Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives encouraged by 'values' votes
Washington Times ^ | 25 July 2006 | Amy Fagan

Posted on 07/24/2006 10:56:29 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher

The Republican base is being rejuvenated, some conservative activists say, by a flurry of congressional action on "values" issues such as marriage safeguards, flag protection and abortion restrictions, as well as President Bush's veto last week of stem-cell legislation.

They warn against counteracting that progress with a comprehensive immigration bill that conservatives consider amnesty.

Jim Backlin, vice president of legislative affairs at the Christian Coalition, said the spate of "values" votes "really, really helps rejuvenate our base -- especially Bush vetoing the stem-cell bill."

In the past few months, Mr. Bush signed legislation against broadcast indecency, both chambers of Congress voted on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman, and the House voted to retain the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Conservative leaders are encouraged. They say their key issues were sidelined after conservatives helped President Bush win re-election and the Republican Party keep control of Congress in 2004.

"Prior to this, there wasn't much to show for a lot of hard work," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Mr. Bush used the first veto of his presidency last week to block expansion of federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research and yesterday signed into law a bill that would ensure Americans can display the Stars and Stripes outside their homes.

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2006; 2008; abortion; christiancoalition; congress; conservatives; election2006; encouraged; values; valuesvotes
Forget encouragement, the fight needs to go in harder!
1 posted on 07/24/2006 10:56:30 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

I personally think that gay marraige is a great issue to run against because deep down inside the dems want it and most people find it abhorrent.


2 posted on 07/25/2006 12:34:30 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Let's GAIN seats in November!! Really irritate the leftists!!! :)


3 posted on 07/25/2006 2:12:14 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

That would certainly irritate them. It would make them even more shrill then they are now.


4 posted on 07/25/2006 2:14:05 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am a big fan of urban sprawl but I wish there were more sidewalks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Aussie Dasher

What I'd like to see is more creative votes like a vote banning the distribution of sexual literature discussing homosexuality, bisexual, and transexuality to students in public schools. Also a ban on the use of public facilities for sexually oriented clubs or organizations. I'm sure most Americans would support a lot more than just a marriage amendment. I personally would like to see an amendment to the Constitution defining sexual obscenity as any sexual behavior outside of a heterosexual monogamous relationship. I believe that once such a definition is written into the Constitution then all kinds of "freedom of expression" arguments become useless concerning sexual issues as far as the courts are concerned and communities can once again be free to exercise their political freedoms to place reasonable limits on sexual expression regardless of what form it comes in whether it be gay rights parades or hard core pornography.


6 posted on 07/25/2006 8:37:26 AM PDT by Maelstorm (If someone screams in an asylum full of lunatics do they make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

Exactly! That's why liberals are trying with all their might to define the issue as off limits in a campaign. It's too insensitive you know. Heck, even Laura Bush tries to sell that. In my opinion, if you want something from the government -- recognition and benefits -- then it IS a political, campaign issue. They know that of course. They also know they can't sell it. They can only force it via the liberal judges. So anyone who brings it up during a campaign is now "mean-spirited."


7 posted on 07/25/2006 8:41:34 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
as well as President Bush's veto last week of stem-cell legislation.

Forget the votes that weren't going to pass, everyone knew weren't going to pass, and they used to try and rally conservatives as though they were that easily impressed by no action.

THIS VETO meant something. Inability to override the VETO meant something. Because it was real. It had real consequences. All good. THAT one act, yes, improved conservatives moods.

Still, Mr. Backlin warned that Republicans will "lose all that goodwill" from values voters if the Senate version of immigration reform is signed into law.

Since when did people that want the border enforced become "values" voters? Yes, the issue encompasses values, but it cross every other concern as well. IMO, sounds as though some are trying to minimize the mass disgust across all boundaries on this issue by confining it to one increasingly cluttered category.

I have no problem with "values" voters, I am one, but I don't like mischarterization of issues. It's pretty well known that marriage, abortion, freedom to practice our religion without permission from the ACLU, ten commandments allowed display...these are "values" issues. They have wide appeal with the public, wider support, but I'm not going to allow them to link illegal immigration in this category. It stands on it's own separately.

8 posted on 07/25/2006 9:20:44 AM PDT by Soul Seeker (Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...


9 posted on 07/28/2006 10:53:08 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson