As reported by columnist and author Michelle Malkin, the core of the House group that not only removed the opening of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge from the House budget package, but also re-instituted $54 billion in pork-laiden spending, is funded in part by the seminal big-money leftist, George Soros.

Putting aside the ideal of returning the ANWR area to the people of Alaska to let them do with it what they wish (one might hope that would mean privatizing it) one may wonder about this group of Congressman. Most of them are part of what is called the Mainstreet Republican Caucus, and have very little in common with the mainstream of the party, nor with the party platform itself.

Posted for your consideration is an article on the NH cell of this cancer growing within the Republican party. Read at your leisure...

The Rise of “Moderation”
May 28, 2001

Although Shakespeare’s adage “...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” is well suited to the struggle of Romeo and Juliet, it has its limitations when viewed in the context of contemporary public relations. In a world of P-R spin, the expressive qualities of words and phrases have tremendous significance, and they are used to great advantage every day.

In no field is this more obvious than politics, for politicians continually attempt to hide their intentions and gain political advantage through the use of euphemisms and catch-phrases. Case in point, the legislative organization called the “Mainstreet Republican Caucus”, which has attempted to push the NH House republicans to the left during this legislative session.

In an interview published April 20, 2001, “Mainstreet” member Rep. Peter Bergin claimed the group was founded to “get back to the basic principles of the party -- fiscal responsibility, social tolerance and common sense problem-solving.”

His claim is interesting, especially when one compares his amorphous “principles” to the actual principles of the party, which were voted upon last year and written down in the Republican Party Platform. These are clear statements, to which he could have referred, but -- either intentionally or due to ignorance of them -- he did not.

For example, the Republican Platform unequivocally states:

“We reject the Supreme Court’s erroneous Claremont rulings...We hold that the Claremont I and II rulings by the state Supreme Court are (judicial activism)... and that, therefore, the Justices who wrote them should be removed from office...”

Yet, by their earliest public pronouncements, the “Mainstreeters” find as their unifying theme the adherence to Claremont I and II and the attempt to impose a long-term, broad-based tax on the state in order to comply with the intellectually corrupt rulings. How is their stance at all consonant with Republican principles? Additionally, how do their policy prescriptions, which include broad-based income taxes, sales taxes, or combinations of the two, correspond to the most widely publicized principle of the Republican Platform, the opposition to any broad-based income, sales or capital-gains tax?

The obvious answer is that the political positions of the members do not adhere to the major planks of the Republican Platform. The truth is that the “Mainstreet Republican Caucus” is an assemblage of liberals who obviously got tired of the appellation “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and decided to seize the P-R advantage and create a new title for themselves.

It doesn’t take an expert in semiotics to deduce that the title “Mainstreet” was specifically selected because of its visual and aural similarity to “mainstream”, and because it connotes the “middle of the road”, which is where most leftist politicians wish to convince people they stand. This allows them to claim the rhetorical highground, and assign to their opposition the image of being “out of step”. Hence we see Mr. Bergin’s implication that the “Mainstreeters” are attempting to restore certain fundamental tenets to a party that has supposedly lost its way.

But the opposite is clearly the case. It is the “Mainstreet Republicans” who wish to hide their rejection of the basic party principles through the use of euphemisms and spin, even while they try to replace those party principles with their own, politically correct double-talk.

One need only compare the votes and policy positions of the “Mainstreet” members to the stated positions of the party itself to see this borne out.

For example, in addition to the differences on Claremont, on taxation and on Judicial activism noted earlier, one might ask if the majority of the “Mainstreet” members support the party plank that declares Republicans will “... work to limit growth of spending to not more than 2.5% annually.”

This is doubtful. Mr. Bergin’s stated “principle” was “fiscal responsibility”, which, speaking generously, gives a politician a great deal more latitude to define what is “fiscally responsible”.

Additionally, there are other major aspects of the Republican Platform that might cause problems for the “Mainstreeters”. For example, the Platform clearly states:

“... the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

It is a safe bet that the majority of the “Mainstreet” members would never go so far as to embrace such an explicit statement of principle.

Then there is the party position supporting “right to work legislation”, which might cause some problems for the “Mainstreeters”.

The party Platform also vows support for death penalty laws, support for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and opposition to firearms restrictions, as well as the promotion of school choice and charter schools, and the increase of market forces in health care.

One has to wonder just how many of these major planks of the Platform have caused, or will cause problems for the members of the “Mainstreet Republican Caucus” when manifested in proposed legislation.

But perhaps most important is the philosophical statement written into the Platform, and from which all other considerations regarding the justifiability of laws is derived:

“The rights of our people always preempt the actions of government.”

There is no such clear expression in Mr. Bergin’s statement of “principle”, and this is not only extremely troubling, but even more revealing. It tells us which side the “Mainstreet Republicans” believe takes precedence. It tells us which they consider first, the rights of the people, or the prescriptions and proscriptions of the government. It informs us where the “Mainstreeters” first look when considering how to address problems, and it is not to the people themselves.

The introduction of the “Mainstreet Republican Caucus” was conducted with great fanfare. Its members have boldly asserted certain claims to the heritage of the Republican Party, and attempted to use whatever political clout they can derive from these claims to force the party to the left.

But there are reasons people join parties, and these reasons stem not from the fact that people like the letter “R” better than the letter “D”. These reasons must be based on principles, and the party platform is written to express those principles. Certainly, there will be some aspects of the platform with which one might disagree. But when one reaches a point where he cannot adhere to the most fundamental, most explicit principles of his party, it is time for him to reconsider his affiliation with that party. It is not time for him to try and portray his differing agenda as “moderate” or the “mainstream”. Yet this is precisely what the “Mainstreet Republican Caucus” has done.

The obviousness of the “Mainstreet” members wouldn’t be quite as vexing if one could assign to them the originality of creating the title on their own. At least then one could compliment them for their political instincts. But the fact that there is also a Federal “Mainstreet Republican Caucus” -- a liberal group of Reps on Capital Hill that caused a major plank of George Bush’s education reform bill to be killed -- means that one can safely assume the choice was not original here in NH. It also means that one can assume the groups are associated with each other, which is something to ponder when thinking about the inner workings of party politics in New Hampshire and in Washington, DC., and when considering the supposed earnestness of “Mainstreeters” who would like to redefine for us the principles of the Republican party.