« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The RNC Race and the Truce on Truces

By: Marjorie Dannenfelser (Diary)  |  January 13th, 2011 at 03:16 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Erick wrote a post earlier this week about the race for RNC chair titled, “Are RNC Committeemen Even Listening?”

As the head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a 285,000 member non-partisan pro-life group, I’ve asked myself a similar question – Is the Republican Party listening to the grassroots on Life?

This question was prompted in my mind (and in many others) by those within the party who have called for a “truce” on social issues – a call to ignore the million babies killed each year, many aborted using our tax dollars — while more “pressing” issues are dealt with.

So when I was asked to represent social conservatives during last week’s debate for RNC Chair, I very willingly said yes so I could get the lingering question in my head answered.

In front of a packed room of activists, voting RNC members, media, and many more watching on C-SPAN, I questioned the candidates on Life and Marriage.

While many members of the media rolled their eyes when every candidate said they were pro-life and pro-marriage without question, the debate proved that the 2011 GOP has an unshakable pro-life, pro-family core.

If you have doubts, look no further than the past records of two of the candidates, Chairman Steele and Maria Cino.

Steele was a founding board member of the pro-choice Republican Leadership Council and told GQ Magazine that abortion was an “individual choice.” Maria Cino, as Erick noted, was a board member of WISH List, a PAC that works to elect only pro-abortion Republican women.

Instead of using the talking points of the trucers, Steele and Cino expressed firm commitment to the pro-life cause despite their past records.

After all, the fate of their candidacies comes down to 168 voting members of the RNC. This electorate is local committeemen and women who are in touch with the Republican grassroots every single day. If the candidates’ pro-life convictions go this deep, the national grassroots must be overwhelmingly so.

Take note, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour: the grassroots expect those that want to lead our party to be pro-life. The only truce should be on truces themselves.

For more on my pre-debate Skype interviews and clips from the debate, please visit http://www.sba-list.org/RNCChair

If you’d like to send a message to the RNC voting members in your state before tomorrow’s vote, please visit the SBA List Action Center.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • redneck_hippie

    I thought it was only Daniels who called for a truce.

    • aesthete

      called for a truce.

      • Spiral

        Daniels and Barbour both seemed to have been asleep when Rudy Guiliani’s 2008 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination imploded.

        Guiliani’s 2008 run is perfect evidence that you can not win the GOP presidential nomination while being pro-choice. To win the nomination, you need strong support from social conservatives, as well as fiscal conservatives and across the board conservatives.

        Although, having said that, McCain wasn’t exactly a strong backer of social conservatives, considering how he blasted Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in his 2000 Virginia speech when he was running against George W Bush for the 2000 GOP nomination. But still.

        • writeblock

          The lesson was just the opposite–that squabbles over social issues in primaries gives the advantage to the opposition in the general election. Far from advancing the agenda of social conservatives, the rejection of Rudy did just the opposite–it weakened the pro-life movement. Why? Because Rudy was far stronger on the national level as a contender than any other prospective GOP candidate. He was ahead of both Hillary and Obama in PA by double digits, for instance. He was also ahead in NJ. He was ahead of Obama in all the national polls as well. So the social conservatives lost big time by rejecting him. They got Obama instead.

          What should this tell you? I know what it tells me–the primary system is a poor gauge for measuring success in the general. Just the opposite. It gives undue influence to certain small unimportant states while ignoring major battleground states. That’s the lesson that should have been learned–not the one you mention.

          • jerry39

            McCain was the moderate’s moderate, the liberal media’s darling, the Maverick, the uniter. Crushed by the most partisan liberal in history. Crushed becuase Obama had a base he supported and supported him, while McCain coudlnt be disussed among conservatives without a disclaimer. The ever important “moderate” did zip for McCain becuase moderates dont really care enough to fight the good fight.

            But I will give you that it takes cajones to come back to the “we need to nominate a liberal” meme after yet another moderate’s defeat, after the tea party, and after poll after poll fnds a majority of the population to be pro-life.

            But not as much cajones as it takes to argue that pro-lifers are better off when we elect pro abortion candidates. Or that McCains tepid pro-life credetinals caused his defeat.

            Pro-lifers care deeply about the issue and will fight hard for pro-life candidates and vote for them.

            Rabid Pro-choicers will never vote for a republican.

            Tepid pro-choicers who are independents will not vote Dem. soley on the issue of choice, becuase they just dont care that much about the issue,

            It remains insanity to sacrifice the base who will fight the hardest, to appease a middle that doesnt really care one way or the other, while having no chance of picking up the hardcore left (of which every rabid pro-choicer is a member).

          • redneck_hippie

            Just curious because we had these very same fights on these pages 3 years ago and more.

          • writeblock

            I didn’t say we had to nominate a liberal. My objection primarily is to people like you who believe that anyone not in line with your train of thought are liberals. In other words, you reek intolerance–and independent voters sense this and are repelled by this.

            My argument is that the whole spectrum of Republicanism needs expression in a primary process–which ought to include a more toned-down social conservatism. It certainly ought to give equal opportunity for Republicans in battleground states to weigh in on who is acceptable or not acceptable. As it is only a handful of voters–from very small states–get that opportunity.

            If you haven’t noticed, OH and PA are infinitely more important in an election than IA or NH. Why exclude them from the process–and then turn around and beg them to support your guy in the general election? It makes no sense.

            Nor do I believe we have to worry about the base as much as you seem to think. The base will be there in the general election. But it won’t win us the election unless we can win over independents. I say again, it was madness in 2008 to dis a candidate who brought PA and NJ to the table–in double digits–and was leading Obama and Hillary in every national poll. What did that gain us in the end? Obama. What did it lose us? Several SC nominees.

            Finally, I don’t consider someone like Rudy–who fought the unions, who fought Wall Street crooks, who fought the NYTimes, who fought the race hustlers, who fired deadwood bureaucrats, who sold off public properties and worked for Reagan–a liberal. He may not be your brand of conservative–but he’s no liberal. What he is that I like is he’s a fighter, something in short supply among Republicans and certainly among moderates. He was despised by the media for a reason–he was a danger to them.

        • aesthete

          Barbour signed one of the strongest pro-lofe laws in MI as gov, and abortion rates plummeted to being the lowest in the country. Daniels signed every pro-life bill that came across his desk, and has a perfect rating from every pro-life group I’ve seen. Both are for traditional marriage, and both are Christians — I don’t know how you could be any more sterling in your socon creds than these gents. Honestly, this kefuffle is one of the most perplexing I’ve seen in the GOP: it’s disqualifying two fantastic, serious candidates on both the social and fiscal fronts.

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • southernpatriots

            What has Barbour personally said about the flap? What has Daniels personally said about the flap? Barbour is governor of MS not MI (MI is Michigan) but we understand what he signed. Is he personally for it and politically against it, or personally against it and politically for it?

          • aesthete

            and have been for a while. At any rate, I’m not sure what the problem would be with personally for/politically against: as I’m sure you’re aware, the roadblocks on anti-abortion laws are political, not personal in nature. The President is not going to change a single opinion on life issues in his capacity as President: he can only appoint judges and sign pro-life legislation (all political acts). We’ve all seen what use “personally pro-life” Dems are.

            Thanks for the correction, BTW: I knew he was Guv of Mississippi, just flubbed the shortened form.

  • atillathehun

    Ever think of the loony leftist as instituting the maze of legal protection for the spotted owl and the piping plover egg ? The fact is that both enjoy more legal protection than the human fetus which tells you something of the society as a whole.
    Not only is Roe V Wade notoriously bad law that cannot withstand scrutiny of objective analysis, it is law created for expediance.
    Politically it is a winner to repeal Roe V Wafe as much as it is to repeal Obama care in my view.

  • mlowry

    Most independents don’t want to kill babies. They also don’t want to use the force of government to keep a woman from choosing not to have a baby. Most feel that decision should be up to the woman, her doctor and her God.

    If you “win” a debate on this issue, it still won’t change their opinion. If you really want to shift the US back to an abortion-is-illegal position, you need to start selling the benefits of your position to rational people. If you can only say “It’s an outrage” and “It’s immoral” and “It’s murder”, you will not convince a single person to change their view, and will probably move them to vote against you.

    • southernpatriots

      Isn’t it a conundrum, a woman wants the right for her, and her doctor to choose. When you choose a baby dies. What God wants to kill a baby? We don’t even think that Shiva (the demon god of Hinduism) wants to kill an unborn baby. Only the god of convenience. This murderous behavior is genocide on the African American community and other communities (listen to Dr. Alveda King, niece of MLK Jr.) What is moderate anyway, a squishy middle, not quite committed to personal responsibility, but want government’s help (at least a little) with everything? We have traveled into and performed humanitarian work in Haiti, Bangladesh, India, etc. We have found those areas are very dangerous for a child. But the most dangerous place for a child to be today is his or her own mother’s womb. How horrible!

      • writeblock

        since not all Americans agree with you. That’s just reality. It’s the wall you keep banging your head against. You need to take down the wall brick by brick, not keep banging your head against it. In other words, you need to act strategically, with greater political wisdom and less emotional intensity. You’re never going to convince the opposition. Therefore you need to use your smarts to defeat those who oppose you–by voting for the candidate most likely to defeat the left, not the one who aligns most neatly with your views but is unlikely to win in a general election.

        • powertothepeople

          needs to take political advice from someone who constantly tells us how Rudy would have won in 2008 had PA been allowed to vote first, tells us Rudy is the only one who can beat Obama, and who constantly keeps telling us we should only choose Rudy as our nominee.

          Sort of like taking advice from a moron on how to be smart.

  • ihateliberals

    as it was when Reagan ws president we could once again win elections. the problem now is that the party hs moved towards the left and to center trying to appease everyone. When that happened the Party lost those that were voting Republican because of it’s strong support of the constitution and smaller government and pro-jobs. When the Party did not turn it’s back on the conservative base the issue of Abortion and other social issues took a back seat. Many of those that were borderline with the Party still voted with the Party because of it’s strong support of Fiscal issues. Social issues were in a dimmer light even though the Democrats tried to keep them visible.

    When Reagan was President many independents came to the Party and support conservative candidates. When Reagan was gone the Party forgot how to do it’s business. Many people realized when Reagan was president that the economy was functioning and the jobless rate dropped significantly. When that happens many of the social issues solve themselves and are no longer issues. That is what killed the Democrats in the 80′s. They couldn’t with the economy functioning very well and people were working and taking care of their families the Democrats could not win any arguments on social issue. When people are working and taking care of themselves and their families other issues become much smaller and insignificant. We as a Party need to return to our conservative base and build upon it. If we continue this Big Tent mentality the Party will split and Obama will be President again. When the Republican party began it’s campaign of compromise we started losing elections. when the Party to me as a conservative i wasn’t welcome anymore the party started losing elections. When the Party supported RINO’s the Party started losing elections. It is time to return to our grass roots and become the Party of strong uncompromisable standards. remember the only time the Liberals want bi-partisanship is when they are losing. The more they speak of compromise the more we need to stand our ground. After all look what President Reagan was able to accomplish with a Democratically controlled House and Senate. He did what many said was impossible by sticking to his principles and not compromising them.

  • runner12

    to the RNC chair candidates, in fact I support them. They are quite relevant to the conservative cause. Most conservatives oppose abortion and support traditional marriage on both moral grounds and on the principle of limited government.

    The discussion as to whether Roe was a gross intrusion of judicial activism is a legitimate debate. Why should we run from it? Our case needs to be presented in a logical and principled manner, but we do not need to throw it on the backburner.

  • awunsch

    for the party in the next two years is spending and the deficit that need to be reconciled. There are many issues that we need to address: tax reform (Fair tax anyone), energy policy and drilling, immigration policy etc. However, the party should state its pro life, pro family position and back it when necessary. The dem party has taken the anti-American traditional values and party of death mantra so let them. I seriously doubt that independents will vote dem if the republicans have a sound program going forward simply because they are pro life. If that is the case, then they will vote dem anyway. Most of us do not like the diatribe that takes place when social issues are in play but America was a great Nation before Madeline Murray and Roe vs Wade and those events didn’t improve our society. So I doubt that the social issues will be the downfall of the republican party. It’s also stupid to make them the issue this year when we need to concentrate on restoring our constitutional republic.

  • riverking

    A liberal storm is sinking the ship. Lightning from the same storm is killing some of the crew and passengers. We need as many crew members as we can find to save the ship. Then we can deal with the lightning (if the storm has not yet abated). Protecting everyone from the lightning won’t do much good if the ship is allowed to sink.

    • gekster

      Without the ship, the crew doesn’t matter.

      • gekster

        Spock, shoot us both.
        Save the ship.

      • gekster

        Spock, shoot us both.
        Save the ship.

        • gekster

          now what did I do to attain that.
          Profesional ciuriosity.

          • gekster

            will try later, might have found out.

          • Bill S

            The only fix to the double post problem is to use something other than IE. IE is evil.

          • gekster

            IE8, to be exact.
            I have seen this happening to others, and being the computer geek I am, I try to figure out why things are why.
            I have never had this problem before, (2 yrs) and just for gigles, will see if it happens the same way later, after a computer logoff and restart.
            When, only my patience will tell.
            But soon.
            If it keeps happening and I can’t figure out why, I will move to something else.
            But I just gatta know why.
            Thanks. :)

          • Bill S

            email the Contact link with your solution. It seems to be getting worse, and frankly, the only solution we’ve come up with is to use something else, such as Firefox or Safari.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Change Jar Conservative

    Thanks for your support. Love the SBA foundation.

    Very pro-life.

    As for Daniels, I’m sure he’s gotten the message although according to an interview in December, what he said was directed at liberals not SoCons:

    In the Star interview, Daniels suggested the truce was meant for liberal activists like those who favored repealing the Don

  • aesthete

    Though I think that the truce also applied to fratricidal elements of the socially conservative movement that tear down our candidates, fellow-travellers, and those who don’t tow the line 100%. (James Dobson and Colorado Right To Life, I’m looking at you.)

    SBA is not such a group: it is run by rational people who know what parts of their agenda to prioritize at any given moment, and who won’t pick fights with conservatives who don’t agree with them 100% (heck, the way that Marjorie gracefully noted Steele and Cino’s pro-choice connections was a lot nicer than I would have put it). It is a fantastic group that focuses on its issues in a way that strengthens, rather than diminishing, conservatives and their goals on all counts.

    I believe that avoiding fratricidal fights that weaken us was what Daniels was getting at.

  • haumea

    He’s expecting the left to give up their activism?

    Sorry, I smell damage control. No-one in their right mind expects this.

  • Superheater

    Always smack of being modifying statements…I’ll wait a see how he conducts himself..

  • writeblock

    It does no good to win battles and lose the war. The idea is to send Obama packing. We can’t do this without the independent vote–and that vote is tepid on the social issues. That’s just the way it is–it’s political reality. Which means we have more to gain by keeping social issues in the background.. We need to keep our eyes on the prize: political power.

  • haumea

    Which why I’ve been telling everyone who will listen that social policy should be integrated into a cohesive “states’ rights” message which can hold libertarian types who would be put off by federal level social conservatism.

    2012 is a referendum on big government. Make it all into a coherent message; don’t go haphazardly issue by issue in the old, by-the-book manner. That won’t work.

  • Bill S

    They haven’t. They weren’t in 2010. This is a matter of libertarian troublemaking. There has been virtually NO focus on social issues in recent years. Daniels and the trucers decided to start blowing off steam for no apparent reason. There was no problem until they ignited this whole thing. The best thing for the libertarian wing to do is just back down and lay off the socons. We didn’t start it, but we sure as hell will not stand for being marginalized.

    And dredging up the states’ rights thing is an utterly unproductive fantasy. There is no federalism and there will not be in my lifetime (and I’m not that old). The federal judiciary will not permit it. CA Prop 8 should have convinced anyone paying a bit of attention that federalism is dead, and it will not be revived until the GOP is in power for a long, long, long time, to allow the entire leftist judiciary to be replaced. I’m not placing any bets on that.

  • miroco

    Too right! The actual GOOD luck I’ve had is growing my children and Grandchildren to laugh at the liberal garbage they see every day in their schools. This is Texas so is not as bad as other places but a lot sneaks in. I start to become incensed at their stand on homosexuality or something and even the twelve year old comes back with “maybe but we have no income tax or welfare”– then they all give me hell because I usually like Mexicans better than gringos—then we all laugh at how stupid recycling is and wonder if the morons are enjoying the mercury from their light bulbs.

  • Bill S

    I strongly suspect it is Daniels trying to walk the whole thing back. Sorry, Mitch…no sale.

  • acat

    are demanding abortion rights these days?

    The rare few I’ve met who are pro-abortion (and they tend to be Fiscal hawks, for the curious…) are pretty darn quiet about it….

    They certainly aren’t a factor in the primary.

    I smell rat.

    Mew

  • Scope

    In fact he made it very clear that he has adopted a very Libertarian view on Social Issues-

    http://www.gop12.com/2010/12/daniels-doesnt-regret-truce.html

    BTW Interesting analogy as we do have a war of sorts on our southern border which the current government is refusing to even acknowledge. I don’t know Daniels position on the problems with illegal immigration, but, I could see him chopping any money from the budget to get it under control.

    I agree, sorry Mitch, no sale.

  • jerry39

    and none of the trucers are one whit concerned that the mans opening salvo as a national candidate, not only saw his foot in his mouth, but now shows his lack of integrity with a ridiculous “clarification”.

  • acat

    Y’know, while I dislike Daniels unilateral “truce”, it’s a better approach than telling me and other Libertarian-minded folk to head for the back of the bus….

    Or maybe you meant it some other way?

    Mew

  • haumea

    States’ rights approach isn’t a fantasy in the context of a broader, consistent political strategy — which includes allowing the federal judiciary to show its heavyhanded approach. Then you go after them with Constitutional amendments.

    The important factor here isn’t what happens tactically, but winning over a majority with a consistent, long-term approach.

  • ladyimpactohio

    on the Susan B. Anthony interview.

    http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/sba-lists-interview-rnc-chair-candidate-maria-cino

    I tried to find VIEW PAC and the site has been cached.

    http://viewpac.org/

  • texasgalt

    NATIONAL HARBOR, MD

  • haumea

    …old dogs unable to learn new tricks.

    They’ve been in partisan politics too long to fully appreciate how the game has changed. The next president will have to wage all out war on the left (but in an unassuming manner) to have any chance to save this country.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    (I’m a 100% pro-Life, socially conservative Christian:)

    Look, it’s a nice spin to say the debate showed that Life is still important to Republicans. But A) we already knew that and B) it’s irrelevant to the chairmanship. This is chairman of the RNC, not a candidacy for public office.

    Some conservatives like to see Life as a proxy for all social issues, such that a person’s stand on Life indicates whether they’re a “real conservative” or not. While it’s fine to demand that the chairman have personal convictions, focusing too keenly on Life forces us to fill in the blanks on our own.

    Moreover, the topic should not have been the chairman’s views on policy questions, but what he’s going to do to rebuild the Party. People (especially in Washington) are very adept at denying thier own personal views for the good of the Party, and in fact the chairman’s job is to deny his personal views in favor of the party platform.

    The chairman must be about filling the ranks of the Party with people dedicated to our platform and ideals. His own viewpoint on specific issues are secondary, no matter how vital the issues themselves are.

    It’s not all about money, either. How is the chairman going to harness the tea party and grassroots fervor to beat ACORN and the public sector unions (but I repeat myself)? GOTV is the only game in town, and the focus on money is actually counterproductive. The chairman should be organizing, not fund raising per se.

    But no one asked about the candidates’ vision for rebuilding the Party, beyond a few bits about proper 72-hour programs and fundraising goals.

    Maybe it’s too late to get them to say they understand the all-consuming importance of boots on the ground.

  • mirac777

    The Left seem to constantly be doing the attacking with the GOP on the defensive. When the pitch of battle intensifies, you either match that intensity or take a serious beating. This could be why we see no definite front-runner for POTUS within the GOP today. IMO, we need a show of strength to stand up to them in 2012, and we need to get support building for a good candidate as soon as possible. Right now we are already divided, which will only serve to strengthen the Dems resolve to really pimp the Marxist for reelection in 2012. I am an old Independant Conservative, and while debate is a good thing, too much debate gives the opposition a hell of a lot of ammo.

    The old dogs need to get off the porch and attack, instead of sitting around scratching the fleas of yesteryear. Fence-sitting Rinos, hiding behind the “moderate” logo are not the solution to our problems of today, they are the problem.

  • mirac777

    I would vote for Ann Wagner over all the other wishy washy mind changers. We need the toughest person available here. She fits that bill. She looks you right in the eye and tells you like it is.We need someone with a persona that screams “The left can go to hell, we will not let them turn America into a Socialist third world toilet!”

    FYI to GOP : Claiming to be a very experienced politician doesn’t impress me one bit, considering the shape our country is in today.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    Left this below.

    The chairman can be a powerful raiser of funds while carrying out his central role, planning GOTV operations.

    He cannot be a powerful raiser of funds while occupying himself with policy debate on Sunday morning talk shows.

  • writeblock

    We don’t need someone morally pure, we need someone who can get out the vote in the next election.

  • jerry39

    the chairman has to connect to the base to rally support and get people elected.

    So yes a coherent plan is key. But so is unity. 2 years ago, I listened in on one of Steeles first conferance calls. Yes, his plan was bad – a bunch of gibberish about everybody needing to get into the 21st century and use twitter with no coherent direction. But practically the first words out of his mouth were to tell us all that “we werent going to focus on social issues.” It was as pointless and asine as Daniel’s comment.

    If he just woudlnt have said anything about social issues, I at least wouldnt have been offended, because I could get behind the other core conservative issues too, and I could get behind buidling the party. I haven’t listened to call since and I haven’t donated a dime since. And it wasnt because his plan was bad, I could tolerate that.

    And the point of course is that there were no “moderates” waiting in line behind me to support the party. Obama forced the people to become active, but they had no outlet they could respect – hence the tea party was born.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    Yes, this is a kowalski.

    The chairman can be a powerful raiser of funds while carrying out his central role, planning GOTV operations.

    He cannot be a powerful raiser of funds while occupying himself with policy debate on Sunday morning talk shows.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    It should have gone here.

  • southernpatriots

    If a candidate is not pro-life in word and in deed, we will not vote for him or her. We have been accused by Boortz and others of being one issue. Sure, that may be true, but that one issue is LIFE, what is more important than that?! That is the champion. Then there are numbers under the champion. 1. Restore Constitutional freedoms 2. Less government 3. More personal responsibility 4. Lower taxes (of all kinds) 5. Border security 6. National security 7. you get the idea. But LIFE is the champion, it is not rated #1, just like the World Champion boxer is the Champion, he is not rated #1, the next in line is rated #1 and so on. LIFE, respected and honored from conception, as YHWH indicated to Jeremiah, “from your mother’s womb I knew you.”

    Republicans had better listen to Marjorie Dannenfelser and other voices like hers. We do personally know any flip flopping mealy mouthed anti-life Republicans. Oh we have heard but we don’t personally know any. If any run for any office we can vote on, we will vote against them. Abortion: genocide of the black communities. Abortion: killing our next and next and next generations. Abortion: murder and a lie. The right to choose is the right to kill a baby. Who morally has that right? The most dangerous place for a child today is not Haiti or Bangladesh, but is his or her own mother’s womb. Stop the insanity! Stop abortion!

  • acat

    See, if I thought Daniels were going to go libertarian (or, rather, more libertarian as opposed to FiCon or SoCon) here … I’d actually be happy with him.

    What I think he’s doing, at least what he’s coming across as doing, is some sort of tap dance pander routine. It’s not pretty, you and Bill aren’t buying it, and neither (given his record) am I.

    If I had to guess, he’s seeing that Palin (and, to a lesser extent, Huck) have a lock on the SoCons, Romney appears to have a lock on the FiCons, so Daniels has gotta find some other group to pull for him and .. who’s left?

    Oh yeah. *Those* guys. (grin)

    As for Daniels and illegal immigration – Illinois has rampant illegal immigration, and not just from south of the border. (we get asian and eastern european and even the occasional Irish illegals here…) Since Indiana is right next door, with one of the common routes to Chicago (I-65) running straight across Indiana, I’m quite sure Daniels has a handle on the problem.

    A. Cat

  • aesthete

    The libertarian position on social issues is essentially identical to that of conservative federalists: leave it to the states and enforce the Constitution. (Admittedly, their position on social issues at the state level comes into conflict with that of social or traditional conservatives.) I think we can all agree that Daniels’ statements were ill-advised, but was the idea behind the statement ill-concieved? As Michael Barone put it, the Tea Parties are the ideal form of the “truce” described by Daniels, and they are working out quite well. Even if the idea itself was a bad idea, is it really a disqualifier for a Presidential candidate? Daniels, Barbour, and Ryan — the candidates with a lock on our fiscal problems, all pro-life and pro-traditional marriage both in word and deed — have all called for some variation on this idea, they got burned for it, danced around it, and have walked it back. Is the idea of leaving fiscal issues to the states (which Fred Thompson also got burned for) really that terrible an indictment of some our our better pols? I know that Pence is your guy (and he’ll be my guy, too, in 2016-20 after a successful Governorship :) ), and I’m not asking you to lay out a rose petal bed for Daniels (don’t want to start up a Danielsista cult, heh), but can you acknowledge that the truce was just a stupidly-thought out/articulated idea by some of our better GOPers, rather than an idea thought up in the darkest halls of Lucifer’s pit? Daniels, Barbour, and Ryan are the good guys: not RINOs, establishmentarians, or otherwise wicked dudes. Being human, all have problems.

  • writeblock

    …than Republicans seem willing to admit. Social conservatives are passionate people–and it’s that passion that is a major weakness when competing in general elections since it scares away independents who might otherwise vote Republican. It scares people precisely because it seems intolerant to those who don’t share the same social perspective. It does no good to explain we’re talking about killing babies, etc. That only intensifies the disconnect and deepens the frustrations on both sides.

    I’ll say it again ad nauseam–Rudy was a better fit than McCain for the general election in 2008. He was leading in the national polls. In my state alone–PA–he was leading by double digits against both Obama and Hillary–and was even ahead here after he dropped out. He was also ahead in NJ and CT and had a real shot at picking up those blue states. But he was rejected by many social conservatives–in favor of candidates who were stronger contenders in the GOP primaries than they could ever be in the general election.

    We need to honestly recognize this paradox, not keep repeating the same mistakes cycle after cycle to the advantage of the left–which is the real nemesis of social conservatives, not other Republicans.

  • writeblock

    are divided. The left is just as defensive on certain issues. Both left and right need to contend for the independent vote–which is up for grabs precisely because it’s tepid on the social issues and committed on fiscal issues. So both the sides are on the horns of a dilemma. Liberals scare independents when they press their big government agenda, conservatives scare them when they press a social agenda. The key to winning is to suppress what scares away the independent vote. This doesn’t mean we should nominate a moderate. It means we should emphasize fiscal conservatism and downplay everything else–the way McDonnell did in VA and Christie did in NJ. It’s a strategic decision, not a moral one.

  • jerry39

    Or is there some other reason that you feel you would be told to head to the back of the bus? Just curious because I am pretty libertarian minded and pretty pro-life. Certainly being a libertarian does not inherently involve a pro-choice platform?

  • Scope

    particularly on the social issues, which you have been very involved in, wherever they appear. We agree on some things, that’s for sure. I don’t buy your argument that the social issues will take a state stage any time soon, I especially don’t buy your argument that the churches should take the responsibility for social issues, as the Liberals have all but destroyed the churches over the many years, and, I do believe that the Libertarians have been such a small mnority that they have earned themselves the place they are in, in the back of the bus. The front of the bus has surely been taken over by the new majority of conservatives that call themselves Christian and pro-life. I’m sorry, that is a fact, according to the latest polling, as good as it is.

  • Scope

    such as the Tea Party Patriots (most of those groups are formerly known as Ron Paul’s Campaign 4 Liberty)and some of the Glenn Beck 9/12 groups, and yes I’ll even include Dick Armey’s group Freedom Works are all talking about, and supporting nothing more than fiscal issues, and smaller government. I suspect that many who support them are not aware that fiscal issues are their only platform. I’m not sure what their membership numbers are, but, I would guess it would be about the same number as the Ron Paul supporters. The polling trends, as good as the are or not, reflect that a majority of Tea Party supporters also consider themselves a part of the Christian right, and are pro-life. The economy is in the hole, no one doubts that. I do hope that someone makes those conservatives aware that they only have a one legged stool.

    As stated by yourself, and many others, the 2012 election is critical in getting rid of Obama. We cannot afford 4 more years of his policies and regulations. I want the best person that we can have in 2012. To put someone on the list for 2016 means that either Obama gets it for 4 more years, or we get a less than desirable Republican candidate in 2012. That doesn’t make sense to me. After Pence, I don’t know who I would get behind, but, I do know that it won’t be Daniels. It’s not just his truce statements,it’s also his support of the VAT, his talk about the Republicans having to be adults and knowing that it may be necessary to raise taxes. He said he would cut the defense budget even more than Gates. I don’t know if that was before or after Obama asking for an additional $78 billion in cuts to defense. He has slapped many that hold dear the 3 plank Republicans. No, not at all. I could not support Daniels. As I’ve said before, Daniels does have an appeal to the Libertarians. Thankfully they are small in numbers. That is not against you personally, please know. It is just a reality.

  • Scope

    this administration has been about nothing more than “social justice.” So when anyone says that we have to get our fiscal house in order before we tackle the social issues means that the “Social Justice” policies win. Good Lord, does no one make that connection? The Liberals have been funding their “social” issues forever. I guess defunding Planned Parenthood should be ignored. I guess defunding the implementation of DADT should be ignored. I guess the defunding of the “arts” promoting social issues should be ignored. I guess the funding for the NEA, that teaches the children to be good little socialists should be ignored. The list goes on and on. Those that think that fiscal and social issues are separate, haven’t been paying much attention to what the Liberals have been up to.

  • acat

    Specifically, where Bill S. said “The best thing for the libertarian wing to do is just back down and lay off the socons.” I’m not sure how to read that other than painting with an overly broad brush.

    Now, I respect Bill S. Read his stuff. Agree with him most of the time. But. In this sentence, he crossed a line for me, because I am a more libertarian-leaning cat.

    Further, I was engaged in a discussion back around Thanksgiving that devolved .. rapidly .. into accusations that I’d tried to “send SoCons to the back of the bus”. This wasn’t my intention – I was more interested in not fracturing the conservative movement – but I did choose my words poorly.

    That said, while I agree with SoCons like Bill S. and Jaded and Scope on a lot of things, I tend to arrive at my views by different paths. For one example, I’m not religious, so the “sanctity of life” argument does not persuade. The “eating the seed corn” argument, as well as the “every life is precious” argument do, however, persuade me. I am very opposed to abortion.

    Like haumea, though, I think approaching it by turning it back into a States issue would be better than trying to ban it nationwide. Every Red State would immediately enact some form of ban, and the resources freed could be more effective at the Statehouse level in the Blue States.

    That said, the most effective strategy of all has been at the extremely local level; it has literally become financially impossible to run an abortion clinic in certain parts of the South because nobody is willing to do business with anyone associated with the clinic. No building available for rent, nobody will sell to their employees, nobody will rent to their employees, and any city government that looks at issuing a license gets an ear-full from their citizenry, etc. etc.

    This kind of society-based (as opposed to law-based or government-based) approach is much more powerful than a law-based ban – what can the pro-abortion types do about it? Not much they *can* do, really. Renting space under false pretenses is fraud, and there’s no legal way I can think of to force a city council to issue a permit, and only a similar false racist argument that could compel a grocer …

    Anyway, that went a little tangential, but I think I’ve answered your questions.

    Mew

  • southernpatriots

    That is somewhat strange since all libertarians we know, most not public figures, and all which are public figures (Boortz) are anti-life, pro-abortion. They say that is consistent with the libertarian philosophy and views. For that reason, we identify ourselves as Christian conservatives.

  • aesthete

    I’ve already made my case, so I’ll leave it at that. As for the Tea Parties, considering that there is not a mass of angry Tea Partiers demanding that Tea Parties address pornography or media standards, it would seem that the Tea Party’s membership largely supports the Tea Party’s more narrow focus (much as Right to Life members are fine not pushing fiscal conservatism within RTL).

  • acat

    I know I’m getting pretty sick of repeating myself too.

    Rudy knew what the primary rules were going into 2008, and miscalculated badly. He needed to be in the top 3 in Iowa, and in the top 2 in New Hampshire, and to have a strong team in the South to avoid getting blown out on Super Tuesday.

    He did not achieve these goals.

    To be fair to Rudy, he would have been a much better match against Obama than McCain was…. but then Becker’s dead white cat would have done better than McCain at firing up the base.

    At the time Rudy bailed out, though, the Hillary Coronation Tour was still underway.. and McCain was somewhat better positioned gravitas-wise to go up against her.

    I understand Rudy is going to try again in 2012. I do hope he’s got the goals list above tattooed on his aides’ eyelids so they can read it in their sleep. The *ONLY* way for Rudy to win is to win New Hampshire, place in the top 3 in Iowa, and have grass roots types on the ground in the South.

    Otherwise, for Rudy, 2012 will look a lot like 2008 – better position nationwide or not.

    Mew

  • acat

    the Left, despite being a smaller percentage overall, are the ones in charge.

    They do a much better job than the Right of enforcing voting discipline .. and, of course, they own the press, so they get to start ‘ginning up “faction fights” in the GOP and the Conservative Alliance every time it looks like we’re winning.

    Or .. did you think this stuff was just randomly bubbling up following the 2010 wave?

    The left knows their best chance to hang onto the Senate (or .. to hang onto a narrow minority) in 2012 is to divide the Right.

    The best news of all – right now – is that Obama seems set on running for a second term. He’ll have no coat-tails, and he’ll also leech resources away from the Senators in Purple and Red States. Of course, I don’t think the D in the general is going to be Obama .. so it’d be good to pick a candidate who’d do well against any Dem, not one who’d match up against The O.

    If Rudy wants the job, he just has to win New Hampshire, come in as # 2 or 3 in Iowa, and have a decent ground game in the South….

    Mew

  • jerry39

    It looks like our views (faith not included as I am practicing Catholic) are pretty darn similar in the Macro.

    On the specifics, I agree that most social issues should be handled at the state/local level. I do carve out a exception for abortion, because i do believe the constitution protects us from deprivation of life without due process of law. So even state sanctioned abortion is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

    I also agree that the extreme local targeting of abortion providers has been very sucessful. But without federal pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood and their ilk will keep recieving funds to find new ways around local activists. For instance, an abortion still costs about $300.00. Think of any other surgery you can get for that? Supply and demand, its that simple – people start considering adoption if you raise the price much higher. But – Government health care starts funding abortion, and suddenly we find ourselves as taxpayers paying for $3000.00 abortions, and a lot more Dr’s become willing to take the heat.

    That said, we need libertarians, pro-lifers, so-cons, fi-cons, ne-cons and the whole lot to win the next election. But if this year has taught us anything, it is that the squishes (of all varieties) will betray the party and their heretofor espoused principles at the drop of a hat, if its in their personal interest, while for the most part the rest (despite always being accused of being single issue divisive voters) stay put and loyal. To appease the squishes at the expense of anybody else is to reward a lack of principles. I would go so far as to say, to reward a lack of integrity. Which of course sacrifices yet another conservative principle for electoral gain.

    I hate to trot out Reagan, but there is clear proof that principled argument can and will prevail over calculated (fake) political persona.

  • acat

    As I have said to you and others, I recognize that mine is probably the smallest branch in the Conservative tree. Libertarians are definitely a minority. We cannot expect to drive the bus. However, that does not mean we can’t discuss the route.

    It does, however, seem .. odd .. for SoCons to ask libertarians for support at the ballot box and yet freeze us out of the discussion of party goals. Especially when we agree on the goal, just not on why it’s good…. (see my reply to jerry39 above)

    As for social issues being state issues, I know I’m right – the founders agreed with me, y’see. That’s part of why one of their compromises was separate States in the first place. It wasn’t until the Liberals in the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s started making federal cases out of everything that State Rights really got crushed.

    I’m not saying it’s going to happen soon, and the next compromise may look very different than old-school States Rights, but .. eventually, it has to become plain to SoCons that having so much secular power in one small group of people is a Bad Idea, just as the Founders predicted.

    As for churches taking responsibility for social issues, I’d like to know who else is going to take them on once the government runs out of other peoples’ money… Nobody else has the organization except maybe some large-scale corporations .. and they’re not noted for compassion. I don’t think the church is nearly as destroyed as you think .. I just think most of its’ members aren’t used to getting their hands dirty, which is a real shame.

    A. Cat

  • Scope

    that means to me that the discussion is ended here, and. I’m glad it is ended there. I choose to remove myself from any further discussion on this as you, with all due respect, can go on and on about the social issues. I respect you to have the ideas and opinions that you do, but, I have not moved from the positions that I have. We’ve been through this a gazillion times, and, we just don’t have any common ground here. No need to just keep repeating and repeating again. Sorry. Maybe someone else wants to engage you with your ideas. It just isn’t me.

  • writeblock

    My point was the process loses us elections and we had better learn why it does. What Rudy knew–and the fact that he lost–is beside the point. What’s to the point is that the GOP selection process looked a gift horse in the mouth and thereby gave the election to Obama. If we’re unwilling to learn this lesson, we’ll in all likelihood repeat our stupidity again in 2012.

  • gekster

    Matbe to you. But I like to think the rest of us are realist.
    And pulling for anybody now at THIS time is foolish.
    And if mbeckers cat runs, I’ll vote for him over Rudy.
    He has a better chance of beating Obama hands down.

  • gekster

    why isn’t the same going for Rudy.
    You do keep repeating that he DID quit.

  • writeblock

    except to the extent the liberals have won elections. But we’ve been effectively fighting back. They’ve got the old media, we’ve got radio and Fox. They’ve got academia, we’ve got the tea party. As it is, each side believes the other has the advantage. But in fact as things are playing out, the advantage right now is with us–if we don’t blow it. This means focusing on what unites a majority of Americans–which is fiscal conservatism–and playing-down what doesn’t. In actuality this strategy will do more to realize a conservative social agenda than huffing and puffing about moral principles. Power is the name of the game–and that means winning elections by playing the game smarter than the other guy.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    The chairman should not set policy, telling us what issues we’re going to talk about.

    Steele was a dunderhead. Glad that’s over.

    I just hope he doesn’t get paraded around as some kind of policy wonk now.

    But I know he will.

  • acat

    Fiscal Conservatism is *not* what unites us. It is one point of the triangle, the other two points being libertarianism and Social Conservatism.

    None of the three can claim to be “all” of Conservatism. None of the three can win alone. (and to the SoCons who claim by simple numeric superiority that they can, in fact, go it alone – I point at Denny Hastert and the 2006 Republican congress and ask how well going it alone worked last time)

    What we need to find – what the Tea Parties found, what Reagan found – are points in the middle of the triangle that we can all agree on – regardless of why we agree on them.

    Rudy could do this. Rudy would have to start in 2009, but it is possible … I say this because he needed to be seen as proposing concrete steps (not ideology) in the South before and during the 2010 election in order to break through to them.

    If he hasn’t done this, then .. even if he can pick the precise center of the triangle, he’s not going to attract enough SoCons to win.

    You dislike it. I see it as reality. Rudy could change it .. but only by working his a** off…. and I just haven’t seen him making that effort.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    In fact, the issue of life is a major fissure point within the libertarian movement: the question boils down to whether or not one believes that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby. This is a purely metaphysical belief that cannot be proven scientifically (much like the beliefs regarding the status of blacks). Libertarians tend to feel very strongly about the position that they hold one way or another: the pro-life libertarians are very pro-life, and pro-choice libertarians are very pro-choice. Anecdotally, I’d say that libertarians split about 60/40 for abortion. It is telling that every elected official in the federal government with libertarian sympathies (Justin Amosh, Jeff Flake, Paul Ryan, Ron and Rand Paul, and others) is not only pro-life, but radically and unashamedly so.

    BTW, the pro-life cause is hardly exclusive to Christianity: it, like abolition, is mostly supported by Christians because they are more likely to approach morality from a deontological, black-and-white perspective than the standard citizen, and committed Christians prioritize said morality. That is a good thing, but not something limited to Christians, conservative or otherwise. (Also, like slavery, there’s a pretty sizable split among Christians regarding life issues.)

  • redneck_hippie

    also prioritize life with a view to the salvation of souls. On Thursday, a friend confided in me that her daughter was going to an abortion clinic today. I can only imagine the despair my friend is going through when she tearfully said, “I’m afraid God won’t forgive. me, because I didn’t keep her from doing it.”

    I reminded her that her pastor would talk to her about it. I also couldn’t stop myself from saying, “what could you have done or said that you didn’t already? You can’t hold a gun to her head.”

    I pray.the God who watches over all lliving things will be with them.

  • aesthete
  • writeblock

    Of course conservatism is comprised of a block of voters who are social conservatives. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that particular block understands how to win elections to further its goals. In the past it has clearly undermined the very candidates who might win in general elections, furthering candidates sure to lose.

    Besides, we need to appreciate that by “uniting Americans” we sholdn’t just mean uniting Republicans. There are a whole lot of other Americans in a general election–once known as the “Reagan Democrats”–who would vote Republican if they were given a choice attractive to them. This was my larger point.

    The Tea Party is comprised of fiscally conservative, strict constructionist, small government voters–from both parties. They’re the ones we need to appeal to–not the evangelicals of Iowa and SC or the villagers of NH. They reside in places like PA and OH. We need to appeal to them first–since without them it’s much harder to win.

  • writeblock

    Since it can result in nominating candidates who can’t win–and not winning means losing the only means of furthering your goal. It would only be a wise attitude if all Americans shared your perspective. But since they don’t, and since we live in a democracy, and since the candidate with the most votes wins, the idea should be to get behind the candidate most likely to defeat a Democrat in the general election, not one who most appeals to us in a primary but has little chance of winning in the general.

    Social conservatives need to understand the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat when it comes to furthering the pro-life issue. Rudy would be therefore preferable to somebody like Hunter or Huckabee since he would have a better chance against somebody like Obama. And since he’s also a strict constructionist and since his pro-choice perspective is not pro-active and would not have the backing of his party even if it were, and since Obama’s pro-choice perspective IS pro-active and has the full backing of his party, it behooved socons to back Rudy before risking losing to Obama.

    Politics 101.

  • acat

    There’s nothing that says a candidate can’t do both – provided it’s done honestly and well.

    As has been noted here more than once, what’s needed is a candidate who doesn’t back away from his or her conservatism to win the nomination. That certain candidates are now referred to as “trucers” should tell you that the SoCons are not going to tolerate someone who appears to compromise.

    It is possible to do outreach to the populist-tending SoCons of Iowa, the not-very-populist SoCons of S.C. and the refugees from Boston now taking over New Hampshire to win the nomination, while at the same time saying things that will resonate with the Tea Parties and independents to win the general.

    This being a year when rules are going to get broken, the first one that has to go is Nixon’s – don’t run to the right to get the nomination, there’s plenty of better men (and women) over there who will make you look silly. Instead, speak in concrete terms (as Reagan did – “Tear down this wall” for instance)

    There’s no reason any candidate couldn’t do this .. provided he or she takes enough time. Rudy has very little time left to make his case – I know you think he could be a contender .. I’m concerned that he didn’t start in 2009 and wasn’t visible in 2010.

    Mew