RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

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.

Views: 87

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I just don't believe, as many Republicans apparantly do, that you can out-liberal a liberal and be true to the Constitution or conservative Republican principles at the same time. The former negates that latter. And, I don't believe that just because a Democrat proposes a statist policy that it creates an obligation in Republcans to come up with one as well. Not only does following that course advance the "soft" tyranny and fascism of the left, it produces exceedingly poor outcomes, diminishes liberty and results in minority status for the Republican Party. If the strategy suggested is for the Republican Party to be the political party constantly striving to make terrible ideas somewhat less terrible it will never succeed. That, to coin a phrase, is putting lipstick on a pig. I suggest that the Republican Party should promote a new idea that has been tried only briefly and intermittently in our history. It's called a Constitutional Republic and it works. Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Washington and a bunch of dead white guys thought it up. Instead of the party of "no" to statist slavery the Republicans should be the party of "yes" to liberty, opportunity and justice. And, in the area of health care or education or energy or anything else the "Party of Yes" should push forward with Constitutional government, personal liberty and freedom from uncompetitive government restraints on progress. I defy anyone to show me any problem faced by the American people that was not created or made worse by government. If I am wrong, show me. If I am right, then the solutions to those problems are self-evident.

Sandy Cope said:
Hey George- What flavor is your sand, since we have both been told that that is where our anterior ends are residing.

Kim- What is your position on national defense? That seems to be one area that you have not mentioned squat about. It is an important issue right? The Constitution does in fact cover the responsibility for protecting the American people from attacks from without, and within. What is your position with respect to national defense?
Cynical is as cynical does, Sandy.

I find it rather shocking that mentioning that there might be problems facing the GOP engenders such attacks at people who support the party.

Perhaps it's attitudes like this which resulted in the parties abject failure to do anything on a national level both before and after the Democrats took control. Perhaps it's attitudes like this which resulted in so many American's turning away from the GOP. They may be coming back now, because the Democrats have showed their true nature, but I wonder how many are coming back to the GOP because they think it has a vision for the future which will make things better or because they're running from the Democrats.

Either way you guys have made it abundantly clear that you think everything is just fine and dandy with the GOP. That disregarding problems in education or health care is just fine because the Constitution doesn't grant the US Congress the right to intervene in those areas. That may be fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but both our education system and health care system are about the nationalized because the GOP did nothing to address problems in them when they had the chance.

BTW - admitting that there are problems in the education and health care systems doesn't mean that the solutions you suggest for resolving them are federal. A President can openly discuss the problems in the education system on a national scale and suggest approaches to resolving those problems which are left to the states.

The Constitution doesn't say to put blinders on.


Sandy Cope said:
Kim- What is your position on national defense? That seems to be one area that you have not mentioned squat about. It is an important issue right? The Constitution does in fact cover the responsibility for protecting the American people from attacks from without, and within. What is your position with respect to national defense?
Kim -
I have not attacked you.
I have not said that the Republican Party does not have problems.
I have not mischaracterized what you have written as in, "Either way you guys have made it abundantly clear that you think everything is just fine and dandy with the GOP." I don't think that and I don't appreciate anyone mischaracterizing what I've written.
I have not disregarded problems in education or health care.
I have not said, nor do I propose that the Constitution says to put blinders on.
I am disappointed that you have not been responsive to my posts. I am George and Sandy is Sandy.
I do believe that you and I and Sandy are on much the same page though we have yet to read from the same paragraph largely because the conversation has drifted all over the plance instead of flowing logically.
I do believe that the Republican Party can and should propose solutions to education, health care and any other issue of importance to the American People.
What I began to describe previously is a strategy for dealing with those problems in a positive way, Constitutionally and not as the "party of no". Which is, unless I am mistake, an idea contained in your post below.

Kim Simons said:
Cynical is as cynical does, Sandy.

I find it rather shocking that mentioning that there might be problems facing the GOP engenders such attacks at people who support the party.

Perhaps it's attitudes like this which resulted in the parties abject failure to do anything on a national level both before and after the Democrats took control. Perhaps it's attitudes like this which resulted in so many American's turning away from the GOP. They may be coming back now, because the Democrats have showed their true nature, but I wonder how many are coming back to the GOP because they think it has a vision for the future which will make things better or because they're running from the Democrats.

Either way you guys have made it abundantly clear that you think everything is just fine and dandy with the GOP. That disregarding problems in education or health care is just fine because the Constitution doesn't grant the US Congress the right to intervene in those areas. That may be fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but both our education system and health care system are about the nationalized because the GOP did nothing to address problems in them when they had the chance.

BTW - admitting that there are problems in the education and health care systems doesn't mean that the solutions you suggest for resolving them are federal. A President can openly discuss the problems in the education system on a national scale and suggest approaches to resolving those problems which are left to the states.

The Constitution doesn't say to put blinders on.


Sandy Cope said:
Kim- What is your position on national defense? That seems to be one area that you have not mentioned squat about. It is an important issue right? The Constitution does in fact cover the responsibility for protecting the American people from attacks from without, and within. What is your position with respect to national defense?
Kim- I wish to almost mimic George's post above. I have not attacked you, I have stated my beliefs, offered some examples, and asked questions. I have said repeatedly throughout my posts that the GOP/Republicans have problems, I used as examples No Child Left Behind, and the Immigration bill cosponsored by a Republican Senator, John McCain, and supported by a Republican president, and, I will add here the TARP bailout fiasco. You have also mischaracterized my comments. And, you have not answered any of my valid questions. I would also add that neither George nor muself have given an hint at all that we are not active in staying abreast of the political environment, and the Liberal policies being proposed.George is correct in his assessment that the discussion has gone all over the board. Kim, I believe you are a new member on RPV, and, you have missed some lively and informative debates that have taken place over the time that this website has been in existence. While George surely can speak for himself, I will say that George has always had knowledgeble comments, which are always stated articulately, and with the utmost respect in his replies.

So, now can we get down to a discussion which shares ideas, looks at one issue at a time, and pick apart what is wrong, and what is right with each of those issues? We can agree to disagree, we are adults, and as George has said, we seem to be mostly on the same page with much. We are all afraid of what is happening with the current crop of Liberals in Congress and the White House.

As to the Healthcare issue, here is the link to the Republican bill, H.R. 3400, Empowering Patients First Act-

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3400:

Here is a very short summary of the bill, which I have copied from a local Tea Party site, written by a local doctor, who is against Obamacare, which you will no doubt see at the end of his post-

Some of the provisions of HR 3400 include:
1. Tort reform. Specifically, do away with the current system and allow patients to purchase no-fault medical accident insurance when they come in contact with the health care system. At lease then they will be reimbursed for actual losses incurred when complications occur. Currently, most plaintiffs lose at trial and never get compensated at all. Only a very few “win big” which is bankrupting the system. The lawyers walk away the only winners in the current system.
2. Non profit, member run regional health care coops. This transfers a part of the fiduciary responsibility for health care to the patient.
3. Require more cost transparency of the hospitals and physicians. Patients should know how much they are consuming before they consent to any procedure.
4. Give patients the same tax breaks that business gets. Tax deductible premiums and health care spending with no minimum.
5. Allow patients to avoid bankruptcy if they pay a minimum amount monthly on their medical bills. When I was in medical school, my wife had an emergency surgery and we had no health insurance. I was allowed by the hospital to pay $25 per month and they promised not to push me if I maintained those payments. Eventually, I was able to pay the entire bill and avoided any bankruptcy proceedings.
6. Require illegal immigrants seeking “Z Visas” to maintain a minimum level of health coverage.
7. Require individuals who are eligible for SCHIP and employer-sponsored coverage to use the employer-sponsored coverage instead of SCHIP.
8. Allow for the expansion of health care access and reduced costs through the creation of small business health plans and through modernization of the health insurance marketplace. This would be extremely powerful as small business could then “pool” to larger, more powerful negotiating position.
9. Allow Americans to purchase individual health insurance across state lines. This would immediately increase competition and bring prices down. There would need to be some standardization requirements but this could happen easily.
10. Allow for an above-the-line federal income tax deduction for individuals who do not receive health insurance through their employers.
11. Don’t wait to clean up Medicare. If the administration and Nancy Pelosi are being truthful about the waste and fraud in Medicare, I find it unconscionable that they are just allowing this to go on while the health care debate rages. They could gain a lot of credibility with the American people if they removed the $550 Billion in waste now, while the debate continues. Of course, if the $550 Billion in savings is really from reductions in payments to doctors and hospitals and limits on benefits, then I understand why they are doing nothing now.

So, you see there are a lot of solutions out there that do not turn this country in to a socialist democracy with all citizens dependent on the federal government. Bottom line: if HR3200 passes, and a similar bill passes in the Senate, we are finished as a free, capitalist country. There will be so many people dependent on the government that the democrats will enjoy single party rule for years to come. Who would vote for a republican that is only going to cut the apron strings to the federal breadline? That is why this socialist agenda MUST BE STOPPED.
_____________________________________________________________

I admittedly have not read the entire bill, as I am in the process of moving, and don't have much time right now. I promise I will read it in a week or so.

No bill should pass Congress without Tort reform, we must must get the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid under control immediately, I favor HSA's, Pre-existing condition situations are covered, and if coops were truly old fashioned types of coops without Federal involvement, I am all for them. What say you guys?
The summary of HR3400 contains the kind of provisions I'm talking about. These are examples of positive changes that do not require greater intrusion into the lives of citizens, correct inequities that exist in Federal law and are not extra-Constitutional. Government created the problems in healh care so the fix is obvious; remove the effects of market distortions introduced by government. Duh...
The Republican Party is not out of the woods by a long shot. The excesses of the Democrats have angered the public but Republicans are not necessarily going to be the long term beneficiaries without taking a different approach to governing. Reacting to Democrat proposals with tweaks and compromises doesn't cut it. Republicans should work agressively in all areas to take the lead on reverse-engineering the liberal agenda, incrementally if necessary, and doing so to advance the founding ideals.
Great individuals make a great people and a great people make a great nation, not the other way around as actually claimed by BHO. Looking at history, the advancement of liberty has been interruped much too frequently. Those periods of government dominance have caused the problems we now wish to solve. "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Goivernment is the problem."
In reply to Nick Skias' discussion seed:
IMHO, if all the members of a group have sufficient commitment to the groups purpose,
it will be widely understood throughout the group that
misconduct which may harm the group will not be winked at by ANY of the group’s members.

The matter can be viewed a like a hunter who handles a gun carelessly and so puts his fellows lives at risk - like that was no great thing.
The matter can be viewed like drunk driving.
Friends just don't let friends do it.
If you don't care about your friend that much . . .
It IS a big deal.
Intransigence after notice must at least be met by parting company unless the decision is tainted with a BIG self respect problem.
When the members of a political party wink at moral turpitude that may be a sure sign that the party has a BIG self respect problem.

Our military has always had to deal with this problem given the volume of new young recruits. Perhaps, we could learn something about the value of honor from them, perhaps we would respect ourselves better if we adopted some of our military's customs.

Consider:
“I, _______, do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitutions of the United States and Virginia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; AND
(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States and Virginia when required by the law, or
(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or
(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
(D) In particular I will diligently perform my obligations defined by 18USC4 and VA18.2-482
And that I take this vow freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of citizen and voter; and trusting with firm reliance on the Providence, Witness and Counsel of "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" I pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor. "


The vow is an amalgam of US and VA laws for oath of office & citizenship with particular reference to two particular laws establishing that we are LOYAL PATRIOTS and bound by law to zero tolerance of misconduct that is probably defined as a felony by US or Virginia Law. Also note the vow's essential repetition of the vow taken in our nation's birth certificate by its duly-authorized sovereign legislative authority.

Such a vow could serve to weld the members of a political party to an honor which includes zero tolerance of criminal misconduct by their associates.

Perhaps, the Republicans, like the Democrats, have been looking for unity in all the wrong places -
Perhaps, both parties, have been looking for moral ascendancy in all the wrong places as well.

The advantages of a Republican Oath of membership are compelling and the cost is insignificant.
The oath asks for knowing commitiment to those bonds of duty that exist already - it creates nothing new - it is just a commitment to what duty already is, and acceptance of the rights that are close-coupled with that duty.
Even so, it is a non-trivial matter of great benefit and insignificant cost.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2021   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service