Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia
Reinvent the Party?
A couple of months ago, I asked if there was any room in the Republican Party for moderates and of course the reponses were pretty revealing. However, recent events have questioned who makes up the Republican Party and who actually leads it. Two people who come to mind are Senator Ensign of Nevada and Governor Sanford of South Carolina. Both were considered rising stars in the Republican Party and both admitted to extramarital affairs only after being caught.
I don't have to explain where both of these men stood on issues in the party, but both were considered strong moral conservatives.
The fact is when we preached morality, we have to be careful who the meessenger is and what the message is. If we paint ourselves into a corner, then we have to accept the consequences of men such as Ensign and Sanford.
Now don't misundertsand me, the republicans do not have the market cornered when it comes to moral lapses. There are plenty of candidates in the Democratic Party, however sad as it may seem to be, it is not a shock when it happens to them, but when it happens to a republican, it shows some sort of a betrayal and gives fodder to democrats when attacking us.
So what I am trying to say is that do we have to reinvent the Republican Party before we become so hyprocritical that no one will believe us when we take a moral stand on issues. Again both Ensign and Sanford were not afraid to criticize others when preaching morality, but forgot the well established tennet "practice what you preach".
Just wanted to share these thoughts and see what others thought.
I don't have to explain where both of these men stood on issues in the party, but both were considered strong moral conservatives.
The fact is when we preached morality, we have to be careful who the meessenger is and what the message is. If we paint ourselves into a corner, then we have to accept the consequences of men such as Ensign and Sanford.
Now don't misundertsand me, the republicans do not have the market cornered when it comes to moral lapses. There are plenty of candidates in the Democratic Party, however sad as it may seem to be, it is not a shock when it happens to them, but when it happens to a republican, it shows some sort of a betrayal and gives fodder to democrats when attacking us.
So what I am trying to say is that do we have to reinvent the Republican Party before we become so hyprocritical that no one will believe us when we take a moral stand on issues. Again both Ensign and Sanford were not afraid to criticize others when preaching morality, but forgot the well established tennet "practice what you preach".
Just wanted to share these thoughts and see what others thought.
Views: 95
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sandy Cope on
-
So Nick--- is what you are asking is that Republicans/Conservatives should throw the Social leg of the Reagan stool aside because Ensign and Sanford have not lived up to Republican/Values? Pretty lame excuse there! Have you read the recent polls that most Americans see themselves as "Conservatives."? I cannot believe that some have not gotten the message that Palin got the most votes for McCain, because she was a real Conservative. Even if you missed that message, look at the rest of the polling where most "moderates" lost their elections to the Democrats. Who wants Dem Lite when you can have the real thing. Look at the situation with Specter at this time---- even the Dems don't want him. Touche!
Reinvent the party? You really are just kidding right! The way I see it, you are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Tea Parties prove me correct. Have you attended any Nick?
-
Permalink Reply by George Daily on
-
Nick,
Actually, though I pay fairly close attention, I don't remember either Ensign or Sanford preaching on adultery. Maybe I missed it since I do not look to politicians for moral or spiritual guidance. I do remember Sanford's stand against South Carolina being forced to take money from the Federal Government which I thought was a justifiable position..
As before, I don't know what your issue is, though this time it seems that you believe there is something about two adulterous Republicans that should boost the status of "moderate" Republicans and push the party to "reinvent" itself. Is this your point?
What is the moderate position on adultery?
The logic of your post dictates that the most effective way to avoid a moral lapse is to deny any moral standard. That is the Democrat Party. Since Democrats are deliberately perverse, they cannot be held to any standard. Is that the attitude that Republican moderates suggest for the party? If so, then once again it seems that suggesting that Republicans be more moderate really means be more like Democrats.
-
-
You totally misintrepreted what I was trying to say, which does not surprise me. It is that when people such as Ensign and Sanford are proclaimed as leaders of the Republican Party, as they have been, we have to be leary when we preach how much more moral we are as a party as compared to others because it seems that when we do, the media attaches itself to that betrayal. Everyone should be held to a higher standard, especially those serving in public office, Republican and Democrats, but we shouldn't take the attitude as we often do, that we are better then others.
You ask what is the moderate position on adultery? I would hope that it is the same position if one was a republican, a democrat or a libertarian, and yes even a moderate. It is wrong and should be condemned.
Regarding your response that "Democrats are deliberately perverse" is more of a condemnation of your attitude toward others that do not agree with your political philosophy and which is unfortunately part of the problem the nations suffers as a whole (you either agree with me and I will not compromise).
So, I really don't know what to say to you and others.
-
-
Dear Sandy. To tell you the truth, it is more then Ensign and Sanford. What I was attempting to explain was that we should not portray ourselvesas the moral party and condemn others when we have our own problems within the party. I hate to break it to you, but we do not corner the market on being the most moral party. When we go out of our way to condemn others such as Edwards, we also have to be able to condemn our own such as Sanford and Ensign and we take the moral high road, be prepared for betrayal in out own party. That is where the "reinvention" comes from. Let's stop being the moral cop.
Also, regarding Specter and God knows how he got in this conversation, he was never a republican or even a "Dem Lite". I am from Pennsylvania and he was always known for voting with the dems and was a republican for political expediency.
You asked if I have attended "Tea Parties" and I have to say that as I work for a living, the parties here in Virginia Beach were during my work hours. But at the same time, I don't think it is that necessary that one has to carry a protest sign or sit next to a computer to be politically active.
But thank you for telling me that I am part of the problem. I always believed that when I was put on this great earth, there had to be a purpose for my life, and now you have told me what it is.
Thank you Sandy.
-
-
Nick,
When do "we preach how much more moral we are as a party..."? Who is doing this? Please cite one example of any elected Republican or any Republican Party Offical.
There is no preaching by Republicans that they are morally superior to anyone else. There is, however, an appreciation among Republicans that there are moral principles that all should aspire to. You wrote, "Everyone should be held to a higher standard..." It is the concept of a moral standard itself that liberals the liberal media despises.
That Democrats are perverse is a judgment based on observation.
per⋅verse /pərˈvɜrs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-vurs]
–adjective
1. willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.
3. wayward or cantankerous.
4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
Is it your position that the definition does not fit the Democrat Party , Congress and Administration? If, so then where am I wrong?
Of course, I believe the Democrats are wrong. If I didn't, I be a Democrat!
What you can say to me, Nick, is who is doing this preaching you dislike, why the Democrats are right and not wrong, why you believe making judgments is "part of the problem the nations suffers", exactly what you want me to compromise and how does any of this define a "reinvented" Republican Party?
Nick Skias said:You totally misintrepreted what I was trying to say, which does not surprise me. It is that when people such as Ensign and Sanford are proclaimed as leaders of the Republican Party, as they have been, we have to be leary when we preach how much more moral we are as a party as compared to others because it seems that when we do, the media attaches itself to that betrayal. Everyone should be held to a higher standard, especially those serving in public office, Republican and Democrats, but we shouldn't take the attitude as we often do, that we are better then others.
You ask what is the moderate position on adultery? I would hope that it is the same position if one was a republican, a democrat or a libertarian, and yes even a moderate. It is wrong and should be condemned.
Regarding your response that "Democrats are deliberately perverse" is more of a condemnation of your attitude toward others that do not agree with your political philosophy and which is unfortunately part of the problem the nations suffers as a whole (you either agree with me and I will not compromise).
So, I really don't know what to say to you and others.
-
-
Reinvent into what?? If we do not stand up for moral issues who will? I am disappointed in people such as Gov. Sanford, but I do not wish to be part of a political party that openly celebrates and supports immorality.
-
-
By now I'm convinced that neither of us will get an answer to our questions. Perhaps Nick believes they are rhetorical but mine are genuine. I really want to know what makes "moderates" tick and I can't find out. Like liberals, progressives and statists of all descriptions, moderates are a mystery to me. The premise of the original post seems baseless, based on prejudice and reflective of some sort of guilt or shame. But, when asked about the moderate position on adultery, Nick takes the same position that I, certainly not a "moderate", take. As far as I can tell the only difference between the two of us on this point is that I am not the slightest bit shy or apologetic about my position.
Three things come to mind that I would like moderates to know. First, it is a good thing to make informed judgments. That's what give us guidance in all sorts of situations. Second, it is a good thing to be confident. That's where we get the ability to act and avoid trouble. Neither indicates ignorance, prejudice, intoleralce, arrogance or hypocricy. Finally, it is a good thing to be open minded. But, not so open minded that your brains fall out.
Jane M. Laughman said:Reinvent into what?? If we do not stand up for moral issues who will? I am disappointed in people such as Gov. Sanford, but I do not wish to be part of a political party that openly celebrates and supports immorality.
-
-
Hi George!
I'm not sure what a moderate is, and I'm not sure if this will answer your questions, but here goes.
Some of the opinions I hold are considered liberal or liberal leaning while others are quite conservative. If I had to classify myself, I say I'm socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative. If that makes me a moderate then that makes me a moderate. But I don't know what a moderate is, so I can't really address whether I am one or whether the party has a place for moderates or not.
I hope the party has a place for people with differing opinions on issues. I hope that the party doesn't become one which follows moral absolutes and has room for those of us who might disagree on substantive issues. I hope that the party leaders aren't afraid to listen to and consider alternate opinions because I fervently believe that there is no harm in listening.
Let me give you a couple of examples of why I consider myself a squishy conservative.
On the issue of abortion I think it should be legal in the first 10 weeks; available only in the case of rape, incest, severe disability, or life of the mother from 10 - 22 weeks; and absolutely illegal after 22 weeks. I don't have any problems with Plan B, though I think it should be available by prescription only because of concerns about overuse. I'm not sure whether that makes me a liberal or a moderate, but that's what I believe.
On the issue of gay unions, I think it is a civil rights issue. I think marriage has two sides - a civil side and a religious side. I don't think the government has any right to dictate which unions an individual church chooses to bless, but I also think that gay couples have a right to the legal rights and responsibilities conveyed when a couple gets married. I'm not sure whether that makes me a liberal or a moderate, but that's what I believe.
On the issue of taxes, I'd toss the entire system and do something different. I think both the flat tax and the Fair Tax are more reasonable and fair than our current system of taxation.
On the issue of spending, I think we need to stop spending now at both the state and federal level. I'd have every government agency, local, state, and federal, put together plans for a 20% cut in spending. Including defense. I'd consider cutting entire federal agencies - like education and commerce. I'd open the shores to drilling for oil and gas and I'd develop a process to fast-track new development in nuclear and alternate energy plants.
I'm not sure if that makes me a moderate, liberal, or a conservative. But I hope there's a place for me in the party.
George Daily said:By now I'm convinced that neither of us will get an answer to our questions. Perhaps Nick believes they are rhetorical but mine are genuine. I really want to know what makes "moderates" tick and I can't find out. Like liberals, progressives and statists of all descriptions, moderates are a mystery to me. The premise of the original post seems baseless, based on prejudice and reflective of some sort of guilt or shame. But, when asked about the moderate position on adultery, Nick takes the same position that I, certainly not a "moderate", take. As far as I can tell the only difference between the two of us on this point is that I am not the slightest bit shy or apologetic about my position.
Three things come to mind that I would like moderates to know. First, it is a good thing to make informed judgments. That's what give us guidance in all sorts of situations. Second, it is a good thing to be confident. That's where we get the ability to act and avoid trouble. Neither indicates ignorance, prejudice, intoleralce, arrogance or hypocricy. Finally, it is a good thing to be open minded. But, not so open minded that your brains fall out.
Jane M. Laughman said:Reinvent into what?? If we do not stand up for moral issues who will? I am disappointed in people such as Gov. Sanford, but I do not wish to be part of a political party that openly celebrates and supports immorality.
-
-
OMG, it's the abortion and gay marriage thing again. I think its gotta be due to some sort of virus.
Ok, ok, ok.... Sorry! I just can't understand the fixation with these two issues. Neither one matters a hill of beans campared to the really dreadful problems facing our nation today. Its really frustrating.
Thanks for your reply. I think I get it now. What it boils down to is that "moderate" Republicans are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and some moderates, if not all, are uncomfortable with Republicans who are not and vice versa.
Here's the real deal as I see it; It does not matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage or what I think or what anyone thinks except the nine people on the Supreme Court. The democratic solutions to these issues were taken from the people by the courts. We cannot say it's over and this is the way it is, because these political questions are denied a political resolution.
So, though I might argue with parts of your points, why bother? Neither one of us will ever have a vote in the matter and neither will those we help elect. Am I wrong?
Kim Simons said:Hi George!
I'm not sure what a moderate is, and I'm not sure if this will answer your questions, but here goes.
Some of the opinions I hold are considered liberal or liberal leaning while others are quite conservative. If I had to classify myself, I say I'm socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative. If that makes me a moderate then that makes me a moderate. But I don't know what a moderate is, so I can't really address whether I am one or whether the party has a place for moderates or not.
I hope the party has a place for people with differing opinions on issues. I hope that the party doesn't become one which follows moral absolutes and has room for those of us who might disagree on substantive issues. I hope that the party leaders aren't afraid to listen to and consider alternate opinions because I fervently believe that there is no harm in listening.
Let me give you a couple of examples of why I consider myself a squishy conservative.
On the issue of abortion I think it should be legal in the first 10 weeks; available only in the case of rape, incest, severe disability, or life of the mother from 10 - 22 weeks; and absolutely illegal after 22 weeks. I don't have any problems with Plan B, though I think it should be available by prescription only because of concerns about overuse. I'm not sure whether that makes me a liberal or a moderate, but that's what I believe.
On the issue of gay unions, I think it is a civil rights issue. I think marriage has two sides - a civil side and a religious side. I don't think the government has any right to dictate which unions an individual church chooses to bless, but I also think that gay couples have a right to the legal rights and responsibilities conveyed when a couple gets married. I'm not sure whether that makes me a liberal or a moderate, but that's what I believe.
On the issue of taxes, I'd toss the entire system and do something different. I think both the flat tax and the Fair Tax are more reasonable and fair than our current system of taxation.
On the issue of spending, I think we need to stop spending now at both the state and federal level. I'd have every government agency, local, state, and federal, put together plans for a 20% cut in spending. Including defense. I'd consider cutting entire federal agencies - like education and commerce. I'd open the shores to drilling for oil and gas and I'd develop a process to fast-track new development in nuclear and alternate energy plants.
I'm not sure if that makes me a moderate, liberal, or a conservative. But I hope there's a place for me in the party.
George Daily said:By now I'm convinced that neither of us will get an answer to our questions. Perhaps Nick believes they are rhetorical but mine are genuine. I really want to know what makes "moderates" tick and I can't find out. Like liberals, progressives and statists of all descriptions, moderates are a mystery to me. The premise of the original post seems baseless, based on prejudice and reflective of some sort of guilt or shame. But, when asked about the moderate position on adultery, Nick takes the same position that I, certainly not a "moderate", take. As far as I can tell the only difference between the two of us on this point is that I am not the slightest bit shy or apologetic about my position.
Three things come to mind that I would like moderates to know. First, it is a good thing to make informed judgments. That's what give us guidance in all sorts of situations. Second, it is a good thing to be confident. That's where we get the ability to act and avoid trouble. Neither indicates ignorance, prejudice, intoleralce, arrogance or hypocricy. Finally, it is a good thing to be open minded. But, not so open minded that your brains fall out.
Jane M. Laughman said:Reinvent into what?? If we do not stand up for moral issues who will? I am disappointed in people such as Gov. Sanford, but I do not wish to be part of a political party that openly celebrates and supports immorality.
-
-
George,
I agree with you! I think we're on the same page, and I'm probably doing a miserable job of explaining my position. I did have a headache yesterday, but I think it's because I just had the house painted and not some virus. :)
I'm not sure what a moderate is. Is it someone who is slightly more liberal on social issues or someone who is slightly more liberal on fiscal issues? There are several prominent Republican's that I can think of who are quite conservative socially but fiscally squishy. Does that make them moderates? I don't know. Is the only true conservative one who is both fiscally and socially conservative? I don't know. I can only tell you what I believe and hope that there's a place for me in the party.
I've never felt uncomfortable around Republican's because of my admittedly liberal opinions on social issues. I also don't wear those opinions on my sleeve and don't actively engage in debates with other Republican's about those issues. I just a door knocking, phone calling, cash donating team member - I'm not someone anyone in the party would ask for an opinion or care much either way. But I think the party has gone astray in recent years - in part because we've held the banner of conservatism but not really known what that meant.
Like you, I believe the Constitution is our guiding document.
I think abortion is a legislative issue because there is no individual right to abortion in the Constitution. I think it's a state legislative issue because the right to legislate such issues is was not conveyed to the US Congress in the Constitution. Gay Marriage or civil unions, in my opinion, are also state issues for the same reasons.
Where I agree with the original poster is that sometimes it seems like the party refuses to even discuss issues that are outside it's comfort zone, and we've given control over those issues to the Democrats. Four big issues pop right out at me - health care, immigration, energy independence, and education.
We're facing the health care battle now in part because the GOP did nothing to address it when it was in power. We'll be facing a battle on immigration soon because the GOP failed address the issue when we had a chance. We're facing a fight against Cap and Trade because the GOP failed to address energy independence when we had the chance. We've all but given up on education and now we've got failing public schools and the Obama Education Department poised to dictate nationwide academic standards for Math and English and mandate a federal assessment to every state which accepts federal dollars for education.
These, in my opinion, are the big issues facing the party. Toss the economy and national security in and you've got the big 6 issues facing us right now.
I hope the national party is discussing these issues. I hope the state parties are. I hope the local parties are. Because these are the big issues. And if the GOP candidate from my state isn't addressing these issues then he / she probably won't get elected. The banner of social and fiscal conservatism will only carry them so far, but then they've got to pony up and show that there's more behind them than a slogan.
George Daily said:OMG, it's the abortion and gay marriage thing again. I think its gotta be due to some sort of virus. Ok, ok, ok.... Sorry! I just can't understand the fixation with these two issues. Neither one matters a hill of beans campared to the really dreadful problems facing our nation today. Its really frustrating.
Thanks for your reply. I think I get it now. What it boils down to is that "moderate" Republicans are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and some moderates, if not all, are uncomfortable with Republicans who are not and vice versa.
Here's the real deal as I see it; It does not matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage or what I think or what anyone thinks except the nine people on the Supreme Court. The democratic solutions to these issues were taken from the people by the courts. We cannot say it's over and this is the way it is, because these political questions are denied a political resolution.
So, though I might argue with parts of your points, why bother? Neither one of us will ever have a vote in the matter and neither will those we help elect. Am I wrong?
-
-
Hi Kim,
So far as I'm concerned a Republican votes for Republican candidates. That's all it takes. So far as I know, no one within the Republican Party has tried to stop anyone from voting Republican. So, I don't understand why "moderates" whatever or whoever they are should be concerned about if there is room in the Republican Party for them or their opinions.
On the other hand, it seems to me that "moderate" Republicans often wish to nudge the Republican Party more toward Democrat positions and toward "compromise" with Democrats. This simply means giving in to Democrats. If that's who moderates are then I shall remain in favor of them voting Republican and unwaveringly opposed to allowing them power in the Republican Party.
It is precisely because of "moderation" and compromise that every one of the Republican failures that you complain about occurred. It isn't even remotely credible to suggest (not that you are) that Republican conservatives prevented rational solutions to health care, immigration (what is wrong with this editor?) or any thing else.
You'll have to decide if you are a moderate. I am not and I'm not a compromiser either.
Kim Simons said:George,
I agree with you! I think we're on the same page, and I'm probably doing a miserable job of explaining my position. I did have a headache yesterday, but I think it's because I just had the house painted and not some virus. :)
I'm not sure what a moderate is. Is it someone who is slightly more liberal on social issues or someone who is slightly more liberal on fiscal issues? There are several prominent Republican's that I can think of who are quite conservative socially but fiscally squishy. Does that make them moderates? I don't know. Is the only true conservative one who is both fiscally and socially conservative? I don't know. I can only tell you what I believe and hope that there's a place for me in the party.
I've never felt uncomfortable around Republican's because of my admittedly liberal opinions on social issues. I also don't wear those opinions on my sleeve and don't actively engage in debates with other Republican's about those issues. I just a door knocking, phone calling, cash donating team member - I'm not someone anyone in the party would ask for an opinion or care much either way. But I think the party has gone astray in recent years - in part because we've held the banner of conservatism but not really known what that meant.
Like you, I believe the Constitution is our guiding document.
I think abortion is a legislative issue because there is no individual right to abortion in the Constitution. I think it's a state legislative issue because the right to legislate such issues is was not conveyed to the US Congress in the Constitution. Gay Marriage or civil unions, in my opinion, are also state issues for the same reasons.
Where I agree with the original poster is that sometimes it seems like the party refuses to even discuss issues that are outside it's comfort zone, and we've given control over those issues to the Democrats. Four big issues pop right out at me - health care, immigration, energy independence, and education.
We're facing the health care battle now in part because the GOP did nothing to address it when it was in power. We'll be facing a battle on immigration soon because the GOP failed address the issue when we had a chance. We're facing a fight against Cap and Trade because the GOP failed to address energy independence when we had the chance. We've all but given up on education and now we've got failing public schools and the Obama Education Department poised to dictate nationwide academic standards for Math and English and mandate a federal assessment to every state which accepts federal dollars for education.
These, in my opinion, are the big issues facing the party. Toss the economy and national security in and you've got the big 6 issues facing us right now.
I hope the national party is discussing these issues. I hope the state parties are. I hope the local parties are. Because these are the big issues. And if the GOP candidate from my state isn't addressing these issues then he / she probably won't get elected. The banner of social and fiscal conservatism will only carry them so far, but then they've got to pony up and show that there's more behind them than a slogan.
George Daily said:OMG, it's the abortion and gay marriage thing again. I think its gotta be due to some sort of virus. Ok, ok, ok.... Sorry! I just can't understand the fixation with these two issues. Neither one matters a hill of beans campared to the really dreadful problems facing our nation today. Its really frustrating.
Thanks for your reply. I think I get it now. What it boils down to is that "moderate" Republicans are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and some moderates, if not all, are uncomfortable with Republicans who are not and vice versa.
Here's the real deal as I see it; It does not matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage or what I think or what anyone thinks except the nine people on the Supreme Court. The democratic solutions to these issues were taken from the people by the courts. We cannot say it's over and this is the way it is, because these political questions are denied a political resolution.
So, though I might argue with parts of your points, why bother? Neither one of us will ever have a vote in the matter and neither will those we help elect. Am I wrong?
-
-
Kim- It is more than unfair to say that the Republicans didn't address some of your main issues, such as Healthcare. I copied some info from another site that disputes your argument. These are items that Obama in particular voted against when he was still a Senator-
OBAMA and the Democrats Vote Against Healthcare Reform
* Obama voted NO on Allowing Americans to Deduct Their Health Care Costs. S. Con. Res. 70. This would have allowed an above-the-line federal income tax deduction for individuals who do not receive health insurance through their employers. This amendment was offered by Sen. Jim DeMint March 13, 2008 It failed 45-51
* Voted NO on Allowing Americans the Freedom to Purchase Health Insurance Across State Lines. HR 976. This would allow Americans to purchase individual health insurance across state lines. Offered by Sen Jim DeMint. Failed Aug 2, 2007 by a vote of 37-62
* Voted NO on Allowing Americans to Use Their Own HSA Funds to Cover Health Insurance Premiums. HR 2. The senate rejected an effort to allow Americans to use their tax-free Health Savings Account funds to purchase health insurance. Offered by John Ensign. Failed Jan 25, 2007 by a vote of 47-48
* Voted NO on Preventing the Erosion of Private Health Coverage. S.Amdt. 2537 to S. Amdt. 2530 to HR 976. The senate rejected an effort to minimize the erosion of private health coverage. Offered by John Kyl on Aug 2, 2007. Lost by a vote of 37-62
* Voted NO on Expanding Access to Small business Health Plans. On motion to invoke cloture on the Committee Amendment. The senate rejected an effort to allow for the expansion of health-care access and reduced costs through the creation of small business health plans and through the modernization of the health insurance marketplace. May 11, 2006 Voted down 55-32
* Voted NO on Preserving Employer-Sponsored Coverage. S. Amdt. 2596 to S. Amdt 2530 to HR 976. The senate rejected an effort that would require individuals who are eligible for SCHIP and employer-sponsored coverage to use the employer-sponsored coverage instead of SCHIP. The amendment offered by David Vitter failed on Aug. 2, 2007 by a vote of 35-64
* Lastly, voted NO on Requiring Health Insurance for Illegal Immigrants. The senate rejected an effort to require illegal immigrants seeking “Z Visas” to maintain a minimum level of health coverage. Offered by Jim Demint on June 6, 2007. Lost by a vote of 43-55.
As to Immigration, do you remember the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill proposed, and backed by a Republican President, that almost took McCain out of the running for the Presidency for 2008? It was a compromise with the Democrats, with the Democrats gaining what they wanted, while going against what Republicans stand for. The Democrats don't compromise, they want all or nothing, and in the Immigration bill they were going to get it.
As to Education, do you remember No Child Left Behind, which was passed and signed into law by a Republican President. It has been a very expensive, dismal failure. Unfortunately the Democrats voted to renew it, as no Government program started, ever goes away, no matter how bad it has worked out. The Liberals took over education in this country as far back as at least the 60's. We no longer have education, we now have indoctrination. From what I hear, the students aren't even taught Civics anymore, as well as The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The NEA controls the education system in this country, and they are not elected, but heavily supported by the Democrats. How would you propose the Republicans change the system?
As to energy independence, we will never be energy independent, the types of energy delivery may change, but we will always need energy. A Republican president supported "alternative" energy when subsidizing the research of Ethanol, and later it continued with the subsidies to Corporations such as Archer Daniels. Food prices immediately spiked. One thing Bush did not do was to support the Kyoto Protocol, which has been proven to be yet another failure. The countries that did sign on, have since backed off. They understand that setting such high mandates will bankrupt their countries. The Republicans have also been in control when "clean coal technology" was being researched, but, now abandoned by the Democrats. Remember they don't compromise. Bush also lifted the ban on off shore drilling, but the Dems and environmentalists made the whole permitting process, and the sale of leases so onerous that it would take years to extract the first drop of oil. Remember the "moderate" Republican McCain also was against drilling where we know we have oil and gas on land. That is an exact example of "compromising" with the Democrats, with the Democrats winning the issue hands down. By the time the "alternatives" are even feasible and cost effective, we will still be spending tons of money to buy foreign oil. Think Brazil- Obama is "loaning" Petrobras $2 billion dollars to develope their off-shore drilling sites where they found oil off their coasts. So much goes for oil being so terrible, polluting and having any effect on "Global Warming", which the "moderate" McCain has bought into. Is that your kind of "moderate"?
The reason this country has been so successful with our type of governing system for over 200 years is because we have historically been a moral people, which use good moral convictions to guide us, and define the terms right and wrong. Because the 60's onslaught of "if it feels good, do it" and the new moral relativity being pushed by the "moral revolutionaries" the compass is no longer relevant. You may feel that Gays have the right to the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples, my question to that is are you supporting a "zero growth" population theory. Last I heard, gay couples cannot procreate. Gays absolutely have the right to leave everything they own to their lover, they can do whatever they want behind closed doors, and they should not be ostracized by society as some sort of freaks. To be allowed to marry is for no other reason other than from a benefits issue.
You believe that this country should be run strictly based on what the Constitution allows, and I couldn't agree more. The Constitution protects life. I read it to mean all life from conception to natural death. Do you see abortion as a "convenience" for those that lack responsibility to prevent it? Do you believe that a developing child with known challenges is less human that anyone else? I actually knew a girl many years ago that went to Planned Parenthood for abortions 3 "three" times, until they finally asked her if abortion was her form of birth control. Years later when she finally married, and wanted to start a family, she was devasted that she lost every child she became pregnant with.
Kim Simons said:George,
I agree with you! I think we're on the same page, and I'm probably doing a miserable job of explaining my position. I did have a headache yesterday, but I think it's because I just had the house painted and not some virus. :)
I'm not sure what a moderate is. Is it someone who is slightly more liberal on social issues or someone who is slightly more liberal on fiscal issues? There are several prominent Republican's that I can think of who are quite conservative socially but fiscally squishy. Does that make them moderates? I don't know. Is the only true conservative one who is both fiscally and socially conservative? I don't know. I can only tell you what I believe and hope that there's a place for me in the party.
I've never felt uncomfortable around Republican's because of my admittedly liberal opinions on social issues. I also don't wear those opinions on my sleeve and don't actively engage in debates with other Republican's about those issues. I just a door knocking, phone calling, cash donating team member - I'm not someone anyone in the party would ask for an opinion or care much either way. But I think the party has gone astray in recent years - in part because we've held the banner of conservatism but not really known what that meant.
Like you, I believe the Constitution is our guiding document.
I think abortion is a legislative issue because there is no individual right to abortion in the Constitution. I think it's a state legislative issue because the right to legislate such issues is was not conveyed to the US Congress in the Constitution. Gay Marriage or civil unions, in my opinion, are also state issues for the same reasons.
Where I agree with the original poster is that sometimes it seems like the party refuses to even discuss issues that are outside it's comfort zone, and we've given control over those issues to the Democrats. Four big issues pop right out at me - health care, immigration, energy independence, and education.
We're facing the health care battle now in part because the GOP did nothing to address it when it was in power. We'll be facing a battle on immigration soon because the GOP failed address the issue when we had a chance. We're facing a fight against Cap and Trade because the GOP failed to address energy independence when we had the chance. We've all but given up on education and now we've got failing public schools and the Obama Education Department poised to dictate nationwide academic standards for Math and English and mandate a federal assessment to every state which accepts federal dollars for education.
These, in my opinion, are the big issues facing the party. Toss the economy and national security in and you've got the big 6 issues facing us right now.
I hope the national party is discussing these issues. I hope the state parties are. I hope the local parties are. Because these are the big issues. And if the GOP candidate from my state isn't addressing these issues then he / she probably won't get elected. The banner of social and fiscal conservatism will only carry them so far, but then they've got to pony up and show that there's more behind them than a slogan.
George Daily said:OMG, it's the abortion and gay marriage thing again. I think its gotta be due to some sort of virus. Ok, ok, ok.... Sorry! I just can't understand the fixation with these two issues. Neither one matters a hill of beans campared to the really dreadful problems facing our nation today. Its really frustrating.
Thanks for your reply. I think I get it now. What it boils down to is that "moderate" Republicans are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and some moderates, if not all, are uncomfortable with Republicans who are not and vice versa.
Here's the real deal as I see it; It does not matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage or what I think or what anyone thinks except the nine people on the Supreme Court. The democratic solutions to these issues were taken from the people by the courts. We cannot say it's over and this is the way it is, because these political questions are denied a political resolution.
So, though I might argue with parts of your points, why bother? Neither one of us will ever have a vote in the matter and neither will those we help elect. Am I wrong?
© 2022 Created by Tom Whitmore.
Powered by
