Last week I highlighted a comment from John McKay in his speech at the recent Mainstream Republican conference as needing some additional discussion:
"What we've done is take issues like gay marriage and rubbed people's noses in it. ... We raise abortion up on the flagpole every single time to create dissension, to create some line that has nothing to do with what Republicans are about. We should accept people into the party who have divergent views, on immigration, on gay marriage."
Anyone familiar with the running debate between social conservatives and Mainstream Republicans is all too familiar with McKay's complaint. It's a regular theme of rhetoric coming from the Mainstreamers. While there is some validity to the notion that in Washington state the conservative position on social issues is not widely embraced by the state's populace at large, such words by McKay imply ignorance of the critical role social conservatives play in the Republican coalition.
Nationally Republicans are the party of national security conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives; just as the Democratic party is an amalgam of organized labor, environmentalists, women's groups, African-Americans, etc. Here in Washington state, the rough equivalent for Republicans is fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and property rights conservatives. Either way, social conservatives are an essential part of the coalition - just as the other conservatives are likewise essential. Without any of the three Republicans face serious hurdles; whether everyone would like to admit that or not.
Why exactly? On the Presidential stage, the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru makes a compelling case that social issues, not economic issues, are a more critical draw for "Reagan Democrats" in key Midwestern states. This critical demographic is demonstrably drawn to the rhetoric of economic populism, not the low-tax, free trade, less regulated market that has contributed so much to the economic prosperity of the last two decades. These voters are more likely to want corporate sponsored pensions and employer-provided health benefits than tax incentives to purchase their own healthcare, coupled with a 401(k) - let alone a personal account as part of Social Security. Yet such voters remain vital to the Republican coalition.
Without social conservatives Republicans will be incredibly hard pressed to win the White House. That doesn't mean abortion and gay marriage should or are likely to be the leading issues in a Presidential race. But it also means that unless social conservatives are comfortable with a candidate, Republicans risk losing a notable portion of the social conservative base if the Democratic candidate's appeal on economic issue trumps a Republican advantage on national security.
As part of Ponnuru's case for the importance of social conservatives, he notes, "the crucial swing voters in that [2004] election were not the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' people who are disproportionately found among the college-educated." Any serious student of Washington politics knows full well, however, that such a demographic makes up an increasing portion of the suburban legislative districts from which Republicans have been virtually swept.
Thus, a dichotomy. While social conservatives are an integral portion of the Republican base without which victory is difficult, if not impossible, the prominent and provocative discussion of social issues turns off an equally important demographic in this state's suburbs (see Craswell, Ellen).
What to do.
Personally, I'm sympathetic to Mainstreamsers on some points, though not at all in entirety, and have attended some of their events. But if they want to complain about the rhetoric of some social conservatives, especially the truly hyperbolic, then they should do better than McKay's words quoted above, or this passage from Mainstream Chair Sid Morrison in a recent association newsletter:
"Yet in this last election we saw radical elements of our own party actively opposing Republican incumbents which certainly cost us seats. We must reject these divisive and unproductive voices in our party, they are the real 'RINO's' - refusing to support our Republican nominees." [emphasis mine]
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, I give you Mr. Pot. Perhaps everyone using the term "RINO" ought to rethink its use.
I'll not soon be accused of being a radical social conservative. Many of the commenters here at Sound Politics who would embrace the social conservative label for themselves would object vigorously if I claimed to be of similar mind. Yet remarks like McKay's, echoed at least in theme by Morrison, are the wrong message. The Republican Party has room for conservatives for all stripes, or at least it should if it wants to win executive offices and governing majorities.
Moreover, while Republicans must be able to embrace a diverse party coalition (just as Democrats must likewise conjoin competing factions), those in the ideological minority on certain issues within the party shouldn't insist on changing major aspects of the literal or figurative platform. While there are always refinements that can be made, but the platform is what it is for a reason.
The Republican Party will be a losing party if it rejects social conservatives as some seem ready to do. Likewise, Republicans will continue to fail miserably in Washington state as long as suburban voters view Republicans as being out-of-step with the issues they prioritize. Perhaps that's a tricky balance, but it's political reality. All sides of the debate within the party would do well to accept it.
UPDATE: link to Mainstream newsletter added.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 28, 2007 07:07 PM | Email ThisAnthony, posting in response to my Public Blog post, indicated that McKay was making the point that we should not "exclude groups from the party for not being 'Republican enough.'" He further argued in favor of "building the Republican coalition," noting that "(b)eing open-minded and welcoming rather than exclusionary is the way forward."
I agree that we should be "welcoming rather than exclusionary" and that we should be "open-minded" in discussing and debating strategy, policies, and platform planks. Those who find themselves in the minority should not pick up their marbles and leave the GOP. And those who find themselves in the majority should not "exclude" the minority from the Republican coalition.
I'm a fiscal conservative, foreign policy conservative, social conservative, and immigration conservative. As such, I strongly support the planks in the King County, Washington State, and National GOP platforms that reflect the pro-life views of the party membership and grassroots.
Certainly, there are some Republicans who disagree with the pro-life plank and/or other parts of the platform. They should not be excluded - not at all. I encourage those Republicans to work for Republican candidates despite disagreements. After all, when you consider such issues as lower taxes, economic growth, property rights, school choice, stopping illegal immigration, and defeating Islamic fascism - the Republican Party stands head and shoulders above the Democratic Party alternative.
In my campaign against Jim McDermott, I was endorsed by Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Mike McGavick, Jennifer Dunn, Toby Nixon, and all four GOP members of the King County Council. Among my endorsers were people closely associated with the Mainstream Republicans, such as Slade Gorton, Sam Reed, and the late Norm Maleng. My endorsements also included the Human Life Political Action Committee, Stefan Sharkansky, and Jim Nobles. Some of those endorsing my campaign did not agree with some of my political positions, but they correctly supported me in my effort against Jim McDermott.
Likewise, I campaigned vigorously for the entire Republican ticket in 2006, even though I disagreed with some positions taken by some candidates.
Finally, with regard to the pro-life issue and McKay's statement that "We raise abortion up on the flagpole every single time to create dissension, to create some line that has nothing to do with what Republicans are about," I simply and strongly disagree with McKay. Readers of this blog are again referred to the quotes from President Reagan in my original Public Blog post.
The pro-life stance of the Republican national, state, and county platforms is a correct stance. It is not a source of "dissension," but a point of unity and central to what Republicans are about.
In any case, the divergent views at issue are part of the larger discussion and debate about how best to build a powerful and successful Republican coalition.
Posted by: Steve Beren on May 28, 2007 09:19 PMThe Reagan Wing got started only 3 yrs. ago when several of us began to realize that members of our own party were fighting us on Republican principles (by the way, not only on social issues), either by attempts to eliminate key positions from our platform or by circumventing a fair candidate nominating process to favor the more well funded "moderate" who opposes us on any number of issues. Of course, some of our members have known this for years, but others of us were discovering it anew and wanted to coalition together to counter their efforts.
We are perfectly willing to welcome people into the party who disagree with us on an issue, but as you said, if they find themselves in the minority of the party on their position, they should not attempt to eliminate our position or even soften it. However, we do have serious reservations about having a Republican be our nominee if he disagrees with one of the major positions of the party. Afterall, we're electing him to accomplish a purpose, which is to represent our position and move public policy to reflect those views.
You point out the different groups that make up the Democrat party. Have you ever noticed that when any one of those groups devotes major attention to an issue, they usually have the entire coalition joining them? Environmentalists out for abortion advocates, organized labor out for environmentalists, abortion rights out for organized labor, etc.
Imagine if the Republican Party could have such unity!
I'm a pro-life activist, that will fiercely defend property rights, enforcing our immigration laws, securing our borders, lowering taxes AND cutting government pork, restoring local control of schools and getting the federal government OUT. Will the "fiscal conservatives" do the same with my top issue? Will the mainstreamers? Heck, they even opposed repealing the gas tax! Are they even fiscal conservatives?
We're always hearing about Reagan's 80/20 rule or the "big tent". Here's what he had to say about divergent views in the party:
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers..... And if there are those that cannot subscribe to these principals, THEN LET THEM GO THEIR WAY!"
Posted by: Michelle on May 28, 2007 10:20 PMJohn McKay was a speaker at the Mainstream Republican conference, as was Dino Rossi, Luke Esser, Steve Berren and many others. His speech reflects his own opinions and it is neither rational nor fair for you to use his words to criticize our organization. It is expedient for your argument, but it isn't fair.
Beyond this McKay attacks no Republican in these comments, instead he offers the party advice. Advice that you consider and reject in a well reasoned analysis. I should stress that other voices in the party are constantly suggesting things that the party can do better, such as Michelle above.
The quote from MRW Chairman Sid Morrison does reflect our values.
In the 2006 election two Republican incumbents who were eventually unseated were attacked by the far right: Bev Woods and Jan Shabro. It is likely that in Wood's case and almost certain in Shabro's case that these attacks cost us those seats in the legislature.
A casual examination of the "Reagan Wings" website reveals more attacks aimed at their fellow Republicans than against any Democrats. They clearly opposed the election of a significant number of Republicans. Of course the Reagan Wing is a very small organization and has almost no impact on the party other than their hostile postings on blogs.
In 2006 MRW spent nearly $200,000 to advance the Republican cause, not a single attack was made against any Republican AND the nearly two dozen candidates that benefited from MRW's program were drawn from across the Republican spectrum. Most of our funds went to pro-life endorsed candidates.
The Mainstream Republicans of Washington have never opposed a Republican nominee.
MRW includes on its board those who are pro-life as well as those who are pro-choice. The leading voice for the pro-life effort in the state Senate, Dan Swecker, is a member of our organization. Our board also included a one Mr. Earling who you know better than I do.
MRW works for party unity, never attacks a fellow Republican, always supports the Republican nominee and each year we raise and spend a significant number of dollars to help win elections.
Your post creates conflict where none should exists and wrongly places blame on MRW. Despite distractions like this our organization remains focused on the real work of the party: candiate recruitment, voter contact projects and expanding our coalition.
Best regards,
Alex Hays
Executive Director, MRW
1)True or false: McKay's above remarks were "well received" by your organization? If it is true, then while it may not be the official position of the "mainstreamers", it's pretty safe to say, it's the sentiment of the group. If it is false, have you asked Neil Modie to retract that report? In fact, I've heard similiar remarks from some of your board members; Dan Evans, Ralph Munro, Sam Reed. Doesn't Republicans for Choice, Log Cabin Republicans and "It's My Party Too" all consider your organization their "strategic partners"?
2)Who on the "far right" "attacked" Jan Shabro and Bev Woods? Please answer that question and then tell me what constitutes an "attack"?
3)Does Mainstream support ALL of the Republican nominees?
Posted by: Michelle on May 28, 2007 11:48 PMMichelle, you're right on to note that while we should be a "big tent," that there are some things on which we cannot and should not bend. The question is, of course, what those things are.
I'm sure most of us would agree on most of what those things are, and I think that's an important conversation to have (though not necessarily in this particular discussion). I think we really need the Mainstreamers and Conservatives and everyone else to come together on a common set of principles, a sort of Creed for the Republican Party.
Some of us are Catholics and some are Protestants, but we agree on the Nicean Creed: I wonder if maybe we shouldn't do something similar in the GOP. Something we can hold up to the public, to candidates, to electeds, to each other, and say "this is our line in the sand." Something that says, if you don't believe this, *you are not a Republican.*
Something above and beyond a platform, it would not be focused on specific issues but, rather, specific principles. For example, we believe first and foremost in individual liberty, and that the purpose of government is to secure that liberty. That citizens have the most liberty when government's decisions are made as locally as possible. That it is not acceptable to simply ignore laws, because only by requiring government to follow the laws of the republic can liberty be protected.
I dunno, it's late, maybe I need some sleep. But maybe I'm on to something, too. Maybe something like this already exists and we just need to dust it off and make it more prominent.
I wrote and I meant MRW supports every Republican nominee. Why do you need me to repeat this? Identify a single instance were MRW opposed a Republican nominee.
The far right opposed both Woods and Shabro and urged voters to oppose them. This includes current party officials in King and Kitsap counties. Including one guy I actually respected.
McKay was applauded several times during his speech. He also said "I hope some of you disagree with me" after expressing the comments that have been referenced here. That also received applause. Oddly enough applause at an event doesn't count as an official endorsement of an idea...next month the Regan Wing hears from the founder of the Minute Men, can I assume everything that gets applauded at the event can be treated a RW doctrine? Obviously not.
Looking at YOUR website I see: a criticism of the president (accusing him of treason it seems), John McCain, Gordon Smith, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson (because he supported a fellow Republican!), Norm Maleng (after his death), John McKay, some King County party folks, Dave Reichert, John McCain again, Eric Earling, Alberto Gonzales (OK, I agree with that post), Fred Thomson again AND then a post against Murtha. One post in favor of Tom Tacredo. That's a whole lot of "hate thy fellow Republican" before you get around to criticizing one D by name and saying something nice about one R.
And you talk about the vitriol from Mainstream? Wow. That takes some nerve. You even posted several of these screeds. I remember you calling to talk with me, in that conversation you were altogether more fair minded than what I see from you tonight and on your blog.
The Reagan Wing spends ALL of it's energy (such as it is) defeating Republicans. Mainstream spends its energy electing them.
Alex
Instead we do the two party thing were such coalitions are made before the election. This is what a lot of people don't really understand. Our political parties are not monolithic behemoths, but are an amalgamation of various factions. Because of the way our system is set up divergent voices are more likely to be heard with a party then by forming a new one.
Probably the best example in recent memory is the rise of the Christian right in the republican part.y While nominally social conservatives before that, right-wing Christians brought the party to take much more prominent stances on gay rights, abortion, mandatory religion in schools, etc. This was mostly successful for the republicans in general and got the Christian right more power then they would have in a third party. Even if they got a few seats, they would be marginalized. Instead they could point to there 20-30% of the population around the country and use it to leverage a much larger and established party.
The trick in this kind of system is to build a coalition that gets you the 50+1 votes.
Posted by: Giffy on May 29, 2007 05:51 AMThanks for joining the discussion. You'll note my post cited my agreement with the Mainstream Republicans on many points. As you may know, I'd probably be more at home at your events (and have attended them!) than at anything put together by the Reagan Wing. But that doesn't detract from a point I've heard from a number of folks that would consider themselves Mainstream Republicans, regardless of the name or title they bear: that they essentially want social conservatives to be quiet or leave the party.
That simply won't work in the long run. As a regular reader you know full well I object violently to a lot of what the Reagan Wing and those of similar mind do. You and I probably share much common ground, particularly on issues affecting the suburbs. Yet, there's nothing wrong with a little constructive criticism now again. In my belief, the efforts of the Mainstream Republicans would be well served by avoiding anything close to the same sort of vitriol that comes from your opponents at times.
Perhaps you viewed the post above as an attack on the organization as a whole. That certainly wasn't my intent. But McKay's remarks caught my eye (as any speech by any speaker on such issues might), as did Morrison's in the newsletter. They weren't out of line with a lot of other comments I've heard in private at assorted events from people who would consider themselves Mainstream Republicans. Thus, the post.
Anyway, thanks for your contributions to the debate here.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 29, 2007 06:48 AMBut by the same token the coalition factor means we'll have candidates at times, especially outside of conservative strongholds, who may deviate significantly on some issues. Where such candidates fairly represent their constituency, like say Dave Reichert or Fred Jarrett, Republicans should accept them. The "line in the sand" should be reserved for those who go so far off the reservation that they really should be questioned, such as Lincoln Chafee (or Pat Buchanan in the other direction, but that's another debate I think).
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 29, 2007 07:16 AM"If the Evangelical Element insists on continually corrupting the Republican Party they should be told to go elsewhere."
This is a guy who just missed being the 2nd CD nominee.
Also, I am the one who talked about a "line in the sand," and I don't think the line should be about specific issues, but about specific principles. It shouldn't touch the platform (though it might influence it, if people decide some element of the platform doesn't quite follow our principles very well).
Whether Dave Reichert believes in legal abortion or not (which is already in the GOP platform, of course), the question would be simply does he believe in liberty? Does he believe in a philosophy of government that respects liberty, which includes following the law and making decisions as locally as possible? That is what makes someone a Republican.
Eric, you are incorrect in your post, it isn't the mainstreamers that want to reject social conservatism, but the social conservatives that want to reject the mainstreamers. Just re-read the comments when you post on the presidential election. One commentor after another explains that they will not vote for Giuliani if he is the nominee because of his non-social conservatism. You don't see any mainstreamer saying that come the general election they'll sit it out rather than vote for some social conservative.
I don't even know who the mainstreamers are but they are correct in pointing out that a Republican candidate in a statewide election here who trumpets school vouchers or his anti-abortion stance doesn't have a chance. We screwed up with the Pat Robertson thing and we screwed up at the same time with education issues. In your average circles out there the WA state republican party is thought of as a bunch of bible-toting school-hating hicks.
The edict should go out to Republican candidates that no-matter what their belief is on abortion they should keep it quiet and say it doesn't matter that much and look at the more important things (i.e. Rossi). They should campaign publicly with a soft touch around the education issues and a heavy hand on fiscal conservatism (i.e. Rossi).
Your line in the sand approach should not be based on how many or which party planks are deviated from, but more importantly, how many or which party planks are deviated from in relation to what is needed to be done to win an election in a specific electorate. We need to get more people in this state voting for the 'R's' to begin with, then we can get more and more conservative candidates as long as they run like Rossi and don't trumpet their social conservatism.
Posted by: Doug on May 29, 2007 08:14 AMAnd I strongly disagree with you about forming our core principles based on where we can win votes, if that's what you mean. That is why my "line in the sand" referred to: our core principles. These are things that should not ever deviate, things ALL Republicans should be able to agree on.
If we cannot come up with such a list, then what's the point?
What you wrote, while sounding very politically expedient is also quite troubling.
In your average circles out there the WA state republican party is thought of as a bunch of bible-toting school-hating hicks.
Is it because Republicans ARE "a bunch of bible-toting school-hating hicks"? Is it because the left has successfully defined the party that way with the help of the media? Is it because the Mainstream Republicans think of social conservatives that way and work to perpetuate that myth?
Is the answer for social conservatives to give up their convictions, hold their noses and vote for candidates that will violate their core principles just for the sake of a party label when that party does NOT stand for the principles they hold?
If someone believes that the unborn is a human life should they simply say, "oh well, another million and half dead babies, but at least we have a chance of a few budget cuts this year"???
Or maybe they will be mollified with "too bad the kids aren't learning anything in schools, have no choices, and our underclass is going further under because of educational deficiencies, but the economy is running like a fine oiled machine"???
How about, "Families are disintegrating, but at least we have secure borders to protect our way of life...oh, wait..."???
Principles matter.
If we are to give up on core principles, the other things are simply window dressing. What good is a rich, secure and prosperous society that has sold its soul?
Social conservatism is not a deal breaker in this state. How can it be when the majority of the state does NOT want gay marriage and unrestricted abortion? The problem is how the message gets out and and the willingness of the Republican party to stand together and support a social conservatives. It seems to me by the characterization of the social conservatives that MRW have abandoned social conservatism and will only tolerate a social conservative out of political expediency. "You can come to our party but keep mum about that abortion stuff, you'll embarrass us."
For some of us, having a few more dollars in our pockets pales compared to saving a baby or two, and we would like a party that is not afraid hold a conviction and is willing to find a way to present their message in a way that speaks to the people of the state and not simply let the left set the characterization of their candidates.
Posted by: Eyago on May 29, 2007 08:57 AMGreat post, you are 100% correct in taking both sides to task on this.
Alex,
The Reagan Wing is a straw man argument. It's leader is mentally ill and disowned by even the most ardent social conservatives. That said, I actually have gained a lot of respect for the MRW in recent years because they have come out for some more conservative candidates (see Luke Esser).
I also applaud your aggressive outreach meetings with social conservatives on issues like gay marriage and abortion with respect to judicial races. If Sid Morrison is aware of and approves of these he is a much wiser and pragmatic man than I have given him credit for in the past.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 29, 2007 10:40 AMOne example was the MRW support of the gas tax increase... and, of course, they are not the only ones.
As we know now, supporting the gas tax increase was the wrong course to take. Believing in government... believing in government propaganda in this state, is frequently asking to believe in lies.
The MRW actively supported this tax increase, and by so doing, they supported the insidious application of an emergency clause; and the subsequent, post-election, 31% reduction in the project list we were assured would result from keeping the tax in place.
For me, the question is this: what are the MSW's doing FOR Republicans and our issues, instead of TO Republicans and our issues?
In reviewing the MSW website it is of note that, for example, the site talks about candidates running for statewide office in 1992... but I couldn't find anything about the outcomes of the now legendary 1994 elections.... which really didn't have much to do with the MRW at any particular level... or else, one would think, they would have mentioned it on their website.
Several years ago, I contacted the national organization, and I asked their PR guy the following question: "I have reviewed as much information as I can about your group... and I have reviewed as much information as I can from the Democrats... and it seems to me that there isn't much difference between your group and the Democrats.... could you help me with that?"
Well, I was assured, we ARE "a bit more fiscally conservative."
Being a Republican group should mean adherence to Republican principles. Having as your core principles a carefully parsed version of the democrat platform does not Republicans make.
I have yet to see where the MRW has benefited Republicans generally and this state specifically.
If you're going to be democrats, quit screwing around and get on with it.
But holding up leftists like Sam Reed as some sort of paragon of Republican virtue is laughable. I, for one, will give money to whoever runs against him if he survives to the general, and lend my endorsement as a former ED of the state republican party to whoever that person may be as well. And what a sad commentary that is... that I would even consider doing such a thing.
But somehow, I believe his mishandling of his position, his failure to press for secure voter registration limited to those legal to vote... his incessant whining and sniveling about giving felons the vote before they've completed their sentences... those things disqualify him not only from my support, but the support of any Republican that values these areas of our election integrity.
That will not, however, stop the MRW from keeping in lockstep with, and doing everything they can, for Reed.
Because, what the hell, that's just the kind of people they are... right?
Hi, Alex! Long time since Tukwilla!
Posted by: Hinton on May 29, 2007 12:05 PMYour statement in #16 is about as vacuous as anything the libs toss out to marginalize fly-over America.
Define "radical right wing" specifically and how their views are particularly out of step with middle America. Rudy appeals to many Americans not because of his "republican core values" but because of his reputation for action, charisma and name recognition. His social stands are liabilities that will affect more than your so-called "radical right wing" though, if Rudy survives to the big show will likely vote for him because they are not quite as radical as you might like to characterize them.
Posted by: Eyago on May 29, 2007 12:20 PM"Stanwoodsage," mentally ill? is this a clinical diagnosis? By an individual not courageous enough to use his/her real name? Disowned by even the most ardent social conservatives? Not the ones I know and trust. But the ones who compromise away our princples so they can have "a place at the table", yes-that's true.
Alex,
Your right, I was the person you spoke with on the phone. I always make an effort to be fair minded. You rightly point out that we do more criticism of Republicans than we do of Democrats. That's an example of being fair minded. How can we criticize Democrats for doing what the do, when we have the same problem in our own party? Just think of us as the proverbial hand removing the log in our own eye, before removing the speck in our brother's.
1) I know that MRW has not endorsed every Republican nominee in every election. While it's true you may not have actively campainged against the candidates you didn't endorse, you didn't need to. Your organization has the big money of the party. The candidates you endorse have a leg up, financially. Fine.
2) You did not say who it was who "attacked" Jan Shabro and Bev Woods, nor what constituted an "attack". Could it be that there were some Republicans who were not satisfied with the way the two of them performed as legislators? Were there nasty ads run against them by this "far right"?
3) You did not answer my question about your "strategic parntners": Republicans for Choice, Log Cabin Republicans and "It's My Party Too". How is your "strategy" going, btw?
And yes, The Reagan Wing is hosting Jim Gilchrest next month at our Washington State Illegal Immigration Summit. And yes, if there are any accurately quoted statements that are accurately reported as "well received" at that event, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's the sentiment of our group.
Posted by: Michelle on May 29, 2007 01:29 PMThanks for the kind words, I'm guessing we've met because you know about some of my work with social conservatives. As you know I never compromise my values or those of Mainstream but where agreements exist (and they exist quite often) I feel it's best to work together. Joe Fuiten once said (paraphrasing here) that he and I disagreed on several issues but that I treated him and social conservatives with respect, it surprised more than a few when he endorsed me for WSRP Vice Chair.
Mainstream does not work to silence others, nor do we attack those we disagree with. "Pudge" above wants to hold us accountable for the statements of a candidate I've never heard of in 2nd CD. We will protest when the far right insists on attacking Republicans and we will spell out the implications of those attacks. Look at the unthinking hostility moderates in the party receive (often on this blog) and I think you'll see who's attacking who in this conversation and why Mainstream's work to expand the R coalition is so valuable.
Hinton:
Buddy, I'm hoping that you'll come around on MRW someday. You and I got along great and you know I worked diligently for the party when we were at the state party together. I'll point out that criticizing MRW for supporting a Republican candidate is a bit weird...
In terms of issues, some diversity of opinion inside a political party must exists. It's impossible for principled people to agree on everything. About 1/3 of Republican legislators voted for the gas tax and transportation package it funded ...what should we do to them? Lots of conservatives disagree with president on immigration, should we silence them? No way.
Michelle's quote from President Reagan seems to be an invitation for some to leave the party. I remind you all that we need every Republican we have in Washington State, we don't win elections by forcing people out. So, Reagan Wingers, don't leave just be more supportive of your fellow Republicans. In fact take this challenge: for the next 30 days post no attacks against your fellow Republican on your website. Spend the hours that would be used on those efforts making GOTV calls in King and Snohomish counties for all Republican candidates.
A certain element of bigotry pervades this debate, with the far right (even when they are a minority within the party) insisting that only their position in the true Republican one. Looking at the comments here it's clear that some are unaware of how, like the far left, they allow themselves to hate people they disagree with.
Stanwood above and other social conservatives will report to you I disagree with them on several issues, but work well with them when we do agree. I suggest we all try to do this more often.
We are perfectly willing to welcome people into the party who disagree with us on an issue, but as you said, if they find themselves in the minority of the party on their position, they should not attempt to eliminate our position or even soften it.
She spoke only of reservations about Republican candidates who do not support the majority positions of the party, not about asking any such people (candidates or not) to leave the party. I think Eric hit the nail on the head mentioning Lincoln Chafee: he opposed almost every Republican issue AND principle: not just on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, stem cell research, or even foreign policy issues like Iraq, John Bolton, or even guns or the environment: he was also against tax cuts, for increasing taxing the rich and business, for federal control of health care ... I can't think of a single issue where he was not a Democrat in both word and deed. He even voted against Sam Alito.
He certainly was to the left of many Democrats on every issue, and it's because he did not share Republican principles of limited government, private ownership, and personal liberty.
The "line in the sand" I mentioned is meant to unify us, while frankly excluding people like Chafee, but not any Mainstreamers or Conservatives or Reagan Wingers.
Alex, you have unanswered questions. If you choose to ignore them, I'm waisting my time here.
As to your challenge, The Reagan Wing will continue publishing the truth, with regards to Republican candidates and elected officials. So will Life of the Party. That does not preclude us from doing work to help candidates we support. You have your money, we have our words.
Oh, and you asked me to name one Republican nominee that your organization has opposed. Linda Smith comes to mind, for instance.
Posted by: Michelle on May 29, 2007 02:49 PMCould someone please tell me what exactly a "radical social conservative" is? I'm not talking a loopy fringe element, but someone who is supposed to be in the 20-30% republican base. This appears to be a media driven term since most of the "radical" positions attributed to them seem to resonate with a high percentage of average Americans. But I could be wrong. Hard to tell really since everyone is really only interested in tossing out labels without saying what they really stand for.
So, before we can tell what a Republican platform "not driven and bowed by" this mythical radical social conservative, we should first define what the platforms are that are driven by those "radicals" and why they are radical.
Posted by: Eyago on May 29, 2007 04:26 PMThanks for the kind words, MRW would benefit immensely if your patrons acted more like you.
Can I ask Michelle and others -- what is the obesession with Sam Reed? Let's assume for the moment that he royally screwed up the Rossi 2004 debacle. Does anyone here honestly believe that the outcome would have been better had Laura Ruderman been Sec. of State? Reed has since purged over 100,000 illegal voters from the rolls and has generally done an outstanding job in the office. If Dino Rossi isn't wasting his time going after Reed, why should the rest of us?
And yes, I know, Reed is a moderate (or even liberal) Republican. But so is Slade Gorton and Mike McGavick and I didn't see anyone stepping up to ruin their primaries in vastly more important offices when it comes to social issues.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 29, 2007 05:11 PMWho has Doug been instrumental in electing? What public policy change for the better in Washington state has he been a part of? The reason he has been written off by the most respected social conservatives in the state is not because they want a place at the table but because his bizarre personal behavior and attacks (comparing Jennifer Dunn to the White Witch from the CS Lewis trilogy) make it embarassing to have him at THEIR table. Is every one of them a sell-out?
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 29, 2007 05:32 PMHas anyone noticed that you're a social conservative and I'm a moderate but we're getting along great? That says something and shows the path for the future of our party. I think that if you worked closely with my "patrons" as you style them you'd be as comfortable with them as you are me.
Michelle,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I was working on electing Republicans. Really. It's not just a rhetorical device!
In terms of partners, we have two board members who are on the board of the state Log Cabin organization and the other groups you mention are federal and we've not worked with them on anything before (at least since I've been involved in MRW). Nor have we worked with LCR on any project, but we probably should do more to reach out to them.
Too bad you can't take time off from your criticisms, Snohomish and King Counties will have important elections that we as Republicans need to win...oh well. I tried!
You reference one of my favorite proverbs, another is "The wise son desires correction". I spend more time asking myself how I can do a better job of supporting our cause than I do wondering how to get you to stop hurting the party. My theory is that the more I work to get you to change the more you thrive on the attention and the more it makes you appear to be a credible organization.
I think also the proverb about timbers and specks in eyes is about self awareness, your suggestion that it authorizes your attacks against your fellow Republican is terribly self serving. Perhaps the words are meant to suggest to you that you should look at your own behavior? Considering that about 1% of Republicans support your candidate Tom Tancredo, has it occurred to you that as 1% of the party maybe you're wrong and the rest of us know something? Keep in mind your candidates for county party offices were trounced.
As you say you have your words we have our money, but really we have more than just money. We also have all the statewide elected Republicans and most of the members of both caucuses. We have the trust of more swing voters. We have courage and a full measure more civility than you have yet shown. Anyone can attack and complain, it requires maturity and wisdom to work together and govern the state.
Now the more difficult answer. I don't want to discuss who attacked Woods and Shabro, it happened plenty on this very blog in posts. Some have expressed regret to me for their role, others are proud. I want to criticize the behavior in general without picking a fight with anyone by name. It's in the past, it's not productive to seek vengeance, and I hope we can head off such self destructive behavior in the future.
And it is true that GOP-wing opposition was mostly responsible for loses in the last election by Shabro and Woods. Perhaps others.
Go figure!
Look, you don't need to lose the social conservatives to redefine the state GOP as reasonable people in this state. It is all about what you emphasize. Think Reagan. His alliance with social conservatives was a big factor, but not the basis, of his broad electoral appeal.
And for most voters, what most of the GOP has been emphaszing around here for some time is viewed as, to put it mildly, pretty unreasonable compared to the alternative.
More emphasis on the American fundamental of seperation of church and state might be a good start at rebuilding the party into something more credible with more voters statewide.
Posted by: redflag on May 29, 2007 08:31 PMDescribe "bizarre personal behavior". How many Republicans he's helped elect or public policies he's help to move in the right direction (I'll let him numerate them, if he cares to anser you) has nothing to do with "mental illness". You are slandering the man with nothing to back up your claim. Prove it!
Alex,
Sorry for not responding to you sooner, but I was spending time with my family. Really. It's not just a rhetorical device!
That you're getting along so well with someone we are all to assume is a social conservative, regardless of us not knowing who he is, but dishes out such unsubstantiated slander is telling. On the other hand, that I have substantiated criticisms of your organization qualifies us as "not getting along"? Eric and Pudge can both tell you that I'm perfectly capable of getting along with people with whom I disagree.
The national organizations that I mentioned refer to your national organization as "strategic partners". As I understand, you work in unity of purpose with Republican Mainstreet Partnership. Please correct me if I'm wrong. While you're at it, why don't you tell us what the purpose of your organization is. I think you told me it's "a safe haven for Republicans who disagree with the majority of Republicans on any issue". And what do you think you should do to reach out more to Log Cabin Republicans?
I know a few conservatives who attended your conference last year with an open mind. They discovered MRW's "vitriol" (that was their word for it) too, and now understand The Reagan Wing better.
And spare me your psycho-analysis you give to try and marginalize me.
Posted by: Michelle on May 29, 2007 09:07 PMWho was the "GOP-Wing opposition" to Shabro and Woods? Seriously, I'm very curious about this.
Posted by: Michelle on May 29, 2007 09:13 PMOh, baloney, Mr. McKay. It's the liberals who have taken issues like "gay marriage" and rubbed OUR noses in it. They're the ones who've raised the issue, not us. Then the self-styled "Mainstreamers" in the legislature vote for this radical stuff, and what are we, the actual mainstream of the party supposed to do? Remain quiet? Sorry, but no way. We're going to speak out. And if you don't like it because the positions of out-of-the-mainstreams, liberal Republicans are then spotlighted, that's too bad.
Posted by: ram on May 29, 2007 10:08 PMTVW just carried Dino's entire speech to the last MRW conference. Dino gave another REALLY good talk. IMO it's pretty much a done deal that he is going to run again.
In which case here's my hope: That EVERYONE who calls themselves (R) will go all-out for Dino in 2008, and help him win ''count 4''. Given the make-up of the WA State electorate and especially KC, at best it will be a close race. Winning will require a max effort.
If anybody still needs any motivation, consider for a moment what it will be like if the (D)s retain control of all 3 branches of State Government for 2009 - 2013 [_shudder_].
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 29, 2007 10:15 PMI doubt the value of engaging in any further conversation here, though if you woud like to work toward rapprochement please call me again. Have a good night.
A final point: I understand why you'd assume a close relationship between MRW and Mainstreet, though one does not exist. We've worked to develop a more meaningful relationship, though have not yet succeeded. In one instance Mainstreet ran radio ads attacking MRW supported Congressional candidate Cathy McMorris, we would like to avoid this problem in the future. Their website reflects their partnerships not ours, as illustrated by the fact that some of the groups you identify have no chapters in Washington State.
Posted by: Alex Hays on May 29, 2007 10:31 PMGood comments. When I talked with Dino I stressed that Mainstream would do everything we could for him. Given our successes in 2006 I believe that will be able to do more in 2008 that any previous year. My personal goal in 1,000,000 voter contacts.
Posted by: Alex Hays on May 29, 2007 10:42 PMThat is any social conservative who speaks his mind.
Please appreciate the devil is in the details. Liberty lost when it came to minimum wage. Liberty continues to lose on many social issues.
The most revolting line is separation of church and state. This often misquoted principle is not found in any official documents. It simply doesn't exist, clearly a bit of fiction made up by the Supreme Court that is located in a building surrounded by religious statements. Ten Commandments for openers. Clearly we have sunk in a marsh obscuring our vision. Liberty lost again. Public displays of Christmas ornaments are in the closet with the Carolers.
Talking about closets, the militant gays are drawing a following that creates laws based on protecting folk if they may think they are feeling "gay". Imagine creating laws that prohibit telling the public that someone has a contagious disease. So a dentist kills a few people in Florida because he has AIDS. Liberty lost again.
Our world has turned upside down. Republicans consistently vote for public funding of buildings and services that are best sponsored by private enterprise. And with a straight face ask for conservative support. The Kingdome was designed and built by public money and promised to last 50 years. The King Dome was blown up and replaced by two stadiums (stadii ?) costing the taxpayers over a billion dollars and counting. I wonder how long they will remain standing. It seems many public structures have a short life span in Washington. And our beloved Dan, the man for baseball, rallied Republicans for those fine temples of liberty. Strike 3.
Should we discuss some other fiascoes. Perhaps the anarchy existing in illegal immigration, excuse me, undocumented immigrants. And the list of demands they want satisfied. We are expected to fund Mexico because the citizens are poor and deserving and have children. Liberty lost that one. Someone should tell someone that terrorists have enclaves in South America and routinely cross the borders posing as illegal aliens. And they speak Spanish. Just ask the people in Spain.
Ask KVI how they feel about the free speech issue created by the Arizona Senator with his Democratic buddy. Liberty lost again.
My point is that liberty is not surviving the overwhelming onslaught by Democrats and Republicans. We have precious few liberties left. Actually to be perfectly honest I am hardpressed to think of one liberty that is not damaged or threatened. Good intentions are stripping us from any liberties that existed in the forties and fifties (last century).
A person steals an election and then picks up some more votes in the courtroom. That my friends is adding insult to injury. 100,000 voters were purged from the Data base. Now that makes me feel confident. Waht were they doing there in the first place?
And 9 Republican vote for the transportation tax, giving political cover to the Democrats who claim a bi-partisan victory. My Republican State Senator lost the election and I for one say good riddance. He lost because he voted for the 9 cent tax. At least when a Democrat votes for a tax you don't feel betrayed.
Principles have long since left the building. Only expediency remains and one hand is washing the other in the bathroom or closet.
Well, I guess I have to go along to get along, to bed that is.
Good Night
Posted by: Snuffy on May 30, 2007 12:31 AMDo not misrepresent me. You misrepresented Michelle, and now Eric, and now me. Why?
I did not say I "[want] to hold [you] accountable for the statements of a candidate [you]'ve never heard of in 2nd CD."
I said, simply, that he is an example of a "mainstream Republican" who spews bile about the social conservatives. I did not in any way imply you should apologize for him, or that he represents your group.
Look at the unthinking hostility moderates in the party receive (often on this blog) and I think you'll see who's attacking who in this conversation
See, Alex, I think you are full of it, not to put too fine a point on it. Not that moderates don't receive hostility, but you are claiming it is all, or at least overwhelmingly, one-way. And that's utter nonsense. We see hostility from mainstreamers here, and elsewhere, all the time. Including, in this conversation, from YOU.
and why Mainstream's work to expand the R coalition is so valuable
Bosh. Again you imply that the mainstreamers are the good guys, trying to expand the coalition. I am a social conservative, and I work hard to expand the coalition too.
Don't try to paint me as intolerant. I'm one of the most tolerant people you'll find in the GOP. The one thing I do not tolerate is divisiveness, which is the only reason that Michelle and I sometimes ending up disagreeing (though it's more about what Doug Parris says and does, not her personally), and it's the only problem I have with YOU. YOU are fostering divisiveness, by pretending that "they" are the problem and your side is all shining and light.
Also, you don't have to put my name in quotes, apparently implying that I am hiding something. It's just a name, like "Michelle" or "Eric." It's a handle I've been known by for years, and I am far from anonymous. If you must have my more-or-less legal name, it's Chris Nandor, and I'm the chair of the 39th LD GOP in Snohomish County. If you want to come by and speak at one of our meetings sometime, you'd be more than welcome to come by.
Too bad you can't take time off from your criticisms, Snohomish and King Counties will have important elections that we as Republicans need to win...
Pot, meet kettle.
You noticed that too. And you KNOW, I never do anything to help Republican candidates get elected! Right?
Posted by: Michelle on May 30, 2007 08:28 AMAlex, I really don't want to jump on you. The only reason I bothered replying is because I want to unite the party and you are here dividing it further, whether you realize it or not. If you really want to unite the party, don't place blame on only "them" but take a good hard look in the mirror.
Thanks, we do get along and I think you are doing great things. The GOP in this state can do so much if we focus on electing good candidates and less so on battling each other.
Being a sage however means I have a long memory --Sid Morrison refused to endorse Ken Eikenberry (a conservative but very mainstream R) in 1992 after he lost the GOP primary. This helped to elect Mike Lowry as Governor who then appointed Sid as transporation secretary. I can forgive a lot but the person has to recognize they made a mistake --a lot of us old timers are still waiting for him to do so. Not so much because the race is that important anymore but because it would demonstrate that he has learned and would not make the same mistake again.
Michelle,
I understand it is easier for you to fixate on my comment that Doug is mentally ill than to identify anything constructive he has done.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 30, 2007 08:58 AM(I am pointing the finger at myself here, too ... I've battled with Doug myself. I said some things I probably shouldn't have. Let's none of us pretend that WE are not a part of the problem, OK?)
Agreed and that's a fair point. I guess my point is that for most of us intra-party battles are a deviation from the norm of working to elect Republicans or advance a conservative agenda -- for Doug it is the norm. I can't recall him ever being a meaningful part of any campaign or issue that wasn't an intra-party squabble. The same isn't true of a Sid Morrison on the one hand or a Joe Fuiten on the other.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 30, 2007 09:43 AM1. I put all name that appear to be pseudonyms in quotation because that's the proper form. Note please "stanwoodsage" also was depicted as such. No slight was offered or intended.
2. In terms of Klippenger, you said he was a "Mainstream" Republican, this is the name of our group, and so it sounded like you were blaming us for something he said. It appears you meant only to say he was a moderate Republican. Perhaps now you see why I responded as I did.
3. I'm gald to hear that Michelle helps you on projects, my challenge was for her and the Reagan Wing to spend less time on the attacks more time on the helping. I did not say she didn't already help, only that more help would be good.
BUT the hostility in this conversation is leading people to take offense where none was offered, which is why I invited Michelle to call. In person talks are more likely to make clear the tone of voice and let people differentiate between argument and insult.
Posted by: Alex Hays on May 30, 2007 10:31 AMI still think he was perhaps a little overcritical, but then again, I have been too. He thinks I overestimate the negativity coming from the moderate side of the party, I think he underestimates it.
I fully agree with him that from what I have seen of the Mainstream Republicans recently, they have become far more open toward Republicans of all ideological stripes (my fellow SnoCo LD chair and social conservative Stan Lake recently joined their board, and did so with my full support).
We both agree that we need to, as a party, work together. So let's do it.
Thanks for taking my call, and I'm gald you mentioned to me that you thought I was being critical of all social conservatives. That wasn't my intent, my remarks apply ENTIRELY to the Reagan Wing.
Social Conservatives bring something to the table, moderates bring something to the table. Together we form a strong party. We should work together where we agree and disagree civily when our respective values require it.
Posted by: Alex Hays on May 30, 2007 11:59 AM
2. Mainstream and the Reagan Wing both have it right and Earling has it wrong. You win in Politics by standing for principles. When Evans, Pritchard, Gorton, Munro and company stood openly for liberalism from the '50s through the '70s they were winners. When Reagan in '80 and Congress under Gingrich in '94 stood for principles they were big winners as well. But the WSRP, from the Dunn administration forward, has followed Earling's "middle" prescription of standing for nothing philosophically and as a Party we have been sinking, progressively, ever since, becoming less viable every election.
3. We criticize Republicans on political grounds when they sabotage conservatism. We are, in response, attacked on personal grounds, here by epithets from "extreme" to "insane." Ironic, isn't it?
4. RINO means "Republican In Name Only." Mainstream demands that anyone who takes the NAME Republican, like Sam Reed or Dan Evans, while espousing liberalism, be treated as "one of us" for nothing more than the NAME. Anyone who criticizes them for their misdeeds is accused of "attacking Republicans." People who won't vote for incumbent liberal Republcans are not RINOs, though you might call them "RIPO's;" that is, "Republicans In Principle Only." The State and Nation are filled with RIPOs. They were the winning margin for Dino Rossi. The Reagan Wing believes they are our future.
That was a very cogent argument.
I do draw your attention to your own website, many of the posts there are not about policy but do seem to me to be personal attacks. My invitation in this argument has been for you to set asside the criticism/attack portion of your effort and take up standard grass roots campaign work.
Further your tone is so often beyond what is acceptable in civil discourse that what you may see as a poltical criticism is taken as a personal attack.
For our part MRW will be doing mailings, phone calls and other work on behalf of candidates.
Posted by: Alex Hays on May 30, 2007 01:03 PMFirst, I see the Mainstreamers as actually welcoming social conservatives into their midst. I do not believe you when you claim otherwise, because I see it for myself.
I also do not believe they disagree with you on "every issue," or even MOST issues (though certainly there are several prominent issues on which you disagree). Alex and I, for example, disagreed on whether to support the gas tax, but we agreed on the ways in which the bill was flawed, and we agreed on what the bill should have done instead. We just disagreed on whether to support that very imperfect bill. Even though we voted differently, we agreed on the issue itself.
Second, I agree we should stand on principle, which is why I proposed a Republican Creed of principles, and I think we -- you, me, Alex, and most people here -- could probably come up with some uniquely Republican core principles, a philosophy we can all agree to.
Third, I do not believe you when you imply you do not attack on personal grounds, because I've seen it for myself.
Fourth, the Mainstreamers -- Alex, anyway -- do not make any such demands. It's just not true. Some people in the group maybe do, but the organization does not. And you are just as guilty as them for using the term "RINO." The fact is that we are all Republicans (except Lincoln Chafee, if he happens to be around!), and anyone who agrees with and follows basic Republican principles -- which certainly includes you, me, Eric, Michelle, Alex, Stanwoodsage -- and joins the Republican party is a Republican as much as any other.
Any attempt to create, by the operation of some elite committee, a document that outlines principles that "we all agree with" will inevitably be, because the Mainstreamers endorse Republican-sounding, but empty plattitudes, an empty document itself, unfit for guiding political action or legislative agenda. Democrats would agree with it too. I've authored such a document myself: The Unity Principles
I am, here, continually accused of "personal attacks" (without any specificity) or an "unacceptable tone," because those are criticisms so general and ethereal that they can be neither proved nor defended, but are of such a nature that the ignorant will pick them up and parrot them. Such criticisms are, themselves, scurrilous personal attacks on me. Allow me to respond in kind:
Alex, your criticisms of me are "beyond what is acceptable in civil discourse."
Posted by: Doug Parris on May 30, 2007 02:16 PMHere is a specific example of a personal attack you made on a fellow Republican. You compared in both word (and cartoon) Jennifer Dunn to the White Witch from the the CS Lewis trilogy. You then scratch your head as to why people think you are guilty of personal attacks. Feel free to educate the rest of us as to the nuanced reasoning behind your anologizing Jennifer Dunn to a well known Satanic figure in evangelical literature.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 30, 2007 02:47 PMPlease don't bore me with the other parties that exist for mayhem and delight in saying we told you so.
A two party system can not accomondate one or the other in one party and there in is the problem.
A liberal Rebulican is about as welcomed as a conservative Democrat to their respective parties.
Glad I am no longer involved with the Republicans. It isn's worth the heartache. By the way assisted in writing the Snohomish County Republican platform. Good document it was.
Few candidates paid attention to it. So much for principles.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 30, 2007 03:55 PMDid you read that article or did you just look at the title and the picture and decide it was too much to take?
There were many social conservatives who have followed her career and have known some of the "Turkish Treats" she's offered to conservatives to persuade them to get out of her way. She is an advisory board member of WISH List, a pro-abortion Republican group, who works covertly to accomplish its goals. It is from the likes of Ms. Dunn that they learn their tactics.
What is your point about Reagan having a change of heart? We welcome changes of heart. We've seen many take place.
Posted by: Michelle on May 30, 2007 04:03 PMI know what you mean. I also took part in writing the Snohomish Co. platform in '06 . I even wrote a resolution that was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the convention delegates (so much for me being in the 1% fringe of the party) , stating that we expect our Republican candidates Republican elected officials to move toward making the principles of our party~as stated in the platform~into public policy, and when they fail to do that, we have the right and the duty as a party to replace them with Republicans who will!
The reason Republicans lost in '06 is because they lost the trust of their base who work to convince others to support them.
Posted by: Michelle on May 30, 2007 04:18 PMWow. I kind of held out hope that maybe Doug was the only one who would compare Jennifer Dunn to a satanic figure in literatrue. Thanks for disabusing me of that notion with your "turkish delight" reference. And yes, I read the whole "article" and found it to be as repulsive and creepy as the heading.
I'm curious, Ronald Reagan signed an immigration bill that would be an anethma to our current platform -- were he alive would you suggest that we "have the right and the duty as a party to replace [him] with Republicans who will!"? He was a staunch supporter of liberal immigration throughout his career as a politician. My point Reagan on abortion was that like many issues there is not uniformity of opinion and those who would cast out all who disagree with them. Reagan loathed people like that and wrote extensively about the folly of those who would give up 80% of conservative goals because they couldn't get the last 20%.
And no, the Democrats would not agree with several of the principles that I've already mentioned -- again, you didn't pay attention to what I actually wrote -- especially the ideas of limited government and local control, but also many would have a problem with the supremacy of personal liberty and private ownership. I'm not sure which Democrats YOU hang out with that you think anything close to a majority of them would agree with those things ...
Your sarscastic attempt at "unity principles" is boring and I won't even bother addressing it. If you can't even see that you and the Mainstreamers agree on many things that the Democrats do not agree with, then I have to think you're hopeless.
You're also wrong that I did not specify any personal attacks. In fact, I did specify your personal attack on Eric Earling in the previous discussion, and you responded to it. You disclaimed that it WAS a personal attack, but obviously, I disagree with you, and wasn't swayed by your claim that calling him "shallow" was not a personal attack just because you said he was shallow only in a particular way. It was, in fact, a personal attack, because it was directed at Eric himself. That's the definition of "ad hominem," regardless of whether it is related to an issue.
"...we believe first and foremost in individual liberty, and that the purpose of government is to secure that liberty."
I can't tell you how many times I've heard that reasoning to justify abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and the legalization of drugs, prostitution and even man/boy love. Yes, Democrats would most emphatically endorse it.
"That citizens have the most liberty when government's decisions are made as locally as possible."
I've heard Hillary Clinton say that.
"That it is not acceptable to simply ignore laws, because only by requiring government to follow the laws of the republic can liberty be protected."
This mirrors language repeated frequently by Joe Biden whenever there is a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. They believe that the Constitution is a living document, that their principles are law if they get a judge to rule that way and that their version of moral license is "liberty." They would, most emphatically, agree with your core principles, as would Mainstream. I challenge you to a showdown, though. We could take those platitudes to Democrat legislators and ask if they agree. Let's start with Hans Dunshee. I've seen it in his campaign literature.
You and I disagree, most frequently, on the definitions of words. Let me just point out something that you don't seem to grasp that is very important to this discussion: when you and I disagree, I am right.
Remember that.
The "White Queen" sure has her qualities. Does that help?
You bring up Reagan's flaws. We know he was flawed. When Reagan liberalized the abortion laws in California, abortion was not yet in the Republican platform. That does not excuse his action, but he later regretted that decision terribly. When he did finally come to terms with it, he was an outspoken opponent of abortion and tried to champion a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, but he had Democrats in control of Congress. (Bush squandered his opportunity with the rare Republican control of Congress during his term, but that's another story.)
The situation with illegal immigration is similiar. During the time when he offered amnesty, the issue had not reached the critical mass among the populace that it is today, and I could be wrong, but I doubt he was going against any Republican platform language of his day. I do know that he later regretted this decision also. Ed Meese, his close ally has been outspoken against the current amnesty bill (yes that's what he calls it), and tells of Reagan's regret for amnesty.
Reagan loathed people like that and wrote extensively about the folly of those who would give up 80% of conservative goals because they couldn't get the last 20%.
Reagan's speeches and writings are widely available online. I challenge you to direct me to these extensive writings, where he made such statements.
Posted by: Michelle on May 30, 2007 10:02 PM2. "He was a staunch supporter of liberal immigration throughout his career as a politician." So am I. I proposed this language for the 2006 King County Republican Platform: "We support opening our country wider to legal immigrants as we proportionally close the spigots of government handouts. We offer opportunity for workers and generous charity to the deserving needy, but nothing to those who come to exploit our social systems." Open borders/Amnesty advocate Lori Sotelo (platform chair) responded with shock and dismay at the phrase "government handouts." To liberals that is insulting language. To them they are entitlements and that means everyone is entitled to them. She even wanted a stand-alone plank on entitlements.
"Dump all socialism and open the borders!" has been my position since the '80s, but I've had to modify that since the global terror threat and the attempt to dump English as a requirement by Sam Reed and others. If they can't get welfare, foodstamps, free medical care, etc, etc. and have to learn English, immigrants would be a net plus to America, but we'd still have to control the flow to screen out criminals, terrorists and insurgents. That is the purpose of Immigration law. It is the security sanity that McAmnesty does away with.
3. "those who would give up 80% of conservative goals because they couldn't get the last 20%."
You clearly are not at all familiar with me or the Reagan Wing at large. We have always stood firmly with that principle. We're actually more lenient than 80%! The people we oppose in the Party are the ones who disagree with us (and the vast Republican Party majority) on everything. People like Dan Evans and Sam Reed.
No, you don't understand it. Each principle cannot be taken in a vaccum. For example, the principle of personal liberty conflicts with what Hillary would say about local decisions.
"That it is not acceptable to simply ignore laws, because only by requiring government to follow the laws of the republic can liberty be protected."
They believe that the Constitution is a living document, that their principles are law if they get a judge to rule that way and that their version of moral license is "liberty."
Um ... the Constitution is law. I'm just mentioning it because you don't seem to be aware of that fact when you say that principle can be used to ignore the Constitution. It can't. Because, um, the Constitution is, um, law.
Let me just point out something that you don't seem to grasp that is very important to this discussion: when you and I disagree, I am right. Remember that.
Huh. If that's the case, then why is it that you can't form any valid arguments against what I say? Just toying with me?
I agree with your analysis of Reagan's immigration deal. I thought the same thing when stanwoodsage wrote that: at the time, we didn't realize what a bad deal it was.
While I think the word "amnesty" has no useful meaning in the immigration debate, and that most people who use it, whether by intent or not, do not actually inform through its use but only confuse, I am dead-set against this immigration bill. It relies on enforcement and security procedures that either won't be implemented, or if they are implemented won't work to reduce illegal immigration, thus making the problem worse.
We need to go after employers, have meaningful employee eligibility verification, and take away government charity, thereby giving illegals less reason to be here, and making more room for increased numbers of legal immigrants.
This bill is counterproductive to those goals.
I understand what you meant
Shrug. I don't believe you. If you understood what I meant, you would not have brought up so many examples that clearly do not fit the principles when taken as a whole ... unless you were intentionally attempting to deceive by bringing up what you knew were false examples?
The problem with "Creeds" is that their use does not include provisions for the authors to follow them around, explaining what it's supposed to mean.
Nope. You still don't understand, clearly. That is their STRENGTH, not their PROBLEM. It's a given that in many cases the principles will manifest themselves differently for different people. And that's good. It's expected. It's necessary.
And you're wrong that the Mainstreamers do not believe in originalism, just like you were wrong about them disagreeing with "the vast majority of the Party on every issue."
There are many proofs of this.
I await your proof. Not holding my breath, though.
Yes, part of the challenge is having your words re-interpreted, not just by Democrats, but by philosophical Democrats who run as Republicans.
I didn't imply writing a creed would be easy.
Dave Reichert campaigned as "pro-life" then voted to torture Terri Schiavo to death.
Doug, there's no need to tell lies about Rep. Reichert, is there? In fact, as you well know, because you're not stupid, Reichert voted for no such thing. What he did was vote against federal intervention, not to do anything, let alone to torture anyone. And no, the difference is not irrelevant.
Perhaps you mean that he voted to ALLOW her to be tortured to death. That's not true either, but it's closer. What he did, in fact, was to vote to allow the existing legal process to determine her fate.
Your inaccurate rhetoric here is similar to that of people who claim that the Supreme Court selected Bush as President in 2000, when in fact, they voted to throw out the in-process illegal recount, and to accept the last legal count as binding, which had Bush in the lead. Same thing here: Reichert was voting for the existing legal process, not selecting a particular outcome.
So it would not be adequate, in that instance, to have your creed say simply "pro-life," (even if you wanted to include it)
I probably wouldn't, though I'd be open to considering it. Again, you misunderstand the intent of the creed. It's a means of identifying Republicans, not a tool to shape policy. You said you understood me, but I already made this clear, so again, clearly, you didn't understand me.
2. The mainstream support for Constitutional originalism: The McGavick Case
4. "Reichert was voting for the existing legal process, not selecting a particular outcome." To the contrary. Euthanasia is explicitly illegal in Florida. The entire process was illegal, at every level, from beginning to end. Terri was ruled to be property. Moreover, to be condemned to death by a State Court is under the Federal jurisdiction of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution that gave Terri rights that were, illegally, taken from her by a Death Faction Judge in Florida. She had to have been given due process and convicted of a capital crime. So Reichert voted not to uphold the law as he swore an oath to do "Because, um, the Constitution is, um, law." And we know that he did all this, violating his oath of office and "allowing" an innocent woman to be illegally tortured to death, for political reasons, that is, not only with the obvious murderous outcome for Schiavo, but, in fact, looking out for good ol' number one, a Congressman from the 8th District.
Your analogy of the Florida election decision would have been apropos in this instance: Suppose The Court had ruled contrary to the Constitution and had not only extended the election (illegally) but had specifically empowered known fraud to favor their own political affiliations. Then it could be said that they ruled, not according to law, but for a specific outcome. That is precisely what Reichert did.
There's no need to tell lies about the Consitution, Pudge.
Posted by: Doug Parris on May 31, 2007 02:18 AMNot when taken as a whole, they certainly do not. Not sure why you keep saying this when it's obviously untrue.
Also, I made it clear that my words were not the proposed creed itself, but were merely some of the principles the creed would express, so attacking the words as though they ARE the creed is a straw man fallacy anyway.
my point is that any set of "core principles" you write that Democrats will disagree with, Mainstream will also disagree with.
Yes, I understand that clearly false, stupid, and ridiculous point. But the problem with the point is that it is clearly false, stupid, and ridiculous. I know many Mainstreamers, and I've had the chance to talk to Alex. To say he agrees more with Democrats than you and me is utter tripe. It makes not a lick of sense.
To the contrary. Euthanasia is explicitly illegal in Florida
Why do you say "to the contrary" when you are not contradicting me? Nothing I said implied the decision was correct according to Florida law. Only that it was the result of Florida's legal process.
So Reichert voted not to uphold the law
That's obviously untrue. He voted to allow Florida to decide for itself whether or not the law was being upheld.
There is a decent case to be made on your side here. (Not the Fifth Amendment death sentence thing, because that clearly only applies to criminal sentencing: I thought you were an originalist, like me?) But the similar due process language of the Fourteenth Amendment which is not specific to criminal cases certainly can make this a federal issue.
But that does not necessarily justify the Congress stepping in, as we have a Court system that can do that. That's not to say the Congress doesn't have the right to step in. Of course they do.
I am not criticizing what the Congress actually did in any way. I am not saying I agree with Reichert's vote. I am only saying that you are grossly mischaracterizing his vote. It's something you do an awful lot.
There's no need to tell lies about the Consitution, Pudge.
Correct. Since you've not identified any lies about the Constitution (except for your claim that Schiavo's right to not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" was violated!), I am not sure why you bothered to say that, though.
Re: the 80%-20% -- check out Reagan's auto-biography, or talk to Doug who seems to be more familiar with this than you given his implicit acknowledgement that Reagan believed this (and Doug suggests taking the principle even further).
Doug,
Let's see....you "rebut" me by saying my first point is "clearly true"; responding to my second point about Reagan being for liberal immigration by saying "so am I" and lastly stating that you would go further than Reagan in permitting others to agree with conservative principles less than 80% of the time. Not exactly sure how that squares with me being a "Reagan revisionist".
As for Sam Reed...please. Every minute you spend trying to purge a moderate from the Secretary of State's office is a minute you are not spending electing conservatives to an office that matters. It is precisely this obesession with centrist Republicans (who were ascendant in WA the 1960's and 1970's pre-Jennfier Dunn I might add) that prevents the rest of us from taking you seriously.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on May 31, 2007 09:16 AMI'm afraid the principle attributed to Reagan here *might* be an example of "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it's true". If this is the case, then I admit, The Reagan Wing has been fooled on this. But now I'm skeptical. Consider this column from Townhall:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=advice_to_the_reagan_lorn&Comments=true&ns=CraigShirley&dt=05/03/2007&page=2
Republicans running for president should not alter Reagan or his record. Rudy Giuliani has given innumerable speeches across the country citing a supposed Reagan quote: "My 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy." Clever line but a thorough check had found that Reagan apparently never said anything even resembling this. Writer Peter Hannaford, a longtime Reagan associate, concurs.
Now you say, "check his autobiography." I read it years ago, and don't recall it being there. But I have believed it was attributed it to him. However, if the 20% of conservative principles that a particular Republican disagrees with me, happens to be issues I find to be non-negotiable, I am not bound by it, especially if he is running for public office. I am bound by my principles which come from my Faith and my God. On the other hand, if we're talking about a fellow Republican volunteer who wants to do something about property rights, but vehimently disagrees with me on life issues, I don't have a problem working with him on the property rights, so long as in the process, he doesn't work to destroy the Republican position on life issues.
But you guys touting this supposed line of Reagan's better check your sources, or you lose credibility.
Posted by: Michelle on May 31, 2007 12:04 PMOn a personal note I'm the Executive Director of the Constitutional Law PAC and I am adamantly pro-choice. To my knowledge every member of the board of the Constitutional Law PAC is pro-choice.
And conservatives were led to believe that Constitutional Law PAC was formed to elect conservative/originalist/strict constructionist judges. All this "reaching out" to conservatives is not what it appears.
Posted by: Michelle on May 31, 2007 08:43 PMTo attack Alex for pretending to be something he's not, when he didn't actually pretend it in the first place, is a straw man fallacy.
And Michelle, you would be hard-pressed to find people significantly more anti-abortion or pro-originalism than I am, but I am not sure what originalism and strict constructionism have to do with one's view of abortion.
There's much more to this story, but Alex has successfully "reached out" to evangelical leaders to rally their flocks to support his PAC's candidates. How often do social conservatives trust the endorsements of their evangelical leaders who present Alex as a man who puts his "whole Catholic heart into this"? (Another signal to pro-lifers)
Posted by: Michelle on June 1, 2007 12:48 AMThis is unfortunate.
Anyone who loves the constitution can understand that a belief is strict constructionsim/originalism has no conflict with other beliefs.
I'm pro-choice, that's how I'd vote as a legislator, but I completely reject using the courts to achieve public policy outcomes. Even ones I otherwise support.
Because you take disagreements personally you've decided I'm a "bad guy" and now attack whatever I do, even the stuff you should like.
I repeat: a belief in the constitution as written does not compel or forgo most reasonable public policy, but it does absolutely bar the courts from being the agent that makes those changes.
Oops, which, as I see, is what Alex just said.
Again, I very much disagree with Alex's pro-choice stance. But I find no fault related to originalism in his way of thinking.
And I don't simply mean someone who opposes Roe vs. Wade. I mean someone who considers it a legitimate "choice" to kill children, whether in their mother's womb or otherwise. You can't be an originalist in regards to the Constitution and be "pro-choice" anymore than you can be a faithful Catholic and be "pro-choice".
The protections for the right to life are contained in both the V and XIV Amendments as I think was mentioned above, much earlier.
V. "nor shall any person....be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law...."
XIV. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privelages or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws."
How can an originalist interpret this to mean passing laws even in the legislature that would make killing children a legitimate choice? Any such law that the legislature would pass, would be overturned by originalist judges. And that would not be legislating from the bench, it would be properly interpretting the Constitutiion.
That said, I do find the history of the text compelling for the pro-life stance (especially since the words seem to reference the notion that all men are created equal), but not compelling enough that I can't accept that someone else could have a different view about what was originally intended.
When else could we be created? At birth? Somewhere between conception and birth? When we're old enough to speak? When? Science and Religion (Alex's and my Religion) say at conception. He has said before that he personally has serious problems with abortion, and yet he's "pro-choice". If it isn't the fact that abortion is killing a person, then what is the problem? If it is, then how does he square it with being a Constitutional originalist?
Posted by: Michelle on June 1, 2007 05:16 PMI have no problem with coalitioning with people with whom I disagree. I am working right now with someone who agrees with me on illegal immigration, but disagrees with me on Life. I hope to persuade this person on life, but in the meantime, we work together on immigration. What I have a problem with is leadership in the party, be it party officials or party affiliates, who speak in terms, often code words, which they know mean something to the people they're "reaching out" to, but who mean something totally different by it.
Posted by: Michelle on June 1, 2007 05:23 PMI really didn't want to wander into this debate as I am not a party person of any party at this point. I do believe that there are many people like me that vote principles rather than party. For the up coming election, unlike past elections where I voted for Nader, I will look at voting my prinicples. I am very happy that both Obama and Hillary are running. I wouldn't be voting for either of them because they are both at the core socialists and I don't think that is the most effective system. That is a very good disagreement because it is based upon ideas and not race or gender. This next election is crucial for people who consider themselves to be social conservatives because the world envisioned by most of the current crop of dem candidates is in essence based upon the European model which is hostile to religion and free market ideas. I certainly would never tell any individual, even my pal Ivan, to abandon a position that is based upon thought and reflection and encapulates one's beliefs. Stick up for what you believe. I do know that this next election is going to be a watershead and it will be won by the most effective coalitions. Still, you must do what you feel is best.
Posted by: WVH on June 1, 2007 10:05 PMHe has said before that he personally has serious problems with abortion, and yet he's "pro-choice". If it isn't the fact that abortion is killing a person, then what is the problem? If it is, then how does he square it with being a Constitutional originalist?
He can personally believe it is killing a person, without believing that he knows for sure, and that his belief should bind the actions of others. Again, I disagree with him, but I still don't accept that this in any way conflicts with originalism.
I happen to think originalism takes into account both the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. They are both our founding documents.
Posted by: Michelle on June 4, 2007 03:28 PM