Blogs

May 5th, 2009

Purity in the Party

More articles by »
Written by: Constitution Daily
Tags: , , ,

elephantsfightingsmallAlmost every issue on this site is currently being turned into the “are you a pure conservative or not” argument. If you read carefully, most of us agree with every issue being floated out there. So where is the disagreement coming from? Unfortunately, it is coming from our individual candidate preferences – the people we would be willing to vote for in 2010. I know this is often the underlying point of Deace’s show and I imagine much of this is coming from his three hours every night, but I find it a very interesting topic and one that needs a clear and defined end result.

It took me quite a while to come to my conclusion. I always find it best to go through the entire issue before answering the original question. So I’ll float some out there.

Q: What is the first vote a legislator makes?

A: Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,  Majority or Minority Leader

Q: What impact does being a minority or majority have on policy?

A: The majority party controls the issues debated in session. The majority party also enjoys the benefit of having their party members as committee chairs.

Q: If the Democrats have control of the committees and house as a whole, what issues are most likely to be brought up?

A: Increasing taxes, increasing spending, gay privileges, anti-life legislation, anti-gun legislation…the list goes on.

Q: If the Republicans have control of the committees and house as a whole, what issues are most likely to be brought up?

A: Obviously the opposite.

Q: If you choose not to vote for or support a moderate Republican who doesn’t align with you or the platform to your pleasing, what impact will that have on what policies will be brought up and/or passed in the legislature?

A: There is a better chance Democrats will either retain or regain control and push a liberal agenda the policies the candidate you refused to support and your own values directly oppose.

Q: If you choose to not vote for or support a Republican in a general election who doesn’t match up with you or the platform to your liking, are you going to be closer or further away from protecting the unborn, traditional marriage, personal freedoms and liberty, etc.?

A: Obviously further away from all of the planks in the Republican Platform.

Let’s take the McCain candidacy for the best and most recent example. He’s been wrong on so many fronts it was very hard for conservatives to rally behind him. Now that Obama has had over 100 days in office, my vote for McCain is justified at least 100 times. Obama has taken this country down the road of, if not socialism, at least radical liberalism. Sure McCain would not have been perfect but we most likely will never get this country back on track.

Let’s also look at the Iowa legislature. Sure would have been nice to have the majorities this session, huh? We would have been able to get a vote on marriage, block the spending program of Culver, and also put a ton of heat on Culver to almost guarantee a gubernatorial win in 2010.

After reading my posts, many of you can tell I’m very conservative. But I’m also a realist. Can we gain majorities by only supporting those Deace and company support?

I’m betting that question will get skipped over in the comments because those who are on his side on this won’t be able to answer yes. And that question takes their purity argument away. If my vote for McCain only keeps 10 babies from being murdered in the form of abortion, but me not voting at all or supporting a third party allows Obama to be the next president killing 11 babies, I’ll vote for McCain every time. And I’ll do it with a clear conscience.

I know the Deace crowd is looking to advancing their religious cause. And they believe we need to purge the party of those who don’t pass their test. This recent marriage issue is the best example to use. Paul McKinley, Kraig Paulsen, Steve King, Mike Huckabee, and others were all beat up on by Deace and company. All of these fine men are opposed to gay marriage and the three in Iowa are working their tails off against the marriage ruling. They got beat up anyway. What does our party look like without the likes of McKinley, Paulsen, or King?

We do need to have that fight but it has its own time and place. Primary campaigns are the means for those battles and not on 50,000 watts after the fact. If our gubernatorial race is between Vander Plaats and Doug Gross, you betcha I’ll be writing why we should vote for the conservative because of x, y, and z. But on the day after the primary, I’ll support our nominee because if I don’t, we will have a better chance of re-electing Culver and ensuring more spending, more taxes, more labor bills, more gay privileges, etc.

Deace and company will not. They will continue to try to undermine and potentially destroy the so-called moderate – knowingly making it easier for the Democrats to win. How are their motives purer than mine? Their actions will move our government to the left on every political and religious issue. I would say their actions after primary day are the opposite of righteous and only advance the cause of who they say they oppose.

With this most recent issue of gay marriage, did their words or actions help or hurt our chances of protecting traditional marriage in Iowa? Did they prevent one gay marriage from occurring in Iowa? Did they build a strong coalition able to work together in future months to turn this state back around? What did they do then? The lasting impression I’m getting is that they divided our party into two groups: Bill Salier, Steve Deace, IFPC, and a few others, and the rest of us.

I do realize the risks of voting for a McCain or other moderate candidates in the general election. I know we often have major troubles with these folks. Arlen Specter would be the most recent and probably the worst example for my argument and I’m not going to defend him. But, he isn’t a Republican. And once so called Republicans get as bad as him, they can leave the party anytime.

The problem is, when you push moderates out, you can’t gain the majorities to pursue a conservative agenda. Sure you won’t end up getting everything you want but at least you get something. What did the Iowa legislature pass this year that Republicans can be proud of? And, yes, I know there is a fine line between becoming a moderate party and becoming a party with a few moderates. But there is a big difference and not everything is as black and white as some have described.

So back to the original question. Who are you willing to vote for? Would Ganske be better than Harkin? Would Miller-Meeks be better than Loebsack? Would McCain have signed the Mexico City Policy executive order?

I’ll reiterate my point and this is where it is very black and white for me. If I can put a stalemate on or decrease abortions by voting for a moderate, I’ll smile and fill in the oval. Of course if I can save 1,000 babies by voting for a conservative, I’ll smile while walking precincts for him or her.


About the Author

Constitution Daily
An Iowa based blog with the purpose of giving incentive to those actively engaged in conservative causes. Content will include Iowa and national issues ranging from politics to everyday society, but in every case you will know where Constitution Daily stands. Please feel free to contact me anytime at constitutiondaily@gmail.com.




blog comments powered by Disqus