Tuesday, November 21, 2006

"Grand" Old Party

I attended a GOP Township meeting last night. There were all sorts of elected officials there, and the meeting went about normal business. Our keynote speaker was the chairman of the county GOP. To say that his speech left me puzzled is something of an understatement.

He hammered on how well things went in the county, which is a strong GOP bastion. Of course, patting ourselves on the back for holding our county is a hollow victory when one reflects on the failures of the party statewide. The time for patting ourselves on the back... well it didn't seem like that's appropriate given the overall outcome.

He highlighted some competitive races and how the party learned some valuable lessons:

One of which was that "we" (quotes used to denote that I'm not necessarily thrilled about being part of the we) are losing the middle-class suburban woman to the Demos on the stem-cell issue. I was a little surprised by this comment, which in spirit was a challenge that we need to re-think the issue. His example was that the successful Roskam used a cancer survivor who was treated with adult stem cells in their treatment, to counter Michael J. Fox stumping for Demo Tammy Duckworth.

(deep breath)

I not only strenuously object to the Demos politicizing disease as a means to forward an agenda, but recoil in horror that instead of countering such shamelessness with outrage, reason, facts and objectivity, that we instead trot out our own victim. If indeed we're losing voters to the Demos on the stem-cell issue, the voters are wrong. Absolutely, and without qualification, dead wrong. Our duty, then, is to explain how the Demos are wrong on the issue and how we're right on the issue.

Secondly, and as big a surprise to me, was the chairman's comments that 80% of the Latino vote went Demo in the election which is something we should be "very concerned about" - and the spirit of his comments again was courting these voters, with respect to immigration reform. I was, once again, speechless. Understanding demographic changes, I acknowledge, is what political candidates, operatives and consultants need to do. I cannot find a single reason, upon near-constant reflection since last night, to violate these principles to sway voters. Either we stand for something or we stand for nothing. We should vehemently explain, clarify, and argue for our positions. But compromise them? Deliberately lie, or worse, do the wrong thing, just to stay in power?

I concluded at the night's end, that there remains an enormous amount of work to be done to further the principles of federalism and return the Republic to the proper balance as the framers intended. I take some comfort that elected officials are merely a reflection of their constituents, and when the electorate changes, so shall the elected.

7 comments:

Call Me Mom said...

Sir, you have my permission to say that I vehemently believe only adult stem cell research should be pursued. And I vote in accordance with that principle whenever I can.

J Wales said...

Interesting writing A.H.

Question: You mentioned the concern of the GOP chairman about losing 80% of the Latino vote. The spirit of his comments was courting these voters with respect to immigration reform. Was this in the spirit of granting amnesty to illegal aliens, in order to sway the Latino vote? Please elaborate.

The Monarchist said...

Mom,

You and me both. And I'd still vote that way even if the science supported embryonic stem cell use, which it doesn't. "Speaking as a former embryo" as Laura Ingraham says, we've got no business using embryos for liberals' insane social engineering. Then again, I have a healthy respect for our charter document, the Declaration of Independence. Some, it appears, don't.

J,

Yeah, he was sure sounding like people need to re-think supporting the guest worker plan, that opposing it is going to cost "us." Pretty much the talking points of the MDM (mentally deranged...)these days, isn't it?

-AH

michael hargis said...

According to a story I read some weeks ago, the director of the California Center for Regenerative Studies (I think that's right) said that an actual product, available to the public and derived from embryonic stem cells, was at least 15-20 years away. That's why no private money is going to embryonic stem cell research, at least not much. That's also why they're yelling for federal funding. You don't have to produce results to get money from Uncle Sam.

My understanding is that embryonic stem cells, being the precursors to all types of human cells, are uncontrollable when injected into animal tissue and usually form tumors. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are already specialized and are already being used to cure diseases.

Another thing that guy from the CCRS said was that it very well may be that embryos need not be destroyed to obtain stem cells. All that is assuming that embryonic stem cells turn out to be controllable in the first place.

I'm all for better living through science, but let's face it, an embryo is a human being at a very early stage of development, just as I am a human being at a very arrested stage of development (that was a joke, mostly). If I don't stand up for them, who'll be left to stand up for me?

Daniel Webster said...

Mr. Hargis,

An interesting post there, and I like your conclusion a lot, which is probably no surprise to you.

I have to admit that this subject is not one in which I am very much informed. I think it's probably because it amounts to a bottom-line type deal with me in accordance with your final paragraph, and therefore it only interests me to the extent that something be done to stop, or prevent the government sanction and funding of destroying human life.

Come to think of it, in order to stop it, and to protect life, each of us needs to be informed as much as possible on the subject, no? I guess I better inform myself.

P.S. You guys edit that second paragraph as much as you like to make it more in line with my new revelation. ;)

Call Me Mom said...

I also tend to believe that nanotechnology will soon be able to do the same and better than anything stem cell research will eventually produce. I think it will be cheaper and easier too. (As well as way scarier in potential.
Thinking about the implications for bionanotechnology is not for the faint of heart.) But that's way off the thread here.
So, how about that guest worker program and how it might benefit the G.O.P.? :)

Samuel Adams said...

Or better yet, how 'bout dem Bears!