What the Tea Parties Can Teach Moderate Republicans
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
In reading some of the blogs as of late, it might seem that moderate or progressive Republicans are finally getting some love. The recent speeches by Meghan McCain and former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, have given people the impression that maybe, just maybe, that those in the upper levels of the Republican Party are finally paying attention to us moderates. Maybe they will finally not focus on being against gay marriage and focus on more moderate issues.
Don’t bet on it.
A recent article in Politico states that while there has been some beliefs and opinions that believe the GOP should change, the reality is that the so-called base of the party is still very much alive, even after two drubbings:
Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.
There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies – as always – through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.
“There is a sense of rebellion brewing,” said Katon Dawson, the outgoing South Carolina Republican Party chairman, who cited unexpectedly high attendance at anti-tax “tea parties” last week.
Politico goes on to give a passing statement on the vitality of three moderate groups:
Liberal Republican groups like the Main Street Republican Partnership and the Republican Majority for Choice remain essentially irrelevant, and even the main gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans, is fending off a challenge from a more conservative gay splinter faction.
Ralph Reed, the longtime Christian conservative activist and former chair of the Georgia GOP, predicted that opposition to same-sex marriage would become, like abortion, a litmus test, if a lower-profile one.
“There used to be muscular and vocal disagreement in the party on our pro-life plank,” he recalled. “That has largely been resolved. Nobody raises the issue of changing the pro-life plank.”
In a recent op-ed also in Politico, Matthew Dallek states that the GOP needs to remember it’s moderates. It follows a ton of articles by various writers accross the political spectrum that urge the same thing: The GOP needs to be more accepting of moderates and be able to moderate their views on social issues.
That is an important message to hear, but it’s incomplete at best. The fact is, people have been saying that Republicans needs to be more tolerant and open minded at least since the the 1992 GOP Convention in Houston when Pat Buchanan and others presented a very right wing face to America. And in the ensuring years, not very much has changed. 
The problem is that many of the writers fail to understand the notion of politics and how it operates. I will go even further and say that many moderates both within and without the GOP also fail to understand how politics truly work and as long as this takes place, there will never be a revivial of moderates in the Republican Party.
In many of the articles that fault the Republican Party for not supporting moderates, the plea is usually to the party in general. It’s a nice statement to ask those who are in power to please let moderates in. It based on a belief that if the party leadership (those in the Republican National Committee and also at state and local levels) would simply appeal to reason and logic, then party leaders will see the light and by jove, they will let moderates in.
But politics is never about reasoned discussions. It is in the end about power, coalitions and organizing. The Left has understood this for a long time, as have those on the Religious Right. Moderate Republicans are wont to say that the GOP has been “hijacked” by the far right. Now, I have no love towards the far right which I believe have ruined the GOP. But such belief in a “hijacking” is simply a nice fantasy that we moderates can console ourselves with. It isn’t real.
The fact is, the Religious Right for all the bad it has done, did things the right way: they got involved at the local and state level. They got on platform committees and inserted their agenda. The created political action committees to elect their candidates. Yes, they took over the GOP, but they did it fair and square, through good old fashioned organizing.
And such organizing has results. We complain that John McCain transformed himself into a right-wing candidate in 2008. If only, some moderates claim, McCain ran as he did in 2000. The fact is, the people that hold the power in the GOP is the far right. If McCain wanted to have the backing of the party he had to bend to where the party is. Yes, McCain could have ran as he did in 2000, but we saw what the power players did to him then and since they were still power eight years later, they would do it again.
Dirty? Yes. But it’s also politics.
Then their was the task of picking a Vice Presidential candidate. McCain was leading towards former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. But when McCain sent a trial balloon that he was considering a pro-choice candidate there were howls of protest. In the end, we got Sarah Palin, which wowed the far right, but turned off moderates.
Same goes for Mitt Romney, who ran in 1994 as a moderate Republican against Sen. Edward Kennedy. He was pro-choice and earned the support of Log Cabin Republicans for gay-friendly stances. But when he started thinking about running for President, his stances changed. Why? Because the current GOP isn’t going to elect a pro-gay, pro-choice Republican governor as their nominee. To the victor belongs the spoils.
That’s what’s missing from the moderate faction (what’s left of it) in the GOP. It is barely organized. There are groups that I think truly “get it” such as Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection. But for the most part, moderates seem to be waiting for the GOP to come to its senses.
But that isn’t going to happen. Yes, a candidate like George W. Bush will come along and sprinkle a few words here and there about being a “different kind of Republican” that will woo just enough moderates,but in the end, once they are in office, they will dance with those that brung ‘um.
The great moderate revival in the GOP will not happen unless those of us that are moderates make it happen. If we believe that the Republican Party needs to be more tolerant and accepting of same sex marriage, then we must be willing to get off our couches and out from behind our computers and go to the next meeting of our local Republican party and demand it.
I don’t totally agree with the Tea Party folks. I think their message is to unfocused and not really for anything. But I do have to hand it to them: they were willing to get mad enough to get together and create something. The same goes for all the Ron Paul folk. Again, they might be just plain crazy, but they at least aren’t waiting for someone to give them permission.
Politics is about having a good ground game. It’s about getting into the arena, but we moderates perfer to stay on the sidelines.
Yes, there needs to be more diversity in the GOP. Yes, the party needs more moderates. But it is up to us to for that to happen. It will not happen because the leadership granted it to us; it will happen because we demanded it- because we got organized and went to city, county and state conventions, because we got on platform committees and because we created PACS to support our candidates.
Will that happen? I don’t know. There is a part of me that is always hopeful, but I’m also a born pessimist.
But I want to be proven wrong. I want to see the flowering of a new moderate movement. But it’s up to my fellow moderates. Please don’t let me down.
40 Responses to “What the Tea Parties Can Teach Moderate Republicans”
Good article, Dennis. Except the moderates may already be gone. For example, among all voters polled, the least trustworthy politician is Sarah Palin. Among Republicans, she's the most trustworthy. I'm not trying to start a Palin thread here, please. But that poll makes it pretty clear that the Republican party is very likely to run candidates that are the least trusted among the general public. You're right. The far right is in control of your party. And it taking it down.
“The great moderate revival in the GOP will not happen unless those of us that are moderates make it happen.”
Well… If the far right does control the agenda and candidates then moderates won't stand a chance. No far right wing Republican in power will just give some of their hard own power to moderates.
If there are still some influential moderates then the party stands a chance.
You mentioned two groups that you think “get it”: Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection. How much power do they have within the party?
What the article is really arguing is that the Republican Party suffers from a massive lack of leadership. The social conservatives are better organized because they have had, in the past, better leaders. However, after having the Bush family running the Republican Party for 20 years, there are no leaders left. It would seem that the Bush family made it a point to keep anyone with leadership ability from advancing in the Republican Party. When the Republicans were nominating McCain who was obviously unfit to be president and someone with zero leadership ability, it was due to the lack of leadership and talent in the Republican Party. When you saw who was running against McCain in the Repubican primary, it was obvious that there is no talent.
Thus, the real question for the Megan McCain's of the world, is what will politics be like in the coming one party state. What do they believe that they will lose with the coming one party state. What happens to fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives in the coming one party state. What does Megan McCain think will happen to she believes is important in a country that is less than half white, that pays 70% in taxes, and that has little if any economic growth?
THANK YOU, Dennis! This is the most sensible article on the topic I have ever seen.
I'm not even a moderate, but I very much understand that the GOP needs a stronger moderate faction and it frustrates me to no end that most right leaning moderates expect that change to happen from within the party while they stand on the outside of it and criticize.
it frustrates me to no end that most right leaning moderates expect that change to happen from within the party while they stand on the outside of it and criticize.
Hmm, well I do stand on the outside and criticize but I don't expect change to happen from within the party. At this point I am not seeing much that makes me think the GOP is open to change, and that openness has to exist before moderates will be heard. Unless there's been a major shift recently I think most GOP members still feel the problem is they haven't been conservative enough. No I haven't gone to GOP meetings and try to sway them, but neither do I bang my head against a wall and expect it to work well for renovating my basement.
I don't agree that moderates were completely shut out of the GOP. How'd McCain get the candidacy? Far righties were horrified, until Palin came along.
Moderates are there, plugging away, they just don't get the attention. I think bigwigs understand this at some level, which is why they gave the RNC chairmanship to someone who's political views are tolerant toward gays and other social issues.
Moderates have the same problem today that they had in the days of the Roman Republic: “…the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
It's the nature of the beast.
Well, reread Dennis' post, DaGoat. The point is you can't wait until the party is 'open to change' because by standing on the outside you are actually preventing that from happening. Again, reread the post- Dennis explains it much better than I can in terms of how parties simply respond to the existing coalitions- they can't make it happen unless YOU decide to be one of those coalitions.
CS, every Republican who makes moderate noises gets slapped down by the hard right, ridiculed by the usual cast. It is the party LEADERSHIP who needs to say to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and O'Really, STFU, we're dying here. They are aggressively chasing away the moderates.
Of course I'm fine with that. I think they truly are the voice of the GOP.
Yes, GD, and who gets slapped down in a party is completely predictable by the relative size, strength, and vocal power of the various coalitions within the party. If there were more active, strong moderates who weren't taking their ball and going home, then they would have the power to stand up without being 'slapped down'.
CS
I'm not sure that moderates currently have much chance in today's GOP. After the last two elections, the Republican base has been boiled down to a political absolutism that allows no place for a more moderate stance. To get a voice in the party, the laundry list of litmus test's are required. No choice, no tax, no gay marriage, are minimal requirements for eligibility into the GOP power center. Romney is a typical example of what must be given up to even approach a leadership role.
You can't ask moderates to go along with these views just to play in the GOP game. Blue dog Democrats and Jackson's Rainbow coalition can reside in the same party because the Dems by and large do not demand similar absolutism. The GOP once had a similar variety of views within its tent and farther right views were just one segment in the political demographics. It has always been easier for extremist views to enter a moderate party than the other way around. Once extremism holds sway, broadening the base becomes ever more difficult.
Good theory, CS, but I am not seeing that. The base is defining who is a “real” Republican and who's a RINO, and those who are insufficiently pure are lambasted. Who can blame the RINOs for looking elsewhere? I think the party leadership needs to distance itself from the elements that are driving away moderates and independents and hence electoral prospects. That's not really possible, though, because said “elements” are now the party's base. Plus, the party bosses pushed very hard for a “with us or against us” adherence to the party line. The GOP has not been kind to dissenters and I see no meaningful reversal of that.
You have the cause and effect backward. A party doesn't bend in order to attract various coalitions- the coalitions who are inside the tent set the agenda of the party and figure out ways to coexist. When the more moderate groups give up on that, then the extremists prevail.
If the Blue Dog Democrats all decided to become GOP tomorrow, do you doubt for a second that the more extreme left wing factions in the Democratic party would become more powerful?
CS
I think the difference of opinion is between moderates “giving up” and extremists driving them away. It was not the moderates who required the litmus tests of social conservatism; indeed, if fiscal conservatism had been employed the same way as same sex marriage, the Blue Dogs and the moderate Republicans who have been drummed out would have controlled the legislative agenda.
I believe those who will compromise have been viewed as RINOs whenever they raised their voice. Specter is one of the last to face his own party's heat.
CS
“If the Blue Dog Democrats all decided to become GOP tomorrow, do you doubt for a second that the more extreme left wing factions in the Democratic party would become more powerful?”
The Blue Dogs have no reason to leave as they don't have a litmus test for social stances. Republicans do have such a test. This is why your moderates have left. Bush's party required strict views about abortion, but no fiscal responsibility. What was left for fiscal conservatives?
It was not the moderates who required the litmus tests of social conservatism
Right, but if the way you respond to someone giving you a litmus test is to say that this means they're forcing you away- rather than standing your ground against the litmus test- then the outcome is inevitable.
You're right about our difference of opinion- which is also what I referred when I said that I believe you have the cause and effect reversed. You say that the extremists have too much power, and forced moderates out, while I'm arguing that Dennis is right about coalitions needing to figure out how to coexist, and that the party's follow where the coalitions lead, not vice versa. The power that you feel has gotten too strong among the socon base is due to the relative weakness of the fiscal cons and moderates, because they've either sat by and watched it all happened or they've left altogether. Power is relative, not absolute, and it's not meted out by the top officials of the party but instead comes organically from the grass roots up.
The Blue Dogs have no reason to leave as they don't have a litmus test for social stances. Republicans do have such a test. This is why your moderates have left. Bush's party required strict views about abortion, but no fiscal responsibility.
Ah, so that's why we have virtually no prolife Democrats now, as opposed to several years ago when they were quite common as representatives of more conservative but traditionally Democratic districts?
I call BS on the litmus test for the GOP on abortion vs. Democrats. If anything, moderately pro-choice GOP are more accepted than are moderately prolife Dems, and that's a growing trend. The Democratic party even changed it's platform to reflect this in recent years.
I think the party leadership needs to distance itself from the elements that are driving away moderates and independents and hence electoral prospects. That's not really possible, though, because said “elements” are now the party's base.
First, GD, since you frequently comment on the many ways that you would like to give the GOP leaders enough rope to hang themselves, I don't consider your advice that useful.
Second, those 'elements' that you're referring to have always been the base, just as the pure ideologues of the Democratic party have always been present. There's nothing unique about the situation of party leadership having to negotiate between hardliners and moderates. There's a cycle though- when a party enjoys a large majority, no one cares of there are RINOs and DINOs coming along for a ride. Then the majority becomes threatened, and there's internal tensions between the desire to maintain majority status by keeping those who are barely definable according to the party's platform, and the realization that keeping such people does little to advance the agenda when the majority status is so razor thin that those votes have to count toward your agenda and when they go against it, the leaders start to realize that it would be just as well to be the minority party as to continue backing those 'extreme moderates' who really don't agree with most of the agenda.
CS
“I call BS on the litmus test for the GOP on abortion vs. Democrats. If anything, moderately pro-choice GOP are more accepted than are moderately prolife Dems”
Where do you draw that remarkable Conclusion from. Romney had to change his pro-choice stance to enter national consideration. The Democratic party has been pro-choice since Rowe so what example of a Dem politician are you thinking of?
LOL, that's an interesting way of looking at Romney. I see it completely the other way around- he had to pose as prochoice in order to get elected in a very blue state. His personal convictions and the way he framed the debate support my view of that- and even in MA, a lot of voters felt betrayed when he expressed a change of heart after he got elected governor (which happened prior to his campaign for president.) Some people in his state felt that he'd done a bait and switch on them, which is how it appears to me.
CS
It's obvious you have insights into how the Republican party should proceed. I have no dog in that fight, so if you wish to believe that the extreme wing of your party has to make no accommodations to bring back moderates, who am I to argue? I merely commented upon the fact that moderates have been shunted to the side as RINOs because they were willing to work through compromise. It's as Bush said, “Your either with us or against us.” It is that absolutism that keeps moderates away.
The GOP was indeed “steeplejacked” beginning in the late 80's and experiencing their greatest successes from '92 forward. Yes, they did organize, attend meetings, and become proactive – with a very aggressive agenda and HUGE financing from thousands upon thousands of evangelical church groups/members. They also are difficult to contend with because they are experts at “community organizing” through the pulpit. The ability to appeal to congregational members emotionally, spiritually and by instilling fear of wrath from the Almighty, they were successful in dispersing voting guides in the Sunday morning programs.
While we took a more moderate and tolerant position, the GOP was subsumed by “Political Dominionists”, and it is time for the moderate/secular republicans to PLEASE take your party BACK! Please…I want to get back to arguing about how much $$$ to spend on potholes!
The most current estimates that we have at this time as to the shear numbers in mega-church congregations in the US alone is approximately 60-70 million. That is a formidable group.
These extreme conservatives in the GOP are really ideologues of the “Constitution Party” who know their only chance of success is to hide behind the credibility cloak of the Republican Party…time to turn the spotlight on them and send them packing!
Leah Burton
http://www.theopalinism.com/blog/
It's as Bush said, “Your either with us or against us.” It is that absolutism that keeps moderates away.
Yes, that attitude always prevents compromise. Just like here, in the conversation between Obama and GOP Whip Eric Cantor regarding the need for bipartisan budget cutting tactics:
Obama pointedly reminded Cantor that he was the president — and that he reserves the right to disagree with whatever cuts the Republican whip recommends.
CS
Disagreement with Cantor doesn't mean there is no room for compromise. You're proving my point, if Obama disagrees with our ideas, that means there is no bi-partisanship on his part. Again, negotiations and compromise has no place in the Republican party. Either you take what we want piecemeal, or you're not bargaining.
And please remember context, Cantor ideas were what exactly?
CS
From your cited meeting.
“Cantor suggested that if he were to view the stimulus negotiations through a partisan lens, he would argue Democrats started the “party of no” name-calling about the same time that Obama was meeting with House Republicans to discuss the stimulus plan.
In response, the president reminded Cantor that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had urged House Republicans to unite in opposition to his stimulus plans even before they had met with him to discuss it.”
Nothing quite as absolute as saying no to a bill before you meet with the President to discuss that bill.
CS, you're right, I have no dog in this fight. I'm content to see your party self-immolate, and that's what is happening. Just an anecdote. My mom was a lifelong Republican, head of the Republican women's group in her city and was selected as a delegate to the convention. She wouldn't sign the social contract. She's a fiscal conservative and doesn't care about gay marriage or abortion as national electoral issues. They pulled her credentials and she vowed never to give them another dime or vote ever again.
I don't care how many you chase away. But she was as active in the party locally as one could be, and was ostracized from the no-longer-a-big-tent party. She didn't leave the party. It kicked her out.
GD, my point about people like your mother is that instead of feeling that their only choice was to take the ultimatum or leave, they could more productively discuss these issues with their counterparts and find out what compromise might be acceptable in order to hold the two coalitions together. I've never seen that kind of dialogue happening within the party (and I think both sides need to face up to it.) Coalitions disagree all the time, but they recognize that they also need each other in order to gain political clout to get people elected.
The kind of dialogue I'm talking about would have your mother asking why those people feel it's so important to keep the focus on those issues. If she did so, she might hear people expressing their concerns about progressive agendas, and the need to slow down social change in order to avoid unintended consequences. She may still disagree with that need, but at least she could perhaps see where there was room for compromise (on gay unions, for instance, she might get some people to see that the govt shouldn't be endorsing anyone's ideas about the morality of marriage one way or another, and thus we could consider granting civil unions to everyone and get the government out of the marriage business.)
I realize you, and perhaps she, probably don't believe that the socons are capable of that kind of discussion but I've engaged plenty of people myself that I didn't expect to embrace the idea, who came to understand the rationale for it.
So what I'm saying is that instead of making assumptions that stubborn (or non-intellectual) people can't be persuaded to change these kinds of opinions, the moderates who are part of the larger group that contains those kinds of conservatives ought to see themselves as a force which needs to fight for moderation instead of walking out and empowering the extremists even more.
My hope is that evangelical leaders will emerge who can also help moderate the more extreme social conservatives, but I find it absurd that grown people think that other people fighting you on something means that you can no longer be part of the same group. You have other options- fight back, not in a divisive or bitter type of fighting, but just firmly asserting your opinions which counter those of the other coalition. But allowing the numbers of your own coalition within that party to thin out only makes that eventually impossible because the momentum shifts.
Hemm, my insertion of that quote from Obama was somewhat tongue in cheek, but for someone who claims to want to change the tone and be postpartisan, it is a little incongruent to assert ahead of time that he reserves the right to reject out of hand any suggestions made by the other party. Overall, what he's saying is not much different than Bush except in the way it's worded- he wants bipartisan compromise, but not if the other party doesn't do it his way. There were a few other quotes in there too where he has suggested that he wants to have debate but not if the other party opposes him. Well, that's a bit odd, isn't it? By definition a debate would mean that the other party in the debate opposes you.
CS thanks for the response. Mom's not shy. She did point out that 1) the party should welcome fiscal conservatives even if they won't sign a litmus test agreement, 2) there's no way she was going to go to the convention and vote other than the way she had pledged and 3) that the contract would divide the party and send solid Republicans like her packing. Fiscal responsibility, respect for the constitution, individual rights, states rights, strong defense. Those are her issues still, but the GOP has disappointed on so many of those that she can no longer support them. Expressing her concern within the party. even as a part of the local GOP hierarchy fell on deaf ears.
My point though was more along the lines of finding common ground with the people with whom she disagreed. I certainly don't know the details of the contract your mom was asked to sign, or the nature of her conversations about it other than the general statements you're making here, but I don't see from what you're saying that she had the kind of potentially productive debate with those folks that I'm suggesting.
From what I can see, social conservatives feel that fiscal conservatives have been completely dismissive of the social conservatives' concerns even though the fiscons have been perfectly happy to expand the base of the party by going after their votes. That's why they've become more polarized and unwilling to compromise on their core issues- and if the fiscons would recognize that and find the politically teneble responses to those concerns, then the two coalitions could coexist and each group would benefit.
CS
Obama called Cantor for his BS, Republicans already had been told to vote no BEFORE they came to talk to the President about that bill. Wiggle any way you wish, but lock-step hypocrisy does not draw a lot of moderates to your cause.
You want to make this Obama's fault instead of seeing the fatal flaw that absolutism contains.
BTW
A Poll today found that more people believe in ghosts(34%) than want to call themselves Republicans(21%). Keep denying the problem, keep blaming everybody else.
From what I can see, social conservatives feel that fiscal conservatives have been completely dismissive of the social conservatives' concerns even though the fiscons have been perfectly happy to expand the base of the party by going after their votes.
You've said this repeatedly and I just can't follow your reasoning. The GOP stopped being fiscally conservative and decided to switch to a big government approach, so a lot of us left. What part of that can socons not understand? As I've said before I'm not even necessarily blaming socons, I think it was the leadership that let us down. Right now in my view the party deserves to fail and either start over or be replaced by a third party. The GOP can be saved but is it worth saving? I would change my mind if it looks like the party was heading back to what it used to be but there is little sign of that. You mention finding politically tenable responses to socon concerns, but I'm just not seeing a whole lot of receptiveness there. what would yopu consider politically tenable responses.
To me it looks likes you are mad at fiscons for leaving and upset because they will not come back and fix things. From a social standpoint fiscons really never were at odds with Democrats, the problem was with the Democrats lack of fiscal responsibility. Once the GOP turned fiscally irresponsible and started abusing government power, what was there left to turn to? Yes the Democrats are even worse than the GOP at controlling spending (the one exception being Bill Clinton but there's no one like him around any more) but is that a reason to stay with the GOP?
Anyway your comments did inspire me to check out the local County GOP organization which looks to be in disarray. Maybe I'll go to their next meeting.
DENNIS SANDERS COMMENTARY: What The Tea Parties Ca…
The moderate-liberal Republican blogger writes: “The fact is, people have been saying that Republicans needs to be more tolerant and open minded at least since the the 1992 GOP Convention in Houston when Pat Buchanan and others presented a very right….
CS, “…it is a little incongruent to assert ahead of time that he reserves the right to reject out of hand any suggestions made by the other party. Overall, what he's saying is not much different than Bush except in the way it's worded- he wants bipartisan compromise, but not if the other party doesn't do it his way…”
Well I think the broader intent is to remind Cantor that “election have consequences.” Cantor just can't expect Obama to bend his way when the people voted for change (and against the Republicans). If Americans wanted McCain's (and Cantor's vision) in the WH, then we would have elected MacCain.
Obama was willing to compromise (and I'll point out that he did select Republicans for his cabinet and the Dems in the House gave in to the demands the Republicans had about the stimulus, but the GOP still voted against it). This to me was Obama's way of letting Cantor know he would get nothing if Cantor didn't compromise. Obaam by the way, met with GOP leaders before the inauguration, met with the GOP members of Congress after the inauguration and the GOP just throws up roadblocks and wants Obama to fail.
It's too bad your party's leaders loused up the last eight years turning budget surpluses into huge deficits, a plummeting stock market, support of torture, trashing the US Constitution, spying on US citizens, etc. But the American people are tired of the GOP and the polls prove it. Face it the GOP is on a downward spiral and it will continue to do so as long as it has a limited platform that appeal to fewer and fewer people.
So why would Cantor even believe that he is in a position to demand that Obama give him what he (Cantor) wanted? The GOP should be happy that Obama was open to compromise and negotiation. Something Bush NEVER was as prez.
I don't understand why it's considered a detriment or black mark against Dems if their party prefers their candidates to be pro-choice. After all no one will force a woman to get an abortion. The Dem's position leaves such a difficult decision in the woman's hand. The GOP wants to enshrine what a woman does with her body into law, taking away personal responsibility and freedom.
I don't really have any knowledge on the matter but if Romney did change his stance on abortion after he was in office the people of Massachusetts have every right to be upset with Romney for changing his position. The people of Mass wanted a pro-choice governor, a leader who reflected their beliefs and they ended up with just another run of the mill politician who lied about his beliefs to get elected.
If Romney had any integrity he would actually stand up for his beliefs from day one. Not when it's politically convenient.
It's one thing for a party to demand fealty (and why would the GOP want to support far left candidates or the Dems support far right candidates?) but it's another thing for politicians to lie about their own BASIC VALUES to get elected.
Boehner's an a$$ but that doesn't make Obama's gestures of bipartisanship any more sincere, Hemm. Several times now he's had these meetings where he says he's serious about hearing all ideas but even as he's saying that he also keeps saying that he's going to do it his way because 'he won' or because he's the president. Those are not the kinds of statements that encourage people to take you seriously because you're clearly showing that you are only letting them express their views and will use those ideas if they agree with your own, not that you're actually open to changing your mind.
The GOP stopped being fiscally conservative and decided to switch to a big government approach, so a lot of us left. What part of that can socons not understand?
I don't think that part is hard to understand. Instead, the question is, what did the fiscal conservatives do to attempt to right the situation? Did you, or most fiscal conservatives speak up, or did you watch it unfold that way and then when it reached a tipping point, leave?
To me it's a bit like a marriage- if the parties involved don't keep working at it, sooner or later the two grow apart and then it's easy for one person at some point to say, “You've changed, and unfortunately this isn't going to work anymore.” But people who get to that point need to realize that there was a time when they could have changed things and if they failed to see what was happening and try to make the partnership work, it's not the other person's fault.
I realize your view of it is probably that the marriage just isn't worth saving anymore, and that it's no longer important who was at fault. Fine, but is it really in anyone's best interest to dissolve the 'marriage'? If your talking new party, then what coalitions could be brought in, since the remaining fiscal conservative coaltion isn't large enough on its own to win elections? And as we briefly talked about once before, where would the funding come from for such a party? Any party who's platform is for small government is fighting a severely uphill battle to win any sponsorship from monied interests who are in bed with the current two parties.
Stockboy, and Hemm, you guys have obviously bought all of the talking points regarding the gestures that I see as window dressing rather than serious efforts at compromise, so there's no use in arguing about it. You are not open to seeing it any other way (though I wouldn't doubt you saw similar things from the other perspective during Bush's terms, when he was declared the 'decider in chief.')
Anyway your comments did inspire me to check out the local County GOP organization which looks to be in disarray. Maybe I'll go to their next meeting.
Good on you for at least considering it. I hope you do go.
CS
Don't get side tracked. You wish to believe Cantor is sincere, but know that Obama is being duplicitous. There's that absolutism again. Cantor is just trying to be a good legislator while Obama has the audacity to question the sincerity of a party that had already prejudged a bill before talking to the President about compromise. No one is buying that, and you shouldn't either.
The Republican position has devolved into “What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.” Your party has become bereft of ideas and statesmanship.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
And No CS, underlings are not Republicans.
Hemm- you believe that my impressions are based on absolutism, but how are yours not the same in reverse? You view it through the lens of Obama being genuine in attempt to compromise while Cantor and other Congressional GOP are not. We'll have to agree to disagree, but believe me, neither of us is being more absolutist than the other- we each have levels of trust and distrust for the various individuals involved.