Redstate

...I suggest that you keep your scorn to yourself.  I have as much right to set the agenda of the Republican Party as you do.

I agree that the Republican agenda should be as conservative as possible.  This country is not as conservative as conservatives think and such a platform might be enough to alienate sufficient voters to elect Kerry.

What, pray tell, is a conservative?

Does a conservative support a federal constitutional amendment against abortion? the federal defense of marriage act? federal drug laws? no child left behind? I would say, emphatically no.  Conservatives believe that these are issues to be decided at the state (if not local) level.

Does a conservative support tax cuts that increase the deficit?  No, a conservative would support tax cuts, but would also support (even more vigorously) cuts in the federal bureaucracy.

I am all for giving conservatives a chance to run the country.  I do not agree with their theories, but, without implementation of the policies, we will never know what will happen.  Although we currently have a Republican government, it is far from conservative.  

I am disillusioned.

However, politics being the art of compromise, I would suggest that we must take what we can and work for better.  Particularly if the alternative is manifestly worse.

I clicked through and put in my vote for abortion/pro-life in the other category.  We also need a strong plank on federalism.  We control of the federal government but we haven't sent any issues back to the states (education, farm aid, health care, welfare, etc).  In fact, a strong dose of federalism could sit well with the critique of the activist judges.  States should be choosing their position on gay marriage, abortion, and the death penalty not the judiciary or federal government.  I actually support gay marriage and oppose the dealth penalty, but I consider the means as important as the ends.  We should reaffirm that if New York wants to have no death penalty, permit gay marriage, and allow abortion-on-demand then they have the right to do so... just as Oklahoma should have the right to do the opposite.

... rising stars are RINOs (see, e.g., Pataki, Guiliani, Schwarzeneggar), and most members of its midwestern, northern, and Southerwestern contingents have been called a RINO at one point or another* (see, e.g., McCain, Lugar, Hagel, every Republican in New England, etc.).   But, by all means, if you want a regional party that represents the South, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and a flummoxed minority in California -- but never wins a national election -- continue this kind of rhetoric.

I'm guessing that "culture of life" is where the people who set up the form thought "pro-life" would be. I don't know what else it would mean.

But in fairness - I wonder if the burden for a change in the platform might not be bigger than those that simply want to retain its inherent conservative tone?

I think that's what the party marketing department wants to call all things related to Abortion/Stem Cells.

"Without its conservative base, there would be NO Republican Party to begin with!"

Wrong.  Without its pro-business, pro-private property base, there would be no Republican Party to begin with.

I understand that you all have a take here, but I'm increasingly resenting your presumption to speak on behalf of "the base" of the party.  I'm a Republican because I believe in its historic mission of standing for freedom, prosperity, and nationalism.  The "base" you describe seems to me to be the legacy of soured Dixiecrats and the lost cause of Bryantism.  At essence, it's anti-Republican.

Instead of wasting our time on divisive rhetoric and posing as representing "the base," why don't you all agree to my three proposed tenants of traditional Republicanism: (1) Let's go make some dough, (2) live and let live, and (3) vote for anyone with an "R" by his name.

Because: (1) Some things -- like stopping the murder of babies -- are more important than making money, (2) live and let live is apparently a great idea, unless you can't see the other person -- then it's okay to kill her in today's society, and (3) unlike some people, I'm not a party hack -- I vote according to principle. Why, I even voted for Zell Miller -- and he had a "D" by his name!

This isn't just "rhetoric", though I don't doubt it's "divisive" -- just as slavery was in the 19th century.

And really, every single study out there shows that if the conservative base left the GOP, the GOP would wither on the vine. That's why the party bosses throw us these occasional bones. How nice of them.

WG

Dude, I really dig your passion (and I'm not trying to be patronizing, honest), but I really think you're doing the party a disservice here.  For example, your implied threat to bolt the party over the abortion question doesn't really fulfill Redstate's mission of "seek[ing] the construction of a Republican majority in the United States."  Does it?

It's pretty clear to me that the abortion question is the central animating factor of your activism.  That's great: I can think of few issues more important.  What I don't get is why you would try to use a national political party as the mechanism to stop abortion.  Haven't you figured out that the federal courts are doing NOTHING to make it easier for us to pass laws to stop abortion.  Haven't you thought about how many unborn babies have been murdered while jokers on the right have sat around and schemed about how to overturn Roe or get Pryor on the bench or while Brownback and Santorum drone on in the Senate well to support legislation that is bound to lose in the courts?  Listen to me: THE POLITICAL AVENUE IS DEAD.

Instead of wasting time on public process and trying to purge a national party of people who you don't think agree with you, use your God-given right to free speech to go out and convince the women of America why they shouldn't have abortions.  Raise money for TV commercials.  Start a foundation which supports adoption and education.  But, for crying out loud, don't SUBTRACT votes from the GOP over this issue or any other issue.

And don't be so self-righteous.  I vote on principal too, but my principals tell me that economic and personal liberty are the most important tenets of our public order, and that I'm actually interested in seeing legislation that reflects those tenets.  Only one organization -- the national Republican Party -- has historically committed to preserving these principals, and I'd rather see the party prosper with fools at the helm than ever risk having the communitarians and modern Left exercise power.  That's why I'll even vote for a Republican who I know I don't agree with on most issues.  Hell, I'd even vote for you, rightmarch.

The Republican party does not stand for economic and personal liberty.  That would be the Libertarian party.  The principles of the Republican party of today seem to be:

1.  Sacrifice anything for money.
   
   
2.  Promote big business at the expense of the working class (ok for Libertarians) and of small business (sort of like Lucy picking up the football).
   
   
3.  Destroy personal liberties by outlawing non-mendacious drug use (but not applied to nicotine or alcohol), by abrogating the 4th and 5th amendments, by supporting religious preferences of the majority (see abortion and stem-cell research).
   

... on those wanting change, or seeking to overturn an orthodoxy.  (The orthodoxy is generally there for a reason.)  But, in defense, my personal interest is in changing only certain portions of the GOP platform -- and, in general, the changes would omit statements of party line (e.g., on gay marriage) rather than replace one party line with another.  

by supporting religious preferences of the majority (see abortion and stem-cell research)

C'mon, katall... I'm sure you know that the most serious arguments in favor of the personhood of the human embryo (and hence the great injustice of abortion and ESCR) are not religious in nature. Why throw in this red herring?

Lecturing while admonishing against self-righteousness is a little unseemly. Frankly, your analysis is weak as well - if the Republican party stops being the pro-life party (in principle, in platform) - then they do, in fact, lose big. Whether the legislative arena is an effective place to fight this battle or not is irrelevant to the question at hand. If there's no distinct home for pro-lifers, then welcome to a Democratic majority for as far as the eye can see.

Maybe it's time to walk.  Dobson suggested this once. I mean, if the nyeocons (read: former Clinton voters who've suddenly got 'religion') want it their way, leave 'em dangling in the breeze.  The majority of this country IS truly conservative.  How 'bout screw the nyeocons, dump Bush, control both houses and hamstring Kerry.  The Dems have done pretty well as the op-for, W always lays down for them.  The Swifties should tell him to STFU, their beef transcends him.  Then again, the Texas cabal has never exactly thrilled me, although Junior seems more truly blue than HW. (That WAS the right color, once upon a time) We have no guarantee he's gonna make the right choices on the Supremes anyway.  He doesn't even own a veto pen.  What budget?  Even St. Ronald delivered less than promised.  Not enough bones for me at this convention.  They know we can't vote Dem, but they better quit assuming we're gonna pull a lever.

Self-righteous? You apparently didn't read your own first post. I was answering YOUR self-righteousness, telling conservatives -- the BASE of the GOP -- to stop trying to endorse their most cherished agenda items, most of which brought them into the GOP to begin with.

There is no "implied threat to bolt the party over the abortion question", so don't get self-righteous in that area, either. The very REAL threat is that eventually, conservatives could leave the GOP in droves IF the party dogs them enough times. Hey, it's what happened here in the South with conservative Democrats -- the party left them, so they left the party. (Didn't Reagan say something similar? I guess he should have just remained a party loyalist instead, huh?)

No, the abortion question isn't the "central animating factor" of my own activism. But it darn well better be at the top of the list for the GOP -- or, again I say, the base will bolt, and the party will fail.

And I have no illusions that politics will solve the problem of millions of mothers killing their own babies. But we don't abandon politics just because the leaders of the GOP have abandoned the babies. We work from all angles -- to change people's hearts, AND change the political scene. Any other approach is doomed to failure.

Bottom line: I vote Republican almost exclusively, but I won't vote for anyone -- Republican, Democrat, Libertarian -- that supports murdering babies. That would be just plain stupid.

Not that there's anything wrong with stupid -- no insult intended there.

WG

I may not like much of what the VP says and does, but one has to give credit where credit is due-- he is a conservative.  He actually put his money where his mouth is when he opposed the FMA on the grounds that personal freedoms should not be abridged by the federal government.

Fancy that.