« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Escaping the Big Tent Mentality

By: Amy Miller (Diary)  |  April 14th, 2009 at 10:36 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Promoted by Erick.

Everybody’s got something to say about the direction of the “new” GOP. As conservatives, we’re being yanked to the left, to the right, and upside down on just about every issue you can think of. Some of us don’t like it; we feel like our identity as a party lies with the convictions we keep, and the conscience we consult when it comes to hot-button issues like abortion, immigration, or gay marriage. Other “conservatives” (before the jump, obviously) feel like progressivism is the wave of the future, and it’s time for everyone to huddle together beneath our new and improved “big tent” and wait with baited breath for some hopey change to leak through the folds.

The lovely Miss Meghan McCain is one such “conservative.” ::flails hands wildly with air quotes:: Check out her latest column:


“Memo to the GOP: Go Gay”

Until now, I’ve been able to just sort of ignore the content of Miss McCain’s message and just focus on how happy I am that someone my age is getting national exposure instead of being automatically written off as a bad job. (You don’t have to tell me how stupid that sounds…I already know.) I say this because too often, people under the age of 40 who have opinions about politics are shunted outside while mommy and daddy talk about big people things, and it’s incredibly frustrating. So, huzzah for that. But, her latest piece brought me out of my reverie and made me realize on how fundamental a level I disagree with this girl. In a nutshell, she believes that in order to succeed as a political force, the GOP needs to cut the shenanigans, throw open the gates, and banish its exclusionist tendencies. Shame on us. Oh, and shame on me for giving her a willing ear for as long as I have.

I am choosing not to take issue with Miss McCain’s personal convictions regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, because that debate is a rabbit hole, and I’ve already had too long of a day to pop out in some mad world of stoned caterpillars and sentient flowers. However, I, a culture-embracing, open-minded young woman, who incidentally also “despises labels and boxes and stereotypes”, am prepared to take her reasoning for supporting a more progressive GOP to the cleaners.

Freedom of speech, darling. I’m sure you understand.

So let’s get started. I found this interesting:

But it isn’t just the GOP’s opposition to gay marriage that makes the party seem unwelcoming toward gay voters. It’s the anti-gay rhetoric they use to whip up the base.

Meg, I don’t recall being “whipped up” by any anti-gay rhetoric lately. In fact, any “whipping” I’ve seen lately has come from the screaming mimis on the left who try to label the Republican party as a bunch of hatemongering dread-pirates who long for the days of lynch mobs and fire hoses. Listen to me when I say that most members of “the base”—“the base”, not the crackpot minority—do not hate gay people, and do not tolerate true “anti-gay rhetoric”. I certainly do not abide that sort of thing; nobody should. What members of the base are concerned about is a departure from traditional values that have defined conservatives—thus, the GOP—for a very long time. It seems as though you’ve been put through the liberal mind-meld machine (I picture something like the Borg), otherwise you would never equate a difference of opinion with whipping up the base into a bloodthirsty frenzy. This is the same kind of mea culpa crap we’re seeing from the President, and it’s insulting. Cut the pandering and find a foundation for your accusations that doesn’t involve a lunatic fringe.

Ah, and here’s another nugget of wisdom for the ages:

It’s…about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside. That more and more people are discussing gay rights speaks positively for the millions of young and progressive Republicans waiting for our party to return to its roots. Personal freedoms are what makes [sic] this country the greatest country in the world. And just like the civil-rights and feminist movements before this, the movement toward gay equality and gay marriage is one I have absolute faith will triumph over prejudices.

Pass the joint guys; I’m having an epiphany over here! It’s time to stop being so negative, man. I feel like a cog in The Machine. It’s time to break free! The way to get the party back to its roots is to…reinvent the party! Yes! Everything makes sense! Ooh, and later, maybe we can saw corners into the wheel to make things roll more efficiently!

I’m not pulling punches or taking a cheap shot when I say that the GOP does indeed need an overhaul. Wait, no. Not “overhaul” so much as “facelift.” The most recent election proved that point for us. The party needs to properly harness emerging technology, embrace passion for its message (instead of constantly second-guessing and shredding its own message to pieces), and embrace a younger generation of true conservatives. It’s time to get it together. However, if getting it together means following a more progressive party line, then I aim to misbehave. If the “right-of-centers” do indeed seize the hearts and minds of party leaders and succeed in steering things towards Charles Schumer’s side of the pool, then I’m bailing out and swimming in the opposite direction as fast as I can. I’m not here to hate, bait, or discriminate, but I am here to stand by my principles, and help ensure a clear path for true conservatives whose voices are desperately needed in our culture of decadence and indulgence.

It’s time to stand up, speak out, and confuse the Miss McCains of the world with the facts.

Tags:
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • From ME to You

    Perhaps the Republican party should begin returning to its roots by pruning away the “deadwood”! A big “reco” for you!

  • modgopgal

    McCain. I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a moderate. And I know many, at least from the replies to my posts that I’ve read, don’t like my political views very much. I’ve had some pretty insulting things said to me here. But I am a proud moderate Republican from a family of Republicans. Since I’m from Portsmouth, New Hampshire — a place where many Republicans like me are more socially liberal — I am not as conservative on some issues as those at Redstate.

    And like Meghan, I’m a young woman (even look a bit like her. And no, I don’t consider myself overweight). I think my generation has some different perspectives on social issues. Most of my peers, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, do think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. We also take a more nuanced view on issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research. In addition, we probably have a different take on environmental issues than some at Redstate.

    But I am also fiscally conservative (perhaps even more conservative then many here. I want to end ALL taxpayer subsidies to industry. For example, I oppose subsidies to oil developers, timber companies, and farmers and ranchers. I think those businesses should make it on their own just as I think Detroit automakers should make it on their own).

    So, you can call me a RINO, a squish, and even push me out of the party. But since many young Republicans share my views — at least that is what I have encountered — how does pushing us out help build the party?

    • Amy Miller

      I don’t believe that generational discrepancies are to blame for the young conservatives’ shift to the center/center-left. Issues of morality, and of consciense, do not fundamentally change just because we were born in the era of the Spice Girls. This shift is billed as an acceptable–nay, desirable–change in the hearts and minds of the American people, but I have to ask myself, any time I feel myself getting squishy: what has changed? Has the issue at hand changed, or have I allowed myself to be duped into thinking that past sensibilities are no longer “relevant”? The murder of the unborn child will never, ever stop being among the most despicable acts of human kind, but society (and I am hardly one to blame society for what ails me) has accepted abortion because of skewed dialogue over “rights” and “privacy”.

      Being pushed out of the party is not a relevant complaint here. Conservatism envelops economic AND social issues. You can’t ignore half of an argument or ideology just because it’s convenient for you to do so in order to villify those who embrace a fully conservative viewpoint.

      • pilgrim

        .

      • modgopgal

        was villifying you. (You wrote, “You can?t ignore half of an argument or ideology just because it?s convenient for you to do so in order to villify those who embrace a fully conservative viewpoint.). That was not my intention.

        I respect your views. My parents, also Republican, share you views (though my mother who has been active in the NH Republican party for years, seems to have warmed to gay marriage). You may be right that a “conservative” must be both economically and socially conservative. But what does that mean for the Republican party? Does that mean the GOP should purge people like me who are very fiscally conservative but socially moderate? What does that mean for the future of the party if many young Republicans who support about 75% of what the party stands for are forced out?

        • Aaron Gardner

          Seriously…why don’t you just change? If you concede that you are ignoring half of your professed ideology and are worried about the party losing people such as yourself you can stop by changing. Would you do that for us? Something tells me you wouldn’t…not on one single social issue. Yet you expect us to compromise and become more “nuanced”. To me nuance is the cowards way of not taking a solid position. Really though, I am not worried about people like you taking over the party…you guys have built your house on a foundation of shifting sands…I hope you are wearing a helmet when the building collapses.

    • orlgal

      I read from your post that you are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell harvesting, pro-gay marriage, anti-business and, from your veiled reference to the environment, believe in global warming. What in any of these positions qualifies as either “moderate” or Republican???

      • modgopgal

        I am certainly NOT anti-business as you imply. I think all businesses should stand on their own without government assistance. I opposed all the bailouts. I also oppose subsidies using my tax dollars to businesses. If a business or industry can’t make it without tax dollars they shouldn’t be in business. Some very conservative Republicans agree with me. Former Republican Representative John Kasich actually fought to end subsidies to timber companies. To me that is being fiscally conservative.

        I also have a very tough stance on crime. I would extend the death penalty to pedophiles, for example. I fully support the death penalty for violent offenders.

        In addition, I am pro-defense. My brother serves in the Navy. My father worked on national security issues for the federal government. While I opposed the Iraq war, for many reasons, I believe the US military should remain strong and used with its full force when appropriate. That was the main reason I volunteered for the McCain campaign.

        But on social issues I am a proud moderate.

        • Bob_Frazier

          That you are going along wit the crowd as you perceive it? I’ve noticed for a lot of people under thirty, especially on social issued, there is very little thinking going on.

    • jimmuy8

      Because letting you run the party has killed the party.

      This trendy slang – social liberal but fiscal conservative – is a poison.
      1) Every so-called “social liberal” ALWAYS ends up voting for fiscal liberalism. They’ve no conviction to stand against social forces when those forces are calling for unbridled spending. The social liberal didn’t come to social liberal ideals because of a rational examination and a courage to stand against the passing popular–no, the social liberal is such because of a weakness to stand against the easy and licentious.
      2) If the social liberal but fiscal conservative actually had a conviction to fiscal conservatism, then they would vote for the Republican party regardless of the social issues–But it is the social issues that they really care about. And these are phony social issues they care about. Social issues today are not about rights from a creator, they are about licenses granted by government–each group trying to carve out favors, privileges and dispensations for themselves, not the greater society. The underlying philosophy of fiscal conservatism is diametrically opposed to that underlying the current social movements–that a man ought to be as free as possible from the shackles of government intervention and control. Let us be free with our wallets and we will be free with our lives.

      So no. I do not care for the social liberal to set the policies of a conservative party–they will sell out to the liberals one every issue too often, too soon.

      • Slightly_Askew

        Every so-called ?social liberal? ALWAYS ends up voting for fiscal liberalism. They?ve no conviction to stand against social forces when those forces are calling for unbridled spending

        Demonstrably false, as I am what you would undoubtedly call a social liberal. Your use of “every”, “always”, “no conviction” may serve you well in whatever black and white world you live in. Meanwhile, here in reality, there are those of us who have fiscally conservative ideals along with more liberal social ideals. If I were a lawmaker, and was told I had to choose between two bills, one protecting gay marriage (which I support) and one permanently abolishing the death tax, I’d choose the second one every time.

        If the social liberal but fiscal conservative actually had a conviction to fiscal conservatism, then they would vote for the Republican party regardless of the social issues

        Which many of us do.

        The underlying philosophy of fiscal conservatism is diametrically opposed to that underlying the current social movements

        No, not always. You might be surprised how often the phrase “Keep the federal government out of my life.” is an appropriate response to both liberal and conservative lawmakers.

        • tcgeol

          Social conservative congressmen are statistically much more fiscally conservative than socially moderate to liberal Republican congressmen. That is just the way it works. There have been several diaries here showing that. Obviously, its not like we have many fiscal conservatives in any case, its just that most of the ones we do have are also social conservatives.

          Sure, there are a few folks like you and I’m glad for your votes, but there aren’t a whole lot. The numbers don’t show that jimmuy8 is wrong by much, although he probably shouldn’t have used the exact words that he did.

          Your last paragraph is right on. The federal government has little Constitutional power and we should hold its feet to the fire over that.

        • jimmuy8

          OK. Fine. Find me the social liberal, fiscal conservative who regularly votes against liberal spending.

          Oh, you can come up the here-a-bit, there-a-bit who time or so votes against such. But, I’ll put the fiscal record of the social conservative, fiscal conservative against the social liberal, fiscal conservative every time. With one, I know I’m going to get fiscal conservatism, the other is a crap shoot.

          See, in the black and white world there would be a bill solely to permanently repeal the death tax vs. a bill that solely grants gay marriage. In reality, there’ll be a bill that grants a temporary tax relief mixed in with a bill that gives limited domestic partnership rights.

          The social liberal, fiscal conservative will vote for it: hey there’s tax relief and there’s only a reasonable expansion of social benefits. The social conservative, fiscal conservative will not: We only get temporary tax relief and you’re going to expand government benefits, are you kidding me?

          How many who call themselves socially liberal but fiscally conservative voted for Obama? How many of the same voted for his stimulus, his budget? Those folks? No. I have no use for such: they are as reliable on fiscal issues as they are on social issues. They have no formula for electoral victory that does not benefit the Democratic Party.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      The arguments for gay marriage are specious at best and require hefty mulitple doses of government intrusions into private lives… and businesses.

      In nature, homosexuality is expunged in hetrosexual species, typically through banishment from the herd/pack or outright killed as a waste of resources. As humans, with higher reasoning powers, it doesn’t take much thought to treat a fellow human being with decency while not condoning or actively supporting their activities that go against the nature of our own species.

      All these premises that the left concocts lead to nihilism. If you want to claim to be moderately conservative or Republican, okay, but just because you jump off the cliff into societal suicide doesn’t mean the rest of us have to follow.

      • BlueLandRed

        are going to have to follow. If you look at the demographics from the exit polling for California’s Prop 8, the generational gap is impossible to ignore.

        Yes No

        18-29 (20%) 39 61
        30-44 (28%) 55 45
        45-64 (36%) 54 46
        65+ (15%) 61 39

        And every single poll that I’ve seen on the issue basically shows the same result. Young people are comfortable with the concept of “gay marriage”.

        You don’t have to be an expert statistician to figure out what’s going to happen in the future unless there is some sort of fundamental cultural reset that changes how the younger crowd views gay marriage.

        Without that reset, its clear that somewhere between 5 and 15 years from now, the majority of the country will be for permitting gays to get married. Like it or not. It’s just simple math.

        • http://www.leadingstrategies.net Mike Friesen

          Amy – Thank you for articulating the position of the base so very well! We need more of this.

        • Hooah_Mac

          You can’t reliably win by following the electorate, and there is no leadership whatsoever in doing so. You win by staking a position and convincing others to follow you.

          The other concern with your argument there is that people change their views throughout their lives. When those 18-29 become 30-44, the numbers will change. Young people are always more liberal, particularly with our current higher education system.

          • BlueLandRed

            out that in the long run gay marriage isn’t going to be a winning issue for the GOP.

            Because while people might get more fiscally conservative as they age I just don’t see how people go from accepting gay marriage to thinking it’s an “abomination”, without some sort of significant additional life changing event, like getting born again.

            And it isn’t like this is new information, the trend lines for gay marriage have been closing for the past 20 or 30 years and the tipping point is rapidly approaching.

            I mean, just go out and talk to young people, this just isn’t an issue for them.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Sorry but that was a dumb argument….if I see a small fire in a field I am not going to say “well that fire is gonna get bigger…so I might as well not put it out”

            One day we will look upon the ashes and ask why no one stood athwart history yelling stop.

        • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

          That I must follow them over the cliff into social suicide? That being comfortable with it makes it alright? That their arguments in favor of it aren’t specious?

          What? In other words what did anything you posted have to do with anything I posted?

    • redware

      of the GOP as a vehicle to promote a conservative agenda.You progressive Republicans are the opposition.When we retake control,and we will,you will have the same options you have now.You can vote for the conservative Republican,the liberal Democrat,support another candidate,or write in the name of someone you can support.The GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because it lost its conservative identity.You would obviously prefer a GOP with conservative views on fiscal policy,and Democrat lite on all other issues.Sorry,but we don’t need a GOP with the same identity crisis moderates have.Our party needs a political philosophy by which to formulate its positions on critical issues.Moderates have no such philosophy-you cherrypick your stance on the issues based on what the MSM brands as “current” or “cool”.Hopefully in the near future the GOP will be able to articulate a conservative philosophy that will have great appeal to all generations.I suggest you contact Meghan McCain and start your own party.You can advertise a plus-size tent that will be large enough to accomodate all the moderates who favor abortion,gay marriage and cap and trade,who also think for some reason that they are fiscally conservative.Then we will have no reason to call you anything so perjorative as a RINO or a squish,and you will feel no identity crisis in terms of calling yourself a Republican anymore.And everyone will just call you a moderate-whatever that is!

      • ColdWarrior

        nt

    • David123

      nt

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Marriage isn’t what any of us wants or doesn’t want. It is what it is: a union of a man and a woman.

        The idea that we can just redefine marriage because we really think we’re smart and that it’s a great idea, just doesn’t work.

        It’s a social institution, not a logic puzzle. So getting bogged down in trying to argue specific reasons, just distracts from the core hubris of it all.

    • Martin Knight

      I am opposed to gay marriage.
      I am opposed to racial preferences.
      I am opposed to abortion.
      I am opposed to embryonic stem cells research.
      I support School Choice.
      I am opposed to Gun Control.
      …

      What I just described above are the moderate positions on the issues of gay marriage, abortion, racial preferences, school choice, gun control, etc.

      So what makes you think you’re a moderate? You hold no moderate positions.

  • http://www.braindeadrepublican.com Michael DeWeese

    Progressives. They have infiltrated all parties, The Democatic party has been corrupted to the core by them.Since they began infiltrating America, they have been slowly spreading. The Republican party has been more resistant over time because of a core understanding of the meaning of what the vision of America was that the Founding Fathers had. And it is anathema to the Progressive (read marxist) philosophy.

  • farstar99

    And really, how does catering to less than three percent of the population help us, anyway?

    Even Obama’s figured out that gays aren’t going to get him re-elected.

    If you’re going to pick a single issue group to compromise your principles for, go for numbers.

    Like those who are unemployed, thanks to the Democrats.
    Like those who have seen their retirement plans disappear, thanks to Obama.
    Like the people who care about the environment, but who aren’t “environmentalists.”
    Like the elderly, who are hopelessly out of touch with modern reality and irrationally see the Democrats as their safety net.

    • Achance

      Those other constituencies are largely composed of wild-eyed moderates who aren’t going to raise Hell about anything. The gays and their backers, especially the celebrities, raise Hell about everything.

  • modgopgal

    that some conservatives here say I’m not conservative enough because I support gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. At the same time, I oppose ALL subsidies to industry am am called “anti-business.” Gay marriage, in all likelihood, will have very little impact on our daily lives. But taxes DO impact us.

    So why do some here get so upset about gay marriage but stay silent on subsidies to industry? The Bush Administration gave billions away in subsidies, using taxpayer dollars, and many conservatives never complained. I’m not saying some folks here did not criticize the spending. But there is an odd silence about subsidies to industry. If conservatives intend to be consistent why not oppose ALL subsidies. That is not an anti-business position. Business and industry should make it on their own without my help.

    • Aaron Gardner

      In that “odd silence” you must include yourself…since you know…you haven’t ever written a single diary since you have been here. And the only things that consistently draw you attention are the diaries and articles that mention social issues.

      If you are such a staunch fiscal conservative why don’t you write some good diaries about the budget…or the latest bailouts. That would serve not only your cause of being a staunch fiscal conservative but it would also win you allies here.

      But instead you choose to not write diaries to promote your fiscal conservatism…no no no..you spend your time on social crusades to spin the wheel towards your social liberal goals.

      Your priorities show greater than anything else what you are…you are a social liberal first…and a fiscal conservative only as a defense mechanism.

      Please stop waisting our time and either put up or shut up. Write a fiscon con diary…or forever hold your peace!!

      • modgopgal

        I was actually thinking about posting a diary about taxpayer funded subsidies to industries. But I have been reluctant because some of the replies I have received to a few of my posts were pretty ugly. I won’t repost them here but one poster describe in graphic terms something they wanted to do to me sexually. So I’m a bit gun-shy about publishing a diary. I almost left Redstate because of the nasty tone and words of some of the replies I got. Having said that I will likely publish a diary on corporate subsidies very soon. So stay tuned.

        The theme will essentially be one can not be a consistent fiscal conservative by opposing bailouts to automakers and support subsidies to Exxon, Georgia Pacific, and farmers. I oppose ALL such subsidies.

        • Aaron Gardner

          you should save your excuses for somebody who cares…you have been here long enough…write a diary that shows your views on what you claim is your priority…we will be waiting with baited breath. Don’t blame others for you not doing something that is weak and no one will respect you…not here and not in life. In fact that is my problem with moderates like you. You immediately play the victim when challenged. Quit that…it is a turn off. Imagine a President who reacts like that….that is why McCain lost…he acted like the victim instead of the man in charge.

          • Achance

            Couldn’t resist! I await your reply with bated breath.

          • Aaron Gardner

            baited is typed more often than bated…damn that muscle memory….lol…;^)

        • AKSteveB

          but it is almost impossible to HAVE fiscal conservatism without social conservatism. The foundation of fiscal conservatism is individual responsibility, but no man is an island, and we do need support from others and we’re going to get it from somewhere. In a traditional society, we get that from our families and our friends, in the current social anarchy we’ll look to government. In addition, the very base of the current economic crisis, politics aside, is a lack of self discipline, from the individual taking out a mortgage they can’t afford. to failing CEO’s taking multi million dollar bonuses.

          Having said that, I’m pro choice because as a male I feel I just can’t “know” and pro gay marriage, though more because I think the marriage issue is too far gone for politics even amongst heteros, than truly believings that gays can truly be “married.” I also suspect we’d have a better more independent society if we hadn’t gone so far to the left socially, but at this point the only thing we can do politically is insist on having the freedom to live as we choose and raise our children as we choose.

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

          Against it? So was George W. Bush. And you and moderates like you excoriate him because of it.

          What about taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood to abort babies? Against it? So am I. And I’m conservative. What about you?

          What about subsidies to organizations of professional volunteers who see their mission as agitating against government so they can extort payoffs for themselves, and secondarily for their constituents? Against that? Me too. But that makes me conservative and you moderate.

          Put your money where your mouth is.

    • Hooah_Mac

      There is a very narrow situation where industry subsidies are warranted…very narrow.

      What needs to be addressed is that the government is out of control. There is NO constitutional mandate for the federal government to be messing with social issues. Roe V. Wade is very bad law, specifically because the federal government has no business telling the states what to do on such an issue.

      The reality is that the issues fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have are resolved by the same root solution…federalism and adherence to the Constitution. The problem is that most “fiscal conservative, social liberal” are not fiscal conservative across the board. They cave on most spending issues, and pay lip service to concerns like yours about industry subsidies. Meanwhile, they vote continually for expansion of the federal government…then they claim that social conservatives are the reason they keep losing elections.

      The GOP cannot win without social conservatives…period. They cannot win without fiscal conservatives either, but I have never heard the argument that fiscal conservative positions are bad for the party. The anti-social conservative drum is beat daily.

      Frankly, we would be better off without the moderates and faux-conservatives at the elected and leadership level. If there were a consistent message from the GOP, a conservative message like that of Fred Thompson, a message that was taught in votes and actions as well as words, the GOP would gain ground every time, the country would be better off for it, and the democrats would need to move right to compete.

      As it stands, the only political party with a clear message is the democrats, and therefore people may be convinced to agree with them. You can’t convince someone you are right if your message wanders.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        I’d say that products that are critical to American industry and security are worth subsidizing. Domestically produced energy is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. That means petroleum, cleaner coal, coal gasification, and nuclear energy, until things change.

        • leftylurker

          It’s worth it to spend a ton to keep companies like Boeing and Lockheed going, even if we don’t need them at the moment, so we can maintain overwhelming force.

        • Hooah_Mac

          In a national emergency, some products may be subsidized – for instance food in the hypothetical case of a food shortage. In the long-term, none should. The problem with liberals, going back at least as far as FDR, is the permanent solutions to temporary problems.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            when “they” say it’s temporary. The squawk in the media right now is over the TARP money and the government’s refusal to take it back. In the middle of the commentaries on the subject, the polticians and talking heads prattle on about returning the money to the tax payers.

            I ask ya… Can anyone here point to a time when tax money has ever returned to the tax payers?

            That doesn’t count rate reductions but actual monies confiscated by the feds for whatever reasons of subsidizing something and promising that it will be repaid. It might be repaid but not to the tax payers.

      • AKSteveB
  • liberalrepublican

    But its not about abandoning core values.

    Its about outreach to conservatives who don’t consider Republicans.

    There are plenty of pro-family, pro-marriage blacks, Asians and Latinos out there who agree way more than you might think to the core ideals of conservatism.

    They know ( and teach their children) about hard work, the value of a dollar and the importance of family and God. They are skeptical about how Obama is spending money and are worried about what impact it will have on their lives and their childrens lives.

    This isn’t a small group. IT”S A HUGE GROUP.

    But they vote democratic. Solidly democratic.

    And making Michael Steele head of the RNC is going to do nothing to change that.

    There has to be outreach. An effort to welcome them.

    I think this site and group is much closer to the ideal of judging by their character than their skin color than just about any group I’ve come across on the internet or elsewhere.

    But their is a bit of pride in that. There is a thumbing of the nose to political correctness.

    Which is fine, but you have to also understand it’s off putting to others. Calling someone the BoyPresident is actually funny – but if he is African American, it also has a subtext that everyone understands. Saying it anyway indicates you know about the subtext and but don’t care.

    Is that racist? Hell NO! But is sure as hell is not welcoming.

    Demographics are a powerful thing.

    • Aaron Gardner

      of who a large percentage are racist themselves.

      Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that in the context of the story that used* “boy president” refers to his naivety not his race.

      But then again I guess some just aren’t as post racial as others…no matter how liberal they become.

      * Why are you draggin mud from one diary to another…this diary didn’t even use the words boy president…so maybe you should be more careful in the future.

      • Hooah_Mac

        I keep wondering how we can get access to the secret racist code book. It seems like only Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and a few others have it. That just seems like a poor way of running a secret code, but who am I to judge.

        • liberalrepublican

          How about if we just thought about it as manners?

          If people made an effort to educate themselves a bit and than made another to be polite to those you want to welcome?

          Now, you can say this is my party and my country and I don’t need to adjust my ways to them – they need to adjust to me.

          But maybe they won’t adjust.

          And if they don’t, you’ll have patriotic, hard working pro-family, fiscally conservative people CONTINUING to vote D.

          Which is fine, but demographics are a powerful thing.

          • Hooah_Mac

            Was somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is legitimate…the problem is that those of us on the right who are supposed racists using code language have no idea what they are talking about. Generally we only know we have used secret racist code when Al Sharpton tells us we have.

            I will NOT allow someone else’s blatant racism(the left, the NAACP, etc) determine what I meant in any particular situation. I will also NOT refuse to criticize a bungling President because he is black and that might be deemed racism.

        • AKSteveB

          A hallmark of freedom is the ability to not be scared into euphemism.

          • liberalrepublican

            I think political correctness is stupid.

            I am not arguing for political correctness, just suggesting subtle insults or even being unaware of subtle insults hurts when you are trying to win someone over to your side.

      • liberalrepublican

        You completely ignored my larger point and focused on a small emotional point.

        Just like a conservative black, Latino or Asian voting D over some small emotional point while they agree with R’s over the bigger points.

        PERFECT EXAMPLE!

        Thank you. I don’t think I could have illustrated my Big Point any better.

        • Aaron Gardner

          Just a point that you were bringing subject matter from a thread that had nothing to do with this diary…almost as though you were confused about which diary you were posting on.

          What exactly was this fictitious emotional argument that you saw?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      liberalrepublican implies Obama haters have a “subtext” of racism that everyone really knows about, wink wink, nudge nudge.

      Oh wait, he then said it’s not racist. Then tell us, what is that subtext, liberalrepublican, that is ‘demographic’ but not racist?

      • liberalrepublican

        I am sorry you were offended.

        • Aaron Gardner

          what is the subtext that is demographic but not racist?

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          So you’re saying my interpretation is correct, that you’re really calling us secret racists for daring to criticize The Leader with mockery?

          If so, that deserves a genuine apology, not a “sorry you’re offended” trick.

          With your next post.

          • liberalrepublican

            “I think this site and group is much closer to the ideal of judging by their character than their skin color than just about any group I?ve come across on the internet or elsewhere.”

            And about the term BoyPresident:

            “Is that racist? Hell NO!”

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Aaron Gardner

            I mean if I am a perfect example this should be easy right…

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • liberalrepublican

            My discussion was about influencing/persuading/selling people with strong conservative core values to vote R.

            There are millions of them who don’t.

            I’ve spent 1000′s of hours pouring over data looking at conversion rates on web sites. Making slight changes in headlines or copy that have big results. Seeing some small changes in an offer make the difference between something being profitable and something being a money loser.

            I was looking at it through that prism. Not my personal views.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You said our comments have a subtext?

            What is the subtext?

          • Aaron Gardner
    • redware

      welcome to support its candidates that is.That does not mean that the GOP has to somehow dilute its conservative message to get them to join us.We have to articulate the message better, so that every ethnic group understands just how the enactment of conservative principles benefits all Americans.

      • liberalrepublican

        You nailed it.

  • LibRick

    Megan McCain is expressing her personal view on the future direction of the GOP, just like you. Both you and she are exercising your rights as free Americans…marketplace of ideas and all that. By the way, you write quite well.

    I’ve noticed that many conflate conservatism with the Republican party and that frames the debate wrongly. The community on this site, rightly, draws a clear distinction on this front and you articulate that view well.

    So the long term GOP fight is in the marketplace of ideas. Your contribution is a vital part of that fight. But, you must see that in order to bring your view, or even part of it, to fruition, you must win the majority. Megan, is trying to pull mainstream younger people in and she sees gay marriage as a relevant point and has expressed her view.

    I’ve read your essay twice and cannot find a plain statement, pro or con, on your stance concerning gay marriage. Please elaborate.

    • Amy Miller

      …which you would know if you had read my diary twice.

      See if you can guess how this fiscally, socially, all-around conservative girl feels about it :o )

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      doesn’t expliciley state he prefers you eat beef.

      But nice comment, truly.

  • modgopgal

    I found this report from the Cato Institute interesting because it highlights the concerns I have about runaway spending. As the report (see http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230) notes:

    “The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities ? expenditures commonly referred to as “corporate welfare” ? in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, “corporate welfare” is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.”

    The full report can be found at the link I provided above. What I find disturbing is how much money the federal government doled out to businesses when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. $92 billion in subsidies in just one year! Why are Republicans, many of whom are socially conservative, supporting this kind of spending? What happened to the philosophy of the free market? Why is MY money being used to prop up the sugar industry (subsidies which Florida Republicans supported) and timber companies (which Republican lawmakers from the south and west supported)? Even mink farmers receive nearly $2 million a year in taxpayer funded subsidies. Mink farmers need a government bailout!? Give me a break.

    • Aaron Gardner

      you could use that in your diary about fiscal conservatism…make sure you actually list out the Republicans who voted for this stuff…and also you should check for correlation too their ACU ratings and find out if they are socially liberal or socially conservative….should be really easy to prove your point that socons are the *real* issue with the party and the cause of all of this ridiculous spending.

      Again waiting with baited breath.

    • Martin Knight

      I notice you have a lot of outrage against taxpayer money going to industry … but it’s not exactly something that puts you at odds with the Left, which is not too fond of industry in the first place.

      Where do you stand on entitlement spending? Welfare spending? Money spent on industry subsidies are as nothing compared to the money that goes to social programs.

      How come you’re just focused on industry?

  • Spartan4Life

    Well written and wholeheartedly agree.

    The only thing worse than liberal republicans are (so called)Conservative democrats.

    • rbdwiggins

      more dependable than moderate liberal-Republicans.

      Zell Miller readily comes to mind.

      President Reagan built his winning coalition around this inconvenient truth.

      • TxCon

        I only see two in the House that are true to conservative principles.

        • rbdwiggins

          and your neighbors. They sit in your congregation, their kids go to the same school as your kids and you may even call a few of them your friend.

          They can be found all across the heartland of America, and they vote.

          They won’t vote for Democrat-lite, but they will vote for a principled leader.

          And, you’re right. Zell watched his party leave him.

          • TxCon

            Well let me know when they start voting like conservatives. The past 5 presidential elections say they do not vote conservative.

          • rbdwiggins

            There’s been no conservative presidential candidate on the ballot since 1984.

          • TxCon

            has been more conservative than their Democratic opponent. That cannot be debated. It’s a fact. Yet I see “Reagan” democrat states vote for the liberal candidate everytime. Conservative Democrats should have voted in droves for McCain, but they didn’t.

          • RedWhite_and_Truth

            . . . it makes them a lame loser.

            Please see rbdwiggins point. Since RR left, GHWB started the slide rolling with the soft gut-punch to us true conservatives with the “kinder, gentler nation” poppycock. Then, Bob Dole decided it was his turn. Finally, even GWB talked about “compassionate conservatism.” (Rolls eyes)

            McLame stayed in the dugout. No, he stayed in the locker room.

            You watch a “true” conservative grab the votes (as RR did).

            If one of them has the good sense to run, and let us fully support her/him.

          • TxCon

            in these states that run for other offices and get defeated. Saying you are a conservative democrat doesn’t mean squat if you are still pulling the lever for a liberal D come election time.

          • rbdwiggins

            Loyalty to the Party is one of the characteristics held by many conservative-Democrats. How do I know that? I know enough of them to form an informed opinion.

            When I asked why they put party loyalty aside and voted for Ronald Reagan, the overwhelming response was very telling…

            They trusted him to lead them out of their malaise.

          • TxCon

            until they find principled conservatives to vote for? That doesn’t make sense to me. Ken Blacwell and Lynn Swann are principled conservatives and yet their liberal opponents won elections because “conservative” democrats voted for them. The same thing happened with Geroge Allen, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent, etc. Where were the ‘conservative democrats” in these races? I know if Zell Miller had been running against McCain, I sure would have voted for Miller.

          • rbdwiggins

            Remove the conservative label. It won’t convince conservative-Democrats to vote for a Republican candidate. Party loyalty will prevail.

            Again, the key is “principled leader.” Although those principles will most likely be conservative, leadership is the deciding factor, not conservatism. For most conservative-Democrats that I referenced above, conservative is the way they lead their lives. It is not a political ideology.

            Neither Blackwell, Swann, Allen, Santorum, Talent nor McCain rise to the level of principled leader, IMHO.

          • Aaron Gardner

            thanks for that.

  • texas214

    Social issues while important, shouldn’t be the primary tenant of the GOP. Many of these issues are very personal to each and everyones own personal faith.

    Example 1: In certain faiths any sort of contraception is wrong. In others it’s not an issue.

    Example 2: While many in the Republican Party have no problem with the death penalty, there are some “conservative faiths” that do not think it is okay, my understanding the Catholic faith still has not changed previous positions against it.

    Example 3: gay marriage is typically against most faiths, however some faiths go to position that being gay is a sin.

    While I or none of you know the asnswer to these questions (only God does) for us to be having this discussion in government and not in our churches, synagoges, temples…. is completely the wrong place.

    Those of you who disagree and want to tell me how our founding fathers believed that this country was granted by a higher being, I couldn’t agree more, but that doesn’t allow government to be the decision maker on ones faith and beliefs. The government we should fight for is one that protects our rights to have this discussion and govern best by governing least.

    With expansion of the current Congress and Administration I worry less about whether two gay people get married and more about saddling future generations with debt they can never get out of. The Dems have left a huge hole for the GOP to drive through by selling out the future of the youth of today. We need to discuss with these and future voters what this will mean to them in the future and how when many of the people making these laws today are dead and gone they will still be paying for their experiment.

    • Lammo

      the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative statement of the Church’s actual teachings, allows for the death penalty:

      2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
      Link: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

      So, your statement should read that “the Catholic faith still has not changed previous positions allowing it.”

      There are recent statements, including several by the late great Pope John Paul II, that have focused on the last clause in the belief that there are other possible ways of effectively defending human lives against unjust aggressors. They point to the security of modern prisons and the availability of Life Without Possibility of Parole as a sentencing option.

      This is where I have to stick with the death penalty – - as long as there are bleeding heart governors out there with the ability to wield the pardon stick there is no guarantee that LWOPOP means what it says. Fix that and you can take the death penalty off the table.

      Sorry if this isn’t fully related to the topic of the thread but I must always and everywhere correct faulty statements regarding the Catholic Church and Her teachings.

  • vital0gy

    I really don’t care what you all call me, no sweat off my back. My moderately social views are not based on “feelings” because of what I see on the nightly news. My views are born out of life experiences from growing up in a poor, rural community. Here’s what shaped my views on social issues:

    My father was injured in a fall at work in 1983 when I was 8 years old. From that point on he was mostly confined to a wheelchair. My mom worked 2-3 jobs to help support the family after my father’s accident. The problem was that we lived outside of Danville, IL where the unemployment rate hovered near double digits from the mid 80′s through most of the 90′s. With only a high school diploma, and not much left in the manufacturing sector, the jobs she managed to get were in retail and waitressing. So our family of five lived at, or near, the poverty line for most of my youth.

    I grew up with extreme asthma that had to be treated by doctors 100 miles away in Indianapolis. Obviously, my parents couldn’t afford health insurance, but we did qualify for medicaid. If it had not been for my breathing machine and several daily pills, I would have had several trips to an emergency room.

    Now, in 1990, with government assistance, my mom scaled back to one job so that she and my father could attend community college together. They both graduated with associates degrees a few years later. Armed with a degree, my mom was able to get a job with the local Walgreens accounting center, and my dad was able to start his own business. They held up the importance of getting an education and overcoming adversity, and it made an impact on me and my siblings. Their examples led to my sister and I attending college and my brother joining the Marine Corps.

    Fast forward to more recent events. In 2003 my 26 year old wife passed away after a 2 year battle with Hodgkins Lymphoma leaving me to raise our 6 year old son by myself. My son receives an SSI death benefit now, something that I know makes most here cringe. I’m not a welfare queen living to sponge off the government. I have a good job, and put ALL of his money into educational funds.

    I know this is a long post, and I don’t expect many will get past the first few lines before dismissing me. My point is only that you shouldn’t assume that every “squish” is someone without principles. Mine may be different than yours, but they are based on life experiences I have had.

    • Aaron Gardner

      I only ask because that is the subject matter.

      • vital0gy

        My apologies, but the thread diverged a bit from the original matter. I believe that, like most issues, it should be dealt with at a state level.

      • Martin Knight
    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      I see you believe in federalism when it comes to homosexual civil unions.

      It seems that though you believe in a safety net that helps people survive when they are down on their luck you don’t believe it should be a way of life that lasts for generations. You don’t define yourself by your asthma. And you don’t define yourself by your being a widower. Seems to me that you are pretty conservative.

      So I wonder to what conservative principles you object. You can get a good list from the 912 project. They call them values instead of principles, but hey, that’s conservatives for you. We are a big tent. We can understand different words.

      * Honesty
      * Reverence
      * Hope
      * Thrift
      * Humility
      * Charity
      * Sincerity
      * Moderation
      * Hard Work
      * Courage
      * Personal Responsibility
      * Gratitude

      • vital0gy

        It’s a great list of principles/values. My guess is that if you ask someone from the far left if they believed in these words you would get a positive response. Unfortunately, they always want to put a “but” right after the values you list.

        I guess my post is something that I’ve been holding off on for a long time. I lurked here for many years before posting and many times I would see negative comments about government assistance. I started to get the feeling that anyone who believed in a limited social safety net was not welcome on this site.

        And as far as social safety nets are concerned, here is my position: I believe in limited social safety nets. My family had medicaid assistance and school free lunches for about 10 years. That allowed enough time for my parents to further their education so that they could get off of programs. And trust me, I hated growing up as a “free lunch” kid. It was very embarrassing to have all of your classmates know you were poor, even if many others were in the same boat.

        I also believe that you cannot always leave things to charity for some of that assistance. Part of me pointing out the terrible economy in my hometown was to show that the local churches were not getting enough donations to keep up with demand in a very depressed, rural area.

        • AKSteveB

          The other thing is, government is not always the most efficient or best way to provide that help. I think we all realize that in a modern disconnected society, government will have to sometimes fill in the blanks.

          • AKSteveB

            You can tell it is April in Alaska.

          • vital0gy

            I agree, and in an ideal world government would be the last entity one should turn to for help. Unfortunately, in our town the demand outpaced donations for the local churches.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            Okay with the safety net; Death to the entitlement state.

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

          I think your experiences would make a good diary. Especially if you explain how you came out of it believing in conservatism instead of the alternatives.

          As to charity in the town you grew up in, you might be surprised to hear that Mississippi, where I now live, has the lowest or second lowest per capita income in the US and the highest level of charitable giving. People can give charity, if they value others. There must have been a structural reason why the town was depressed longer than other towns. Think about it and see if the cause of that structural weakness in the local economy was the free market or government. I’m betting it’s government.

          • vital0gy

            It might be a rehashing of what I’ve just posted on here, with added thoughts. So long as that’s alright then I don’t mind at all with sharing what lead to my beliefs.

            As for what’s caused the continued decline of that area, I have to agree that a large part of it was government in one way or another. The local leadership of the area economic team has been horribly inept over the years. Plus the passage of NAFTA did not help. Many of the few remaining manufacturing companies left for Juarez shortly after passage.

            As a side note, I also think the fact that we nearly had a one to one ratio of bars to churches didn’t help. And we had a lot of churches :)

    • Martin Knight
      • vital0gy

        But I have no disagreements on the list you posted above. My long time lurking here led me to believe that supporting a social safety net put me in the moderate category. If I’ve tweaked you in any way please let me know.

        • Martin Knight

          … so I’m just asking what it is that makes your social views i.e. abortion, gay marriage, 2nd Amendment, etc. “moderate” as opposed to mine (see Coburn, Tom for illustration)?

          • vital0gy

            Like I stated above, I don’t think I differ in your thoughts on the issues you listed. I don’t know your thoughts on social safety nets, but I believe in their proper use. So my point is I consider myself a moderate on this issue.

          • AKSteveB

            I wonder how many ..well …mainstream/middle American folks, actually understand that their beliefs ARE conservative. As someone who wasn’t quite sure myself for a long time, I think that is where the education need be done. I’d love to know how many Obama voters actually shared his values?

  • redware

    overcome so many obstacles in your life.But quite frankly,I don’t see the connection between what you have faced in your life,and the formation of “moderately social” views.Maybe I am missing something here,but I get the sense from your post that you are referring to social welfare programs.I don’t think most conservatives would propose eliminating a “safety net” to deal with some of the hardships you have faced.We certainly take issue with the bureaucratic mess and waste inherent in many of these Federal programs.But no conservative reading your story would call you a “squish” or a “welfare queen”. We would propose that conservative fiscal policies like low taxation and the elimination of pork barrel spending would promote the kind of job growth and prosperity in America that may have altered your story, and the story of many other families who are struggling from the outrageous growth of big government spending,high taxes,and anti-growth liberal economic policies.

    • vital0gy

      Although I grew up with some federal assistance, I have a different perspective on dealing with safety nets. Like many other things, I think it’s an issue best left to each individual state to deal with. I don’t think it’s fair for someone in Texas or Florida to pay taxes that are used for assistance in Illinois or Indiana. I also think it would help with the bureaucratic mess we have today.

  • Jeff Weimer

    We should be silent on the issue of gay marriage. It should be decided by the state legislatures – as has happened recently in Vermont. It should not be decided by the courts.

    Now, my apprehension to gay marriage stems from the efforts subsequent to its enactment in those states it (or civil union) has been enacted. It appears that many who have won this right are intent on forcing others to accede, to the point of suing churches (who don’t agree) to have services on their property and forcing private individuals to be party to contracts they do not want. That is egregious and contrary to the establishment clause of the first amendment. Yes, it cuts BOTH ways, and those who intend to push thier “right” too far forget that.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      From allowing gay marriage

      To requiring a church to marry two gays

      To requiring all churches to marry gay couples

      To requiring all adoption agencies to adopt out to gay married couples

      To requiring all adoption agencies to adopt out to gay unmarried couples

      and that’s without bringing polyamory and bestiality into the picture.

      • Jeff Weimer

        Is where it crosses the constitution.

        Just as you must keep church separate from state, you must keep the state out of the church, and and forcing them to perform acts contrary to their views is the point where that happens.

      • vital0gy

        I only ask because my church doesn’t even allow the marriage of divorcees. Wouldn’t they have to be a constitutionally protected minority?

        • Swamp_Yankee

          It may take fifteen years of lawsuits and re-education. There is a growing movement to tax churches as well. The Left dare not go there yet, but they would love to push it and like every other radical agenda item, they will take their time. Persistent little fascists.

          • David123

            where civil unions are legal but gay “marriage” isn’t. A gay couple is suing the Methodist church for refusing to allow a gay coupling ceremony on church property.

            http://www.proudparenting.com/node/2433

          • Jeff Weimer

            That and the photographer sued because she didn’t want to work a gay wedding.

      • Swamp_Yankee

        For all you hip, cool progressive Republicans, I hope you remember your support for gay rights when those rights have been perverted in your state to allow grown men who identify themselves as women to go into public ladies room surrounding your daughter of grandaughter’s school:

        http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/04/07/groups_lobby_for_against_ma_transgender_bathrooms/

        • vital0gy

          Before I transferred to Purdue (Boiler Up!) I went to a small community college that had to have a special restroom for the one transgender student there. We called it the Sheit Bathroom.

  • crux

    Everytime I hear “big tent” I think of a rather LARGE woman in a moo-moo. If the GOP needs a metaphor -I’d like to think of a young Paul Revere jumping on a sleek HOG. Lean, mean, sharp. True founding principles don’t need to be carefully couched in “what’s cool” . They simply ARE. When someone has the courage to stand up, articulate them clearly, and ACT on them, we will have found our leader.

    Things are a-stirring.

  • Dencal26

    Can someone be conservative and still fear global warming? I know here in New Jersey Christmas was 30 degrees Warmer than Easter. Something is certainly going on.

    Can someone still be conservative if they are against abortion but support it if the mothers life is in danger or in case of rape? I can tell you I despise abortion but if my teen daughter was raped by some savage I would not want her to carry his child . And the childs father would be dead anyway,

    Can someone still be a conservative if they want college costs to be lower? Or healthcare costs to be lower ?

    Thats what I mean by Big Tent.

    • Martin Knight

      Can someone be conservative and still fear global warming? I know here in New Jersey Christmas was 30 degrees Warmer than Easter. Something is certainly going on.

      It’s called weather. That’s what’s going on. “As unpredictable as the weather …” mean anything to you?
      PS: In case you never got the memo, not fearing “global warming” is not incompatible with caring about the environment. In fact, I’d bet the typical Republican has more respect for the environment than the entire Sierra Club, and certainly a lot more than Al Gore.

      Can someone still be conservative if they are against abortion but support it if the mothers life is in danger …

      That would be 99.9% of all conservatives.

      … or in case of rape?

      There’s something of a close to even split here.

      Can someone still be a conservative if they want college costs to be lower? Or healthcare costs to be lower?

      Umm … who the heck are those conservatives who want college costs or healthcare costs to be higher?

      Do us all a favor … why don’t you go out and actually talk to a conservative or a Republican and find out what we think and how we think first before writing something like this?

      • Jack_Savage

        “Lions and Lambs” maybe.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Big Tent refers to Republicanism, not conservatism. The two are not synonymous.

  • aesthete

    It’s with the location of the tent. Moderates don’t want toexpand the tent, they want to move it somewhere else entirely. Conservatives are fine with expanding the tent, but don’t want to move it from its core tenets, e.g., respect for the Constitution and for our God-given gift of free choice.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

      superb answer

  • Aaron Gardner

    Recommended and Dugg!!

    I always find it humorous that the Progressive “Republicans”, like the McCain’s and further back to the Wilsons, claim that in order to make it back to our roots we have to first disregard the founding principles of our party.

    The McCains and politicians like them are nothing but progressives, plain and simple. Whether they fall on the right or left matters not. They are progressives so therefore they believe in the primacy of the state rather than the primacy of the individual.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    I think overhaul was the better word. Yes, we need to make use of technology but what’s the point of technology if we don’t have anything we will stand strong for?

  • E Pluribus Unum

    It’s always “well, we’re just too conservaitve”. So the party moves leftward, and loses WORSE.

    Well. obviously we did not move far enough left I guess, did we?

    I wonder if in 2012 we can just go ahead and nominate Joe Liebermann as the GOP candidate.

  • Achance

    You couldn’t buy an intelligent conversation about conservative philosophy and its practical applications from a group of Republican politicians. Most of the people who can actually get elected as a moderate or conservative are dumb as stumps and distinguished from the TV weatherperson only by the fact that they read/memorize different lines. There are exceptions and there are smart, thoughtful people holding office as Republicans but they can only get elected in the safe districts. The more purplish a district tends the mushier the candidate must be to contend in the middle. The same is true for the Democrats but they handle it differently; they lie. They take a position that will get them the middle and never refer to that position again until the next election. If we try to put up a hard R, s/he scares Hell out of the mushy middle of the electorate and the faux moderate Democrat wins. If we go for the mushy candidate, we get a maverick, a crook, or an embarrassment because the candidate has nothing to base his/her positions on and is inconsistent or hypocritical.

    Look at McCain. He’s not the sharpest stick in the stack, but armed with the courage of his connections, good looks, and a war hero image, political office was a natural alternative to actually working. AZ was deep Red in those days and if one wanted to hold office in AZ, one ran as a Republican. I believe that is the sole basis of the man’s “Republicanism.” His political philosophy, like most of the “moderates,” is do what it takes to stay in office and whatever you can to position yourself for the next move up. That really is all that guides them.

  • azaeroprof

    If only we could get all GOP members of Congress to read diaries like this…alas, we’ll just have to get people who read diaries like this to BECOME all GOP members of Congress.

  • Hooah_Mac

    I know who we should nominate to show we get it and finally win again…

    Dennis Kucinich

    Think of the brilliance of that. Since moving leftward towards the democrats hasn’t worked, if we just completely out left them, that should do the trick.

  • Amy Miller

    Someday I’d like to see a conservative politician just tell everyone where to get off. It’s time to cut the squishy mcmush mentality out of the party, because the squishies make the rest of us look like complete imbeciles!

    5′s, as always.

  • ColdWarrior

    for my kids, intended to run as a Democrat here in Arizona way back when he first ran for Congress. I’ve been told this by a former chairman of McCain’s legislative district, LD 11, who’s lived in that district as long as McCain has. McCain was told by those who were helping him back then that he had to run as a Republican if he wanted to have any hope in his then very, very Republican congressinal district of winning a seat in the House. So he turned on a dime and ran as a Republican.
    Moreover, in the last internal Party elections, McCain and his forces outside the state (I will leave out the names) used lots of money to mount a campaign to run, in LD 11, moderates against incumbent conservative precinct committeemen, resulting in the LD leadership changing from a conservative slate to a McCain-moderate slate and in the then-incumbent, conservative, Maricopa County chairman, who had been a PC in LD 11, not being allowed to run for re-election because he was no longer a precinct committeeman, a prerequisite for holding that office. One of the goals of the McCain forces was to oust the conservative incumbent from the county chairmanship by taking away his right to run for re-election. They succeeded, but ultimately lost, as another conservative ran and beat his incumbent opponent. The winner than promptly appointed the past conservative chairman as the new executive director of the county GOP. It’s a numbers game — the Party leadership reflects the overall membership of the Party, from the precinct level up to the RNC. The more conservatives that get elected to precinct committeeman offices, the more likely the precinct, legislative distict, county, state and national Republican Party leadership slots will be filled with conservatives.
    I’ll be attending the LD 11 monthly meeting tonight — McCain is expected to appear as their “guest speaker.” As the current LD 11 chairman is a staunch McCain supporter and moderate, I doubt he’ll allow any hard questions be put to McCain, as they’ll all be pre-screened. But I’ll try.
    Oh, and guess what? I’m told neither McCain nor Kyl will be attending the Tea Party tomorrow. They certainly aren’t on the list of speakers.

  • azaeroprof

    (Thought I’d pull a Kowalski, since I just recently learned what that was!)

    Great job, Erick, on promoting this to the front page. I’d suggest that you consider Amy for a spot as a regular front-page contributor. Her writing and insights are phenomenal (and, no, I’ll resist the urge to say “for someone so young” :o ) and she always has just the right mix of seriousness, fun, and snark.

  • CoOldGuard

    The conservative principles that have gotten lost in the “shuffle” are not the same values that LOST votes in 2006 and 2008.

    The constant jockeying for power between the SoCons and the rest of the party are what have diluted the Republican message.

    The principles that have gotten lost are:

    1. Fiscal Responsibility

    2. Limited Government

    3. Law and Order

    4. Strong Defense

    5. Individual Liberty/Responsibility

    I know this post will probably result in a “dogpiling”, but for those of us who remember campaigning for Ronald Reagan, the pro-life message was not the central and be-all/end-all of his campaign. Lashing out at the social moderates, and accusing them of abandoning core values is a gross mis-read of the situation. Republicans are getting shellacked due to abandonment of ALL the core values, not just a few.

    Feel free to flame me, fume and rant. However, in the long run, the Republican party needs to start re-examining what it is to be conservative, and promoting a limited government, pro-growth, strong defense, individual liberty messages that Reagan included in HIS big tent.

  • Amy Miller

    Means a lot, truly :o )

  • Bob_Frazier

    The problem really is that our Tent has become too big. Reagan himself welcomed anyone to vote with us and for us, but our principles were clear. If you agree with us 55%, join us. But don’t expect us to change just for you.

    I hope the folly of the Big Tent is finally over. But I suspect it is not.

  • djemi

    Can well understand why this was promoted

  • AKSteveB

    We really ARE “The Big Tent” by default now. Pres. Obama did it for us. He’s narrowed the Democratic Party into something that is to the left of the mainstream. That leaves us as the “coalition of the normal” defined very broadly of course. We definitely need to be who we are, no need to moderate anything, but we’d better be ready for the Obama blowback and for those who come with it.

  • AKSteveB

    Isn’t that something along the line of “Conservative Socialist?”

  • Amy Miller

    the “sympathetic Nazis” and “honest Treasury Secretarys”.

  • Amy Miller

    because I feel like that’s exactly what progressives like McCain want to do. It’s redefining, revamping, and reinventing the wheel. However, sticking to conservative principles (or returning?), but working on ~image~ for our little tent will do wonders for garnering support.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    they’ve already done that. They did that with Bush and again with McCain’s own campaigns. IIRC we’ve even been told more than once that conservatives are a minority of the GOP.

    When Bush came out with his “compassionate conservatism,” he and the GOP accepted the premise that conservatives are not compassionate. He also kicked off the other two legs of his own stool with that message and grew government. McCain, by his own record, is not conservative.

    And still they (the R politicians) complain it’s because we haven’t gone far enough left.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C
  • texas214

    I think all Republicans agree with your assessment of where government should be on these issues ( just enough gov to keep from being a true Libertarian, but not to be intrusive in our daily lives) you have outlined. Where the arguement tends to be on this post and with many post on this site are with the social issues.

    I consider myself a social conservative, however my positions by some would be overly conservative and liberal by others. Social issues tend to be much more personal than the issues you outlined therefore much harder to reach consensus. The Republican party should not run from these issues, however there should be a big tent for discussion and civil debate of these issues. If we let there be a healthy discussion of these issues we will be the better for it.

    In closing;
    A) we didn’t lose in ’06 &’08 on social issues, we lost because our elected GOP leaders lost their way on fiscal, limited government, and law and order issues.

    B) jumping on modgopgal, as an example is exactly what I am talking about. I don’t completely agree with her but to resort to name calling is worse than having the discussion at all.

    C) eveyone likes to quote Reagan, however they quickly forget he had the 80/20 Rule, If you agreed on 80 % of the issues, he would support you, knowing not everyone agreed on all issues.

  • JDidSaint

    I agree, but think we need to combine your points with Amy’s.

    The issue with social liberal/fiscal conservatives is that they always feel so bad. They pity the poor, so they say, “just this once,” to new welfare spending. Then they pity homosexuals and say, “just this once,” to gay marriage and the subsidies that come from it. Then they look at the environment and get misty eyed and say, “you know, just this once,” and increase taxes on oil and pass mandates about where people can and cannot drill.

    On the other hand, I agree with you that the SoCon message is not conservative. It may emphasize tradition, but it doesn’t call for a limited government.

    The conservative response to the gay marriage debate is that you resent government’s intrusion in the institution of marriage, not that you want government on your side of the intrusion.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I for one refuse to pigeonholed a “social conservative”. The problem with this mentality is that is lost. Conservatism is not static. It is often defined by external threats. The new Left lost in the ballot box. They could not win with riots. They insidiously started this culture war Saul Alinsky style, while old school Republicans were asleep at the switch.

    Just like the battle for the judiciary. The liberals were stacking the deck by focusing on litigation and judicial appointments decades before conservatives knew what hit them. We lost a generaltion because we failed to recognize the new fronts in their assault; we failed to adjust.

    What old school Republicans fail to realize is that the liberals started this culture war and it is this influence on the culture that allows them to denigrate such things as Federalism and Constitution with impunity because the new generation of youth and the new immigrant classes don?t care.

    You can?t talk about following the Constitution when kids are not taught to respect tradition and history. You cannot talk about the wisdom of the founding fathers when all kids know is that they were sexist salveowners. You can?t talk limited government when the majorities of families are broken and kids need federal loans to subsidize their education, mothers need welfare to support their kids and lonely family-less seniors need Medicare to stay alive. The Federal government feeds off of broken families

    Reagan was a man for his era. While certain conservative principles remain eternal, the threats are not and strategies and tactics must change too. Yes. the was no “social conservatives” back then because it was not an issue. Republicans and many Democrats of the past would be outraged by the assault on our culture. JFK by modern definitions is a Right Wing Radical and a social conservative.

    The whole “social conservative” versus libertarian conservative is blown way out of proportion. They each need each other and it is the preservation of our culture that we all fight for.

    Liberals started this war. The media has spun it against “SocCons” and naive moderate Republicans have taken the bait.

  • aesthete

    The debate between libertarian conservatives and the Christian Democratic party that the Republican party has become is far more pressing. I think that the abandonment of small-govt. principles, as well as the ballooning of the social/cutural conservative agenda into a more “proactive” one, are largely to blame for the current crisis, and not a debate between “moderates” and conservatives, as clearly evidenced by McCain’s abortive campaign for President.

  • penguin2

    Wonderful post Amy. Well said. Do we have anyone like the British Daniel Hannan?

  • ColdWarrior
  • Amy Miller

    And I agree that we shouldn’t water ourselves down in order to taste better to the MSM, etc.

    Being ready for the blowback is absolutely crucial. Getting caught with our pants down is one of the main reasons so many people get squishy and shuffle off to the tent next door. I’ve been called a bigot and a bully and a ::insert your own expletive:: enough to let things like that roll off my back–but sticking to your guns goes way beyond ignoring the haters. It’s about truly believing what you are selling.

    Core conservatives need to be absolutely confident in their product, or pay the price.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    I didn’t call her a name although I did disagree with her and have disagreed with her on this subject before. Nor does she discuss the subject but uses an “everybody else does” argument each and every time she brings it up.

  • redware

    also contributed to our losses in 2006 and 2008.I firmly believe that most social conservatives tend to be “tri-legged stool” conservatives like myself.I have no polls to back me up on this,but base my assumption on knowing so very many who are.I argued with many of them here in South Carolina against their support for Mike Huckabee in the ’08 primary.When I pointed out Huckabee’s left of center views on taxation,spending,immigration reform,etc.,they were surprised,but not deterred from voting for him.The reason-they truly felt abandoned by the GOP on the issues that mattered to them the most.They were sick and tired of a GOP who paid lip service to social issues(and a whispered one at that)and told them we can’t win when we support your issues.Just vote for us and we will see what we can do when we get elected.Wink,wink!Many socons were demoralized and angry during the ’08 election,and even the Palin pick failed to rouse many of them to support the GOP with anything more than a half-hearted vote-if that.

    Socons are usually in the forefront of volunteer and fundraising efforts for the GOP.That just wasn’t as strong this time around.And if we fall for the tripe these so called “young progressive Republicans” are trying to sell us-we just may lose socons for good.These people get their political ideas from MTV, rock celebrities, Hollywood lib-trash,and liberal college professors.Unless their parents are New England Rockefeller Republicans,they are probably the product of conservative homes.But reading conservative political philosophy ala Goldwater,Buckley,Kirk,and Reagan doesn’t have the “cool factor” that is derigeur for this generation.

    I also think it somewhat disengenuous to use Reagan’s “never speak ill”philosophy as an argument for the kind of “big tent” being pushed by these moderates.There are issues Reagan would never have sacrificed in order to keep people like Meghan McCain in the GOP.

  • Praveen

    We know why John McCain lost. If she can confirm we will know 110%.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Do you still know how to contact me offline? If so, do.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I don’t think they have a card that can trump that one.

  • texas214

    it was more of a generic claim. If we as Republicans want to win and appeal to the youth of America we need to discuss more of the things that CoOldGuard dicussed above. We need more discussion of social issues in the church and less on the Republican blogs, thats where hearts will be changed.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    While I can’t say I’ve never called anyone a name, they’d have to do a lot more than modgopgirl has done before they were called one, :-)

    At this point, the word conservative has been so blacklisted, to even talk about conservative principles using that word gets you shut down in a heartbeat, whether you’re out on the street or in a church. But they’re oh… so… tolerant, aren’t they?

  • texas214

    1) Fiscal responsibilty- while he was against earmarks, he consistantly voted for the balloning budgets
    2) Limited Government – McCain Feingold, enough said!
    3) Law and Order – Amnesty Bill, enough said!
    4) Strong Defense – good on this one.
    5)Individual Responsibilty – who knows?, he was always working with Dems on issues that would have a negative impact on this issue.

    On most social issues he was very strong supporter of the pro-life movement and strong on the gay marriage issue. Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan, while strongly cocial conservatives, were much more famous for the stance on the issues that CoOldGuard is discussing.

  • aesthete

    Bush got very solid judges in place and have been driving the gay marriage proponents into full retreat through constitutional amendments, to the point where about 1/2 of the country now has some sort of anti-gay marriage amendment. They even got some of their “bonus” initiatives accomplished, such as extra taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in various states, and even a federal law regulating internet gambling. Either I’m missing something, or the “social conservatives” who are complaining don’t have a leg to stand on.

    BTW, I exclude the public school aspect of social conservative thinking in light of the current debate between SoCons on whether to disband them or simply add more “faith-based” curricula to the classroom.

  • David123
  • aesthete

    The social/cultural conservatism of the 80′s was defensive in nature: it attempted to take back the powers that had been usurped by a liberal government (abortion, schools, etc.). In fact, the only area that I can think of that was an expansion of government is the War on Drugs (which I don’t agree with, but that’s another discussion :) ), which was a very minor part of the SoCon agenda.

    Nowadays, the movement has inordinately expanded, and in many ways now hearkens back to the religious progressivism of the late 19th century, with laws on everything from alcohol to single-parent households on the table for government to “fix”. This, IMO, is very contrary to the Federalist and small-government movement that the movement was originally.

    Of course, that’s not to say that all social conservatives have migrated that way; Redstate has many great examples of people who are old-school social conservatives, such as mailoux. However, “mainstream” social conservatism can be identified by various pieces of legislation seeking to “correct” society’s deviations by using the government’s coercive power. If conservatism is to win, it will need to gain back the libertarian support it once had, and to do that, the remaining elements of old-school conservatism have to re-establish the parameters of social conservatism.

  • redware

    up for these issues on the campaign trail.He spent more time attacking Republican supporters who were trying to raise these issues than he did the left.Social and cultural conservatives don’t want to feel taken for granted,and they don’t like being told their issues are not “winnable”.

  • aesthete

    n/t

  • redware

    he wasn’t running in 2008.And I sure didn’t hear McCain using your talking points to energize the social conservatives.My point is that regardless of McCain’s bona fides on social issues,he failed to generate enthusiasm among socons for his candidacy.Had he trooped around the country talking about the Bush successes,and pledged to pick up the banner he just might have.

  • aesthete

    I can’t think of a single group energized into voting for him, whether Hispanics, pro-defense individuals, small-government conservatives, or, yes, social conservatives. I heard many more arguments from conservatives on why not to vote for Obama than on why we should vote for McCain.

  • tcgeol

    The courts now stand in the way of almost all issues important to socons on local, state, and federal grounds. Before the leftists took over the judiciary, we could work on a local to state scale. Now, we can’t because the courts have prevented it. There is no other political option.

    If you want to get rid of the overtly socon movement, change the government so that the federal government still honors the 9th and 10th amendments (which I know you support).

    Abortion shouldn’t be a national issue, but the courts have forced it so. Homosexual marriage shouldn’t be a national issue, but the courts have forced it. School prayer and religion in public shouldn’t be national issues, but the courts have forced them. Change this and we’ll do this as they should be done on the state and local levels.

    How the the attempted McCain candidacy show that the disagreements between conservatives and moderates is not the problem? Frankly, I think it showed that that disagreement is exactly the problem.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    You really think today’s socons have more in common with religious progressivism of the late 19th century than the socons of the eighties. I suspect that there are many here who fought in the eighties and now who will tell you otherwise That is the perception the media pushes on people and it is a lie.

    Social conservatives have alwys been around. But your right they were “defensive” in the eighties because they were on defense. In other words, they were losers.

    With respect to Federalism and local control, its a boogeyman argument. If people really believed in Federalism and local control, they would let the Bible Belt communites govern the way they want. Federalism specifically gives that authority to the state. I cannot think of one Federal alcohol related law as you state. The founders supported local government – not no government. Socons largely have mobilized because it is the ACLU and others that impose their lifestyle on them – not the other way around.

    It was the liberals who went into their communities and told them to stop moments of silence in school; to take town nativity scenes in the park; that they must celebrate Kwanzaa with Christmas; that put gay literature in Kindergarten classes; that forced them to honor gay marriages; … etc

    This country has always been religious, more religious than wer are now and civil liberties were always treasued by that class and never has a theocracy asserted itself.

    And for the record, I’m hard drinking, hard gambling, thirty four years old bachelor. I live int eh gheart of Boston. I’m no prude, but I recognize truth. Media has people afraid of the “religious right” while the neo-marxist and the politically correct Left tramples and usurps our liberties at an unprecedented pace. It’s a red herring. The whole debate is waste of time. Keep Huckabee off the ticket and all will be fine.

  • leftylurker

    Guilty as charged.

    I *want* to be a republican in some theoretical world where Republicans act like Democrats on most issues, but since the balance tips the other way, I end up being a Democrat who wants them to act like Republicans on some issues.

    Well said.

    Apt.

  • redware

    Let’s hope next time around we find somebody early in the process that can energize and unite all the different “cons” out there so we avoid handing the nomination on a silver platter to another RINO who tries so hard to be “moderate” he/she winds up energizing nobody!

  • aesthete

    Some social conservatives have unfortunately given up on restoring the Federal government to its former, 9th+10th amendment-upholding glory, and instead have chosen to hop on the bandwagon of getting free stuff from the government.

  • aesthete

    simply that it has moved more towards that direction, is continuing to move that way (Huckabee), and will continue to do so until old-school social conservatives re-establish themselves as the policy-makers for the SoCon movement.

    WRT to Federalism, I agree that every state has a right to self-government, and even to establishing laws that contradict the Constitution of the US, as was originally established. My is precisely with the fact that some SoCons have given up on Federalism and are attempting to jump on the bandwagon of either squeezing the people for cash at the federal funds, or trying to restrict our license as citizens to make choices for ourselves.

    Besides that, on the state level, there are several initiatives that national self-proclaimed “socially-conservative” groups support and fund that Republicans do not, and which do restrict the freedoms of people in that state. They are not necessarily unconstitutional laws, unlike Federal initiatives, but they are attempts to control people’s behaviors, and this inherently means that supporting a socially conservative candidate or group often means supporting state initiatives that you don’t agree with.

    I’ll take your word for it that there are no Federal laws restricting the purchase of alcohol, but there have certainly been attempts to establish such laws: I have received letters from some SoCon groups supporting a punitive tax on alcohol and cigarettes, among other things. My previous example of internet gambling regulations is an area where such freedoms were corroded at the Federal level, and there are more examples than just that one.

    By this, I don’t mean to say that I am against religion: for the record, I come from a Pentecostal background, and am actively involved in my church. and again, I don’t disagree with and am not averse to the defensive agenda of social conservatives, but there are problems with the movement as it is presented today, and ignoring this fact isn’t the way to solve the problem.

  • tcgeol

    Where did that come from?

    A one-issue social voter isn’t any more of a conservative than any other pretender.