>>> Part 1 of 2...
-=> On 04-15-98  22:23, Robert Plett did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning Dufus' Waterloo? <=-
 
 RC> Nowhere in the platform you quoted are members of the party
 RC> required to ban/oppose those who disagree with the
 RC> platform.
 RP> It doesn't say such a thing anywhere on any issue whatever,
 RP> to my knowledge. If such a reason for refusal to deny
 RP> support is to be considered valid, then the Republican
 RP> platform is a meaningless document, and Republican
 RP> candidates can ignore any part or all of it with impunity
 RP> and still be assured of financial and other support from
 RP> the party organization.
So the social conservatives should expel the fiscal
conservatives, and vice versa? Why is it that single-issue
voters are more comfortable as ineffective minorities?
 RP> Sounds to me like it'd be smart for strapped-for-money
 RP> LIbEral DemonRats to simply switch party labels - they'd
 RP> get the support no matter what their stands on issues,
 RP> right? 
Works for me - their seats would be counted towards the
Republican majority and nothing requires that they be given
chairmanships or other positions of importance. 
 RP> Is there *any* stand on any issue whatever that in your
 RP> opinion would call for withholding funding and other
 RP> support from a Republcan candidate?
Any position advocating violation of the law. You ignore
the fact that the further left a Republican becomes, the
greater the number of primary opponents that will appear.
The process is self-correcting. 
 RP> If not, then what reason is there for supporting the
 RP> Republican party over another?
The sum total of its positions on a spectrum of issues.
 RP> If there is such an issue, then what is the rationale for
 RP> it that isn't equally valid for the issue of abortion/PBA? 
Single issue voters generally cut off their noses to spite
their face. It is the single issue voters who claimed in
1992: "Let them elect a liberal - after 4 years, they'll
see the error of their ways". 
Well, they didn't see the error of their ways - neither in
1992 or, again, in 1996. 
 RP> There's nothing in the platform requiring members to
 RP> ban/oppose those percieved as racists either, but there is
 RP> absolutely no hesitance whatever on the part of the party
 RP> to do so. What justification is there for opposing those
 RP> candidates, but not opposing pro-aborts? 
Racism happens to be illegal. Abortion, regretably, is not.
 RP> IMO, the reason is clear: the party leadership does not
 RP> actually oppose abortion, regardless its claims.
Gratutitous assertion. They don't see it as the single
predominant issue, nor should they. 
 RP> Those that say they are personally opposed to abortion, but
 RP> refuse to stand up against it, and even support pro-abort
 RP> candidates, are being no different than countless DemonRats
 RP> we've heard over the years who've consistently said exactly
 RP> the same thing. 
Only in the eyes of the single-issue voter. To deny any
difference between Christy Todd Whitman the incumbent she
defeated is to ignore the entire fiscally conservative
portion of the platform.
 RP> And, isn't it interesting that in that first paragraph up
 RP> there, the Republican party flatly says it "will not fund
 RP> organizations which advocate it (abortion)", yet they
 RP> exempt Republican campaign organizations? Guess the excuse
 RP> is that the latter doesn't use public funds? If they'll use
 RP> private funds to finance campaigns of pro-aborts, do you
 RP> really believe they'll be constrained from using public
 RP> funds to finance other organizations that advocate the
 RP> same? (Somehow, the National Endowment for the Arts comes
 RP> to mind.) And, why should any pro-lifer contribute one dime
 RP> to a party whose national committee has voted to use that
 RP> dime to finance campaigns of pro-aborts?  
It's amazing that single issue voters can look at the
evidence of 60 years of incrementalism by liberals, yet
deny the Republican party the use of the same technique. 
 RP> If the platform is something to be ignored, then the party
 RP> stands for nothing, and there is no reason to work for and
 RP> support it. Such separation from principle relegates the
 RP> conflict between Republicans and Democrats to nothing more
 RP> than a battle of party labels, no different in kind than
 RP> supporting one sports team over another. 
Where in the Constitution is a conflict required between
parties?  Granted, such is often the consequence of
differing philosophies and goals, but it's certainly not
required.
 RC>> Pardon me and that upstart "minority faction" for being so
 RC>> foolish as to insist the party hold itself and its
 RC>> 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.
 RP> Perhaps you can explain how it advances one's cause to
 RP> support, finance, encourage, and work to increase the
 RP> numbers of those who oppose said cause in one's own party. 
"said cause"? Are we again back to the single issue
mindset? Even the ACU doesn't rate legislators on the basis
of a single issue. 
I judge candidates on a broad range of issues - the
importance of which can vary with time and circumstance. 
 RP> Perhaps you can explain the benefit to conservatives of
 RP> Republican majority status when, on having achieved
 RP> majority, the party then increasingly behaves and
 RP> legislates more liberal than conservative. 
 >>> Continued to next message...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------