why would i want to vote for a RAT???
Posted on 11/03/2009 3:46:25 PM PST by cartervt2k
Since they seem to be so fond of "moderates"
The Left is fond of moderates? Your joking.
Hell, meet ice.
The left will never do that because the far left has hijacked the nomination and primary processes in many locales. Just look how the Democrats treated Casey at their convention.
LOL Moderation is a one way street.
The last moderate they had was Zell Miller.
Good point! LOL! Won’t happen, but it will be nice to bring it up with my liberal friends.
I personally will never understand why the right is so married to the idea of pro-life stands by candidates. The federal govt will never be able to do a thing to overturn this law, short of 100 years of Republican rule. If they did get it overturned, it would revert to the states, and most of them would just have laws allowing it there. It is a losing proposition to bring it up...not in that it is wrong to be pro-life as I am, but it allows the Democrats to wedge independents away from conservatives, damaging the cause of smaller govt. It should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue. Change the way the federal constitution is applied back to the founders vision, then we can advance freedom and liberty.
Joe Liberman is a pro-war liberal yet look at how the Democrats treated him.
I realize that you are fairly new here, but this is a PRO-LIFE forum.
A PRO-LIFE Supreme Court could declare the unborn to have personhood rights in a second.
It is a losing proposition to bring it up...not in that it is wrong to be pro-life as I am,
Not supporting the pro-life movement IS NOT pro-life.
but it allows the Democrats to wedge independents away from conservatives, damaging the cause of smaller govt.
Nonsense.
The Left defines ‘moderate’ as liberal on social issues.
‘Moderate’ Democrat?
Liberal on social issues.
‘Moderate’ Republican?
Liberal on social issues.
why would i want to vote for a RAT???
All of that is false.
The Congress can take abortion out of the jurisdiction of the courts.
Pro-life bump!
Glenn Poshard was a pro-life, pro-gun Dem who upset the machine choice for governor of IL. The Daley people suppressed turnout in Chicago, and George (now in jail) Ryan lied enough to keep Republican support.
One of the few times i voted for the Dem.
Only in your dreams
If you don’t think our politicians should be pro-life, just what pro-life views do you actually have?
Sure, they’ve done it before, but it wouldn’t matter. Whenever the Dems sense that they’re more liberal than a given Congressional district for example, they run a supposedly moderate-to-conservative candidate. Then when the guy gets to Congress, he usually acts pretty much like all the hard left Dems.
Glenn Poshard was a pro-life, pro-gun Dem who upset the machine choice for governor of IL. The Daley people suppressed turnout in Chicago, and George (now in jail) Ryan lied enough to keep Republican support.
One of the few times i voted for the Dem.
My cousin is a pro-business, pro-life democrat in the MI state legislature. I’d vote for him if I lived his district.
Can we say a ‘faux-life poster in our midst? ... Yeah, sort of obvious this one hasn’t listened carefully in dnc class.
We have one here in MISSISSIPPI 1!! Cousin Travis Childers says just what you are asing for, then vote for Nazi Pelosi to be speaker!! Moderate “so called” Dems keep the lefties in power!!
Cheers!
So you are against an activist Supreme Court, unless they rule like you wish? The point is, even if abortion is a non-issue at the federal level, like it was before Roe v Wade, it will be a states right to have legalized abortion. What good does it do to fight over a losing issue? It is never going to change. Before Roe, many states already allowed abortions, strike it down and their laws remain on the books. Unless again, you have the USSC rule that it is not only a federal issue, but they ban it. Which scenario do you believe is more likely? If put to a vote in nearly every state in the union, abortion would be legal. Not only would it be legal, but it would drive independents away from those opposing it, and keep women out of the Republican party for another generation.
Women tend to be more prolife than men.
So when will Congress do such a thing? Did they do it in 1994-95? How about during the GW years? It is a pipe dream, it is not happening.
Flash forward to 1776.
Put another way, there is zero logic in your contention that something isn't going to happen simply because it hasn't happened yet.
With zero logic in your contention, you are clearly just seeking to sell defeatism, and I am not buying it.
If the USSC declared a fetus to have rights, at what point? Day one? Day two? Day 91? That will never happen, it is too hot of a political potato.
If the point of politics is to advance an agenda, wouldn't the agenda of protecting life of the fetus in the uterus be best served by an original view of the Constitution? If that is true, isn't the best way to get back to a more traditional view of the Rule of law, join forces with people no matter what their political history is. Many D's avoid Republicans because of the abortion issue. They see it simply as a matter of freedom. Libertarians are also a natural ally of the right, but they want the WOD discontinued, another issue that the Feds have over stepped Constitutional bounds. <>P I may be mistaken, but don't most people on this forum want the federal govt back in the cage of the Constitution? If so, any way of going to that goal must be researched and taken. We sure are not going to get there following Newt or GW's path.
False, as evidenced by the fact that over a million adult women, fully morally culpable for their own actions, sign on the dotted line to have babies violently killed by abortion each and every year.
So you advocated accepting the murder of gentle innocent pre-born babies in return for thirty pices of silver, with that thirty pieces of silver for you taking the form of what you call 'smaller government'.
How the hell do you look in the mirror each morning?
LOL, yeah right, I won’t live long enough to vote for a Democrat. Any vote for any democrat that legitimizes that worthless party is one vote too many. I wouldn’t vote for my mother if she ran as a Democrat. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for every RINO they shove down my throat either, but the Democrat party is lost, they would be left of center in Venezuela, and they’ll never get a vote from me, ever.
What is your plan to stop abortions from happening? Picket Planned Parenthood? End the out of control reign of the Federal govt, then fight it out state by state. If you get one state to ban it, that is thousands saved. Picketing an office, save one. It is a matter of scale.
Why would I feel bad after looking myself in the mirror? I harm no one, I am just suggesting a line of strategy to win the abortion battle. This has been going on for 36 years, won any battles lately? Abortion started out as something that was supposed to be in the first 90 days. They perform them up till birth in places still. The strategy employed is not working....not one little bit.
What has been going on for 36 years?
For that span of time, pro-lifers have been acquiescing to social liberals in the Republican Establishment.
That isn't my approach, so your apparent claim that [my] approach hasn't been working is fallacious.
My approach is quite the opposite of the capitulation that you recommend, and it is that capitulation which has been the status quo for decades in Republican circles and needs to end.
And some of these votes come up year after year after year.
Now do you understand?
Going for the throat (getting control of the Fed) is not capitulation. This battle cannot be won until Pro-lifers quit fighting every single issue, spreading out funds and life energy, instead of ending the over reaching arm of the USSC and the Federal govt. Wouldn’t it be easier to do this on a state level? While forces are rallied against every single issue of interest to you, govt grows ever stronger. Winning control of the Presidency, majorities in both houses will do NOTHING to advance this goal. But it does advance the goal of both parties, as they use the Pro-life issue to divide the electorate forever. Republican politicians give lip service to Pro-life proponents, while throwing bones to them. It has been over 30 years since Roe v Wade, things only get worse. This IS A WAR, since your side is not winning, maybe a change of tactics is in order?
Just think about it, abortion is the one issue that absolutely divides the country, the parties, and the people. Divide and conquer is a time tested strategy by which an enemy can destroy. What do you see as victory? I see it as putting the FED back on its leash, and winning the war on many fronts.
I guess that there is no way to convince you or other Pro Lifers to adopt a different strategy. We will just have to agree to disagree. IMO, maybe Pro lifers are afraid of winning. It gives too much meaning, being important in life or death decisions. This country was not designed for these epic battles between citizens and govt. A massive fight against a single enemy, the federal behemoth, would greatly benefit this country. I suppose it will never happen, people are too entrenched in their tactics, or non-tactics.
Of course it would. Voting pro-life and voting pro-limited government is not an either/or proposition. Everybody I know does both.
The big problem seems to be the control of the Republican primaries, so we don't get these clunker candidates who are really satisfactory neither to prolifers to limited-government advocates. Closed primaries would be a step in the right direction. And... here I'm open to more strategic options. Your view?
"Moreover, young, conservative, grassroots leader Ken Cuccinelli won the Attorney General's office by a similar margin. Cuccinelli won the hearts of local taxpayer activists 6 years ago by leading a shoestring revolt against a well-heeled, multimillion dollar, state establishment referendum for a sales tax increase. Incumbent Democrat Mark Warner, now a U.S. Senator, and the Northern Virginia business machine, both went down in flames to Cuccinelli's rag tag grassroots irregulars, outspent more than 10 to 1. Cuccinelli is also the political leader of the state's pro-life forces, pro-family groups, and social conservatives."
Hopeful, I think.
Closed primaries would be a great help. I just am very frustrated with the battle of ideas. We as conservative, pro-lifers are absolutely losing the battle for the minds of the young. We are losing the battle to persuade democrats and independents, that should be natural allies against a large govt. We lose that battle because the media and the parties, use abortion and gay marriage as a wedge. If instead of emphasizing the goal of no abortions, if we first concentrate on local elections, limiting abortion to the first trimester. That would send many challenges to the USSC, one of them could result in a ruling sending it back to the states....THAT would be a reversal of Roe. THAT would be a sweet victory. I am just an avg Joe so my ideas may not hold water, or be logical, but thinking within the box of current ideas is not working.
You seem likewise unaware that, far from "absolutely losing the battle for the minds of the young," pro-life sentiment as recorded in national opinion polling is at a post-Roe high.
"Sentiment" has limited value, but it sometimes precedes principled commitment. For instance, the number of practicing abortionists is also at an all-time post-Roe LOW. Over 85% of counties in the United States have no reporting abortionist. And the mean age of abortionists is inexorably climbing, and now stands at something like 60. They're graying, they're dying off, and they're not being sustinably replaced by new perky young abortionists.
The pro-life movement as a whole has not "concentrated on the the goal of no abortions" for a long, long time, because the USCC has made directly eliminating it almost impossible. With the excepotion of a very few state pushes to actually ban abortions (e.g. South Dakota), the activism been all about incrementalism and positive-alternatives for my entire adult life, and I'm no spring chicken.
That's why your comments puzzle me. Well-meant, I'm sure, but it's like telling the choir, "Have you thought of, possibly, singing?"
I don't need you to tell me what to think. I've never supported an activist Supreme Court, and I won't start just because you say so.
We weren't talking about the Supreme Court anyway. We were talking about your complaint that conservatives want pro-life candidates for political office. You claim to be pro-life, but complain that conservatives vote for pro-life candidates. So I asked you what pro-life views you hold, and you responded with some rambling fantasy about the Supreme Court. I take it you not only want the legislative and executive branches to oppose the pro-life movement, but you want the judicial branch to violate the Constitution in opposition of life also.
What makes you think you're pro-life, if you want all three branches of the federal government to be pro-abortion?
That is genuinely funny and clever..
I haven't really given my words much thought. I haven't been involved at all in any efforts in regards to abortion. I live not a mile from the local PP office. The protesters are there nearly non-stop. They have big poster boards of dead babies, they have a HUGE BUS with the same picture driving up and down the small town streets, but the traffic in and out of the building remains unchanged....at least to my eye. I am just beaten down by the steady encroachment of the Federal govt. Although it seems that there are many that are willing to fight the good fight, the majority is brain dead and have sold their souls. I am down right now emotionally, and need to see a victory. I am tired of waiting for the Republicans to ride to the rescue, and am searching for another way to victory.....it seems like there is not one without a strong leader. I am sad that the one that will make a difference will be for evil. Look up, for your redemption draweth nigh....it seems like such a long wait...sigh
I want there to be no federal position on abortion. It is a state issue, a doctor issue, and a personal issue. It is like wanting the UN to have a position on the subject. It is so far away and inaccessible, as to be on another planet.
I am personally anti abortion, I cannot have one, I believe it is murder. I would never vote for or against a national politician based on his position towards abortion though. Local or state yes, but nationally they can promise the moon, and deliver swiss cheese.
I do think there's some hope. So many things are quite unpredictable, any reasonable person sees that. And when things are unpredictable, there's no good reason to say "I give up, I quit."
Poly Tics. Poly means "Many." "Tics" mean "Blood sucking insects." Thank goodness, not all of life is politics!
Myself, when I get to feeling low, I cook --now, for some reason, concentrating on low-calorie :o)--- I garden, and/or I sing--- my husband FReeper Don-o and I are quite active in Shape-Note Singing, if you've ever heard of that.
Here's two YouTube videos whic feature Our Little Group (!) doing the Shape Note Singing thing. The songs are One By One and Caddo.
I've got some Autumn Crocuses coming up, ten of them in little pots. So call me a Bloomin' Idjit!
:oO
Hang in there.
In other words you are pro-abortion.
I am personally anti abortion, I cannot have one, I believe it is murder.
You sound just like EVERY pro-abortion candidate.
Let me ask you, assuming you are "personally opposed" to other heinous acts, do you believe the government should stay out of things like rape, murder, arson and armed robbery?
If rape, murder, arson and armed robbery are committed on Federal Property, federal jurisdiction is justified. I believe in a limited federal govt, which means local and state issues are local and state issues. There is no line to cross once the Federal govt intrudes in one area, they then step into another...and another...then another. Until all laws are federal, all lawmen answer only to someone 3,000 miles away, and all laws are handed down from “on high”.
I will infer that you are for keeping marriage laws as they are. With the over reaching Federal govt, it will be easy for the gay lobby to have ONE change nationally and outlaw current man/woman only laws. Power in the hands of them is to be greatly feared, even more than we hope to ever know. The right combination of justices, and an issue that is now in each states hands, becomes out of reach.
Learn to keep up, I mentioned the GOVERNMENT, not the federal government.
But, back to abortion, why do you say it's not a federal matter? The Declaration of Independence states that life is an inalienable right, the Constitution states that the federal government exists to secure rights and the 14th Amendment assures equal protection.
You sound like some sort of misguided libertarian who doesn't think the federal government has any purpose at all. Well, you are WRONG.
Um, there already IS a federal position on abortion:
The fourteenth amendment reiterates this basic principle: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
If abortion is murder, as you say, then the states have no alternative but to punish those who perform them. To abort a child is to deprive the child of life. For a state to authorize the killing of persons via abortion would be to violate the 14th amendment.
Therefore your position is entirely inconsistent. If abortion is murder, as you claim, then it must be considered a crime in every state and if the state does not prosecute the crime, then the federal government is obligated to step in and either force the state to punish the offenders or to make it a federal crime.
I really don't think you believe abortion is murder. That is simply a platitude to try to make your argument sound intellectual. Well, it isn't. It is hypocritical and internally inconsistent.
I would never vote for or against a national politician based on his position towards abortion though.
That is the primary litmus test I give to a politician. If they believe that Abortion is OK, then they don't believe in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
In other words, I cannot trust any politician who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution who does not, with all his might, oppose legalized abortion.
The litmus test of a politician is whether he will use the power of his office to give sanctuary to killers or to protect the lives of those who have no political voice.
If a candidate is pro-life and they are running against anyone who is pro-abortion, they will get my vote no matter what their party affiliation. Period. All other issues are secondary.
If we as a nation cannot guarantee life to our posterity, then we as a nation are not deserving of the blessings of liberty that our forebears died to give to us.
Just another newbie, pro-choice poster, imho. All the same arguments, different screen name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.