Brett Bellmore
New member
The editorial page editor of the Detroit News, on the GOP's social conservatism:
http://www.detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0007/30/nolan/nolan.htm
"By Nolan Finley / The Detroit News
It’s time for the GOP to open its ideological club
PHILADELPHIA
Republicans this week can either invite more people to their party or reinforce the perception that the GOP is a closed ideological club.
They enter the national convention here in seemingly fine shape. Their presidential nominee, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, is leading in most polls and enjoys broader support among women and some ethnic groups than any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan.
Meanwhile, he has his opponent right where he wants him. Vice-President Al Gore is so preoccupied with the third party candidacy of Ralph Nader that he’s flailing away on the far left fringes. Gore came to Grand Rapids last week to embrace environmental extremists and foul the air with anti-business nonsense and ridiculous rants about Big Oil’s greed.
That leaves a big opening for the Republicans as they preen before a national audience.
Bush launched his campaign with a message of “compassionate conservatism” and a promise of inclusion, a clear signal that there’s room in the Republican Party for those with more moderate views on social issues. Now he has the chance to prove he means it.
The message from Philadelphia should be welcoming to those who support Republican fiscal principles, but may not sign on to the party’s inflexible views on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Bush needs to say you can be a Republican and support a woman’s right to choose an abortion; you can be a Republican and believe reasonable gun control measures don’t jeopardize the Second Amendment, and you can be a Republican and support gay rights.
Strident rhetoric on these and other social issues at past conventions has driven away many who would otherwise be drawn to the party’s approach to taxation, regulation and government reform.
It’s time for the fundamentalist wing drawn to the GOP by Reagan to accept that the GOP is not a religious denomination. Its demand for doctrinal purity on a laundry list of social issues makes the party less representative than it needs to be to govern at the national level.
So far in the campaign, there’s reason to worry that Republicans don’t really have the inclusion thing down.
When the name of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge was floated as a potential vice-presidential candidate, he seemed an attractive pick. He comes from a key battleground state, has a sterling record as governor and is compatible with Bush’s reform agenda.
But he has a fatal flaw: He’s pro-choice.
Far-right members of the party threatened to disrupt the convention if a pro-choicer was selected for the ticket’s No. 2 spot. Alan Keyes, the ultra-conservative radio host who maintained a no-hope campaign for the nomination right up until last week, made noise about bolting the party unless Bush named a pro-life running mate. He almost certainly would have taken many with him.
Bush went with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a solid and safe choice who, like Ridge, offered experience and compatibility, but has flawless pro-life credentials.
Democrats are seizing on Cheney’s abortion record — as a congressman he voted against federal funding of abortion even in cases of rape and incest — to warn women away from the Republican ticket.
They’ll do the same with the party platform, which includes a reaffirmation that Republicans oppose all abortions, making no exception for rape or incest, and comes down firmly against any form of gun control.
Like the selection of Cheney, the platform will keep the right wing quiet. But it’s no way to reach out to the middle, where this election will be won or lost.
Inclusion can only come with tolerance. If Bush is serious about broadening the appeal of the Republican Party, he’ll have to recognize that most voters aren’t as rigid on abortion, gay rights and other social issues as the religious right has made the GOP. There has to be an opportunity for civil discussion of those issues, and perhaps even room for moderation of traditional hard-line views.
There’s no shame in moving Republicans closer to the middle. After all, that’s where the people — and the votes — are.
Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The News. His column is published on Sunday. Write letters to 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or send e-mail to letters@detnews.com
****************************************
Certainly makes clear why the Detroit News has become so mushy on gun control lately!
Here's my letter; Let's hit him with a torrent!
Dear Mr. Finley:
"The message from Philadelphia should be welcoming to those who support Republican fiscal principles, but may not sign on to the party’s inflexible views on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Bush needs to say you can be a Republican and support a woman’s right to choose an abortion; you can be a Republican and believe reasonable gun control measures don’t jeopardize the Second Amendment, and you can be a Republican and support gay rights."
While he's at it, Nolan, why shouldn't Bush say that you can be a Republican and support tax increases, deficit spending, and unfunded mandates? Why are the fiscal principles sacred, and the social principles just excess baggage? Why not the other way around? Let's face it, what you're really saying is that the GOP should dispose of those of it's principles which Nolan Finley either disagrees with, or has no interest in, and concentrate exclusively on advancing only those issues Nolan Finley cares about. Leaving open the question of how many present Republicans would chose to remain supporters of the Nolan Finley party...
There's a simple reason why Bush will not follow your advice, Mr. Finley, and it has precious little to do with whether Bush is a social conservative or not: He wants to win this election. And he knows, as you apparently do not, that you don't win elections by deliberately affronting your supporters. It's a lesson both his father and Senator Dole taught him.
Nolan, in a country with proportional representation, a party can be a success by concentrating ONLY on fiscal issues, or ONLY on social issues. In a first past the pole system such as we have in America, successful parties must be coalitions, including some people who care about fiscal matters, and some who care about the social. The Republican party is an alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives, to advance both their aims. When the party choses to stiff half of that alliance, it loses. If it does it often enough, it will disintegrate. An alliance which takes the labor of both of it's members to advance the interests of only one, will not endure. And thus in the end will advance the interests of none of it's elements!
To make this clearer, I'm a member of the NRA; So are about 4 million other people. Another 10 million are too cheap to pay the dues, but follow our endorsements. I don't give a flying fart whether I'm governed by Democrats or Republicans. (Given a free choice, it would be Libertarians, actually!) I do care whether or not my rights under the Second amendment are eroded any further. A Republican party which embraces gun control, is a Republican party which can try to win elections without my support. There's not a lot of evidence to suggest it will succeed. The same goes for the Right to Life movement, by the way; To it's members, the GOP is merely a tool to advance their cause, which will be abandoned if it ceases to do so. Why, I expect that even you, Nolan, would abandon the GOP without a backwards glance, were it to abandon any pretense of fiscal rectitude; Why expect others to be more forgiving where the issues THEY care about are concerned?
Brett Bellmore
8734 Burt Rd.
Capac, MI 48014
home (810)724-5924 bellmore@tir.com
work (810)798-3922-265 bbellmore@ligonbros.com
P.S. "Reasonable" gun control? Nolan, every conceivable law which prohibits actions with guns which actually harms, threatens, or endangers someone, is already illegal, and has been for ages. Leaving only laws which prohibit that which does NOT harm, threaten, or endanger anyone. Only somebody, like you, who doesn't regard the right to keep and bear arms as a "real", right, like freedom of the press, would think otherwise.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
http://www.detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0007/30/nolan/nolan.htm
"By Nolan Finley / The Detroit News
It’s time for the GOP to open its ideological club
PHILADELPHIA
Republicans this week can either invite more people to their party or reinforce the perception that the GOP is a closed ideological club.
They enter the national convention here in seemingly fine shape. Their presidential nominee, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, is leading in most polls and enjoys broader support among women and some ethnic groups than any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan.
Meanwhile, he has his opponent right where he wants him. Vice-President Al Gore is so preoccupied with the third party candidacy of Ralph Nader that he’s flailing away on the far left fringes. Gore came to Grand Rapids last week to embrace environmental extremists and foul the air with anti-business nonsense and ridiculous rants about Big Oil’s greed.
That leaves a big opening for the Republicans as they preen before a national audience.
Bush launched his campaign with a message of “compassionate conservatism” and a promise of inclusion, a clear signal that there’s room in the Republican Party for those with more moderate views on social issues. Now he has the chance to prove he means it.
The message from Philadelphia should be welcoming to those who support Republican fiscal principles, but may not sign on to the party’s inflexible views on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Bush needs to say you can be a Republican and support a woman’s right to choose an abortion; you can be a Republican and believe reasonable gun control measures don’t jeopardize the Second Amendment, and you can be a Republican and support gay rights.
Strident rhetoric on these and other social issues at past conventions has driven away many who would otherwise be drawn to the party’s approach to taxation, regulation and government reform.
It’s time for the fundamentalist wing drawn to the GOP by Reagan to accept that the GOP is not a religious denomination. Its demand for doctrinal purity on a laundry list of social issues makes the party less representative than it needs to be to govern at the national level.
So far in the campaign, there’s reason to worry that Republicans don’t really have the inclusion thing down.
When the name of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge was floated as a potential vice-presidential candidate, he seemed an attractive pick. He comes from a key battleground state, has a sterling record as governor and is compatible with Bush’s reform agenda.
But he has a fatal flaw: He’s pro-choice.
Far-right members of the party threatened to disrupt the convention if a pro-choicer was selected for the ticket’s No. 2 spot. Alan Keyes, the ultra-conservative radio host who maintained a no-hope campaign for the nomination right up until last week, made noise about bolting the party unless Bush named a pro-life running mate. He almost certainly would have taken many with him.
Bush went with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a solid and safe choice who, like Ridge, offered experience and compatibility, but has flawless pro-life credentials.
Democrats are seizing on Cheney’s abortion record — as a congressman he voted against federal funding of abortion even in cases of rape and incest — to warn women away from the Republican ticket.
They’ll do the same with the party platform, which includes a reaffirmation that Republicans oppose all abortions, making no exception for rape or incest, and comes down firmly against any form of gun control.
Like the selection of Cheney, the platform will keep the right wing quiet. But it’s no way to reach out to the middle, where this election will be won or lost.
Inclusion can only come with tolerance. If Bush is serious about broadening the appeal of the Republican Party, he’ll have to recognize that most voters aren’t as rigid on abortion, gay rights and other social issues as the religious right has made the GOP. There has to be an opportunity for civil discussion of those issues, and perhaps even room for moderation of traditional hard-line views.
There’s no shame in moving Republicans closer to the middle. After all, that’s where the people — and the votes — are.
Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The News. His column is published on Sunday. Write letters to 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or send e-mail to letters@detnews.com
****************************************
Certainly makes clear why the Detroit News has become so mushy on gun control lately!
Here's my letter; Let's hit him with a torrent!
Dear Mr. Finley:
"The message from Philadelphia should be welcoming to those who support Republican fiscal principles, but may not sign on to the party’s inflexible views on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Bush needs to say you can be a Republican and support a woman’s right to choose an abortion; you can be a Republican and believe reasonable gun control measures don’t jeopardize the Second Amendment, and you can be a Republican and support gay rights."
While he's at it, Nolan, why shouldn't Bush say that you can be a Republican and support tax increases, deficit spending, and unfunded mandates? Why are the fiscal principles sacred, and the social principles just excess baggage? Why not the other way around? Let's face it, what you're really saying is that the GOP should dispose of those of it's principles which Nolan Finley either disagrees with, or has no interest in, and concentrate exclusively on advancing only those issues Nolan Finley cares about. Leaving open the question of how many present Republicans would chose to remain supporters of the Nolan Finley party...
There's a simple reason why Bush will not follow your advice, Mr. Finley, and it has precious little to do with whether Bush is a social conservative or not: He wants to win this election. And he knows, as you apparently do not, that you don't win elections by deliberately affronting your supporters. It's a lesson both his father and Senator Dole taught him.
Nolan, in a country with proportional representation, a party can be a success by concentrating ONLY on fiscal issues, or ONLY on social issues. In a first past the pole system such as we have in America, successful parties must be coalitions, including some people who care about fiscal matters, and some who care about the social. The Republican party is an alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives, to advance both their aims. When the party choses to stiff half of that alliance, it loses. If it does it often enough, it will disintegrate. An alliance which takes the labor of both of it's members to advance the interests of only one, will not endure. And thus in the end will advance the interests of none of it's elements!
To make this clearer, I'm a member of the NRA; So are about 4 million other people. Another 10 million are too cheap to pay the dues, but follow our endorsements. I don't give a flying fart whether I'm governed by Democrats or Republicans. (Given a free choice, it would be Libertarians, actually!) I do care whether or not my rights under the Second amendment are eroded any further. A Republican party which embraces gun control, is a Republican party which can try to win elections without my support. There's not a lot of evidence to suggest it will succeed. The same goes for the Right to Life movement, by the way; To it's members, the GOP is merely a tool to advance their cause, which will be abandoned if it ceases to do so. Why, I expect that even you, Nolan, would abandon the GOP without a backwards glance, were it to abandon any pretense of fiscal rectitude; Why expect others to be more forgiving where the issues THEY care about are concerned?
Brett Bellmore
8734 Burt Rd.
Capac, MI 48014
home (810)724-5924 bellmore@tir.com
work (810)798-3922-265 bbellmore@ligonbros.com
P.S. "Reasonable" gun control? Nolan, every conceivable law which prohibits actions with guns which actually harms, threatens, or endangers someone, is already illegal, and has been for ages. Leaving only laws which prohibit that which does NOT harm, threaten, or endanger anyone. Only somebody, like you, who doesn't regard the right to keep and bear arms as a "real", right, like freedom of the press, would think otherwise.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
