You want a piece of this [party]?!

I hate to start a war, especially with someone who purportedly has a blue collar and uses heavy tools in his daily work, but . . . here goes.

Some folks, like the "Republican Main Street Partnership" and here in Tennessee--BCR over at bluecollarrepublican.com, have called out me and mine--Religious Conservatives (actually, BCR calls us "theocratic authoritarians" or "the taliban") for causing the GOP to lose majorities in both houses of Congress and for causing the GOP to hemorrhage "independent" supporters over recent years. I know exactly where the "Mainstreet (sounds like "mainstream," get it?) Republicans" are coming from, so I'm not going to address them. But the "bluecollar Republicans" seem to be a different species altogether. Mind you, they both appear to enjoy using the "religious right" as a punching bag, but they do seem different.

First, I guess I need to spend more time over there at bluecollarrepublicans, because I'm having trouble understanding BCR's beef. (Unfortunately, I am unwilling to scour months of posts to ascertain the meaning of your most recent "calling out" post). Apparently, BCR blames Religious Conservatives (although he claims to be one) for GOP drift because we have stayed loyal to the GOP (for the crazy, social issues, you know) despite its drift. That may be reasonable, but I would ask BCR why he has been loyal to the GOP despite its drift and therefore contributed to its drift.

Second, I don't accept the pejorative label of "theocratic authoritarian." I just flat reject it, because there's no "theocratic" aspect to extending legal protections to human life in the womb, or refusing to re- or un-define society's long-honored institution of marriage. Further, we're voting on these things and/or using Constitutional means to accomplish our objectives . . . that ain't authoritarian. Indeed, I'm curious to know how it is possible to simultaneously be "authoritarian" or "the taliban" and to be so patient with the process of overturning bad law or changing public opinion. We (Religious Conservatives) aren't the ones waving the pitchforks at the GOP and threatening to jump ship if we don't get everything we want.

Third, the GOP's losses on Tuesday were not caused by the Party's indifference to "independent" voters or their purported issues. I would submit that dolling up to capture "independents" can be futile because, in general, such voters are inherently fickle (in the political sense) as they relish their independence above all and are typically motivated by narrow interests. And BCR's threats to bolt the GOP may epitomize the futility of trying to please the fickle.

I believe that Bush's (and the GOP's) efforts to attract "independents" (like BCR) were the main problem with the GOP over the past 6 years. McCain-Feingold; Steel Protectionism; the Medicare Prescription benefit; No Child Left Behind's spendthriftiness; etc. These aren't "Conservative" policies, much less Religious Conservative pet issues.

Fourth, just because I am supportive of the President or his party doesn't mean that I am not holding him or his party accountable. Yes, I supported Dubya over John Kerry and yes I typically defend him against the scurrilous, baseless accusations from the Democrats and the Left. But politics is an exercise in compromise, just like with any collection of people; you gotta give a little to get a little.

Lastly, let's keep this argument in the family. You may disdain "Religious Conservatives" (by the way, get in line: "People for the American Way" is fanning the flames of anti-Family Values voices in the GOP), and you are certainly welcome in the GOP, but you need to first establish that you are more than a "cut and run" Conservative. Sure, at some point any party member is entitled to abandon a political party that ignores or betrays said member's interests. But anyone who repeatedly threatens to leave at the drop of a hat is probably not "with you" as much as you may think.

Sorry if some folks can't appreciate a person holding a good-faith, principled position on public policy, but I think harvesting stem-cells from pre-born humans is wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most "blue collar Republicans" leave the Democrat Party because of its increasing moral relativism (on "social" issues) and its blame-America-first policies?

BCR, I don't doubt that you and yours relish being the belle of the ball--the Sandra Day O'Connor of partisan politics, but "looking out for number one" isn't real patriotic. The GOP, as I have argued before, is a consensus party whereas the Dems are a coalition party. The GOP is made up of various groups who share a common set of values or ideals--like smaller gov't, individual liberty, free markets, a strong defense--despite their differences on other issues.

Democrats, on the other hand, are a coalition party, made up of disparate groups of people who share the objective of having power and hating Republicans.

BCR, you are welcome in the GOP . . . but your interests aren't the only interests in play, and your threats are not constructive, and your penchant--it appears, for picking fights with fellow Republicans is only constructive if you take pleasure in watching Democrats gloat.