On 04-14-98, ROBERT CRAFT declared to ROBERT PLETT:
RC> RP> From the '96 Republican platform:
RC> RP> The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life
RC> RP> which cannot be infringed. We support a human life
RC> RP> amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to
RC> RP> make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections
RC> RP> apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have
RC> RP> legislative and judicial protection of that right against
RC> RP> those who perform abortions. We oppose using public
RC> RP> revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which
RC> RP> advocate it.

RC>Nowhere in the platform you quoted are members of the party
RC>required to ban/oppose those who disagree with the
RC>platform.
It doesn't say such a thing anywhere on any issue whatever, to my
knowledge.  If such a reason for refusal to deny support is to be
considered valid, then the Republican platform is a meaningless
document, and Republican candidates can ignore any part or all of it
with impunity and still be assured of financial and other support from
the party organization.  Sounds to me like it'd be smart for
strapped-for-money LIbEral DemonRats to simply switch party labels -
they'd get the support no matter what their stands on issues, right?
Is there *any* stand on any issue whatever that in your opinion would
call for withholding funding and other support from a Republcan
candidate?  If not, then what reason is there for supporting the
Republican party over another?  If there is such an issue, then what is
the rationale for it that isn't equally valid for the issue of
abortion/PBA?
There's nothing in the platform requiring members to ban/oppose those
percieved as racists either, but there is absolutely no hesitance
whatever on the part of the party to do so.  What justification is there
for opposing those candidates, but not opposing pro-aborts?  IMO, the
reason is clear: the party leadership does not actually oppose abortion,
regardless its claims.  Those that say they are personally opposed to
abortion, but refuse to stand up against it, and even support pro-abort
candidates, are being no different than countless DemonRats we've heard
over the years who've consistently said exactly the same thing.
And, isn't it interesting that in that first paragraph up there, the
Republican party flatly says it "will not fund organizations which
advocate it (abortion)", yet they exempt Republican campaign
organizations?  Guess the excuse is that the latter doesn't use public
funds?  If they'll use private funds to finance campaigns of pro-aborts,
do you really believe they'll be constrained from using public funds to
finance other organizations that advocate the same?  (Somehow, the
National Endowment for the Arts comes to mind.)  And, why should any
pro-lifer contribute one dime to a party whose national committee has
voted to use that dime to finance campaigns of pro-aborts?
If the platform is something to be ignored, then the party stands for
nothing, and there is no reason to work for and support it.  Such
separation from principle relegates the conflict between Republicans and
Democrats to nothing more than a battle of party labels, no different in
kind than supporting one sports team over another.
RC> RP> Pardon me and that upstart "minority faction" for being so
RC> RP> foolish as to insist the party hold itself and its
RC> RP> candidates to the principles it claims it stands for.
RC>Long ago, I found that self-inflicted wounds are generally
RC>poor tactics, not to mention strategy. Yes, we can expel
RC>all those who won't take a loyalty oath - we can also
RC>surrender majority status and sit on the sidelines,
RC>watching the liberals do as they will.
Perhaps you can explain how it advances one's cause to support, finance,
encourage, and work to increase the numbers of those who oppose said
cause in one's own party.
Perhaps you can explain the benefit to conservatives of Republican
majority status when, on having achieved majority, the party
then increasingly behaves and legislates more liberal than conservative.
Conservatives do not have majority status now, and still are sitting on
the sidelines, watching the liberals do as they will.
RC>If Republicans are to be a majority party and make any
RC>progress in national politics then there is going to have
RC>to be give-and-take between social conservatives, fiscal
RC>conservatives and mainstream Republicans.
Social conservatives, without whom the Republican party would not *be*
the majority party, bought that line and put forth tremendous effort
over a period of a couple of decades.  Their reward has been the backing
away on the part of the party from those things that constituency holds
most dear.  The track record is clear: for social conservatives, that
strategy is a losing one.
RC>Much as you dislike the fact, a fiscally conservative,
RC>pro-abortion governor is preferrable to a fiscally liberal,
RC>pro-abortion governor.
How can Republicans be trusted to be fiscally conservative when firm
statements of principle on other issues are blatantly violated?  My
observation is that when someone abandons as fundamental a principle as
the "fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed",
they'll also abandon any other principle, be it fiscal, social, or a
fundamental Constitutional one, like the right to keep and bear arms.
It was the Republican leadership that attempted (unsuccessfully) to
bribe Oklahoma congresscritters, Largent and Coburn, with tens of
millions of dollars for each of their districts, to spend on whatever
they wanted, in order to obtain their support for busting agreed upon
budget caps by some 26 billion dollars with the highway bill.  (Both
Largent and Coburn rightly called it corruption.  Unfortunately, Watts
and the rest took the bribe.)  It is Republicans, like John McCain,
pushing to raise taxes on smokers by some $1000/year, "for the
children", with the Republican leadership's blessing, and no, I don't
believe those taxes will be offset by tax cuts elswhere. (That's only
one item on the list against McCain - try asking Doc how he feels these
days about all the personal time, effort, and money he invested in
behalf of "conservative Republican" McCain's campaign.  McCain is only
one of far too many incumbent Republicans who have disappointed just as
badly.)  In any case, it's Republicans engaging in politically correct
social engineering and grabbing for the money from taxpayers' pockets.
The list goes on.
Why should anyone trust anything a party says when that party eagerly
violates key elements of its own platform and generally abandons the
principles and philosophy that gave it the majority in the first place?
I would love to see the Republican party turned around, but so long as
it's not only defended but actually rewarded when it acts and legislates
like its opposition, I see precious little hope of that happening.
Instead, I'm increasingly convinced we are watching the Republican party
willingly take over, without effective internal hindrance, as liberal
standard bearers in place of the more radically liberal DemonRats.  As
has been said, both parties will lead this country toward leaping off
the same cliff, it's just that with the one, the pace is a running one,
and with the other, it's a walk.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * Republican party: the former home of Conservatism.
---------------