Gov. Crist: GOP Should Embrace Reagan Roots

[Desertdog]

Gov. Crist: GOP Should Embrace Reagan Roots

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:11 PM

By: Tim Collie  Article Font Size   
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/crist_reagan_governors/2008/11/12/150469.html?s=al&promo_code=711A-1



Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said Wednesday that the Republican Party must reach out to minority voters, and tackle emerging issues like the environment and global warming, but remain true to its Reagan roots of lower taxes and lean government regulation.

And that's exactly the model he uses to govern in Florida, said Crist, who is considered on most short lists of rising stars in the Republican Party. Hosting a two-day conference of Republican governors in Miami, Crist told Newsmax Wednesday morning that party leaders should preach moderation as the first step in rebuilding the Republican brand. He frequently referred to Ronald Reagan's two landslide presidential victories that won over traditional, conservative-leaning Democrats in the 1980s.

"I think the first thing we have to do is rally behind the president-elect — that’s my view of it,'' Crist said. "As a Republican, I think governors can do the right thing by working together and being bipartisan. That's what we do here in Florida, and that's the formula for success.

"At the end of the day people want you to solve problems, to govern."

The event in Miami this week is likely to provide a glimpse of the intra-party debate that some observers say will last for at least several years. The struggle probably will pit moderates like Crist against more conservative candidates who want to emphasize traditional social issues like opposition to abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights.

“We can’t be obsessed with issues that are not the issues that are important to American voters,” Jim Greer, the Florida Republican chairman and a likely candidate for national party leader, told The New York Times this week.

Asked whether that means reaching out to less-conservative voters, Crist replied: "I think we need to reach out to more people period. We need to reach Hispanics, other minorities on issues important to them. I think it is important that we maintain the principles that the party stands for: a strong national defense, lower taxes, but also broadening those by talking about protecting our environment, and by reaching across the aisle and being bipartisan whenever we can."

The party must take a "broad" view even on abortion, a non-negotiable issue for the party's social conservatives, Crist said.

"There's different ways to approach it (abortion), different ways to communicate, different ways to utilize — I think Ronald Reagan had the right formula for doing that."

Crist, who was criticized in some quarters for not campaigning hard enough for John McCain in Florida, blamed the national economy, not the candidate, for McCain's loss of the state’s crucial 27 electoral votes to Barack Obama.

Crist strongly suggested he will run for reelection in 2010. The well-known Florida Republican guru J.M. ''Mac'' Stipanovich told The Miami Herald that Crist will beat any Democrat ``like a rented mule.''

"I think he ran a great campaign, but i think you have to recognize it was a tough time,'' Crist said of McCain.

"Campaigning in this economy, following this administration, it was just a very tough sell." He dodged the question of his own aspirations for 2012, which nearly every reporter asked him about.

“It's a new day, there's no doubt about it. We need to refocus and reenergize and get ready for the future."
 

[lone_gunman]

Crist is stating the obvious.

What he fails to mention, however, is that after 8 grueling years of Bush, never ending war, "strategery", Harriet Myers, torture, and an economy in the crapper, not even Reagan resurrected would have beaten Obama.   It was just a bad time to be a Republican.  Same position Gore was in during the 2000 campaign, except a thousand times worse.

[longeyes]

As long as he thinks demographically--reach out to "minorities"--he's just another unprincipled Democrat in Republican drag.  The core message ought to be individual liberty, and from that the rest follows.

[Matthew Carberry]

It seems like the Republicans have an easy, limited government based, "out" on abortion that I cannot see why they didn't take advantage of years ago.

The "right to an abortion" is now settled law on the federal level, pretty much it is going to take a constitutional amendment to change that and that just won't happen regardless of any one, or a dozen, election.

Make that clear whenever asked.

Similarly, when asked about judges, simply say you do not use litmus tests on particular issues but rather would appoint judges and justices who will apply a primarily originalist interpretation.

So, when asked about your position on abortion, in consistency with both the Constitution and standing conservative theory, simply say that:

"I personally believe "X,Y,Z" but Constitutionally neither I nor my opponent as (Senator, Congressman, President) can unilaterally change current law.  Therefore, I believe the details of how to work within the current law should be left to the States to determine, based on their citizen's beliefs."

note emphasis used

"But candidate so-and-so, would you overturn Roe if you could?"

"Now (use reporter's first name), you know as well as I do the law doesn't work that way, I
I couldn't overturn Roe by myself even if I wanted to.  My personal preference really doesn't matter in the big picture, only that I abide by the rule of law and the Constitution."


There, you just honestly spoke your beliefs, acknowledged reality and utterly defanged the issue so a pro-abortion Dem cannot rationally use it against you.

[Matthew Carberry]

I only bring that up because it is a hot button issue that the Republican party can't seem to get a handle on and that constantly leaves them open to charges of "extremism" and such.

By saying, wait a minute, we are for state's rights, and making that our position, they can sidestep the issue.

Drug law should be the same in broad ways.  Eliminate a wedge the Dems exploit with both hippies AND the more libertarian right and left.

Make a big, and perfectly honest deal, about why the Fed, once basic rights are assured, should stay out of people's lives on "personal issues" and let the state determine how "socially conservative" they want to be in practice.

[GigaBuist]

The "right to an abortion" is now settled law on the federal level, pretty much it is going to take a constitutional amendment to change that and that just won't happen regardless of any one, or a dozen, election.

Make that clear whenever asked.

I don't think there are many votes to be gained that way. The anti-abortion folks won't vote for a damned drain commissioner if they don't promise to end abortion.

[Matthew Carberry]

As long as they don't vote against the candidate it should be enough.  Time for reality to raise its ugly head.

What's more important is to let the ambivilent know that there is no real threat to the basic concept so they won't believe the left when they say that Conservatives are going to put women back in bondage.

[Desertdog]

The "right to an abortion" is now settled law on the federal level, pretty much it is going to take a constitutional amendment to change that and that just won't happen regardless of any one, or a dozen, election.

Actually this is a five to four ruling by the Supremes that is obayed as law.

[longeyes]

What's more important is to let the ambivilent know that there is no real threat to the basic concept so they won't believe the left when they say that Conservatives are going to put women back in bondage.

Well, if the "emancipation" of women means no babies, you can kiss your culture goodbye--and that is what we are doing, just as they are doing in Europe.  Maybe someone needs to spell this out for the liberals.

[French G.]

We're not fighting the liberals on abortion, the republican party is eating its best and brightest young when they don't meet the abortion litmus test.

Carebear, that is the perfect position on abortion. I abhor it, but to me it is not a federal political issue and it is killing any chance at conservatism ever succeeding.

[Matthew Carberry]

We're not fighting the liberals on abortion, the republican party is eating its best and brightest young when they don't meet the abortion litmus test.

Carebear, that is the perfect position on abortion. I abhor it, but to me it is not a federal political issue and it is killing any chance at conservatism ever succeeding.

Yep, we are letting a subset of the Party dictate policy on a topic that contravenes the proper place of the federal government.  It is contradictory for a conservative Constitutionalist to say the Feds have any place at the table.

Homicide is a state matter, abortion falls under homicide (taking of a human life) and the issue should have been left with the states to determine how best to address it at law.  That experiment was well under way when the topic was untimely ripped from the womb of the Federal system just so Warren could make a social gesture.

[Matthew Carberry]

Actually this is a five to four ruling by the Supremes that is obayed as law.

So is Heller.

Roe is, in practice, politically untouchable by Congress.  There will not be a sufficient majority to overturn it in our lifetimes.

The best we can do is work at the state level to determine a culturally acceptable solution within that limitation.

It is a state issue anyway.

[Matthew Carberry]

Well, if the "emancipation" of women means no babies, you can kiss your culture goodbye--and that is what we are doing, just as they are doing in Europe.  Maybe someone needs to spell this out for the liberals.

You cannot force women to have babies and that isn't what opposition to abortion should be about.  Women are cattle or chattel.

Abortion except in self-defense (actual life of the mother) should be opposed because it is the taking of an innocent human life.  We need to be addressing the topic in terms of homicide law so that states can set guidelines on what is "justifiable", "excusable" or outright murder.

[longeyes]

I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything, just pointing out the consequences of prevalent social values.  Liberalism will disappear in two, three generations--and so, probably, will liberty.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Abortion is an issue of evangelicals because they see it as murder, pure and simple. Infanticide. They are not joking about that. They are dead serious. It is, to them, an indication of your character.
If a candidate went around strangling his kids or drowning them in bathtubs, I expect that it would effect your opinion of the guy's sanity/character/values, regardless of his thoughts on taxes. That's how evangelicals, IME, think. It is a key insight into what you are and what you believe.

[Matthew Carberry]

I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything, just pointing the consequences of prevalent social values.  Liberalism will disappear in two, three generations--and so, probably, will liberty.

Gotcha, bad reading comprehension on my part.

My apologies.

[Matthew Carberry]

Abortion is an issue of evangelicals because they see it as murder, pure and simple. Infanticide. They are not joking about that. They are dead serious. It is, to them, an indication of your character.
If a candidate went around strangling his kids or drowning them in bathtubs, I expect that it would effect your opinion of the guy's sanity/character/values, regardless of his thoughts on taxes. That's how evangelicals, IME, think. It is a key insight into what you are and what you believe.

Right, infanticide is murder and murder is covered under homicide laws at the state level.

It should never have been a federal issue in the first place, after all, murder of older children or adults isn't.

If they want to be consistent they need to admit that fetuses are a human life the same as infants, children or adults, nothing more, nothing less.  Even in the eyes of God, they deserve no better treatment nor worse.

Evangelicals, and I pretty much am (or was) one, need to learn a little logic and a little civics and abide by the Constitution and the founding principles of the country.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If they want to be consistent they need to admit that fetuses are a human life the same as infants, children or adults, nothing more, nothing less.  Even in the eyes of God, they deserve no better treatment nor worse.

Evangelicals, and I pretty much am (or was) one, need to learn a little logic and a little civics and abide by the Constitution and the founding principles of the country.

That's exactly what Evangelicals want.  Threat abortion like murder, which it certainly is.  Criminalize it and treat it like any other crime.

Problem is, we can't do that under Roe v Wade, because that decision made it impossible for the states to have any say in the matter.

The Evangelicals are consistent.  It's that piss-poor supreme Court decision that's illogical and unconstitutional.  Roe v Wade invented the notion that the Constitution says abortion is a protected right.  It obviously isn't, but that's what the decision says. 

As long as that decision stands, it will never be possible to properly deal with abortion as a crime.  So how do you overturn a supreme court ruling, and return things to the way they should be?

[Matthew Carberry]

I edited this from what may have shown in your email notifications not because I am changing my position but simply that I made my point already and repeating it won't help and will only muddle the issue

Simply put.

I think that "conservatives" have lost ground on the national stage because they have stepped away from base principles.

Limited government based on Constitutional original intent.

Fiscal responsibility and minimal taxation at the Federal level (states being free to levy whatever their citizens desire).

Finally...

The rise of "social conservativism" that contradicts Constitutionally based minimal federal involvement in what should be state laws (like homicide) and state constitutional restrictions on "moral issues".

Our country is based first and foremost on individual liberty and the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution, no more, no less.

When our particular moral beliefs come into conflict with that fact, however we dislike it, our moral beliefs need to give way.

We can live as we wish, and exhort privately others to do the same, but "being right" does not give us license to impose our beliefs on the country as a whole in violation of Constitutional principles, any more than it gives those we disagree with, who also feel they are "right", the grounds to do the same.

Inasmuch as it violates the Constitution as determined by our current standards of due process, we need to get legislated morality out of national politics and leave it at the state level where, if anywhere, it belongs.

True conservatism would win every national election if we got back to that base principle.

We would also have a better chance of influencing public opinion on moral issues at the state level as well, as we would be trying to convince friends and neighbors of our position, not strangers a continent away.