A great victory ignored.
No thanks to the Grand Old Party.
By Paul J Cella Posted in 2006 — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let’s add to our list of woes, shall we: the Republican Party has, in the past six years, deserted the cause of racial equality, and signed on to the antithetical cause of “diversity.” This according to Harry Stein, writing in City Journal. One of the few bright spots amidst the gloom of last week’s election was the victory of the anti-affirmative action measure in Michigan. This victory came altogether without institutional support from the GOP, and in the teeth of a rich, egregious and bitter opposition. It is the former obstacle, however, that is most galling.
Read on.
It has not often be recognized, for example, that although the Bush Administration filed briefs against affirmative action in the 2003 Supreme Court cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, it conceded the most important ground of all — the ground of “diversity” as “an important and entirely legitimate government objective.” This, of course, was the argument used by Justice O’Connor to, rather deviously as it turns out, consolidate a regime of racial inequality.
As Stein writes,
What the party’s revised stance on race has done — aside from bolstering a civil rights establishment whose prestige had sharply declined and that remains unremittingly hostile to all that the Republican Party stands for — is leave longtime allies more vulnerable than ever to the toxic charge of “racism.” [. . .] Bereft of institutional support, the [Michigan Civil Rights Initiative] runs on a shoestring, operating out of executive director [Jennifer] Gratz’s apartment outside Lansing, where the campaign’s three young full-time workers sleep on the floor. Campaign manager Doug Tietz is only semi-facetious when he points to a state map and remarks, “This section here represents 6 million people — Clark’s in charge of that — and John handles this area, 4 million people.”
These are brave people: for months they were subject to rhetoric violence and political thuggery of the kind that has come to characterize the reactionary socialists of the Left. And the Grand Old Party left them dangling in wind.
Despite all this, they won. Republicans across the country got their hats handed to them, but lonely and beleaguered, a little band of idealists stood for one great ideal of the Party of Lincoln and secured a victory. Three cheers for Ward Connerly, Jennifer Gratz, and the few who stood against many. Shame on the false allies who abandoned them.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Election Analysis: The Center Abandoned Republicans — Comments (109) »
A great victory ignored. 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I decided that for various reasons I no longer will call myself a Republican. The party is just way, way too left of me, too liberal, with McCain and Giuliani leading for the presidential nomination, passage of amnesty by the republican senate last year and coming next year, the things president Bush has done like leave no child behind, and so on.
I am from the party of Ronald Reagan, wherever that went, not the party of Bush, Giuliani, and McCain. Guess I would call myself an independent conservative.
One main impact is that I won't give another dime to republican party organizations, but only directly to candidates of my choice. I'm also going to be stricter in voting, to vote third party or leave it blank instead of voting for RINOs.
(My decision really didn't have anything to do with the item this thread is about, which is another example of Republicans becoming Democrats-Light or really just Democrats, with no visible difference between the parties.)
I currently have to tolerate people in my Party coming to this site and throw around pejorative terms like 'RiNO'. I don't have to tolerate people not in my Party throwing said term around. And so I won't.
Capische?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
to persuade anyone within the GOP to pursue Reagan-like policies. I'm just glad that Reagan didn't leave the GOP in the Nixon-Ford years after the Goldwater GOP left him....
Wu, I am being facetious, because you are one of the best articulators of conservatism around, but man, I left the Dem party in 6/2001 and this GOP ain't got nothin on leaving anyone. It is thru parties, that we change policy and law. Come on back so don't waste your skills.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
My posting may not have been clear. I will still vote for some Republican candidates and contribute money directly to them. I will continue to never vote for a Democrat or contribute to them. I will register as Republican in the primary and vote that way.
So some people would still call me a Republican. The main difference now is that I won't call myself a Republican, contribute directly to Republican party organizations, and will be somewhat more likely to vote for a conservative third party candidates or leave the ballot blank for that position.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
And if my post came out as a blam, my apologies for not writing clearly. It wasn't even the prelude to a blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I meant the Wu Way, as in that wave of praise he was getting during his recent wave of posts.
But, I see I was wrong on that anyway, as GC is trying to bring him back in the fold, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
We all feel slighted by our party at times or even more often than not. Whatever the urge to not vote or vote 3rd party is, the real effect of that action is a vote for the other side.
Elections are LIMITED CHOICES. You must/should choose the one that will accomplish the most overall. A third party in this day and time has no potential to accomplish anything because they will not be able to get elected. If we wait for the perfect party we'll take ourselves right out of the loop to be useless.
If you want change, take action WITHIN the party. That is a choice as well. Take your anger and frustration out by writing letters, emails and phone calls. Its a great way to vent and actually is effective. You can always feel good about doing the best that you can. Voting for a third party or not voting essentially lets others choose FOR you. Isn't that the very thing conservatives despise the most? How Ironic.
Republican party is a house with a solid structure. The house needs some new furniture in it. Abandoning the house or rebuilding a completely new house next door is not a good use of ones time and energy.
CommonCents
"It often shows a fine command of the English language to say nothing at all."
Join to help build a conservative grass roots movement: www.winningthefuture.com
Thank you for this reply to my posting.
> Whatever the urge to not vote or vote 3rd party is, the real effect of that action is a vote for the other side.
Could that depend on the meaning of "other side"? If other side means "Democratic Party" for example, then it is certainly true that a Republican who votes 3rd party or not at all helps the other side.
But "other side" could also mean "people who disagree with my core beliefs", or something similiar which is based on philosophy. In this case I might help my side, people who agree with my core beliefs, more by voting third party or not voting at all.
This is because if the party closest to my core views can keep my votes and those of everyone who agrees with me while the party and candidates adopt the positions of those who disagree with me, then the party will mathematically have the most votes. For example, if one party could figure a way to get both those in favor of gun control and those opposed to gun control to vote for it, then it will get the most votes. But if the other large party already favors gun control, and now my party and its candidates start advocating gun control, then I have nowhere to go. My party has assumed it can "take my vote for granted", that is I'll still vote for it even though it disagrees with my core beliefs.
In this imaginary situation I would IMO be better off voting third party or not at all, than encouraging my party to be like the other party. It's because if the two parties are different and my side loses, then I still have a chance in the next election. But if my party takes the same core views as the other party, then I have no hope. It is like living in a one party system.
So in this imaginary situation, if I vote for a third party which reflects my core beliefs, then I am encouraging my former party to go back to having different views from the other party, because without my vote and those who agree with me, my old party is more likely to lose.
> If you want change, take action WITHIN the party
This is the ideal situation, if a candidate runs in the primary who agree with my core views. However, for the reasons above, if my views are different from most in my party, this is not likely to happen. The candidate with similiar views to the other party is most likely to win.
You can claim they spent more money then those for it, but it wasn't some vast sum. It was dwarfed by the amount of money that was spent advertising for the governors race.
Fact is the opposition to this I heard more about how the people who got it on the ballot where sneaky or tricked people into signing it or some BS then why I should support affirmative action.
As far as the polling... who is really surprised that an anti-affirmative action bill polled far worse then it did on election day, particularly among democrats? While folks (particularly white males) might not admit they're against affirmative action on the phone to a pollster admitting it to themselves when it's time to mark that ballot in secret is a entirely different matter.
This is an issue that cuts across party and ideology. A good many people who voted No on affirmative action also voted for Ms Granholm and Ms Stabenow. My step-mother is a charter member of Bush Haters Anonymous and was quite pleased with last week's results-- and one of the results she was pleased with was this one too.
What possesses people to vote for a party which pushes through certain policies which that same voter opposes?
The same happened in Virginia, where many people voted against gay marriage at the same time as they voted for the Senate candidate who favored it.
party loyalty (see also stupidity and ignorance) racism? (why not, that's how the dems explain everything), cotrarianism, self-loathing, did I mention stupidity and ignorance...
I know so many conservative democrats like that
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Nobody will agree w/ all positions of any party or candidate. I can see someone voting the opposite of their party a specific ballot initiatve.
Tim Pawlenty endorsed the Minnesota welfare on wheels (light rail) constitutional amendment. I voted against it because it is a big ripoff. But I voted for Pawlenty and other Rep candidates.
If you find your core issues aren't represented by your party then you probably need to change parties. There should be more overlap between you and a candidate/party than not.
"...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." -Donald Rumsfeld
...I strongly favor initiatives on the ballot. When the politicians refuse to answer to the public, we need an end run. We should put the same initiatives on the ballot in every state in 08 and the country would be a lot better off.