Questions for Poly Republicans

[Ned]

BTW, I think that Giuliani, Schwarzennegger and McCain are all Catholics.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ned
I think Guiliani, Schwarzennegger or McCain could win a national election if nominated. The RR may stay at home, but many Dems and independents would cast their votes for these popular figures. The problem, as everyone notes here, is for these folks to capture the nomination itself with the RR voting in block for a social conservative. Even though Jeb denies any intention of running for pres., what he has done in this Schiavo case had endeared him to the RR.

Also, as noted by Pat Robertson, Bush I lost the election to Clinton primarily because he downplayed the social issues and caused the RR to stay at home. So even though I think Guiliani, et al., could win without their support, there is no recent record to support this notion and it may in fact not be true.

Depends who the dems nominate, I'm sure the McCain could've destroyed Gore or Kerry in a general election.

[Mr. Harley]

McCain

[Jaguar]

Re: Questions for Poly Republicans

Originally posted by Guynemer
The vast majority of you are what the media would define as "moderate" Republicans. Meaning, you are not members of the Religious Right that appears to have taken control of the GOP, and appears to be ever stronger, with RR-driven issues such as Schiavo, Intelligent Design, and homosexuality dominating the headlines.

So, I just want to ask...

...to what extent do you feel that the RR controls the GOP?

Barely any. Republicans go right-wing on issues that will make the RR vote in force for them, but they do surprisingly little to actually push the RR agenda. Remember that Gay Marriage amendment they hyped up before the election? That sure went far, didn't it?

...does the RR dominate only on the news, while old-school GOPers hold the true power?

Yes.

I think that makes most of your other questions irrelevant. We get a lot of votes from religious people across the nation, and that's why we win, but we aren't really doing that much on the RR's favorite social issues. We just talk about them a lot to get support.

Our real agendas are same as always. Kill social programs, invade countries, all that evil stuff.

[Mr. Harley]

Unfortunately the Republcan judicial nominees are a tad different (i.e. social conservatives who agree to a large degree with the RR) - and much more lasting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Now that Ashcroft is out, are there any members of the RR in Bush's cabinet or inner circle?

You mean besides Bush?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Odin, I saw the movie "Luther" a couple of days ago. Clearly he was a remarkable man and a great cleric. The middle ages were a time dominated by a very corrupt Catholic hierarchy. It is a wonder that the religion survived at all.

He was also a ferocious anti-Semite.

It's not really any wonder Catholocism survived. Faith puts up with a lot of abuse. As well, from a materialist standpoint, it was in the interests of royalty to promote a religion that was hierarchical, rather than the more communal protestantism. Lutheranism, despite Luther's best efforts, was extremely communistic at first, and within a few years, peasants across Europe were raising their pitchforks and burning the castles of the nobles. In Northern Europe, the Aristocracy used it as a way to break away from the power of the HRE. Supposedly, the Hapsburg Emperor who started the Thirty-Years War was a closeted Protestant, but as his power rested on Catholic nobility and the authority of the Pope, he had little choice.

[TCO]

I'm pretty much with Cruise Missile, Guy. I'm a very hard core republican but more towards the libertarian slant. I don't really mind the bible-beaters. I think the danger from them is overplayed and if anything the culture continues to get more permissive as it has for last 200 years.

[Capt Dizle]

Q: To what extent do you feel that the RR controls the GOP?

A: First of all, while I consider myself a conservative, I can answer these questions as a moderate because my positions are certainly far to the left of the extreme right.

It is clear that the RR has an enormous influence over the GOP. I would say dominant at this time, but see my response to the next question.

Q: does the RR dominate only on the news, while old-school GOPers hold the true power?

True power cannot be held. Offices can be held. One party or another can control branches of government, but power is based on the people’s perception and the news plays a very large role in public perception. Power in a democracy fluctuates daily but the swing of the pendulum of power between left and right occurs over long periods of time and the RR is the single most influential engine in our current national journey into the far right.

Power in a democracy is obtained by shaping public perception. Since the RR is at this present time unmatched at propaganda, they wield more power than any other GOP faction. As mentioned here earlier, the RR has the ability to control primaries and off year elections. The majority of our members of Congress quake in their boots at the mere scent of RR operatives in their home districts; others are straightforward RR pawns.

With both Congress and the White House being controlled by the GOP, the judiciary is being stacked with right-wingers and this will have an enormous impact in the future. Plainly, the RR has influence over the nomination and confirmation of Federal judges at this time.

Moderate positions can never influence the swing of the pendulum. Representative democracies do not work in that fashion.

Q: Is this simply a regional phenomenon?

A: It’s not really a phenomenon. While the RR is obviously stronger in certain regions, make no mistake, it is a national force. No other political faction can rival it in terms of national influence.

Q: Are you concerned that the RR will eventually take true control of the party?

A: Well, duh. Maybe they already have, as much as it is possible.

Q: What will be the ultimate consequences of RR control, both for you as a moderate and for the party as a whole?

Well, eventually the party will be pulled too far to the right and it will fracture. The pendulum will start its inevitable swing back to the left, probably right about the time a Supreme Court tilted 5-4 by oh, about 3 new Bush appointees, repeals Roe v. Wade and thrusts us into another decade of social upheaval. As a nation, we may rush at warp speed past any hope of moderation and crash into the idiocy of the far left again. Oh, God I hope not.

Less severe consequences if somehow O’Connor, Stevens and Ginsberg hold out till after a more moderate president replaces Bush. Oh, God I hope so.

Q: What will be the consequences for the nation?

A: See above.

Q: What must be done to diminish the influence of the RR?

A: Nothing can be done, or rather, needs to be done. The influence of the RR will diminish naturally as a result of its success. The majority of Americans will shrink away from the true goals of the RR when they come into focus. Extremists will always a disproportionate influence on our government but will never be able to maintain power. The pendulum will swing. The only question is how much damage it will do to us in the process.

Q: Should the RR's influence be diminished?

A: Duh. But let me add that after things swing back to the left again the RR will be essential in getting us out of liberal hell. So, we need them.

Q: Is the rise of the RR simply reflective of changing societal views?

A: The rise of the RR was reflexive to the change in societal views that occurred post WWII. Its inevitable decline will be reflexive to its extremity.

[Guynemer]

A sincere thanks to all who have answered my questions.