plan is essentially worthless.

Thanks for your obviously thoughtful reply. I must confess that I did not give near the amount of thought in my post as you did in your reply. I agree with much of what you said. I won’t respond as fully as you did. My brief thoughts are:

I can’t say that I know the Republican position on all issues, and not being a particularly partisan person (although I AM conservative), I am not all that sure I care too much. And how does one determien what the party’s position is? By its leadership’s statement? By its platform (whereever it is)? By the postion taken by the majority of the party’s members? I think in most cases it won’t matter where the position is taken from because the position will be the same.

But parties change over time. I think it is likely, but not certain, that Laura Bush’s positions on gay marriage, etc. are inconsistent with those held by most Republicans.

I do disagree with what I think you said about education. Yes, it is the duty of voters to learn what the party stands for, using that information to decide whether to belong to a party or not. But we should make that information, and more importantly, the reasoning behind the positions, known and easily available to all.

I’ll stop here, closing with the thought that Republicans ought to assess what their party stands for, what the members of the party believe, and whether there is any disconnect. If there is, that disconnect should be resolved in one way or another. I will almost certainly continue to be a Republican, and will vote Republican if for no other reason than I know I can’t agree with the principles (if you can call them that) of the Democrat party.