Republican Challenge Revised
Last Saturday, I asked for inputs on a draft letter to Republican leaders. While the feedback was certainly diverse, it generally sorted out into a handful of common themes:
Why bother?
What’s the desired action by the recipients?
It’s too general; get more specific.
Make it apply to both parties, not just Republicans.
What’s the larger plan; the related “organizing activityâ€? (Or, as one reader put it, the implied effort is “a daunting challenge. You won’t do it with well-intended letters. Large numbers of voters and large sums of political contributions are required.â€)
Considering those inputs, I revised the letter to …
Clarify the desired action by the recipients
Recognize the expansive organizing activities (of voters and dollars) that are already underway by the likes of the Republican Leadership Council
Get more specific, but not overly specific; this is (after all) a letter about values not policies. As Bill Clinton once said, and I paraphrase: If we get the values right, the policies will follow. (Yes, I know it’s odd to cite a Democrat in support of an approach to Republicans, but as I’ve written before, I think Clinton was the best Republican President of the last generation.)
That leaves two categories of input I did not address in my rewrite, so I’ll address them here.
Why bother? Dennis Sanders – one of my Central Sanity co-bloggers and a moderate Republican whom I respect immensely – once suggested that moderate Republican office holders have continued to dance around the edges of certain controversial issues because they fear moderate voters are not plentiful enough in numbers, or organized well enough, to counterbalance the social conservatives, the so-called “base.†Accordingly, Dennis recommended that more moderate Republicans like me get out of our cloistered worlds and communicate directly with Republican leaders, to let them know we’re here; we’re organizing; we want them to stop tip-toeing across egg shells and start stomping on them – and (importantly) we’re prepared to back moderate GOP leaders, to keep them in office and thereby begin the party’s transformation.
Why not drop party identification and address the letter to all candidates? I’m a Republican. I think the GOP has lost its way (see Joe G’s post earlier today). And I agree with Dennis: It’s time moderate Party members quit their grumbling and storm the castle. (Conversely, the Democrats are experiencing a resurgence and they don’t necessarily need a wake-up call from their moderates. Plus, obviously, I’m not a D.)
With that, here’s the rewrite, considerably longer than the first version but much improved, I think, as a result of your prior inputs. And of course, I’d appreciate any additional thoughts you might have, before I move on to next steps.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
43 Responses to “Republican Challenge Revised”
Thank you. Not only do we have to beat back the hoardes from the Democrats but now we have people like you threatening the party that IF
They don’t act the way you want them too then we are going to defeat them and take back the party from those evil Christians and hand it to those wonderful Gays and baby killers.
let this be a warning?? Michael Moore wannabe?
Certanly your gonna get support here. You want to turn the GOP into the GDOP Grand Democratic OLD PARTY with emphasis on the PARTY.
Pete–
Wow! Now you’re the next Michael Moore!
I’m sure you know how much work you have cut out for yourself. But it could be kind of fun, too. You know: emphasis on the PARTY!
For what my opinion is worth, I was a little surprised by how in-your-face parts of the letter were. I think that’s a good thing.
And however much work it is, I think it’s a lot wiser than working for a third party.
Well Somebody’s comment embodies the very sentiments that are driving moderates out of the GOP! Any baby step away from hard right doctrine means you must be allied with the loony left.
I do feel bad for moderate Republicans like Pete, because there is no room for them in today’s GOP. Conservatives don’t like rule by consensus or compromise.
Somebody, you act as if it’s impossible to be both a Christian and gay, or a Christian and pro-choice. It’s clearly not. But I’ll say this much for your attitude: It’s precisely the type of divisive, bias-driven politics we hope to eradicate. Enjoy your time in the angry minority. And look at the bright side: though you’ll be among the few, you sadly won’t be alone.
Pete,
The answer that you will get back from the social conservatives is that they have repeatedly voted for moderate Republicans who will abandon them on every issue that they feel is important.
What compromise would you make to keep the social conservatives from walking way and returning the Republican party to the Country Club Republicans?
No Im not saying that at all.
He threatened that if the party did not conform to HIS rules then they would be defeated. No he says and I quote.
It is a warning to those Party leaders who continue to allow social conservatives to define the GOP by a set of stringent and divisive policy positions on sexuality and beginning-and-end-of-life issues. The days of these social conservatives’ dominance in our party are numbered. They are welcome in the Party, but their influence will progressively subside in direct proportion to the rising influence of the undersigned and tens of millions of others like us, who represent a majority of both Republicans and Americans.
There is no room for Christianity in his newly defined party and here he is making it clear.
We are welcome………….IF>>IF>>IF>>> we toe the line and fall in line with THEIR social agenda.
This is the party platform for an entirely new party which looks very social libertarian to me. Thanks but no thanks.
If you got Guts….go post this at mainstream GOP sites and report back what the reaction is.
The challenger weighs 98 pounds in combat boots and had mononucleosis last month.
“President Clinton” is where the obvious money lies.
Pete,
The foregoing mirth reminds me of a saying I heard that went something like this……..a party without a convicted base has no soul, but a party without its moderates loses its intellect.
There is another one that talks about a party’s “idea” people and its “process” people.
Clearly, you are an “idea” person. In my experience, however, idea people tend to have best success using more “pull marketing” than “push marketing”. Therefore, I don’t share Mr. Sorwell’s view that “in your face” is a good thing for your letter. It doesn’t sync with the tenor implicit in your ideas. Something a little bit more tempered (in the gauntlet throwing department) would be more consistent and would not be lost on an astute reader.
FWIW……
In comment #6, the commenter known as “Somebody” charges that my position is this:
To be clear: That’s not my position. Once again, we can be Christian and pro-choice or pro-life or both. What we can’t allow is exclusion based on non-core principles. Core principles again are: liberty, economy, security. Non-core principles: everything else, and on that everything else, we can disagree, but we can’t kick others out because of their views on those principles.
And that’s why I said social conservatives are welcome in the party. But their divisive tactics are not. If they want to change their divisive tactics and play nice with the rest of us, as we’ve tried to do with them, great; all aboard. But if they continue to play mean and try to make our collective sandbox their sandbox alone, then you’re damn straight I’m gonna fight to take the sandbox back.
Don’t you think it’s odd the very tactic used by the social conservatives — threatening candidates who don’t tow their line — is now somehow a bad thing when one of us plays it right back at them? Last time I checked, that’s called a double-standard.
Somebody: If you don’t like the direction I’m pushing for the Party. Fine. Fight back. But don’t tell me to stop fighting.
casualobserver,
I think you’re right. I went from no spine to bare knuckles. I need to practice a little of my own moderation and strike a balance in between.
I think Pete is an “idea” person attempting to also become a “process” person. Certainly, it’s possible to be both. Process matters. After all, it’s said that amateurs discuss strategy while professionals discuss logistics.
And perhaps a moderate tone is in keeping with moderate ideas. Though perhaps a moderate tone is also considered kinda wimpy.
What if I simply deleted the “warning” passages? To wit …
We, the undersigned, are Republicans.
Through separate but cooperative organizations – from the Republican Leadership Council to the Republican Main Street Partnership; from Republicans for Environmental Protection to the Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Choice – we are a growing force within the Party.
Republican candidates will be required to reckon with us in the months and years ahead, as we increasingly organize and mobilize for no purpose less dramatic than the rescue of our Party and the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government, lower taxes and free markets, a strong national defense and collaborative foreign policy.
We intend this letter as as an encouragement to GOP leaders who embrace the Party’s bedrock principles but also recognize that the narrow-minded strategies of certain social conservatives have made the GOP a shadow of its former self and thus reject those social conservatives’ alienating approach and prefer what former U.S. Senator John Danforth has labeled a politics of “reconciliation,†a politics wherein we seek to emphasize what unites rather than what divides us. If you fit in this category, we encourage you to speak up and boldly state your beliefs, without equivocation. And when certain social conservatives attack you for doing so, we – the real Republican base – will be there to lend our support …
And then the rest of it.
I think that avoids “wimpy” … remains strong … but also, oddly enough, is more consistent with Danforth’s call for reconciliation. Perhaps “Somebody” has a point, after all.
Pete
I am fighting back. I do not like the direction you want to take the party.
You based your entire premise on threats to the party and a hijacking of the social issues to become identical to the issues the Democrats have.
So that begs the question. Why are you a republican when the Democratic party seems to meet all your needs:??
Then on the other side, there’s Hillary.
Somebody,
First, I complimented you in my last comment for fighting back and persuading me to tone down my letter, which I will do as outlined in that comment.
Second, the Democratic party does not meet all my needs; far from it. While I might agree with Democrats on many social issues, I don’t agree with their knee-jerk reliance on government solutions and marketplace regulation, and I think, left unchallenged, they’d tax all of us into oblivion.
Also, while I’d agree Iraq has been mismanaged and redeployment is potentially the smartest course at this time (emphasis on “potentially,” with many doubts), I also fear the Democrats are far too weak on defense, far-too willing to capitualte to our enemies, and far-too influenced by their “war is always wrong” base.
Hence, I remain a firm Republican on national security, economy, and limiting government’s role. And where I happen to agree with the Democrats on certain social issues, it’s for a different reason. They believe the way they do on those issues due largely to some twisted 60′s flower child hangover. I believe this way because I can’t rationalize government interference in matters of sexuality, birth, and death and then turn around and demand government stay out of everything else.
DLS — is that the link you intended?
Exactly Pete – if Republicans who are further to the right than you are don’t like your letter, they can fight back. It is expected of them. However, for a long time moderate Republicans haven’t fought (back), while social conservatives, were fighting (and not exactly half-heartedly if I may say so). It’s about time for moderate Reps to fight back.
I agree with those who say that you should take out the ‘warning’ part. It is a bit overly aggressive. Aside from that, it’s good.
Now – get yourself some people to sign the letter and send it!
Also, in defense of Pete, this blog is labeled “moderate” territory (albeit only for the Republican posters, LOL!).
I realize an energized base turnout is necessary, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me the risk of a stay-at-home base voter is higher than a moderate/swing voting Dem. The compound math effect of the latter always scares me more.
I look at it this way for the “socially motivated” Republican camp. What is the 10 year handicapping reality for Roe v. Wade changing? Legislation to overturn?……no way in hell. At most a little risk of nibbling around the edges by the Judiciary (either way). Social conservatives can get behind
adult stem cell research and survive that issue with their consciences intact. Put the issues of gay rights, gun control back to the states. And immigration is going to be legislatively fought over next week, or not for another cycle.
George Bush squandered Republican capital and, as a result, the apolitical man on the street may well pull the lever for Glacier or Messiah out of knee jerk. I see the battle in ’08 better seasoned with pragmatics than dogma.
There’s nothing unusual about using Greta Grosse to depict Hillary Clinton.
I think the letter is terrific. I can’t judge the political repercussions, because I tend not to think of issues that way and instead focus on: is this good or bad for the country? This letter is definitely good for the country.
Personally, your success would mean that I could return to voting, once again, across party lines for the best man/ woman and the best platform re cirremt problems. In recent years, I’ve been guided bythe fear that my vote would enable a sharp turn to an extreme position which would destroy the ability for people with diverse views to co-exist without ripping each other’s hearts out.
Good job, Pete.
Thanks, domajot. Your words are very encouraging!
Pete, just curious, but are there any Republicans running for president today that you think could sign that letter (or at least fundamentally agree with it’s core principles)?
The only ones I can think of would be Ron Paul and John McCain.
Pete I think you are just in time to transform the parties into each other.
Rudi Guillani believes in abortion, Gun Control and Gay rights, been married umpteen times and is the perfect candidate to lead your charge up DEMOCRAT HILL.
In contrast. Hillary Clinton is pretty much a Republican in that she has way more leanings towards conservative values then does Guillani.
Now here comes Pete with his letter asking the Republicans to embrace the Democratic Social agenda and the libertarian economic agenda. While conversely Hillary is about a conservative approach to government.
So what happens in this flux. You will see the old guard southern democrats rejoin their party they left under Jimmy Carter and rejoin a party that is led by Hillary who is actually Hawkish and Neoconish on foreign policy.
The result. The flip flopping of parties. Republicans embrace abortion, gay rights, gun control and lose the Religious right, while the old guard democrats of the south rejoin the conservative, neoconish Hillary and bring with them the Religious right who was abandoned by the Conservatives.
Thus you have an equivalent of what happened in the 30′s when the Democrats took over the Republicans New Deal or when LBJ handed the south to the Republicans by signing the civil rights bill.
Flip flopping of positions. In the end it will be the same landscape just different names.
Pete,
Somebody represents the reason your valiant attempt is doomed to failure. He is the modern Republican party. Arrogant. Self-righteous. Certain that their fundamentalist version of Christianity is the only real version.
You and those who agree with your viewpoints are the minority with no hope of regaining influence for a very long time if ever again. It represents the reason that I quit voting for any Republicans long ago and didn’t bother switching my registration back to Independent after I’d registered as a Democrat to be able to vote in a primary many years ago. Any moderate Republican in office nowadays only represents one thing, a politician with virtually no influence in their party and someone who can give the Republican leadership the body count they need to give the current leadership more power.
Very well said, Jim S., and I couldn’t agree more! Pete Abel’s moderates are being drummed out of the Republican party by challenges from the right as well as the left.
If the conservative Christians continue to dominate the party, the Democrats will have no trouble defeating them, because libertarians, moderates and independents will either stay home or cross over.
The GOP will never be a big tent party with constituents like Somebody who think the Gov’t needs to legislate our bedroom behavior for us and put God back in the public square.
Well Said Jim Satterfield. Damn that Somebody…..
I would challenge anyone to point to anywhere in this blog that even remotely hints that I have said the government should regulate what goes on in the bedroom.
As much as I have NOT advocated legislating bedroom values the LEFT has indeed been active in trying to legislate GAY rights INTO America.
I am simply opposed to that. I am not opposed to Gay people. I do not want to torture them, put them in concentration camps or anything sinister. I just want equal time. If they are to have their own laws then as a Christian I want equal laws.
I want laws that say
“thou shalt not make fun of Christians.”
Thou shalt not abuse christians or kill them in anger….you know its a crime to hate a christian so much that if you murder one we are going to kill you sooooooo bad……..
thou shalt not prohibit Christians from having sex in styles other then the missionary style.
thou shalt not conspire to make being a Christian a mockery or the BUTT of any jokes.
All Christians shall be hired based upon Religiousosity and will be administered the Religousosity test as per the requirements set forth in a new Amendment to be voted into law asap.
All Christians shall have a right to a free parking spot at the Walmart supercenter.
It shall the the duty of all Christians to inform you that they have been in personal contact with God and that its okay They know what they are doing.
All Christians shall be exempt from paying income taxes.
All Christians shall in effect be free from obeying any law that ordinary citizens have to obey…..Oh wait thats the one for Congress.
All Christians who are gay will in effect recieve double coupons at Safeway on Tuesdays and Triple Coupons on Sundays.
Mikef,
I’m not sure any do. Paul talks a good game but seems inflexible when it comes to abortion and similar issues; plus there are those seemingly racist comments of his, that have been written about previously, here and elsewhere.
McCain: I have long respected him, but I think he’s lost sight of an approach to foreign policy that can be both strong and flexible. If it weren’t for their foreign policy stands, McCain and Rudy would be great candidates. Unfortunately, I don’t think either truly embraces what Kate Whitman wrote in her book, excerpted in my letter.
Somebody,
I don’t know what to say, but “grow up” comes to mind.
Damn that somebody for interjecting humor when people decided to start bashing me for objecting to the Fascist letter you printed. Your statement of principals just trashed the values of millions and millions of people in this country.
Your right I object to this letter and you and the Athiest lefts attempt at trashing religion in America or as they put it…..Take your religion and practice it in private.
Your letter is a fascist statement of principal for a party that YOU want to run with your own set of rules and values that mirror the democratic party.
My grown up summation is this. Take this letter and post it on GOP sites where you will get the proper review, rather then posting it here where a great vast majority will stroke your ego and tell you ….Oh good job on being a “Moderate”
I’m sorry Pete. I’m not going to stroke your ego for a letter that is obviously designed to trash the values of 2/3rds of the Republican party. To relegate to the trash bin the values millions and millions hold dear because you do NOT.
Because there is contention on Gay rights, Abortion, Gun control, and other social issues we should just surrender our values because
YOU ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG????
Thats MODERATION????
Somebody proves my point once again. First, he has no humor. He is incapable of being funny.
He writes that
Let’s face it, this is bigotry at its finest. The assumption that those who do not share his particular view of Christianity and its role in a racially and religiously diverse nation is automatically a leftist and an atheist. They are not claiming their right to live as they see fit according to their beliefs, rather they are “trashing” the beliefs of Somebody and his fellow believers.
Am I missing something or would Somebody be happier if the U.S. were run more along the lines of modern Iran? Just look at the post by MvdG on Iran’s “Second Cultural Revolution”. The force of the state making all citizens follow the rules of a particular view of the country’s dominant religion. Sounds like Somebody’s ideal government to me.
JIm What is my particular view of Christianity?
JIm equally you prove my point.
IT is your way or the highway. A massive bloc of Americans who have values that do not correspond with YOUR values is relegated to bigotry. Is not your militant stance against OUR BELIEFS based in BIGOTRY?
You know nothing about me. I know nothing about you. But I am trying to make the point that people believe this. Right or wrong that is what they believe and they represent a HUGE portion of this country. To relegate them to the trash bin and to null and void their reasonable expectations of REPRESENTATION in this country is BIGOTRY at its finest.
And this one as well:
These posts make it quite clear that you are defining Christianity to mean socially conservative, anti-choice and anti-gay rights people. They are your words and not the only places you’ve posted things that make it clear that this is what you are defining as being a Christian, excluding those who attend church and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior but don’t think that means you must share Pat Robertson’s or James Dobson’s view of the world.
It is not your right to have your beliefs that I disagree with, it is the right you attempt to claim to force everyone else to live by them that I take a stance against. I also contend that giving gays the right to not be fired or the right to have legally recognized relationships is not treading on the rights of conservative Christians while denying them those rights on the basis of religiously based beliefs does infringe on their rights. Representation does not mean the right to stomp on the rights of a minority because your religion disapproves of their existence. You obviously disagree.
No I don’t agree with your conclusions at all and again you are ascribing to me something that I said taken out of context.
It is a warning to those Party leaders who continue to allow social conservatives to define the GOP by a set of stringent and divisive policy positions on sexuality and beginning-and-end-of-life issues. The days of these social conservatives’ dominance in our party are numbered. They are welcome in the Party, but their influence will progressively subside
This was in his first letter which was amended and changed that the post was addressed to. In this context I stand by my assertion that he wants to take away the rights and beliefs of those EVIL christians and hand those same rights and beliefs to gays and baby killers.
He brought it up specifically in his letter. I responded to the this fact specifically.
I stand by that. That is not even about religion but about PRINCIPAL. That is what he was writing. Posting and advocating based upon the above in his first letter which was then edited out.
What I have said, continue to say and will say until I die is that the Religious right rose up in direct challenge to the Gay rights and abortion rights activists who were demanding of this country their version of MORALITY that is in direct contravention to what Religious people of many stripes believe.
I believe and continue to believe that the left/liberals have only one course of action open to them. Remove GOD from America by any and all means necessary in order to get their GODLESS AGENDA passed. They do this with the strong help of the ACLU and a secularist approach to the constitution.
Once they have neutralized the Religious Right then they can force upon America THEIR version of Morality.
This is the most hypocritical approach to government I have ever seen. Christians are evil for apparently influencing law makers to not give in to GAY rights activism and attempting to instill their version of morality on America. Yet conversely the Left are saints for doing the exact same thing. They are wonderfully enlightened people for demanding that we have Gay rights, Abortion, Porn, legalized drugs etc. and the rest of America WHICH by the way is a majority or else it would have already been law….is supposed to like it.
Sorry your dog dont hunt….this has been my argument and will continue to be my argument. It has nothing to do with the PEOPLE themselves, but everything to do with the MOVEMENT….The two are very different things entirely.
For your information I believe Gay people are no better or no worse then any other man, woman or child in America. It is a very small fraction of what defines them. This for me has never been about Gays and their private life styles. It has always been about the movement in general trying to force upon me their version of Morality while rendering MINE inconsequential.
This is exactly what Pete was and is calling for in his letter.
It is not your right to have your beliefs that I disagree with, it is the right you attempt to claim to force everyone else to live by them that I take a stance against.
Do you not see JimS that this is exactly what your side is doing to those on the other side of the isle. You are attempting to force upon us YOUR VIEWS of morality and tell us we will like it because its right and enlightened.
I knew you were going to say that. It’s what the conservative Christians always say. They are being forced to accept our views because we believe that the majority does NOT have the right to exercise absolute control over the lives of a minority. Sorry, I don’t buy the BS argument that because I don’t believe in your right to punish the minority for being different it is in fact a violation of your rights. Tell you what, why don’t you just convert to Islam and move to Iran. They certainly share your views on minority rights.
I agree with this:
we believe that the majority does NOT have the right to exercise absolute control over the lives of a minority
However the reverse is true as well. The minority does not have that right either. Which is your position.
Regardless of whether Christians always say it or not….it is in fact the truth. Neither side owns this right. I will agree 100 percent with that. I will agree that Christians do not have the right to tell anyone what they should or should not believe.
I will also conceede that Gay rights Activists should not have that right as well. Therefore that leaves us at an impasse.
This is why the Government should not be in the business of legislating morality.
But it must in order to insure Domestic Tranquility.
The solution is not states rights. I refuse to put this on the states. We did this before which created a civil war. I am therefore very much opposed to putting such emotionally charged issues with the states.
Alas despite my better judgement there are just some Issues that must be addressed by the government to insure that this nation continues on in a positive direction.
No one is telling the conservative Christians what they may believe, just placing limits on what they can do about it. This is the only “right” that is being interfered with. So just what are you defending?
[...] This exercise has certainly generated more interest than I originally expected, not only here, but also at Michael vdG’s place, Liberal Values, Jinchi, and elsewhere. [...]
[...] This exercise has certainly generated more interest than I originally expected, not only here, but also at Michael vdG’s place, Liberal Values, Jinchi, and elsewhere. [...]
[...] Republican Challenge RevisedThe Moderate Voice – the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government, lower taxes and free They are wonderfully enlightened people for demanding that we have Gay rights, Abortion, Porn, legalized drugs etc. and the [...]
[...] This exercise has certainly generated more interest than I originally expected, not only here, but also at Michael vdG’s place, Liberal Values, Jinchi, and elsewhere. [...]
[...] This exercise has certainly generated more interest than I originally expected, not only here, but also at Michael vdG’s place, Liberal Values, Jinchi, and elsewhere. [...]