View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Reasonable Republicans need to take back their party

Posted: February 20, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 20, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

There are Republicans who believe in more limited government as well as supporting a woman’s right to choose.

There are Republicans who believe in more reasonable taxes and that liberty is not contingent on sexual preference.

There are Republicans who believe in a strong national defense but are uncomfortable with civilian access to military-style weapons.

They believe that those who disagree with them are not the enemy. They’re our friends and neighbors and the other parents at Little League games.

There are more of these politically orphaned Republicans than you’d think, and their dilemma is that no matter who they vote for, they’ll betray some strongly held belief — a dilemma sadly perpetuated by the Republican candidates running in the 25th Congressional District.

It’s hard to hear the message of limited government coming from Steve Knight and Tony Strickland, who’ve both had a government paycheck their entire adult lives.

And it seems somehow inappropriate for people whose families enjoy government-provided health insurance to be so adamant in preaching the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

But what comes through loud and clear is their support for “traditional families,” “pro-life” and unfettered access to weapons that fire 75 rounds in under 10 seconds.

We are losing our party — the party that stands in the way of government intrusion and seeks to protect our children from crushing debt. The party that values education, hard work and personal responsibility.

We are adding fuel to the fire of those who think Republicans are too extreme and intractable.

These “social” issues blur the true picture of our message. It’s time to take the party back and demand a more reasonable voice ... and as we do so, inspire others to do the same.

Can we find a reasonable Republican for the 25th Congressional District?

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:12 a.m.

If you dislike concentrated power why do you support The Corporation?

Under the guise of "protecting the children" you advocate letting overpaid A-list CEOs keep their symbolic billions? If "work" determined compensation, ag workers would be at the top of the pyramid; the harder you work the less money you make-that's what I have learned.

Ev Dirksen was a god in my grandmother's house; I was Youth for Goldwater in 1964. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. I am not repulsed by Republicans; I am tired of neoliberals and theocratic zealots.


chico: Posted: February 20, 2014 7:04 a.m.

We don't need 'reasonable' politicians - we need politicians who are 'resolute' - someone authentic enough to believe and express that their ideas are better.

'Reasonable' politicians are worthless and weak compared to 'resolute'.

If a politician doesn't believe their ideas are better - then they shouldn't be representing people.
-
I see phonies wailing about corporations and rich people all the time. But if your assertion is that corporations make people rich, then shouldn't you want everyone have a corporation?

Maybe it's not your goal, but I want the biggest number of rich people in America as possible.

So you want economic growth and prosperity?

Step right up and get your very own, brand spanking new corporation!


17trillion: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:34 a.m.

"and unfettered access to weapons that fire 75 rounds in under 10 seconds."


Spoken like someone who either doesn't own a gun or has no idea what the gun laws are in CA. Either way, clueless!


therightstuff: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:35 a.m.

This had to be written by a Democrat. The thing Democrats want the most is for Republicans to water down their values and get lost in the mushy middle. Can anyone name the last time a moderate Republican defeated a liberal Democrat for the White House?

Big tents are only for circus clowns. When Republicans stay true to their conservative values, they always win.


chefgirl358: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:42 a.m.

17, Yep agree with you completely.


philellis: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:46 a.m.

I am not sure what this concern for a reasonable Republican is all about. Does a reasonable Democrat even exist?


CastaicClay: Posted: February 20, 2014 11:05 a.m.

These pages are filled with them. Reasonable Democrats that is.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 12:34 p.m.

reasonable |ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl| adjective
1 (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible: no reasonable person could have objected.
• based on good sense: it seems a reasonable enough request | the guilt of a person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• archaic (of a person or animal) able to think, understand, or form judgments by a logical process: man is by nature reasonable.


philellis: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:19 p.m.

WIndy, for example?


JimmyStewart: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:31 p.m.

The problem is the "elites" in the Republican Party are ignoring the majority Tea Party types in the Republican Party. That's why we're losing. The "reasonable" Republicans got their candidate in Mitt Romney. Why didn't he win? Why did 2010 go so well if the Tea Party type conservatives were so bad. The Republican Party is dying because they are ignoring the majority base of the party. Pro-Choice is not the majority of the Republican Party. If that becomes a plank of the Republican Party the party will die.


JimmyStewart: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:46 p.m.

"But what comes through loud and clear is their support for “traditional families,” “pro-life” and unfettered access to weapons that fire 75 rounds in under 10 seconds." What's sad is comments like this by Randall imply that support for traditional families, babies to be born and access to guns guaranteed in the Constitution is somehow evil and uncaring. It couldn't be further from the truth. Those that support these values will not be controlling your lives like the current liberals in power. Freedom is what it is all about not what's best for the party, it's about what's best for our country!


AlwaysRight: Posted: February 20, 2014 2:28 p.m.

Anyone notice that philellis says more in 5 words than WIndy says in 500? Phil for congress!!!


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 4:41 p.m.

The Republican Establishment need to relinquish their advocacy for Big Government and corporate cronyism. Leave that to the opposition to expose their hypocrisy when positing they're the party of the "little guy".

Individual freedom and self-determination should be the focus.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 4:44 p.m.

Concur, AR. Philellis is always pithy.


therightstuff: Posted: February 20, 2014 5:57 p.m.

Castaic Clay: """These pages are filled with them. Reasonable Democrats that is."""

Hilarious how you had to clarify you were talking about Reasonable Democrats because no one else could have connected those dots.

Dare I ask for examples? That should be easy even for someone like you CC if these pages are "filled" with them.


SingleMomOfOne: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:01 p.m.

"Reasonable" and "democrat" do not even belong in the same sentence...

Feel free to opine...


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:52 p.m.

Democrats boast about diversity but unless you are pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-tax, and pro-government, you'll never get ahead in that sick party. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would have considered John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King as 'extremists' because of their values. It's truly disgraceful what passes for "reasonable" in a party that votes to remove God from their platform.

Let's see if Castaic Clay can give us some examples or if it's just another far-left 'hit and run' cheap shot.


ricketzz: Posted: February 21, 2014 6:54 a.m.

I like much of what is lumped in with the alleged T-Party. I liked it before 2009. I have supported most of what Ron Paul has consistently advocated since before the Libertarian Party was founded. Small L libertarian by birth.

I do not want anything to do with any party who thinks Conservative means telling other people how to live and how to use our naughty bits. Conservative also doesn't mean using federal assets to enable corporations. Nothing conservative about letting banks skid on criminal charges because their CEOs play golf with the President, for example. Nothing conservative about picking sides in ancient religious beefs, either.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 21, 2014 7:07 a.m.

Ricketzz, I actually agree with most of what you wrote in those two paragraphs.

Why does it not comport with most of what you write at other times?


CastaicClay: Posted: February 21, 2014 11:33 a.m.

just another far-left 'hit and run' cheap shot.? How so?


dogismycopilot: Posted: February 21, 2014 11:44 a.m.

You're certainly not suggesting that reason is a bad thing for a politician to have. Nor are you suggesting that reason and resoluteness negate each other. Also, nowhere in Randall's letter does he make mention of corporations. The Tea Party is the wing that is bringing the Republican Party down. People like Mr. Greenwald can be the best thing to happen for Republicans.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 12:34 p.m.

CC: """just another far-left 'hit and run' cheap shot.? How so?"""

Since you obviously didn't read my entire post before responding, allow me to post if for you a second time:

"Let's see if Castaic Clay can give us some examples or if it's just another far-left 'hit and run' cheap shot."

pssst....when you read the full comment before responding, it's less embarrassing.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 12:38 p.m.

"""The Tea Party is the wing that is bringing the Republican Party down."""

The Tea Party fired Nancy Pelosi, gave Republicans control of the House, and delivered what Obama called a "shellacking". 2010 was one of the biggest political victories any party ever enjoyed in history - thanks to the Tea Party.

Ask your dog how this is "bringing the Republican Party down".


CastaicClay: Posted: February 21, 2014 1:29 p.m.

By not giving you an example it is a cheap shot? I do not see it that way.


philellis: Posted: February 21, 2014 2:15 p.m.

AR and Tech - thanks.


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 5:31 p.m.

LTE Writer: These “social” issues blur the true picture of our message. It’s time to take the party back and demand a more reasonable voice ... and as we do so, inspire others to do the same.

Indy: As you can see from the remarks of the local conservatives here, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you.

But let me comment on one statement you made: “We are losing our party — the party that stands in the way of government intrusion and seeks to protect our children from crushing debt. The party that values education, hard work and personal responsibility.”

From what I see with the intrusions against women’s rights and the efforts toward voter suppression, I’m not sure what your party stood for in the first place.

The debt that you’re referring to has come at the hands of republicans that can’t understand that tax rates don’t increase economic activity. Taxes are there to provide public services. And the last three republican presidents, added significant amounts of deficits that ran up the national debt. Only now that we entered a deep recession requiring additional government spending to keep from going into a full blown depression, do conservatives get worked up over the issue.

As far as valuing education, republicans continue to fight against proper funding for same.

And ‘hard work’? That’s not a republican’s concept since all Americans for the most part want to work. Sadly today, republicans use this ‘ideology’ position to brutalize the long term unemployed, people on food stamps, and now fighting against trying to square up the ‘minimum wage’ with inflation.

And personal responsibility means to me at least that you act on reality not ‘focus group tested’ slogans derived from ideology positions that have shown not to work.

So while I feel your intentions are good, the reality is that your party is controlled by extremist that seek no compromise and will distort the political discourse for all of us. Just turn on Fox . . .


projalice11: Posted: February 21, 2014 7:48 p.m.

YEA FOR INDY...


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 8:18 p.m.

CC: """By not giving you an example it is a cheap shot? I do not see it that way."""

Then please enlighten us on some of the 'reasonable Democrats' that fill these pages. Why is it so hard to get a direct answer from you guys on the far-left?


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 8:28 p.m.

Indy: """The debt that you’re referring to has come at the hands of republicans"""

The national debt increased by $5-trillion after EIGHT years of Bush.

The national debt increased by $7-trillion after FIVE years of Obama.

All of your Fox News Derangement Syndrome cannot change these numbers and they're only getting worse under your hapless leader. As always, only the crazy BINGO lady is swallowing your hogwash, Indy.


ricketzz: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:06 a.m.

At least 2 trillion of Obama's debt was Irakistan "off the books" expenditures made during the previous administration. Don't blame Obama, blame Halliburton.


therightstuff: Posted: February 22, 2014 7:56 a.m.

A fair treatment of how much each U.S. President added to the national debt can be found at http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

Bush indeed added $5.849 trillion to our national debt during his eight years as president which was terrible. As of October of 2013, a total of $5.081 trillion has been added by Obama. Keep in mind, that's after only five years.

I know that Obama zealots irresponsibly try to blame everything on Republicans but once again, the facts blow their partisan ideology out of the water.


dogismycopilot: Posted: February 22, 2014 11:18 a.m.

Studies that simply give us numbers do not show us what's between the lines. Obama's predecessor took us into two wars without raising taxes. You know what it takes to clean up a mess like that? The Democrats are looking at this District now. The race is wide open. Let's hope a more moderate Republican runs.


therightstuff: Posted: February 22, 2014 12:13 p.m.

The national debt stands at $17.3-trillion and growing. It was about $10-trillion when Obama took office. The study I sited assigned $5,081-trillion to Obama. So even if you still account for two wars, no taxes, etc., we have still seen over $1-trillion of NEW debt added for each year of the Obama administration.

Moderate Republicans lose when they try to run against a Democrat as a Democrat-lite. When they stay true to their values, they win.


dogismycopilot: Posted: February 22, 2014 1:15 p.m.

Our country, right now, leans Democrat. A moderate Republican could actually garner votes from Democrats as well. I don't see Republicans who stick to their "values" (many of which are exclusive) winning. Those who do are viewed as being insane. They infect the entire party. In this district, the Republican candidate will likely win. Voters, very rarely, actually look at what a candidate's views are. They'll just vote for the Republican. I would love to have a choice who isn't extreme. Many people in our district feel the same way. They just don't have anyone for whom to vote.The rhetoric of extreme Republicans contains a lot of hateful talk. Some one who operates with "reason" would simply be a better choice.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 22, 2014 3:49 p.m.

Hey Teahugger, if you're still around....remember what I said about Indy when he sees the phrase, "hard work"? Like clockwork.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 5:35 p.m.

The rhetoric of extreme Republicans contains a lot of hateful talk."

Please define "extreme Republicans" and provide a specific example to discuss.


therightstuff: Posted: February 22, 2014 8:11 p.m.

Dog, I would also respectfully request you offer examples of "reason" and the "hateful talk". For Democrats, anything that differs from their position is considered "extreme" or "hateful". This is how they try to shame their opponents into silence when they can't debate the issues from a factual perspective.

I would also ask for your source that our country is leaning Democrat. 29 states have GOP Governors. The GOP controls 27 state legislatures while Democrats control only 17. (Six states are evenly split). This includes the state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida.

The mainstream media and far-left rags like MSNBC would have you believe America is leaning Democrat but this doesn't match the facts.


therightstuff: Posted: February 22, 2014 8:14 p.m.

Also remember that over 93-million registered voters didn't vote for either candidate in the last presidential election. After a billion dollar campaign, the power of the incumbency with no primary, a media in his back pocket, and running against a flawed candidate, Obama won 50.6% of what was left.


stevehw: Posted: February 24, 2014 9:36 p.m.

Correction...he won 50.6% of what *mattered*: the ones who voted. How many people *didn't* vote is irrelevant.


dogismycopilot: Posted: February 24, 2014 9:46 p.m.

Yes--the fact of the matter is that Obama won. I prefer not bringing up YouTube videos of claims regarding a woman's reproductive system shutting down when "legitimately" raped, nullifying her ability to become pregnant. How about some one being labeled "slut" when asking for birth control coverage ( she was considered to be asking for payment to have sex). I need not continue.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 10:55 p.m.

93,000,000 registered voters staying home is irrelevant? Your alternative view of reality is always entertaining, Steve.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 10:59 p.m.

Dog, the two examples you gave were roundly condemned by the Republican Party. Why do you take those extreme examples and try to tie them into mainstream conservatism?

And I'd still like to know your source for American leaning Democrat in light of the majority of state legislatures and governors are Republican.


OldReliable: Posted: February 24, 2014 7:41 a.m.

The GOP has drifted towards the center; we need more conservative candidates such as Ted Cruz.


17trillion: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:25 a.m.

A woman attending graduate school at a private religious college who is paying $50,000.00 or more per year and wants her college to pay for her birth control because she can't afford the quarter is costs for a rubber, IS a slut! If not a slut, a retard at the very least. "Oh look at me, I need someone to pay for my condoms or birth control pills because I'm just so pathetic and lame that I can't figure out how to do it myself".


TO: Posted: February 24, 2014 12:25 p.m.

So the writer is asking the Republican party to be more reasonable by alienating people who don't all think the same? If they all thought the same, then they'd be Democrats.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 1:03 p.m.

TO che!


technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 2:51 p.m.

"I need not continue."

Actually, you do, dog. Are you suggesting the exceptions you cited are to be extrapolated over the entire population of Republicans?


TeaHugger: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:51 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Hey Teahugger, if you're still around....remember what I said about Indy when he sees the phrase, "hard work"? Like clockwork.

TeaHugger: Nice call! It's like Pavlov's dogs!


TeaHugger: Posted: February 24, 2014 4:05 p.m.

It's funny how liberals always frame the argument about "extreme" republicans (who actually hold views that were considered mainstream for most of the history of this republic). When you look at the current positions of most democrats, I would argue that most of their closely held beliefs would be considered extreme even by fellow democrats of the Kennedy era.


ricketzz: Posted: February 25, 2014 6:28 a.m.

TeaHugger, can you give us examples? Thanks.


TeaHugger: Posted: February 25, 2014 7:35 a.m.

I'd be happy to, ricketzz. Two quick ones that come to mind are abortion and the redefinition of marriage.


therightstuff: Posted: February 25, 2014 7:52 a.m.

Teahugger, if a conservative disagrees with a liberal, it's because they think they're wrong. If a liberal disagrees with a conservative, it's because they think they're evil.

Terms such as "hater" or "bigot" or "extremist" are meant to be debate stoppers. The left use these terms all the time when they have nothing to stand on for their arguments.


TeaHugger: Posted: February 25, 2014 12:40 p.m.

Ricketzz, wouldn't even you agree that democrats have become more extreme over the last couple of decades? I just gave two examples of how. Could you give me two comparable examples of how republicans have become more extreme during that same time period? It seems to me that they have been trying to protect the status quo more than making radical changes.


TeaHugger: Posted: February 26, 2014 3:46 p.m.

All I am hearing is crickets from ricketzz.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...