Technorati Tags: conservative, environment, typical, view

Newspapers, along with TV anchors and infobabes love to tell stories of dissension within the ranks of the Republican Party. They enjoy pouring fuel on any kind of sparks, trying to fan them into a blaze that negates the effectiveness of any non-Democrat politician. The problem is that there is some basis for the stories about factions within the Grand Old Party.

To those outside, the differences may appear to be simple personality conflicts or random loyalty fights. The fact is it goes much deeper than that. There are really two distinct groups within the party. When things are going well, it’s hard to tell one from the other. However the recent electoral failures have deepened these differences and peeled back the veneer of smiling faces.

The first type is the structural Republican. With these, it is a tradition and they may have been in the party all their lives. They feel a kind of proprietary interest in it. They would vote for anyone as long as they have an R by their name on the ballot and will continue to support them no matter how far they stray from party orthodoxy. Because of their party orientation, these are usually the people who show up at party functions and usually run for party offices.

These are also the people usually anointed to run for elected office. Strong, conservative candidates can break through, but rarely without a knock down, drag out fight. A few years ago Virginia presented a dilemma to the structural Republicans. Oliver North was nominated to run for a senate seat. He was the man and many party insiders gritted their teeth and said they would support him. However Senator John Warner would have nothing of this hero who actually believed in something beyond himself. Warner found someone to run as an independent against Ollie and siphoned off enough votes to insure his defeat. While the grassroots Republicans who secured the North nomination cried “foul”, the party leaders said nothing and did nothing about it. Some even joined the “moderate” Senator in support of the interloper. They believed their role was subordinate to the elected official rather than subordinate to the people!

In spite of this behavioral dissonance, success of the party is their primary interest, often purity on policy questions will be sacrificed for expediency. This is justified by considering ten or twenty percent disagreement still means eighty or ninety percent agreement. In many ways there is virtue to this thinking as this is how coalitions are built, but at times it ignores critical shortcomings on core issues.

The second type is the issue Republican. For them, their issue is of primary importance and the Republican Party is simply the best vehicle for promoting it. These issues can be second amendment rights, ending abortion or low taxes and small government. This last group seems to get the kindest reception from the structural Republicans, but still none are completely trusted by structural Republicans as support may and has been withheld for failures to live up to promises on the part of elected officials and candidates.

This group tends to be fragmented and parochial in its dedication to a particular issue. The people don’t mix well, even with other issue oriented types in spite of the fact that they really are in general agreement. That is, most gun rights people are pro-life, and most pro-lifers are sympathetic to gun owners concerns, but the difference in emphasis keeps them apart. The low taxers tend to be suspicious of anyone concerned with social issues… even though the gun people and anti-abortion activists almost invariably support smaller, less expensive and intrusive government.

Many of the the structural Republicans don’t trust the issue Republicans because they believe in something beyond deal making and going along to get along. They have goals that reach beyond getting elected or re-elected. Sometimes they may even take actions that hurt their chances if they must to do the right thing. But then, the issue types have learned not to trust the structural Republicans because of the many broken promises that result in their devalued issues being thrown under the bus on some compromise.

During the past administration, we saw many Republicans go to Washington after campaigning on low tax and smaller government platforms, only to have their arms twisted into, or perhaps catching beltway fever and willingly, going along with the inflated budgets and intrusive schemes coming from a Republican administration. It’s no wonder that their rhetoric rings hollow in the ears of an angry and frustrated electorate. They have compromised and moderated themselves and their party into minority status… and many of them right out of office.

It may take a whole new crop of candidates to take back the party and the congress, much like Newt Gingrich did when he led in forming the Contract with America. It may take a group of men and women honestly willing to pledge their “fortunes and sacred honor” to get the job done. Even though elected officials are often called “The Honorable”, this type of personal honor is a rarity in today’s government. What kind of people have this sense of focus and personal honor? The kind of people who believe in something and have a sense of right and wrong. The kind that will sacrifice personal ambition for the good of the country.

The structural Republicans will say “Wait a minute, we have these qualities.” The compromised values and abandoned principles tell another story. Back in the early days of GOPAC, one of the primary ideas they tried to get across to those looking at elected office was that they should run because they wanted to DO something, not because they wanted to BE something.

Sure, some compromise is inevitable, but it should not become a way of life, and some things are just non-negotiable. If being a Republican is to mean something, it is essential that the people running under that banner have some sort of agreement on where to stand. As Amos 3:3 asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Neither group can win consistently by itself. A mutual respect and appreciation for the others contribution is needed. A willingness to stand up for another persons interest is essential to forming a winning team. Structural types need to stand up for gun rights, unborn children and limited government rather than dismissing the issues as unimportant. They need to get out of the way when an issue oriented candidate excites the base and the public. Single issue voters need to begin looking at the bigger picture, become more involved in party processes and realize that by helping people with the other primary concerns, theirs too shall be addressed.

The Democratic Party sold it’s soul to follow a smooth talking shyster who waived before them an ambiguous, self-defined regimen of hope and change… and we are all paying for it… and will be paying for it as far as the eye can see. They have set aside principles to follow a man. We are a country of laws, not men. The Republican Party needs to, once again, be a party of principles, not men. The fate of the party and the country hangs on it.

Technorati Tags: Kinds, Republicans

Where (or What ) do you think the difference is the hardest for the other to accept or change?

Or what do you dislike about the other party the most?

Technorati Tags: Change, conservative, hardest, liberal, point, thing, think, view

Everyone knows that this was the Conservative points of view – ever since they lost the Senate and Congress in November they have been using this tactic.

They ran out of people to blame and redirect at so they just reversed their whole point of view and lableled their old failing views onto the Liberal

It is quite a funny circus to watch!

Like fish flopping out of water
As in the biast Media and other issues that were once blamed on Censervatives are now blamed on Liberals!

We all know that the media never covered stories like Scooter Libby, Torture, Cheney shhoting his friend for very long. They always seemed to sweep those under the rug really fast!

Now all of a sudden the media is Liberal owned!

That is crazy

Technorati Tags: 20012006, become, conservative, liberal, recent, view, views

If there is one subject that gets everyone hot and bothered, it is the United States Supreme Court. The highest court in the land is the focus of so much attention because it has such far reaching power. The court has recently become much more conservative, but that may not mean what many conservatives really want.

The United States Supreme Court is the most powerful governmental agency in the United States. Well, maybe after the Federal Reserve! The reason for this is the Supreme Court can overrule any law and can dictate how things should be handled in legal issues. This ranges from whether alleged terrorists can be held at Guantanamo without legal recourse to whether major league baseball violates anti-trust laws. This power is all the more prevalent given the fact the Supreme Court justices serve for life or until they retire.

The great Supreme Court war is all about getting “your” justice on the court. Conservatives want conservative justices on the court. Liberals want liberal justices on the court. The fight tooth and nail to get them there, only to find that most justices don’t fit in a nice round whole once they get there. Many a conservative justice has become liberal and the recent appointment of Sotomayor is actually going to be a surprise to liberals as she has some very conservative views on certain subjects.

Perhaps the most ironic thing about these titles is they often do not carry the same meaning as they have in political discourse. The Court is turning conservative, so let’s take a look at that. One of the prime elements of conservative political views is government should be small. A conservative Supreme Court, however, does not take this view nor do they believe government should be large. Instead, a conservative Court is going to give the legislative [Congress] and executive [President] plenty of room to do whatever it wishes. As you’ve probably noticed recently, this leads to more government instead of less.

Admittedly, this twisted result is not always the case. A conservative Court will tend to view things as written in the Constitution. This means there will be no limits on guns and Miranda rights may be in trouble. The issue of abortion is always a hot one. The Court is unlikely to reverse it in one fell swoop, but will instead most likely chip away at the ruling over the years until the ultimate result is already apparent for everyone to see. That is, of course, unless a number of liberal justices are brought on board.

Technorati Tags: conservative, Court, Supreme