« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

What does it mean to be a Republican?

“When both party establishments have, over the past decade, set us on a course for creeping nanny state fascism and socialism, I am no longer prepared to accept that it is just politics.”

First, let’s get this out of the way. The news today of Parker Griffith becoming a Republican is a huge blow for Nancy Pelosi and one that her own party is, tonight, blaming her for. It is an embarrassment to President Obama who, like Bill Clinton, is seeing conservative and independent minded people fleeing him as fast as possible.

But, on our side of the aisle, we need to ask, given that all Parker Griffith did was change the letter next to his name from a “D” to an “R”, what exactly does it mean to be a Republican?

The GOP embraced him with open arms as one of us today. Should they have done so?

Compare that to the Democrats who are fighting Arlen Specter in the Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania after his party switch to the Democrats.

Parker Griffith may actually be a good Republican. He said he’d never vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker again. He voted against Obama. He voted against Cap and Trade. He has voted with the Republicans on a lot of issues, but he has still voted with Nancy Pelosi 80% of the time when you add up all the procedural votes, etc. that he has participated in.

So why do we now give him a pass. Changing the letter next to his name does not actually change him as a person or change his mind.

We may, in fact, decide that Griffith is the best we can do in AL-05. Several readers at RedState make this case, even though there is already a Republican running with the support of the local tea party movement in Alabama.

Like with so many candidates in so many places, we should not rely on the GOP inside Washington to tell us who is and is not worth supporting. All of us are able to make up our own minds.

But why give the guy a pass? Michael Steele, when Arlen Specter jumped to the Democrats, said it was because Arlen was putting his own political future ahead of the people he represented. Today, Steele praised Griffith’s conversion.

People change all the time. Ronald Reagan started as a union boss and Democrat. He always said the Democratic Party left him, he did not leave the Democrats. We have to accept that people do change over time.

But in a year?! It was not even a year ago that Parker Griffith was sworn in as a Democrat and the GOP was attacking him, citing posts from RedState, as a mouthpiece for Nancy Pelosi. Come on. Are we really supposed to believe this guy isn’t being a political opportunist? And if he is so ready and willing to switch so quickly to the GOP after the Democrats poured massive money into his district to get him elected in 2008, who is to say he is not later going to be a political opportunist of some kind against our side?

I’ve got no overarching problems with Parker Griffith. He is, after all, an LSU graduate so he has to be mostly redeemable. I do, however, think it should take more than switching the letter after your name to make you “one of us.”

The GOP fell out of power largely because the public could no longer tell what the GOP stood for other than the acquisition of power. It caused them to get greedy, corrupt, and lazy. If anybody can be an R regardless of what they stand for — and I recognize than a New England Republican is necessarily different from a Southern Republican — why have the label at all?

At a minimum we need to think this through and not just be willing to go with the guy who has our preferred letter next to his name. When both party establishments have, over the past decade, set us on a course for creeping nanny state fascism and socialism, I am no longer prepared to accept that it is just politics.

At some point ideas matter most.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • proudgop

    HIs GOP opponents yesterday are still running today so he will have to secure GOP nomination

    The Republicans are doing same thing Dems did when Specter joined their party by using it to tempt others. CQPolitics had rating lean Democrat yesterday today its LIkely GOP and it saved valuable NRCC resources

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    ….but his kid was a COMPLETELY wasted scholarship as a point guard. What Dale Brown was thinking signing that kid was beyond me. Couldn’t play a lick.

    Griffith should have a primary challenge, and the NRCC ought to STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT. Back the winner of the primary with everything you’ve got, but don’t pick winners and losers. For a party supposedly committed to free markets, they sure don’t seem too interested in letting the market rule on their candidates.

  • SteveLA

    Well his record is pretty slim, having not been in Washington long, but looking at Project Vote Smart Griffin looks to be pretty standard fare Southern Democrat. His Bio information sort of confirms his ties to his local community as would be expected.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I suspect we’ll find Griffith is more one of us than not. Gamecock really lays out the details of his record well and, but for being a huge fiscal squish on earmarks, he seems pretty okay.

    But I don’t think we should be in a rush.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    It’s clear you don’t get the point.

  • AndrewHyman

    I think it’s fine to fire torpedoes at GOP congresscritters who don’t measure up, even including newcomers to the GOP who want to help the GOP win the health care battle.

    But why not have a link at the top of this web site that tells congresscritters exactly what Redstate wants, so that they will know how to measure up?

    What I’m suggesting, I guess, is a Redstate position paper on health care. I’m not sure how the thing would be edited, or what it would say, but why not have one?

  • Duke

    And now, on August 5th, 1945 he’s decided to move out of the city of Hiroshima. Well, good for him!

    I’ll leave it to the very able and P.O.’d voters of Alabama to determine if he’s ‘tea party worthy,’ or just another back-stabbing politician with few morals and less ideals trying to save his backside.

    Vote well Alabama – our future depends on your wisdom.

  • Gmac

    but he’s still despised by conservatives here in the 5th district.

    He’s going to have to run in the primary against two Republican conservatives, Les Philips and Mo Brooks. Les is a newcomer and Mo has been involved in local politics for a long time and has a great deal of name recognition.

    Griffith stands no chance of winning in the primary and probably knows it. I suspect he just wants to be on the side of history that will remember he was not a Democrat when this is all over.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    We could just link to Jim DeMint’s proposal.

  • Illinicon

    to what should be the 3 basic tenats of the Party:

    1. Fiscal discipline
    2. Strong national defense
    3. protecting a basic sense of moral order in the country

    Juding from his votes on the stimulus, cap & trade and healthcare he meets the first tenant. Dont know for sure on 2 and 3 but since he is from the South I imagine he is decent on those. That said, I agree with those who want the NRCC out of the primary as it looks like he had two fine candidates already in Mr. Brooks and Philips.

  • Richard Mullins

    He seems to be very much like Conservative but some real questions need to be asked of him. Like a few votes.

  • AndrewHyman

    Well, the DeMint page might be a good start. When you boil it down to its essence, he seems to support the following.

    (1) Expand and strengthen Health Savings Accounts so that patients could pay doctors and hospitals directly from tax-deductible deposits made to the HSA, instead of using an insurance policy.

    (2) Enact the Health Care Choice Act, which would turn the health insurance market, currently a patchwork of discrepant state regulations, into a nationwide market. I guess this means that Demint acknowledges that the HSAs would not be enough, without also having insurance coverage, and I think that’s correct. He also says that the Health Care Choice Act would ensure availability of a basic, low-cost policy without hundred of benefit mandates they don’t need,

    (3) Enact the Health Care Equity Act which allows all Americans who do not receive health insurance through their employer to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums from their taxes.

    Okay, if all that is enacted into law, how many people will still not have health insurance. Has the Congressional Budget Office provided an estimate? Have any other GOP Senators suggested items that Redstate might support, in addition to Senator DeMint’s three items?

    It’s not clear to me from the DeMint page whether he supports banning insurance companies from discriminating against people who have pre-existing conditions. Does Redstate have a view on that?

  • Jack_Savage

    “Changing the letter next to his name does not actually change him as a person or change his mind.”

    Maybe changing his mind helped him to decide to change the letter next to his name.

  • http://biggator5.net/archive.html BigGator5

    The only vote Griffith made with Democrats, was to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. After that, he sided with Republicans on every other issue. He himself has reach out to Republican leadership since August.

    I for one will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I say we give him a chance to prove himself. If he is a political opportunist, then the primary will vet him out.

  • student

    This will all be sorted out in the Republican primary. See how this guy performs, what his positions are compared to the other candidates. I am personally partial to the Tea Party movement. Good people who want a party that believes in classical American values – free enterprise, small frugal and limited government, low taxes, maximization of individual liberty, individual empowerment and responsibility, freedom of conscience, lack of a dominating state overlord. Whomever is closest to the real American values should be the candidate. Past errors in being a Democrat, in supporting statist values can be reviewed and considered but Whittaker Chambers demonstrated that a man can change.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    .. and he’s the first to jump when America’s about to suffer a national blow.

    If others follow, he’ll be remebered as the first dem turncoat, almost hailed as a hero.

    And he’ll have a better shot at re-elction, rather than fall behind the other 2 strong Ala. conservatives running in the primary.

  • student

    Perhaps seeing the lurch to statism under Pelosi opened his eyes a tad.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    [tort reform]

    And while we’re at it, we need to do something about the underlying economic problem behind health care costs – namely that THERE AREN’T ENOUGH DOCTORS OUT THERE.

    If you want to throw money at the problem, do a 20-year program with which the federal government will repay student loans for docs if they complete their residency and spend x-amount of time as primary care physicians. More docs means more competition and service in the market, means greater patient choice means less cost.

    But NOBODY is talking about that. Why? Most doctors vote Republican, and you sure as hell can’t have more Republicans.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …so I’m not sure what the hell kind of conservatism you’re talking about.

  • ciscoguy

    The statist lefties understand freedom but reject it in the name of controlling others to mold their utopian social vision. We will never get them because they are tyrants.

    Moderate R’s are those who simply do not fully understand liberty. They want to, but they can’t completely find their way out of the wilderness. We must not shun them but rather lead them by example.

    We must remind them that all (not some) discrimination is wrong, whether it’s based on skin color, age, sex or creed. They need to be reminded that the Creator in the Declaration did not refer to the Earth but a higher power which bestowed a divine right to live as free people. They need to be reminded that they once lived and breathed in utero too. They must be reminded that the free society guarantees opportunites but not results. We need to remind them that we have a right to our property and to not have it confiscated by the government. We need to remind them we also have a right to choose not own medical insurance or to pay for the insurance of others. We need to remind them that liberalism is nothing more than a gateway drug to totalitarianism. We must remind them that the conservative formula works because it is the same plan which built this country – the greatest civilization this planet has ever seen.

  • itsjoanne

    Yes people do change their views over time, but this definitely smells of political opportunism.

    I suspect many Democrats will jump ship or at least try and run from their liberal records in 2010.

    Although I’m happy for any news that embarrasses Pelosi and liberals I do hope a genuine conservative wins the primary.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    to start teaching more health professionals. Few people realize that the number of students is kept artificially small.

  • stlsports

    tauzin
    pharma

  • redohio

    the manager’s amendment includes this student loan payment.

    If I may loosely quote a news report that stated that too many docs are coming out and choosing to specialize due to huge loans (avg. amt. $150k), that this leads to a lack of PCPs. If we repay loans, more docs may stay in primary care instead of specializations

    The question then, is how are we going to fund these loan repayment programs? Will we raise taxes? There are many a fallout to these types of situations and their proposed solutions.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …as to paying for it, you’re really not talking about a whole lot of money. Paying for it isn’t that hard to do.

    Of course, with everything else you’re doing to the field, you’re wasting your time trying to incentivize doctors with student loan forgiveness.

  • Rod_Patrick

    Of course, I want Griffith to take some lessons on conservatism like what Reagan did.

    I am aware of the sins of Griffith against republicanism and conservatism. But he was a democrat.

    But I am also fully aware that he sided with the Rs and Cs in his last 2 or 3 votes,

    What is unforgivable for me is McConnell “making a compromise” with Saruman Reid particularly on the “shortening of the debate” on ObamaDeathCare!

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    and 86 ‘em when they lose redstate favor.

  • jeffreywturner

    I never really thought about it from that angle, but it really hits the nail on the head as far as how we should conduct primaries I think.

  • jeffreywturner

    Um,, we DO have a creed for exactly this reason, if anyone has ever bothered to read it.

    The ones who could stand to read it the most are our elected officials I think.

  • AndrewHyman

    Maybe the best way to fund loan repayment programs for doctors would be to tax doctors who are not primary care physicians.

  • andy_in_texas

    I am confident the best candidate will come out on top. Hopefully the days of sleepwalking conservatives voters in Republican primaries are past.

  • SirGladiator

    I think we, as Republicans, should welcome anyone who wants to become a Republican, if this guy wants to be a Republican thats fantastic. But that certainly doesn’t mean that we should vote for him in a GOP Primary. Of course the Establishment in Washington will take anybody they can get, and try to make them sound like they’re the greatest thing since George Washington, because more Republican members=more power for the Republican Establishment, whether they’re actually good Conservatives or to the left of Obama. So their opinion means less than nothing to me. I don’t know whether this guy is better than Les Phillips, I doubt he is but I don’t know enough about either one to know for sure, to me the correct way of looking at this is to tell Griffith ‘Welcome to the GOP’, open arms, red carpet treatment, this is his day and its a great day, we gained a seat in Congress without even having to fight a campaign and without Acorn having a chance to steal the election, its fantastic. But this guy became a Republican for the same reason Specter became a Democrat, because he knew it was his only chance at being re-elected. It doesn’t make him a bad guy, but it just means we have to be extra sure about him before giving him a stamp of approval. For my way of thinking, let the folks of AL-5 sort out the primary candidates, judge them all strictly on their merits, no plusses or minuses for party switching, just strictly on the merits of where they stand on the issues, and may the best man win, whoever it is. We know that the winner of the GOP Primary is almost 100% sure to win the General, we knew that yesterday and we know it today, so the only thing that matters is what should always be the only thing that matters, supporting the best candidate. Let the best man win!

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    A few months ago I tried to find a summary of the Republican Party Platform, and the Democrat Party Platform, and a comparison of the two. Couldn’t find one. So I did my own. I posted about it, and the lack of a Republican strategy to stop the Debtocrats’ march to socialize America, here:

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2009/06/11/my-questions-to-sen-mccain-re-party-leaders-and-strategies/

    Here’s an excerpt:

    Core Principles from the 2008 Republican Party Platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/)

    From the Preamble to the Platform: A platform in enduring principle based on ideals to unify our country, devoted to the inherent dignity and rights of every person and dedicated to a rule of law protecting and preserving liberty.

    This is a platform of enduring principle, not passing convenience ? the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history. We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom. Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust of government?s interference in people?s lives. Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty. (Preamble, p. 1.)

    Republicans Believe Our First Obligation is Defending our Nation by Preserving all Defense Options

    All Americans should affirm that our first obligation is the security of our country. (P. 1)

    In dealing with present conflicts and future crises, our next president must preserve all options. It would be presumptuous to specify them in advance and foolhardy to rule out any action deemed necessary for our security.

    Republicans Believe National and Theater Missile Defenses Must Be Deployed to Protect the Nation

    We must develop and deploy both national and theater missile defenses to protect the American homeland, our people, our Armed Forces abroad, and our allies. Effective, layered missile defenses are critical to guard against the unpredictable actions of rogue regimes and outlaw states, reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail, and avoid the disastrous consequences of an accidental or unauthorized launch by a foreign power. (P. 2)

    Republicans Believe Our National Borders Must Be Secured

    Our determination to uphold the rule of law begins with more effective enforcement, giving our agents the tools and resources they need to protect our sovereignty, completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders, and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry. Experience shows that enforcement of existing laws is effective in reducing and reversing illegal immigration. (P. 3.)

    Our determination to uphold the rule of law begins with . . . completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders, and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry. (P. 3.)

    The rule of law means . . . enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. (P. 3.)

    It does not mean driver?s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law. (P. 3.)

    We oppose amnesty. (P. 3.)

    We support English as the official language of our nation, while welcoming the ethnic diversity in the United States and the territories, including language. (P. 4.)

    Republicans Believe We Must Increase the Size of Armed Forces

    We must significantly increase the size of our Armed Forces; crucial to that goal will be retention of combat veterans. (P. 4.)

    Republicans Believe U.S. Armed Forces Must Remain Under U.S. Command

    As a matter of U.S. sovereignty, American forces must remain under American command. (P. 7.)

    Republicans Abhor Federal Funding Of Abortions Anywhere

    We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the .Mexico City policy, which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values. (Pp. 7-8.)

    Republicans Reject the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans

    To shield the members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans. (P. 8.)

    Republicans Support A Free and Secure Israel

    Israel is a vigorous democracy, unique in the Middle East. We reaffirm America?s commitment to Israel?s security and will ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative edge in military technology over any potential adversaries. Israel must have secure, defensible
    borders and we support its right to exist as a Jewish state able to defend itself against homicide bombings, rocket and mortar fire, and other attacks against its people. (P. 12.)

    Republicans Support Enforcing Constitutional Safeguards

    Republicans will uphold and defend our party?s core principles: Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. (P. 15.)

    Republicans Support Only Constitutionally Necessary Federal Spending

    Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions. (P. 15.)

    Republicans Reject Unconstitutional, Wasteful Pork-Barrel Special Interest Spending

    The other party wants to continue pork barrel politics; we are disgusted by it, no matter who practices it. The other party wants to ignore fiscal problems while squandering billions on ineffective programs; we are determined to end that waste. The entrenched culture of official Washington ? an intrusive tax-and-spend liberalism ? remains a formidable foe, but we will confront and ultimately defeat it. (P. 15.)

    Republicans Will Stop Unconstitutional Special Interest Earmark Spending

    Earmarking must stop. To eliminate wasteful projects and pay-offs to special interests, we will impose an immediate moratorium on the earmarking system and reform the appropriations process through full transparency. Tax dollars must be distributed on
    the basis of clear national priorities, not a politician?s seniority or party position. (P. 16.)

    Republicans Believe ?It?s Your Money, Taxpayers?

    The most important distinction between Republicans and the leadership of today?s Democratic Party concerning taxes is not just that we believe you should keep more of what you earn. That?s true, but there is a more fundamental distinction. It concerns the
    purpose of taxation. We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions. (P. 23.)

    Republicans Oppose Using the Tax Code for Social Engineering

    The Republican Party will put a stop to both social engineering and corporate handouts by simplifying tax policy, eliminating special deals, and putting those saved dollars back into the taxpayers? pockets. (P. 23.)

    Republicans Support Reducing Corporate Tax Rates

    We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country. (P. 23.)

    Republicans Know We Cannot Tax and Spend Our Way to Prosperity

    The last thing Americans need right now is tax hikes. On the federal level, Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth, put more money in the pockets of every taxpayer, and make the system fairer. It worked. If Congress had then controlled its spending, we could have done even more. (P. 25.)

    Republicans Support Secret Ballots for Workers

    We oppose card check legislation, which deprives workers of their privacy and their right to vote, because it exposes workers to intimidation by union organizers. (P. 28.)

    Republicans Will Not Infringe the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms

    We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court?s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities. (P. 51.)

    Republicans Believe in the Sanctity and Dignity of All Human Life

    Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment?s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life. (P. 52.)

    Republicans Believe Marriage Means A Union of a Man and a Woman

    Because our children?s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. (P. 53.)

    Republicans Support the Right of the People to Freely Exercise their Religion

    Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards. (Pp. 53-54.)

    Now, if only we could get our elected Republicans to FIGHT for these principles.

    Best way to do that is to have conservatives invade and take back the Republican Party by becoming voting members of the Party — precinct committeemen.

    Thank you.
    ColdWarrior

  • Scope

    Just what the hack do you think guides your moral values, such as when a life becomes a life? You’ve laid out a very compelling argument for the Libertarians, including not talking about National Security.

  • Scope

    more of the same. Just how well has it worked out with the current crop of Republicans in the House and Senate, and the Republian leadership in “reminding them” about where they are errant? Even though many have been screaming those “reminders”, they have choosen to put ear plugs in, and go about business as usual.

  • Scope

    Thank you very much for posting what is the Republican Party Platform, in a more detailed version than what we usually see as – Lower Taxes, Less Government, and more Freedom, or any other sound bite version. We have long time members here that have always been clear that they have Libertarian leanings, and it seems that lately we have had many new members that have voiced their opiions and ideas all to varying degrees of Libertaranism.

    From my travels aroung the wild web, I have seen many instances where the Campaign for Liberty, a group that started after the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul, that have adopted many of his policies, have decided to join with the Republican party in order to gain a Libertarian policy foothold within that Republican party. Recognizing that the country is currently constructed as favoring a 2 party system, and discourages the ease for having numerous what can be considered , Third parties, on every state ballot, particularly for Presidential elections, with the same rules as the 2 major parties, encourages IMHO, the fact that a candidate can win the presidency with a minority percentage of the country’s votes. In other words, it would split the votes in the country, for all parties, to a point of a candidate winning with say 20% of the vote.

    It is important to compare and contrast the Libertarian Platform with the above Republican Party platform. You can readily see the major differences. Decide for yourselves. Currently the Conservatives (noun) are in a major battle to “reform” if you will, the Republican Party. Is it wise to also split and divide the Republican Party even further?

    http://www.lp.org/platform

  • lurker9876

    I would gladly accept him if it would lead to a “No” vote on the merged house bill. If more blue dog democrats jump the ship, the harder it would be for Pelosi to get the votes she needs.

    Then let him go through the primary. At least he has a voting record to explain to his new voters.

  • Jim Tomasik

    So tell me, who is “Your Guy” in AL-05?

    We’ve already seen that Mr. Fincher is “Your Guy” in TN-08.

  • mkozikowski

    Although it would be admirable that Parker Griffith changed parties based on his beliefs and convictions, I would tend to believe that he sees the writing on the wall.

    As a junior member, freshman, he knows that his position is tenable at best.

    So, he sees that next year, “the year of atonement”, the year of correct, will most likely spark a “House cleaning” vote. It just might be to his advantage to stand on the “Right” side of the isle.

    Perhaps enough people will not notice the 80% support he had for Pelosi, and just see the “R” next to his name.

    He could be seen as an Ass is Rino clothing.

  • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

    n/t

  • izoneguy

    Let’s see if he keeps his (R) patch on by supporting the new Republican candidate for his district. Or will he pull a DEDE?

  • mindset

    I’m new to this but I thought conservatives believed:

    1) Individual Liberty…keep government out of our personal lives as much as possible.

    2) Allow for individual responsibility…fail or succeed on your own. Support yourself, or don’t. He who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat.

    3) Support of the Constitution and the bill of rights, including a right-leaning interpretation of the second amendment.

    4) A national defense that is capable of defending American interests here and abroad.

    5) A belief that life is valuable, starts at or near conception, and that this value is directly from a belief that our creator created US in HIS image, and that this value is thus not negotiable.

    6) Support and belief that Laissez-faire is better than central control.

    7) The belief that our federal government exists only to:
    a) provide for a national defense
    b) ensure that states abide by the constitution and bill of rights
    c) provide a “fair” and “level” marketplace for businesses
    and that all other duties should pass to the state, county, and local governments.

    8) Believe that our founding fathers knew what they were doing, and thus the constitution, while flexible via amendment, is what it says it is and isn’t open to interpretation by judges.

    9) Belief that we have the right to defend ourselves, our families, friends, and neighbors, and our property from any who would harm or steal them, without fear of prosecurtion or civil suit. A belief that the police are there to help.

    Anyone can put (R) behind their names, but if their voting record and personal history suggest that they are not conservative, then they’re not conservative. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

    I seem to remember from government history class that the purpose of a political party is to get “like minded” people elected into office.

  • Jack_Savage

    …has provided ample opportunity for clarity and focus to those who are unsure where they stand on issues. Sounds like our congressman took that opportunity.

    Believe me, I have run into more people than I can count (as have you, probably) who now believe their vote for this hip, benevolent change agent was one of their worst mistakes.

  • hickorystick

    but a good baseline for Consevatives. Wish more people thought like this. Especially 2)

  • hickorystick
  • Scope

    you would be well aware of the fact that Erick speaks for “conservatives” noun, and retaking the Republican party. I think I can safely say that the majority here agree.

    If you do not care for the site owners choices, you have the freedom to start your own blog or website to promote those of your choice. Last I checked, site owners have the freedom to do that.

  • Scope

    you would be well aware of the fact that Erick speaks for “conservatives” noun, and retaking the Republican party. I think I can safely say that the majority here agree.

    If you do not care for the site owners choices, you have the freedom to start your own blog or website to promote those of your choice. Last I checked, site owners have the freedom to do that.

  • hickorystick

    All about the self-absorbed individual, no concern about the Republic. The major difference is Democrats would use the Federal mechanism of the Republic to steal from every individual, market, and corporation. The Libertarian would only work for himself, and expect others to sacrifice for the Republic.

  • Jim Tomasik

    I read a lot of stuff on Redstate. Everyday. I have respect for Redstate and many of its contributors including Erick. It is fine that the site picks a candidate in a race but that does not mean that it is OK for him to say that candidate has the blessing of local TEA Party groups when it is simply not the truth. At least not true for Fincher so I question his comment about the AL-05 thing as well.

    Is there some site rule that says I am not allowed to politely question Erick? Please point it out to me as I have failed to find it. I will read it and seek forgiveness for breaking that rule.

    I asked Erick a specific question looking for a specific answer. I’m not sure where you get off telling me anything at all. I already know I can go start a blog if I choose. I do not need your permission but thanks all the same. I’ll make a note of you gracious allowance and keep it in my wallet so I will always know that some man or woman who calls her/himself Scope gave me permission to do such.

    If it’s a simple matter of you not liking my attitude, fine, I couldn’t care less. I said nothing disrespectful to Erick or Redstate. I merely challenged his statements.

  • AceInTX
  • redohio

    you could change the regulations/restrictions to be more forgiving.

    What I mean is: make it easier to get loans deferred, getting loan forbearance, etc. If the wording in the law is to incentivize becoming a PCP, you can definitely do something like that, I think.

  • scubadiver49er

    At least having Parker on the GOP side of the ledger will give us a chance for votes in the “right” direction, on anything voted on going forward, that we wouldn’t have if he was still a Dem. He’s got until the primaries next year to prove himself as he claims. His views are supposedly on the conservative side, and maybe he’s just tired of being stronarmed by Nancy. It will be interesting to see how he does, if he’s defeated in the primary next year, if he votes on the “right” side of the issues in front of him. Only time will tell.

  • Scope

    we have members that are Libertarian leaning, and that is fine. We probably all agree with some of their platform. But, I agree with you that some of the most important issues for Republicans, the Libertarians are closer to the Progressive policies. As someone else here recently said, the Libertarians are all for individual freedoms, until someone else excersizes their freedoms. Example- The 31 states that have put the gay marriage issue on their states ballots, and, gay marriage was voted down in each case, fairly, squarely, and legally by the majority of voters. The only time it has been adopted, to my knowledge, has been when judges, or state legislatures have forced it on their citizens. Abortion is another issue that there are major differences with. Libertarians believe that it is up to the female if she chooses to abort her unborn child, because she is the owner of her body. Yet, in another position, they advocate for LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I’ll include property. Who is the arbiter of when life begins with the Libertarian thinkers?

    Again, someone else here had said, Libertarianism can only work in a society where moral values are recognized and abided by. Current society is nowhere near there, and, has constantly marched away from traditional moral values, and, in the direction of moral relativism, which is exactly where the Progressives reside.

  • AceInTX

    Every question Erick Asks is important and it’s becoming more important as the primaries approach…we need to decide who we as a party need to decide who we are and what it is we want to accomplish as a party…and set about making it so…

    My point here is…Maybe Griffith should lose the Primary and a conservative take his place…I personally think so…but I’m not sure why it’s so necessary to take away from the bowl of wet noodles this throws in Obama’s and Pelosi’s face by jumping on him first jump out of the shoot…

    If this guy can help us in the short turn…let’s welcome it…while we work to support the Tea Party candidate mentioned for next November

  • soljerblue

    Griffith barely won his first race for Congress in ’08; just 51 percent. His district has been Democrat since before the Civil War, but is changing, moving to the Republican column. Griffith was a state senator before he went to Congress. His old seat soon passed into Republican hands in a special election, which will crimp some old-line Democrat shenanigans next year in the legislature.
    Alabamians who follow politics will know that the shift in Griffith’s old seat, and his very practical move to the GOP, mark a sea-change here. Griffith faces a tough primary against two conservatives in 2010, and he can read the handwriting on the wall.

    You should keep an eye on our Governor’s race in 2010. Leading Dem for the job is 2nd District Rep Artur Davis, a law school buddy of Obama’s, who’s anything but a Blue Dog Dem. Yet he voted no on Obamacare, no on crap-n-tax, and is pro-2A. If elected, he’ll be this state’s first black governor. The GOP will tie him to Obama with locks and chains.

    You might want to watch Bobby Bright, holding down the Alabama 2nd. He’s a former Montgomery mayor, and a conservative Dem who knocked off a traditionally Republican seat in ’08. He, too, may be rethinking his loyalties now that Griffith has jumped ship. Troublesome times in Alabama for Democrats!

  • soljerblue

    Griffith faces two conservatives in the 5th District GOP primary next year. If he truly wants to return to Congress, he’ll move rightward along with his district. Not that he isn’t already. Alabama Democrats would be conservative Republicans in NY/NE. Most — although not all, by any stretch — are in the Lister Hill-John Sparkman vein. Check it out.

  • clowngirl

    Even those that wrote the Constitution (it can be argued) did not uphold. Vice President Thomas Jefferson was so appalled by the “Alien and Sedition Acts” that he left the capital in protest but during his term couldn’t resist the “Lousiana Purchase” (which many also declared Unconstititution)

    The very first Republican President expanded the powers of the Federal government faster than anyone who came before. It’s Lincoln we have to thank for the existence of the income tax – among other things.

    The assault on our liberty sped up exponentially in the 20th Century ( see James Bovard “Lost Rights”)

    My point is that the move towards socialism is not some sudden conspiracy that’s cropped up over the last decade. It is government’s nature to expand – and the responsibility of the populace to keep it in check.

    I would submit also, that partisanship contributes as much or more to the problem than “bipartisanship” Conservatives will frequently critique Bush “from the right” and liberals from the left but are either as sensitive to the rightfulness of laws or procedures when it is an issue they agree with?

    For example: many Republicans have been outraged (rightfully) that the Porkulus was passed without being read and that Congress doesn’t seem to care what’s in Obamacare but were they equally outraged that the “PATRIOT ACT” was passed without being read? Without most of Congress even being issued a copy of it?

    I’m not going to debate whether the PATRIOT ACT was right or strictly neccessary – but it was, undisputably, a bill which greatly expanded government powers, including a number of provisions which Congress had repeatedly rejected in the past.

    Granting that the War on Terror created a genuine need for urgency, was it really SO urgent that Congress couldn’t have taken an extra week to read and discuss the bill? that it wasn’t neccessary to see if – perhaps- incompetence on the part of intelligence agents was actually the problem? And if so, what precedent is that setting?

    Their were unintended consequences – though perhaps indirectly related.

    1. Many people (from across the political spectrum – not just liberals) developed intense civil liberties related concerns which led not only to 400+ cities passing resolutions against the PATRIOT ACT but also to many rallies and movement which used the PATRIOT ACT as a cover issue in order to promote a leftist agenda. I submit that this reaction would not have been as intense if the passage had been less rushed or if the administration had seemed to take their concerns at all seriously,

    So, it gave the left an opportunity to exploit and to soften people on the idea of socialism.

    2. In New York City – In the years since 9/11. the NYPD has thrown out about a century of case law and – where it had previously been either charging or releasing people within 24 hours – now people ( up to 1800 in a month in the Bronx, for example) were being held up to 3 days without being either charged with a crime or released. The NYCLU (yes, I did used to volunteer with the NYCLU) tried to get city council to put a stop to this but to no avail. (Unless there has been sudden improvement in the last couple years since I was last following it)

    NYC is a obviously a very liberal city, and the PATRIOT ACT did not in any way affect the rights of American citizens but the debate around it was framed that way with questions like ” would you be willing to give up some of your rights to aid in catching terrorists?” and other side issues like randomly searching people’s bags on the subway (technically not a violation of the 4th amendment because you could refuse the search and opt to not take the subway – or to take it from another stop) they were even discussing (at one point) having cameras everywhere that recorded (and kept a record of) everything that people did anywhere in public; suggested that civil liberties should be compromised for the sake of catching terrorists – which led some to take the attitude that they weren’t important at all.

    I am not blaming all these other problems on the Bush administration or suggesting that Republicans are to blame for the Democrats running roughshod over the rights of citizens now – what I am suggesting that the tendency of whichever party is in power to abuse that power and to not take seriously the concerns of its critics (and of partisans who back this up) leads to a greater loss of liberty – and increasing loss of respect for the rights and views of citizens down the road.

    I think also that the desire for bipartisanship is not an urge to see compromise bills that stand for nothing and please nobody – but a desire to see both parties united in (what should be) common goals. To uphold the Constitution, to reduce the deficit and promote prosperity – etc. and not to back up one’s party when it is in the wrong or (even if it is right) is alienating those who disagree.

  • anotherindyfilmguy

    it will be up until the election is over then back to being in for the business as usual with the occasional pointless grandstanding to maintain the facade…

  • anotherindyfilmguy

    opportunism to survive the current political environment.

    Politicker first, party man second or third and representative of the people… well somewhere way, way down the list…

  • anotherindyfilmguy

    which he recently dropped and switched back to his real party…

  • jayburd

    says alot about the state of the two party system. Looking for that dime’s worth of difference?