Thank you, Arlen Specter. We appreciate that you finally joined the party you seem most likely to support on key issues.
This is the continuing of the purifying of the Republican party, and while losing a seat in this time when the Democrats are close to a super majority is painful, I think it is the beginning of the rebuilding of a truly conservative party. Senator Specter has for years frustrated true conservatives like myself, and has kept more conservative people from winning the seat he has held for 28 years. I recall when he ran back in 2004, and I was frustrated the President Bush campaigned for him against Pat Toomey in the primary. Specter won the primary, obviously, then the rest of the party had to bite their tongues, hold their noses, and vote for him, as the local standard bearer for the GOP. I thought that was bad then, and wonder how far it really got the party, in the long run.
I guess Senator Specter didn't like being in the minority this late in his career, and was neither sure he would win the primary, nor that the GOP would regain the majority during his next term. He may be right, but nothing in politics is certain these days.
So what can we learn from this? From Senator Specter's own words, he intended to stay with the GOP as late as March 17, 2009. As with President Obama, watch his actions, not his words. That is lesson one. Also, the GOP should not interfere with primary battles, but rather let the local people make a local choice, without outside heavy hitters influencing outcomes. I bet Toomey would have won Specter's seat if he had won the primary, and held it now, rather than switching parties for personal political gain.
Lest it seem that I am disparaging Senator Specter, I am saying he is doing this for personal gain base on his own words, that there needed to be a balance, not just a one-party representation for the Northeast. When he was appearing to be a committed Republican, Specter said all the right words when asked, but voted for higher spending, bailouts, and other things that are not conservative. Which words represent the true Specter: those that he said as a Republican, or those that he said as he switched to be a Democrat? One set, take your pick, was said for pure personal political gain.
So, Senator Specter, thanks for the help, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Next?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
GOP in a Battle for its Direction
I read an article that typifies for me the battle that the GOP finds itself in. You can find it from the link at the title of this post. The lines are drawn, and the party future is on the line. The party is going to have to decide if it is the party that is Democrat-Lite or Strongly Conservative.
In the article I read, McCain's former top campaign strategist Steve Schmidt laid out the argument for giving up our traditional values in search of voters. The values he wants us to drop are those that are based on the Bible, including our opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as strong border enforcement, which is not a Biblical issue. He worries that younger voters will not give up their liberal social views, even as they age and become more fiscally conservative. Mr. Schmidt sees the Latino vote swinging away from the GOP as we do not adopt positions that appeal to them as a voter block, which he doesn't detail in the article I read. His fear is that the party will be left with a shrinking voter pool, even if they keep the "indispensable" social conservatives.
I understand his argument, I think, yet it misses a large point or two.
First, in Mr. Schmidt's view, there is no point in keeping socially conservative positions as a party, if you don't win power. This misses the point that if you give up your socially conservative positions, there is no need for social conservatives to stay with the party. By dropping opposition to gay marriage, dropping opposition to abortion, and allowing illegal immigration, those who are motivated by those issues will feel disenfranchised, and will not support the party. Those people would have no reason to vote with the Republicans, because the issues they hold as having high importance would have no hope that their party would enact laws to support their views, which is the whole point of supporting a party. The social conservatives are not interested in keeping a party in power, they are interested in getting their views to become policy in the USA! If the Democrats supported their views, guess what? They would support the Democrats! Abortion is taking a life, and life is precious to those who are Pro-Life. Homosexuality is wrong to social conservatives, and if they can find a party that will tolerate (now there's a lost art these days!) homosexuality without promoting or accepting it, they can put their support behind that party. Truth be told, most social conservatives don't hate or even dislike immigrants, it's the breaking of the law that they don't like. Illegal immigration is breaking the law, pure and simple, and social Conservatives don't approve of law-breakers whether the law-breaker is Latino, European, Asian, Arabic, African, or even American. When we allow people to flout the law, the fabric of society begins to unravel, and Social Conservatives don't want that for our country. Not to mention the possibility that the next major terrorist attack could come across our borders illegally.
A word about "Tolerance". Tolerance is allowing a view or position on an issue to exist or persist without approving of it, in a moral sense. To "Tolerate" something is most accurately applied to social issues such as homosexuality. American tolerates things pretty well, or at least, we used to. Christians say homosexuality is wrong, but tolerate homosexuals, because we recognize their right to hold their views and live their lives according to them, as long as they don't force them upon society. What tolerance does not include is approval of the behavior being tolerated. When homosexuals want to participate in marriage, they have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that society affords to all Americans. There is not the moral equivalence of marriage in so-called Gay-marriage. This points to a more basic underlying theme about America, that it is founded by God-fearing people, and it's laws and morals are based on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Homosexuals try to win approval of society, and call it "hate" when their behavior is not accepted in the same way as heterosexuals behavior is. Hate is a pretty strong word, and it does not need to be demeaned by being used in place of disapproval. The Christian position, based on the Bible, is to hate the sin while loving the sinner. That is a practical description of tolerance. Most Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. They may feel sorry for them. They may dislike their chosen lifestyle. They may not want to have their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, or have them taught by homosexuals, but that is not "hate". If a Christian "hates" homosexuals, they need to get right with the Lord. Jesus didn't hate homosexuals, he didn't hate the woman at the well, who was living a sexually sinful life. He hated sin, and told sinners to go and sin no more. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery (BTW, where was the man?), but rather told her to go and sin no more. That should be the message of any loving person or group, including the GOP. Go and sin no more.
Alternatively, if the GOP does give up its socially conservative positions, to which I would add the Second Amendment Rights, First amendment rights of free speech, and the right to "pursue happiness" which encapsulates the goals of Capitalism, then there will be little difference between the parties. I suppose my biases are showing through, but I don't see how the GOP could win, much less prosper without those key socially conservative positions. A third party would arise, with the social conservatives in it, and the GOP party power would be split. Democrats would love that scenario, as they would have two or three more presidential cycle victories before either the GOP or some third party could mount any serious challenge for power. In that time, the Progressives and Liberals would so firmly plant the change of our country that it might not be able to recover.
In summary, the battle for the soul of the GOP (Great Opportunity Party) must be won by social Conservatives. We cannot afford to let the Democrats win, either by outright holding power into the indefinite future, nor by changing the GOP into a Democrat-lite party, which isn't significantly different from the Democrat party. The GOP needs to stand up for Conservative principles, social, fiscal, national security, border and immigration enforcement, free speech rights, right to own and bear arms, and to pursue happiness. If they can do that, unashamedly, they will attract scores of new voters, including legal Latino immigrants, African Americans, workers, Veterans, young voters who will be concerned about their financial futures, and of course, the base of the party. You will even attract thinking Homosexuals, because they will recognize that the best interests of the country and tolerance of their lifestyles are the best things for them personally. Otherwise, the GOP and the country are going to continue to go down in power and into irrelevance. God help us all!
In the article I read, McCain's former top campaign strategist Steve Schmidt laid out the argument for giving up our traditional values in search of voters. The values he wants us to drop are those that are based on the Bible, including our opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as strong border enforcement, which is not a Biblical issue. He worries that younger voters will not give up their liberal social views, even as they age and become more fiscally conservative. Mr. Schmidt sees the Latino vote swinging away from the GOP as we do not adopt positions that appeal to them as a voter block, which he doesn't detail in the article I read. His fear is that the party will be left with a shrinking voter pool, even if they keep the "indispensable" social conservatives.
I understand his argument, I think, yet it misses a large point or two.
First, in Mr. Schmidt's view, there is no point in keeping socially conservative positions as a party, if you don't win power. This misses the point that if you give up your socially conservative positions, there is no need for social conservatives to stay with the party. By dropping opposition to gay marriage, dropping opposition to abortion, and allowing illegal immigration, those who are motivated by those issues will feel disenfranchised, and will not support the party. Those people would have no reason to vote with the Republicans, because the issues they hold as having high importance would have no hope that their party would enact laws to support their views, which is the whole point of supporting a party. The social conservatives are not interested in keeping a party in power, they are interested in getting their views to become policy in the USA! If the Democrats supported their views, guess what? They would support the Democrats! Abortion is taking a life, and life is precious to those who are Pro-Life. Homosexuality is wrong to social conservatives, and if they can find a party that will tolerate (now there's a lost art these days!) homosexuality without promoting or accepting it, they can put their support behind that party. Truth be told, most social conservatives don't hate or even dislike immigrants, it's the breaking of the law that they don't like. Illegal immigration is breaking the law, pure and simple, and social Conservatives don't approve of law-breakers whether the law-breaker is Latino, European, Asian, Arabic, African, or even American. When we allow people to flout the law, the fabric of society begins to unravel, and Social Conservatives don't want that for our country. Not to mention the possibility that the next major terrorist attack could come across our borders illegally.
A word about "Tolerance". Tolerance is allowing a view or position on an issue to exist or persist without approving of it, in a moral sense. To "Tolerate" something is most accurately applied to social issues such as homosexuality. American tolerates things pretty well, or at least, we used to. Christians say homosexuality is wrong, but tolerate homosexuals, because we recognize their right to hold their views and live their lives according to them, as long as they don't force them upon society. What tolerance does not include is approval of the behavior being tolerated. When homosexuals want to participate in marriage, they have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that society affords to all Americans. There is not the moral equivalence of marriage in so-called Gay-marriage. This points to a more basic underlying theme about America, that it is founded by God-fearing people, and it's laws and morals are based on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Homosexuals try to win approval of society, and call it "hate" when their behavior is not accepted in the same way as heterosexuals behavior is. Hate is a pretty strong word, and it does not need to be demeaned by being used in place of disapproval. The Christian position, based on the Bible, is to hate the sin while loving the sinner. That is a practical description of tolerance. Most Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. They may feel sorry for them. They may dislike their chosen lifestyle. They may not want to have their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, or have them taught by homosexuals, but that is not "hate". If a Christian "hates" homosexuals, they need to get right with the Lord. Jesus didn't hate homosexuals, he didn't hate the woman at the well, who was living a sexually sinful life. He hated sin, and told sinners to go and sin no more. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery (BTW, where was the man?), but rather told her to go and sin no more. That should be the message of any loving person or group, including the GOP. Go and sin no more.
Alternatively, if the GOP does give up its socially conservative positions, to which I would add the Second Amendment Rights, First amendment rights of free speech, and the right to "pursue happiness" which encapsulates the goals of Capitalism, then there will be little difference between the parties. I suppose my biases are showing through, but I don't see how the GOP could win, much less prosper without those key socially conservative positions. A third party would arise, with the social conservatives in it, and the GOP party power would be split. Democrats would love that scenario, as they would have two or three more presidential cycle victories before either the GOP or some third party could mount any serious challenge for power. In that time, the Progressives and Liberals would so firmly plant the change of our country that it might not be able to recover.
In summary, the battle for the soul of the GOP (Great Opportunity Party) must be won by social Conservatives. We cannot afford to let the Democrats win, either by outright holding power into the indefinite future, nor by changing the GOP into a Democrat-lite party, which isn't significantly different from the Democrat party. The GOP needs to stand up for Conservative principles, social, fiscal, national security, border and immigration enforcement, free speech rights, right to own and bear arms, and to pursue happiness. If they can do that, unashamedly, they will attract scores of new voters, including legal Latino immigrants, African Americans, workers, Veterans, young voters who will be concerned about their financial futures, and of course, the base of the party. You will even attract thinking Homosexuals, because they will recognize that the best interests of the country and tolerance of their lifestyles are the best things for them personally. Otherwise, the GOP and the country are going to continue to go down in power and into irrelevance. God help us all!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Answer to a Polling Point Question
Polling Point asked me this question:
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)