Apr 05 2007
Purity Or Reigns Of Power?
Far right (or hard right) Republicans/Conservatives have a decision to make: either purity or Power. The early party donation numbers are in and one thing is clear – the moderates are leading on the right and the far right is not doing much more than complain about purity. It would seem the far right is not in this fight yet (or else there would be more money going to the more conservative candidates).
Listening to the yacking heads moan about Guiliani’s abortion comments today was a classic example of tearing down our possible candidates when it is not needed. My biggest problem with Guiliani’s comments is tax payer funded abortions. But I would rather get him to accept the broader conservative position on tax payer funded abortions than be stuck with an Obamillary in the White House. Guiliani seems prepared let the USSC determine the matter – which is the best anyone can hope for to get Roe v Wade overturned. But many of us are not ready to make abortions illegal. The decision is wrong, but the decision can be a tough one. I am with Rudy in that I would prefer to spend energy getting adoption support and counseling support going that fighting the illegality battle. The law will not move until the culture changes. But instead of planning to help adjust Guiliani’s one outliar issue the right is attacking. Well there is only two paths.
Purity or the Power to change things? We less strident conservatives (like myself who have unequivocal support for Bush II and Reagan) support the general conservative approach. But we are not signing up for any hard right turns. The immigration issue is another where the far/hard right is way out of step with the country. And as long as the far right will not compromise and look long term and accept steps towards the full promise of conservative thought then they will be going nowhere. This mess started when the far right had a fit over Harriet Miers and would not even let the women express her views. Since that moment, when the far/hard right took off into the weeds the Bush Presidency and the War started going down hill. Sensing the schism – as many of us did – the Dems went all out and gave al Qaeda hope. Hope that a Pelosi would come and save them from annihilation. And it worked.
Bush is infinitely better than Gore and Kerry and that my friends were the options. And right now the possible options are Guiliani, Romney and Thompson. The far/hard right dissed the moderates to the point there is no sense in an alliance until there is respect and debate and compromise in the Conservative/Republican base. If that is too much, then we will have an Obamillary leading this country. The center is always open to discuss reasonable paths forward. The far/hard right has been less and less willing and more and more angry. Unless they change their approach, it will continue on that trajectory and the new alignment may solidify in place. There can not be a pure thinking, governing majority in a democracy
Something doesn’t seem right with these numbers. In the past two Presidential campaigns the numbers for the first quarter have been MUCH lower and the Republicans have always beaten the Democrats by very wide margins. I think this is an early burst and following quarters are going to be much lower.
I also think Fred Thompson is hurting Republican fund raising because many are holding out to see if he will run or not. He should just announce one way or the other so people who are on the fence and can’t contribute to more than one candidate can decide.
Gulliani did clarify remarks somewhat, via Captains Quarters:
MAYOR GIULIANI: What I said yesterday is what I’ve been saying throughout, I think in the last number of months publicly and privately for quite some time, which is I’m against abortion, I hate it, I wish there never was an abortion and I would council a woman have an adoption instead of an abortion but ultimately I believe an individual right and a woman can make that choice. I also, on public funding or funding of abortion said I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis. And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place. It’s been the law now, 17, 18 years, it’s part of the constitutional balance that I talked about yesterday and the Hyde Amendment leaves the funding issue largely to the states. They have to decide how they’re going to do it. And same thing on the issue that you’re giving me now, which is I believe that the state should decide. And that’s largely my approach not only in the area of abortion but in the area of guns and other things. I think these things are best decided on a state by state basis and would have as limited a federal role as the law requires. (Mayor Giuliani, Press Availability, Columbia, SC, 4/5/2007)
So Gulliani can try to mend fences, but there will be people on the right who will walk away from him on this. Like they are all so perfect themselves.
Yes, they are holding out to see what Thompson will do, and while Thompson is more conservative than I am, I would vote for him.
But the right will eventually go after him too, if he is around long enough and makes the mistake of saying something even a little bitty bit out of line with what they want. Like AJ says, after Bush won his second term and the whole Harriet Miers thing happened, the right started that whole nobody loves us thing and acted all put upon. the fact that Bush was always strongly prolife was not enough to keep them happy.
They have to stop doing this. They can not just throw anyone and everyone under the bus everytime the candidate says something.
Good post there AJ. Sometimes the line gets real thin between the purity of thought crowd and the single issue voter. Single issue voters abound in the abortion and immigration debate. For them there is no compromise. Right now, the single issue voters seem to be more abundant on the Republican/Conservative side.
I kind of agree with Terrye thoughts about Fred Thompson. If he holds out much longer the decision will be made for him. With primaries being actively moved up, to early 2008, real early, the primary campaign may well be over 6 – 8 months before the Conventions!
AJ, you are one of the most politically confused people I’ve ever heard. Here you are counseling the “Far Right Republicans” for being too far to the right while you extol the virtues of being a center moderate and you are not even a republican but an independent! You think you can carve a “Can’t we just all get along” party out of the middle in an increasingly polarized nation and you can’t! If the republicans had allowed Harriet Miers onto the USSC, she would be the sixth leftie on that court! So should we just have shut up about it? And then what, another 30 years of Kelos decisions? You seem to think that we can toss out just enough of our values and priorities to become just a little bit pregnant. The problem with trying to find middle ground with the left is that there is no middle ground with the left. They are FACISTS. You either do things completely their way or 99 percent their way and they will force the other one percent on you. I know what you’re saying about not being a one issue party, but the “Far Right” as you call it, I call it the republican party, is not a one issue party. Just because we have debates on the candidates and sometimes they get fairly hot, that is no reason to throw up your hands and give up?
I think you would agree with me the republicans did not lose the election because they were too united, they lost because they were too divided. But you seem to think the voters were upset with the “Far Right” of the party being to stubborn. I think the voters were upset with the moderate middle of the party overspending, not protecting our borders, not making a good case for the war, and not standing up for themselves and allowing this stupid “Culture of Corruption” thing to take hold without having the balls to defend themselves and go after corrupt democrats. It made them look terribly weak and stupid.
You “moderates” are totally on the wrong side of the immigration issue. While it is true that most Americans are not too much against a path to citizenship for law abiding people who just want to work, the large majority of Americans want laws to be enforced. As millions of illegals come here, disregard all of our laws, disrepect our flag, lower our pay, and act like they are owed something, more and more Americans are saying ENOUGH ALREADY! Turning a blind eye to the problems of an excess of illegals coming here is fading fast as it starts to affect more and more peoples daily lives. What is this hurry to try to rush this past the American people before they know what it will do. Have any of you noticed that this immigration bill is supposedly submitted but almost nobody is dicsussing the content of it?
“You “moderates†are totally on the wrong side of the immigration issue.”
Not so sure. “Moderates” outnumber the “Hardliners” by something like 20 to 1. So I am not convinced that the moderate viewpoint is the “wrong” one.
I cannot speak for anyone else but I will say that my choice in 2008 will be the candidate whom I believe will stay strong on National Defense.
Abortion is an issue which has been decided (may be overturned in time) and while I have my own personal feelings on the topic, it is not primary in my voting for an individual. A candidate can and will say anything to get elected and I would rather hear the truth up front than play a game of “but what I really meant was.” If a politician needs to clarify on an issue let’s hear it now before we award them the power of the White House.
In my state there was a backlash against the far right. Rick Santorum is now out and we now might as well have two Senators with a D after their name. We do tend to eat our own when an issue arises that creates controversy (the Terry Schiavo case). It is every man for himself instead of a party united.
None of this matters anyhow if we do not exist as a country and I fear if we do not understand the threats of the coming years this great land will not survive as it is for my grandchildren to continue to enjoy. If that means compromise to elect someone of character and strength to the White House, count me in.
The 20 to 1 number is basically a look at Tancredo’s support in the Republican party. He has about a 5% share which is 1/20 of the party. Also, since the Republicans are about 30% of the population, that would make the “Tancredo Republicans” about 1.5% of the population or about 67 to 1 in favor of a more moderate policies.
In fact, if all of Tancredos supporters stayed home or even voted Democrat, I don’t think it would hurt the Republicans because the number if Independents a candidate such as Rudy or Mitt would bring in along with crossover Democrats would more than make up the difference.
I would not like to be “right but irrelevent”. Being “right” but losing is still losing.
“my choice in 2008 will be the candidate whom I believe will stay strong on National Defense.”
Same here.
Bikerken,
I am not interested in getting along with liberals. But I am not interested in getting along with the far/hard right either – there is no reason to. Neither side is listening to others. Neither side can tolerate compromise and a stepwise approach. Both are all or nothing.
Right now, the hard/far right have nothing. I am a conservative and as passionate as any. But I am not going to waste my time banging my head against brick walls. Life is too short and I want progress
Purity is a myth anyway.
“Moderates†is another name for “people who can’t make up their mind”
What the hell is this Purity thing all about anyway AJ? Nobody expects a whole politcal party to agree on everything. And I have a news flash for you, It is not only the “Hard Right” that is against illegal immigration, it is democrats who are losing their jobs to cheaper and cheaper labor, it is moderates who live in areas that are becoming crime ridden as their small town starts to look like a barrio. It is a whole lot of people who don’t have any faith in the federal government enforcing a new law when they never enforced the old ones. It isn’t by any means just the “hard right”.
Crosspatch, are you trying to say that only a tiny percent of Americans are getting fed up with the illegal immigration issue? Really? Who are the moderates you talk about and who are the hardliners? I can tell you right now, I read a lot of blogs and papers and listen to and watch a lot of political talk shows, both liberal and conservative. I see a very strong sentiment to enforce the border on ALL of them, even the liberals are not crazy about inviting another 100 million people up here whether they are calling into Air America or your favorites, Micheal Medved. Every time he has an immigration show, he gets calls about 20 to one against him. They cream him with common sense. All in all, if there is this big pro-illegal immigrant, “Let them all in” consenses out there, I sure as hell don’t see it. Even the commentors on Daily Kos and Firedog lake are not all crazy about that idea.
Well Buchanan got about 1% in 2000. Ralph Nader got 4.6%. I think the hardliners sometimes confuse the most vocal with the majority.
And a lot of people who are concerned about immigration do not agree that the hardliners have the right approach to dealing with the problem either. In other words, just because someone does not agree with you does not mean he does not care. I think we all know that really, but sometimes when the rhetoric is flying people forget it.
Enforcement:
Or moderates are people who prefer common sense solutions to demagoguery that offers no solutions at all.
Self described moderates are the largest group, making up 47%. Not a group to go out of your way to lose.
You win elections by standing up for what you believe and whats right. Right now all I see is a lot of moderates willing to give the left anything they want in order to attract voters from the middle. I’m no sure that’s a good idea. Funny thing though, for all of the moderates out there, I only hear about a half dozen of their voices on this blog and tens of thousands of people who are not so undecided. Weakness and indecision are not appealing qualities in a leader. Just because you are willing to ignore your own soveriegnty to appease latinos, doesn’t mean you are going to get any respect from them either.
Bikerken:
If Fred Thompson were to get the nomination I would vote for him even though he is more conservative than I am. Why? Because I agree with him more than I don’t agree with him. I am not going to pick one issue and say, well if he does say how high when I say jump then to hell with him. That would be stupid and self defeating.
The idea that a moderate does not care because they would prefer a guest worker program and increased enforcement and border patrol to nothing at all is simply not true. I do care, but I know what is and is not possible. And right now the country is not going to do what you want, they have a vote too and it is not going your way. That is just a fact.
Terrye, I understand that, I will end up voting for the republican no matter who it is because I know they will be some one who will be better for the country than any of the Democrats, with the possible exception of Zell Miller. But if that president chooses to turn his back on his own country, falsely prosecute his own border patrol over and over again while allowing millions of invaders to just walk in here and take over the place, I will flame his ass every chance I get and if he still doesn’t get the message, I will not vote for him again. You think it’s not going my way, my way is not what I’m concerned with, the country’s well being is what I’m concerned with. Whether you know it or not, this immigration bill is the biggest one issue there is. If we ring the dinner bell for millions more to come here illegally, and that’s what we’ll be doing, the average life style in this country will fall like a rock. We will be swamped with sick, unskilled people from every nation in the world who doesn’t want to bother or pay for them. I know you don’t agree with that, but like you said, “That is just a fact.” You just don’t live where you see it. What really bothers me Terrye, is that you don’t know much about what you are for. I think if you did, you wouldn’t be much for it.
Bikerken:
It is obvious that the immigration issue is of utmost importance to you. I think to all reasonable, thinking Americans it is also an issue which must be addressed. The question is, will we go the route we took before the 2006 mid-terms and become harshly divided and find no room to compromise or will we (not congress) be able to have civil discussions on the issue?
I do believe many conservatives were driven away from the polls this past election because of not only inept politicians but also various far right leaning blogs. Once the firestorm was started, there was no turning back and many of us were perplexed that immigration seemed to become solely a Republican or conservative problem. TheDems were let off the hook because we began to fight amongst ourselves and any positive message was drowned out by the hard liners.
If this is the most important issue to you in the 2008 election by all means you should vote for the candidate you believe will address it in whatever fashion you wish. One thing to remember though is that this problem did not begin on President Bush’s watch and while little progress has been made, unless we as conservatives compromise on some level it will IMO only continue to get worse.
Here’s a point to ponder, if those of us who are against the immigration bill are such a teensy tiny small minority, how was it that we managed to get the billed canned last time? Did the House of Representatives give in to a quiet voice in the woods?
Bikerken:
I grew up in Oklahoma and I have family living in Oklahoma, California and Texas. So I know what you mean, but even in those states the hardliner approach does not have the support of the majority of people.
Now that does not mean that people do not care about the issue or think it should be ignored, but this problem is a long time coming and since 9/11 people have decided that it has got to be dealt with yesterday and it has got to be dealt with a particular way. That is just not realistic.
Even if they build the wall that will not be enough. Over half these illegals came in legally, they did not cross that border at all. And then there is the issue of people who are not criminals, but are just working and some who have been here for years and many of them do pay taxes.
That does not mean we ignore the problem or the strain it places on communities near the border. But there are some communities down there that almost straddle the border with families on both sides. And it has always been that way. So they need to deal with the excess without locking up a bunch of harmless people.
The point is that the hardliners talk about what has to be done, right now, but they do not talk about what would really be required to do it, the way they want it done.
So yes, I agree we need to do deal with the problem, but after 140 years of open border to announce one day that this is the number one problem facing America? I just don’t think most people would feel that way. I think most people are concerned about education, health care, the price of gas, terrorism and war in Iraq as much or more.
And I think that in a country with an unemployment rate of 4.6% they are concerned about who will do the work.
But that does not mean they think we should ignore the problem. I know I don’t think we should.