RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

I always think when I visit this site or attend Republican Party functions, if there is any room for moderate voices in the party? Although, I do have conservative values in most of my thinking, I am not totally entrenched in them. I believe that there is a time to raise taxes. I believe there is a time to limit gun ownership. I believe there is a time to allow abortion. I find it ironic that those who are fervently against abortion in all cases are way past their child bearing days and please understand that I am not making light of this issue as I am generally against abortion.
I thought that after the many recent defeats by the Republicans in local, state wide and federal elections we would start getting smarter, but sometimes I have my doubts.
I hear leaders in our party state that we are making strides in making this party a more diverse party and then I look around the room and feel I am in a corporate board room.
We have an opportunity with the upcoming elections to bring more people in the party with the election of candidates such as Bob McDonnell, but I wonder if we will find a way to screw it up.
I would like to see if others share my views on this or if I am a lone fish in a sea of sharks.

Views: 74

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for clarifying your points Brian and in some cases I agree that these things do alienate people who are otherwise Republican. There is a converse to that as well in that many people who are fiscally liberal (primarilly because they are poor and have grown up reliant on public assistance) would agree with the Republicans on issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, and the Religious basis of our founding.

Abortion - This issue is as much about a strict interpretation of the Constitution as it is about the infants rights. We need to support candidates that understand that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in assuming a right in the Constitution that wasn't there and ignoring the unborns rights that were there. No we cannot make new laws banning abortion. That is unless we are willing to stand up as a state and tell the federal government that the supreme court overstepped its bounds. I personally am waiting for some state to step up to the plate and defy the supreme court when it steps on states rights. Last I checked we are living in the last state to do that.

Gay Marriage- Because this is a licensing issue it is best left up to the people of each state to decide. That said it is a dangerous road for this country to go down and it is important that we keep the message out there. It is clear that if the decenting views are not loud enough then Hollywood will continue to push its view of morality on the younger generation and our nation will disintegrate from within. We would therefore be foolish to accept any candidate who will speak on the state or national stage in favor of Homosexual rights of any kind. Homosexuals are not a race, they are people who have chosen and disgraceful lifestyle. They have no special rights under the constitution. Quite the contrary a business owner should be protected from being forced to hire a person based on the fear that not hiring them due to sexual orientation could result in an unwanted lawsuit. To me that fact that a person thinks Homosexual behavior is OK is a big enough personality flaw to justify my not hiring them.

We will have people in this party who may agree with the other side on these two divisive issues. I hope to change their minds while welcoming their votes. I also understand they may wish to change my party's platform to agree with their views. It is my responsibility to elect party leaders who will bring in everyone while keeping the party on the same page as the majority of its members.

The most important thing we need right now is a LEADER. Not an organizer or fundraiser, those will follow naturally. We need the next Ronald Reagan and we'd better find him fast. This is the state of Thomas Jefferson. If he is still here would he please step forward.
Let's get back to the core issue here: GOP "moderates" think our party has had our butt kicked in recent contests because we haven't acted enough like Democrats, while the conservatives among us insist that the way to win again is to act more like Republicans.

That's why I resist people like Brian and Nick; they basically do not identify themselves as Republicans except in name only and on topics where they can avoid drawing clear lines, and they will cave in to the left on more controversial issues so as to pander to whoever they think will like/vote for them for abandoning their base and scuttling the principles that we instinctively rally around. Arlen Specter, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George W. Bush, the list goes on and on.

As Mark said, we don't need any more RINO's, we're already overrun and listing fast because of them. We need real Republicans to energize and rally the base; to show that it's right and safe and popular to vote Republican again, because we aren't afraid to take stands.
BRINO says he's pro-life--but he doesn't think it's worthwhile to fight to protect the lives of defenseless unborn children; says the matter has already been settled at SCOTUS, so what's the point of taking it up as an issue? That's right, just abandon the field to the enemy, run away, avoid conflict, claim to be pro-life, but refuse to engage the issue because it's just inconvenient. Give me a freakin' break.

Admit that what you really are is pro-choice, Brian. You are accepting that the law of the land is abortion on demand as a right(!), while you accuse those of us that resist that status quo as being some kind of quixotic and avatistic demagogues.

Sandy's right--you're strictly a libertarian in heart and soul, but you don't want to be left out of membership in a major party, so you pretend to be pro-life while refusing to join the battle to save babies from murderers.

Just you watch what happens to this country as this gay marriage issue gets more and more contentious--we will see a conservative groundswell like nothing we've witnessed before.
That's right Nick.

Brian,

You named 3 things that happened during the last Presidency that led to our losing this past election; an unpopular war and mishandling of Iraq, poor management in Katrina, and spending.

I definately agree with one of those things. In Iraq, we took down a ruthless dictator who at one time plotted to kill a sitting President and had attacked his neigbors in an attempt to monopolize middle eastern oil. We destroyed the worlds 4th largest army at a cost of fewer than 5000 U.S. lives including post war. Our only problem with Iraq was one of public relations. We are seeing now that this war was a good idea and was an astounding success. Now we'll see if the real "next Vietnam" which is Afganistan can be handled as well by Obama.

We should never have allowed any post Katrina strife to be laid at the foot of the Bush administration. The local government of a major city failed and that was all democrat. The state government failed which too was run by democrats. A bunch of whiney welfare state losers proved that living in a welfare state only makes you dependant on the government for every need. You need look no further than the 4 devastating storms that hit Florida the year prior and the devastating storm that hit Houston this past year to see how Republicans handle such disasters.

As far as the spending goes Bush needed to grow a pair and say "look, I'm sorry if seniors cannot afford their drugs, but it is not a function of Government to supply them to you. Even if it was we haven't the money to do it." These drugs didn't exist 15 years ago. Now because they do exist you somehow have a right to them? All this was was a payout to the drug companies and an attempt to look bipartisan. W probably made more effort to be bipartisan than any President in recent history and look what it got him.

Bush also managed to disintigrate the conservative base by his stance on immigration reform, his inability to follow through on the defense of marriage ammendment, reforming of social security, and the school voucher program, and his general inablility to make a rousing inspirational speach that contained half way coherent ideas.

There is no evidence that we have ever lost an election when there was a true leader of the conservative movement. The problem with moderates is that they are the ones who vote against people like Tom Tanchredo (sorry for the spelling) or Fred Thompson so that we end up with candidates like John McCain. That is why conservatives have problems with the "moderates" that like to call themselves republicans. By the time we get to a general election we're stairing at Arlan Specter, Olympia Snow, and Suzanne Collins and have no choice but to vote for them.
Mark- You are correct that moderates vote against those with conservative values and principles such as Fred Thompson, who was also a statesman and a Federalist. I like that the argument against some issues seems to boil down to "You can't do anything about it at the state level anyway, so just abandon the issues" which is such a cop out it's laughable. Virginia would have had alot to say about making it's own decisions, as well as every other state, had those that discounted Thompson listened to what he was saying. He was too "Conservative" for the moderate squishes.

Mark, I disagree with your last statement that "we wind up with the likes of Specter, Snowe and Collins, and have no choice but to vote for them." I had to wear a gas mask to the voting booth to vote against Obama. I won't do that again, and many many others won't either. Voting for the lesser of the evils is getting pretty dang old. If we keep backing and supporting RINOS, then we just keep getting what we deserve. In Specter's last re-election campaign, he was challenged by a Conservative, Pat Toomey. When Specter was lookingt bad, Bush went in and helped push him into a win. That's the kind of thing that must stop. No Mark, you don't have to vote for someone just because he/she has an R behind their name. It's up to the party to promote and support good conservative candidates, and help get them elected, and withhold support from those that believe the party's principles are changeable.

Like Fred Thompson said- "My Principles don't depend on where I am standing, I stand on my Principles wherever I am."

Mark Collins said:
That's right Nick.

Brian,

You named 3 things that happened during the last Presidency that led to our losing this past election; an unpopular war and mishandling of Iraq, poor management in Katrina, and spending.

I definately agree with one of those things. In Iraq, we took down a ruthless dictator who at one time plotted to kill a sitting President and had attacked his neigbors in an attempt to monopolize middle eastern oil. We destroyed the worlds 4th largest army at a cost of fewer than 5000 U.S. lives including post war. Our only problem with Iraq was one of public relations. We are seeing now that this war was a good idea and was an astounding success. Now we'll see if the real "next Vietnam" which is Afganistan can be handled as well by Obama.

We should never have allowed any post Katrina strife to be laid at the foot of the Bush administration. The local government of a major city failed and that was all democrat. The state government failed which too was run by democrats. A bunch of whiney welfare state losers proved that living in a welfare state only makes you dependant on the government for every need. You need look no further than the 4 devastating storms that hit Florida the year prior and the devastating storm that hit Houston this past year to see how Republicans handle such disasters.

As far as the spending goes Bush needed to grow a pair and say "look, I'm sorry if seniors cannot afford their drugs, but it is not a function of Government to supply them to you. Even if it was we haven't the money to do it." These drugs didn't exist 15 years ago. Now because they do exist you somehow have a right to them? All this was was a payout to the drug companies and an attempt to look bipartisan. W probably made more effort to be bipartisan than any President in recent history and look what it got him.

Bush also managed to disintigrate the conservative base by his stance on immigration reform, his inability to follow through on the defense of marriage ammendment, reforming of social security, and the school voucher program, and his general inablility to make a rousing inspirational speach that contained half way coherent ideas.

There is no evidence that we have ever lost an election when there was a true leader of the conservative movement. The problem with moderates is that they are the ones who vote against people like Tom Tanchredo (sorry for the spelling) or Fred Thompson so that we end up with candidates like John McCain. That is why conservatives have problems with the "moderates" that like to call themselves republicans. By the time we get to a general election we're stairing at Arlan Specter, Olympia Snow, and Suzanne Collins and have no choice but to vote for them.
Brian is right in that we need to run candidates that are capable of winning in the areas where they are being voted on. This is also the whole idea of Representative Government. The candidate should represent the ideals of the people whom they represent. It is also necessary to understand the importance of having the majority regardless of how each individual votes. This is a fact of how our government works. It is in the power of the chair to prevent or stop debate.

Where I think he is wrong is in assuming that people are moderates. A vast majority of American citizens have no opinion on politics and wouldn't know a democrat or republican from a cheesecake. I am from Massachusetts and as popular as the Red Sox are it is a minority of the populous of the state that actually care about any sports. We all follow politics very closely but the vast majority do not. The truth is that most Americans do agree with conservative stances when they are actually confronted with reasoned arguments. That is why Reagan didn't just win. Every now and then I like to pull up his electoral maps and laugh at how the Dems think Obama had such a resounding victory. Reagan made the conservative arguments to the people in a way that made them think and say "Yea...I agree with that.".

We need to fight for conservative candidates in the primary and then support the primary winner in the general election. The damage done by having a democrat with whom you agree with nothing is much worse than voting in a Republican with whom you disagree with on a few things.

On Specter, NO HE GETS NO CREDIT. I didn't credit Manny Ramirez for hitting the skin off of the baseball for the Dodgers last year when he knew he was playing for a contract. Specter is up for reelection so now he's pandering. He is not for smaller government. For that matter neither is anyone who's been there for as long as he has. TERM LIMITS ANYONE???

On Thompson I agree with you Brian. He did run a half hearted campaign. It is unfortunate that people do not vote on ideas because his were great and he had a track record to back it up. I also believe he could have been that man that spoke those ideas in a way that turned people. His lack of ambition for the job I found admirable but it doesn't lend well to getting a majority of voters. I would rather have someone who wants his ideals in the Whitehouse then someone who just cares about having wednesday night parties there.

Sandy,

I'm not sure Brian is so much of a moderate, he's just not an idealist as we are. I think the question "Room for moderate voices?" though sounds too much like someone trying to keep the party from moving to the right. I think the back and forth between moderates and staunch conservatives is healthy. If we all believe in states rights we can have states that are moderately republican and those that are conservative. As long as when we get to Washington we push for smaller federal government and increased power to the states.
I think Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani both knew instinctively that there was no point in killing themselves for a practically certain loss; they understood that the pendulum was swinging so hard and fast back in the direction of the communists that there wasn't a Republican on Earth that could've won--even Ronald Reagan himself would've lost to Obongo, that's how badly people wanted to give the communists a chance at the White House again after 8 years of what they thought was a conservative...

And Mark, what you said about the elected official representing the ideals of the people they represent--that is scary when you think about the dumbed-down and degraded state of the electorate nowadays...check out the movie "Idiocracy" for a good laugh/cry...we are living in a society where most leading law schools eagerly recruit and admit 97% of barely or marginally literate black applicants, while only 3% of highly qualified white males gain admission. Diversity trumps competence everywhere, and we are now seeing the consequences of an entire economic engine oriented toward "fairness" and home ownership for everyone regardless of ability to pay. And don't get started about greed and Wall Street and all that; the derivatives debacle, the yuppie house-flippers, etc. would never have metastisized the way it all did if only the race-hustling shakedown hate-whitey communists in government hadn't forced and encouraged and back-stopped banks into making all those bad loans--Wall Street has merely been trying to find creative ways to mitigate and even profit from the runaway affirmative-action economic schemes of Bill Clinton, Brokeback Obongo, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Donald- I really like your thoughts on the Thompson Guliani lack of heavy and hard campaigning because they knew the pulse of the country, and, that any Republican didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Never thought of it that way. Both were not dummies, lazy, or lacking in campaigning skills. Long before Thompson entered the race, he was being touted as the next Reagan, which scared the crap out of the Libs. He was labeled as lazy, had a trophy wife and really didn't want the job which was orchestrated by the Libs and Lib media. Unfortunately, many easily swayed Republicans bought all of the trash talk, just as they have done with the Palin manufactured scandal after scandal, including believing that "Palin" said she could see Russia from her porch, even though it was Tina Fey who said that. Any Republican that gets any attention will be trashed, bashed and thown under the bus by the media, and, those that don't really look for the truth, buy into the notion that they are "damaged goods." The moderates that have no interest in Conservative Principles as to the Social Leg of Reagans stool also trash talk those that have Socially Conservative values.

Something I wonder about, who wrote the Virginia Republican Platform which I listed above? It was adopted in 2008.
That's not so long ago that it should be in the dustheap. My thoughts are, if you don't agree with the majority of it, then don't run for office. If you don't agree with the majority of it, stop trying to change it to suit your particular beliefs. The major split in the party is most assuredly within the Social values and principles. If you are in New York, New Jersey or the most red areas of Virginia, these are the principles of the Republicans, run candidates that will not waver on those principles, or pander to an area that is notoriously Liberal because that's what that area wants. Stay true to principles, fight the good fight, and the Republican's will win.

Brian, you have mentioned that you were an appointee of Bush. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was so rejected in November, it is responsible for many major losses throughout the country, yet, you still post on here as though it is the only way to go. Have you learned absolutely nothing about how Bush, for one, was the most devasting loser cause in this last election? What part of NO do you not understand? You post on here as though you are a trained Robot.

te>Donald Joy said:
I think Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani both knew instinctively that there was no point in killing themselves for a practically certain loss; they understood that the pendulum was swinging so hard and fast back in the direction of the communists that there wasn't a Republican on Earth that could've won--even Ronald Reagan himself would've lost to Obongo, that's how badly people wanted to give the communists a chance at the White House again after 8 years of what they thought was a conservative...

And Mark, what you said about the elected official representing the ideals of the people they represent--that is scary when you think about the dumbed-down and degraded state of the electorate nowadays...check out the movie "Idiocracy" for a good laugh/cry...we are living in a society where most leading law schools eagerly recruit and admit 97% of barely or marginally literate black applicants, while only 3% of highly qualified white males gain admission. Diversity trumps competence everywhere, and we are now seeing the consequences of an entire economic engine oriented toward "fairness" and home ownership for everyone regardless of ability to pay. And don't get started about greed and Wall Street and all that; the derivatives debacle, the yuppie house-flippers, etc. would never have metastisized the way it all did if only the race-hustling shakedown hate-whitey communists in government hadn't forced and encouraged and back-stopped banks into making all those bad loans--Wall Street has merely been trying to find creative ways to mitigate and even profit from the runaway affirmative-action economic schemes of Bill Clinton, Brokeback Obongo, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
I have just returned from my therapist in order to tend to my broken self esteem after seeing all of these attacks on me personally. To be truthful, I am pretty thick skinned and these attacks or comments do not bother me, rather I am entertained by them. I guess serving my country for over 20 years in the US Army has allowed me to accept the fact that we are a country of diverse opinions and ideologies. Unfortunately, this recent discussion thread has reinforced what I thought and that is some people are intolerant to other views affecting our maturity as a political party.
In reexamining my initial question of whether the Republican Party, as it exists today, has room for moderate voices, I had hoped what I thought would be an opportunity to open critical dialogue at a crucial junction of our continued significance as a political organization. I took this time to understand or perhaps reflect on what my principles are? I have come to the correct analysis that I am and always have been a Republican. I do not consider myself a RINO as I and many others who have the courage to express views that may be at odds with the right wing of the party, have been called. Am I a strict gun control activist? Although I believe in the right to bear arms, I believe that there should be some safe guards or controls on the ownership of an assault weapon.
I believe my views on abortion are pragmatic and not dogmatic in that I believe that although abortions are inherently evil, they are a necessary evil. Should abortions be offered if a women’s life is in danger? Absolutely. Should an abortion be offered in the case of rape or incest? Although this is a more difficult issue, I do believe this is a decision that should be made between the women and her doctor. I did make light that some of the most severe opponents of abortion are those who are beyond the age of child bearing and perhaps never had to make such a soul searching decision. I cannot understand or imagine what a woman has to go through to make such a difficult decision. Therefore, who am I to tell someone whether they have a right to have one.
We can go back and forth on where we all stand on issues especially when it is on social issues. However, I do believe that we should be fiscally conservative and no one can argue that many republicans have gone against this principle.
Does it do any good to make vitriolic comments against others in trying to rebuild this party? I know what my answer is and those of some others who share my views. Unfortunately there are some who are willing to adhere to unattainable principles.
Take a look back at recent elections in Virginia. Not too many victories, are there? Do we continue course as a rudderless ship or redirect our energies to take back our state and country? I moved down to Virginia from Pennsylvania a few years ago for the military and decided to make Virginia my home. In those few short years, have witnessed many changes. The makeup of Virginia has changed, especially in northern Virginia. Who would have thought that Obama would have carried Virginia or even to have done so well in Hampton Roads, where I live?
I know I wish to be part of the regrowth of the Republican Party. However sadly there are some who are so intolerant in their views, they will be satisfied to attack others and see the party collapse, then to strengthen the party or each out to others.
Well, I believe that I have done my part. Now, let's see if we can have an intelligent discussion as Republicans. I feel "most" of us here can.
Mark- You really need to stop giving two to get agreement on one. The Iraq War was unpoplur because the population has been dumded down to think that people can co-exist with flowers, love for eveyone, everyone is equal and we all need to share in a good bong and everything will be just fine. We could/should have won the Vietnam War, but the Liberals in the 60's just couldn't believe that any American or other blood should have been shed to stop Communism. The Liberal media didn't just get their act together for Nobama, the hippies, and peace lovers started this long ago. "Give peace a chance." Do you really believe that Ahmadinejad or Kim Jon Ill or Chavez will "give peace a chance? Do you really believe that Hussien wanted to "give peace" a chance as he was gasing and chemically killing his own population that didn't agree with him?

As to Katrina, are you unaware that Pres. Bush and Chertoff had asked K. Blanco (Gov. Louisana) before the hurricane hit if she needed help? She said NO, and I believe Ray Nagin, New Orleans Mayor also said NO. Seems to me that the major fault lies with Blanco. The areas in the ward which sit in the area where the dikes broke are still not up to speed with rebuilding the dykes. The assessment has been that it should not be rebuilt as they sit below the sea level. I believe that it was an area that was once under water, but, in order to gain more saleable land, they drained and sold the properties. Isn't that like asking for trouble, yet, those that owned those properties are still lokking for money to rebuild in that area. Why?

Mark- You are being unclear with your positions. Either you stand strong on what you believe or you don't. You seem to have a need to agree just to keep a discussion going. To be true to principle, take one side or the other, please, you can't be a little pregnant.

Mark Collins said:
Brian is right in that we need to run candidates that are capable of winning in the areas where they are being voted on. This is also the whole idea of Representative Government. The candidate should represent the ideals of the people whom they represent. It is also necessary to understand the importance of having the majority regardless of how each individual votes. This is a fact of how our government works. It is in the power of the chair to prevent or stop debate.

Where I think he is wrong is in assuming that people are moderates. A vast majority of American citizens have no opinion on politics and wouldn't know a democrat or republican from a cheesecake. I am from Massachusetts and as popular as the Red Sox are it is a minority of the populous of the state that actually care about any sports. We all follow politics very closely but the vast majority do not. The truth is that most Americans do agree with conservative stances when they are actually confronted with reasoned arguments. That is why Reagan didn't just win. Every now and then I like to pull up his electoral maps and laugh at how the Dems think Obama had such a resounding victory. Reagan made the conservative arguments to the people in a way that made them think and say "Yea...I agree with that.".

We need to fight for conservative candidates in the primary and then support the primary winner in the general election. The damage done by having a democrat with whom you agree with nothing is much worse than voting in a Republican with whom you disagree with on a few things.

On Specter, NO HE GETS NO CREDIT. I didn't credit Manny Ramirez for hitting the skin off of the baseball for the Dodgers last year when he knew he was playing for a contract. Specter is up for reelection so now he's pandering. He is not for smaller government. For that matter neither is anyone who's been there for as long as he has. TERM LIMITS ANYONE???

On Thompson I agree with you Brian. He did run a half hearted campaign. It is unfortunate that people do not vote on ideas because his were great and he had a track record to back it up. I also believe he could have been that man that spoke those ideas in a way that turned people. His lack of ambition for the job I found admirable but it doesn't lend well to getting a majority of voters. I would rather have someone who wants his ideals in the Whitehouse then someone who just cares about having wednesday night parties there.

Sandy,

I'm not sure Brian is so much of a moderate, he's just not an idealist as we are. I think the question "Room for moderate voices?" though sounds too much like someone trying to keep the party from moving to the right. I think the back and forth between moderates and staunch conservatives is healthy. If we all believe in states rights we can have states that are moderately republican and those that are conservative. As long as when we get to Washington we push for smaller federal government and increased power to the states.
Nick, and Brian, and whoever other "moderates" might be flummoxed/alienated by the stridency of some of us more conservative posters--please take what I say(speaking for myself at least) in the spirit of the love of a good argument, the feistiness of a spirited joust if you will, rather than my wishing that you'd leave the party(I don't) or whatever...honestly, half the time when I'm posting somewhat inflammatory stuff on here it's with some degree of daring the moderators and the big chiefs of the GOP to just go ahead and run me out of the party as some sort of PR liability--because I truly hate political correctness and so I am always pushing the envelope and looking for ways to defy the PC gestapo.

Seriously, I am indeed so utterly sick and disgusted by what has happened to our culture and economic milieu because of the Orwellian, politically-correct Marxist regime that I'd actually just as soon have the higher-ups in the GOP make it plain that either a) people like me who refuse to pretend that all is Kumbayah; that "Islam is a religion of peace," and "diversity is our strength" aren't welcome anymore, so that then I'll at least know that there is no hope and I can then look for another party in earnest, or b) have some strong and clear and influential voices start giving support and protection to those of us who are willing to call spades, spades, and dispense with the damaging and twisted Salvador-Dali-esque dystopia of "political-correctness."
One significant problem in America is that most people, even so-called "conservative" Republicans, out of their good intentions, mistakenly believe that equal opportunity and liberty are compatible concepts...they are not.

The overwhelming majority, it is plain to me, simply have never really thought through the implications of the above concepts, haven't realized that they are mutually exclusive. Until the electorate comes to the reckoning that we must decide between liberty and equal opportunity, the Marxists will mainly carry the day, because it has become a philosophical taboo to even contemplate that "equal opportunity" could be anything other than a good thing for our society/economy...it is not. Liberty surely is.

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