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

Skip to comments.

Rudy & the Social Right ( a corner post by Andy McCarthy)
National Review's "The Corner" ^ | 4/5/2007 | Andy McCarthy

Posted on 04/05/2007 6:30:42 PM PDT by tcostell

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-147 next last
To: massadvj

California is largely irrelevant to Republicans in my view— or at least anyone who is conservative.

Pennsylvannia can go quite conservative. Bob Casey beat Santorum by tricking people into thinking he was Pro life.

Bush won Ohio twice.

Social conservatives are correct in their arguments. I find it fascinating that no one ever wants to talk about the financial impacts of abortion. Wiping out 1/3 of the population every year ONLY has the effect of slightly reducing the murder rate. It apparently has not effect on the economic viability of worker funded programs such as social security and medicare.

Social conservatives are just big meanies who want to take away fabricated constitutional rights like a ‘woman’s right to choose to take away a woman’s right to choose.’

In some ways, I would be fine with “limited government” but that is rarely what libertarians truly defend. They passively concede that the government will defend abortion— meaning attack pro life communities if they try to stop it— meaning they will take tax money to fund the choices of poor women— just like giuliani has already admitted.

Libertarians just want low taxes. Low taxes always increase government revenue and so they don’t care what liberals squander that revenue on as long as they gain political clout for a rather lazy political lifestyle.


61 posted on 04/05/2007 7:54:32 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

” we will get our butts kicked, even by Hillary Clinton. So it is either Giuliani or McCain or complete oblivion for generations, possibly beyond.”

Giuliani will lose the South and Heartland. He is a lead pipe cinch for the dems to win it all. He is a dog of a man and we will have no part of him.


62 posted on 04/05/2007 7:58:12 PM PDT by A1 Southern Man (Fred Thompson , the one who can win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

“But Specter is the only statewide Republican office holder in Pennsylvania, so obviously he is the best we can do. And if you cannot win in Pennsylvania or Ohio, you cannot win nationally.”

No, Specter is not the best we can do. He is the best that we have done. We can do a whole lot better!! Conservative principles and issues out shine everything else out there, but it has to be sold! When properly explained, most people are in agreement and find out they are conservative! The message is as strong as when Ronald Reagan sold it, but our delivery has been way too weak!

The worst thing we could ever do is abandon the conservative message. We do that, then all is lost!


63 posted on 04/05/2007 7:58:46 PM PDT by upsdriver ((Hunter / Thompson......Gonzo politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tcostell

The article fails due to its omission of the smaller govt - “please don’t spend my tax dollars are granny’s pills, African AIDS victims or the National Endowment for the Arts”
conservatives. Its not just a social conservative vs. national security contest.


64 posted on 04/05/2007 8:00:18 PM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
Your assertions are based on nothing more than your desire to see the demise of religious conservatism. There is not a single race that was determined by an anti-religious right vote.

There has been no significant move to the left by the voting public. House and Senate races are local and determined by conditions within those individual districts and states.

We have a national GOP that was tainted by scandal, led by a historically unpopular President in the midst of a war that is opposed by a large majority of voters, including Republican voters.

The idea that there was a backlash against the GOP because of intelligent design, trying to control internet pornography or a flag burning amendment is absolutely ludicrous.

65 posted on 04/05/2007 8:01:24 PM PDT by garv (Conservatism in '08 www.draftnewt.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Pennsylvannia can go quite conservative. Bob Casey beat Santorum by tricking people into thinking he was Pro life.

No way. Rendell is pro-abortion and he got 60 percent of the vote. Our legislature was lost to Dimwits last year. Casey merely took the abortion issue off the table by triangulating Santorum on it. That's basically what Giuliani does to any of the Dimwit nominees.

66 posted on 04/05/2007 8:01:44 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

“The tactic of attacking candidates because they have the support of religious conservatives is working in a lot of places it never worked before”

— because of libertarians who happily threat construct Christians in order to secure political viability they do not deserve.

Libertarians are generally people who are not fully prepared to confront the wrongness of liberalism.

Are you prepared to abolish public education? There is no constitutional provision for such a government role.

I rather doubt you are. Limited government is lingo libertarians use as a code word to their liberal allies that “limited” means that any vaguely Christian notion of governance will be swatted down like some nasty insect.

Libertarians are rhetorically lazy. They know that the Left has stigmatized abortion politics so rather than deal with the monstrous garbage littering the debate, they propose to view the obstructions as consititionally protected and promised. Ergo, limited government is a rather grand promise for abortion in any form the Left may care to visualize it.

What aspects of current governance are you prepared to shut down that would jeopardize your affiliation with leftists?

Is this not a vague promise to oppose “christian” influences on govenrment?


67 posted on 04/05/2007 8:02:25 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

PA is more favorable to the GOP because the Democratic leadership in that state keeps shooting itself in the foot. A couple of years ago it was the “pay raise scandal” in the legislature. By 2008, there’s a good chance the state will be trying to cope with Fast Eddie Rendell’s proposed fuel tax increase and sale of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.


68 posted on 04/05/2007 8:03:34 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
There are far more libertarian-minded independents and crossover Democrats out there than there are fundamentalists Christians, as Republicans like Arnold Schwartzenagger and Arlen Specter well know.

Libertarian minded independents run from the likes of the big-spending, big-borrowing Schwartzenegger who has increased regulation (Gore-bull warming), stomped on property rights, and used billions taxpayer funds to pay for his pet-gangGREEN projects. He did, however, get plenty of Democrat votes. If you want Democrat votes--join the Democrat party. I prefer a candidate who actually supports the Republican platform, which Rudy does not.

69 posted on 04/05/2007 8:05:37 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tcostell
No one on our side, including Rudy, can win without giving social conservatives a reason to believe it's important that he or she wins. Period. They are the thrum that makes this thing go. They'll be steadfast if your disagreements with them are few, principled and coherent; but you can never suggest to them that their issues — which are ingrained to their core — should be subordinated for the sake of something as comparatively trivial as party unity. Our people believe, rightly, that their conception of America is transcendent. It's more important than who is in power. Government does not consume them, and they won't be active unless they are persuaded that a candidate will protect and nurture that conception — not necessarily on every issue, but on the whole.

Bump for superior insight.

It's a shame that our resident Giuliani groupies don't understand these simple, compelling points.

70 posted on 04/05/2007 8:08:33 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

I don’t remember proposing anything that curtails your liberty. How does honoring God intrude on anyone?


71 posted on 04/05/2007 8:10:07 PM PDT by upsdriver ((Hunter / Thompson......Gonzo politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: garv
The senate races are a harninger of the national election, since the national election is a state by state electoral affair.

The evidence is very compelling. Kerry, an out and out socialist traitor, comes within s few electoral votes of winning the presidency with about 48.5 percent of the poptlar vote. Kerry was a second-tier candidate because Gore and Hillary did not think Bush was beatable.

Two years later we lose two critical battleground states -- MO and VA -- as the demographics in both states have shifted to favor the Dimwits.

What happened in California 20 years ago is happening nationally. It cannot be stopped. The social conservative movement, and fiscal conservative movement I might add, is all but dead in California. It is dying nationally.

We do not have the capability of getting a plurality. Period. Nominating Giuliani demonstrates to the potential crossovers that we are not beholden to religious conservatives, so he is our only chance to win. And slim at that.

I will say that Specter and Schwartzenagger are strong evidence that you folks vastly underestimate what conservatives will do when confronted with the lessser of two evils.

72 posted on 04/05/2007 8:10:50 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tcostell

This is a great article! Thank you for posting it.


73 posted on 04/05/2007 8:11:03 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcostell

McCarthy has it right. Abortion isn’t one of my top concerns, but it seems ridiculous to think that a Republican candidate can win by essentially telling pro-lifers he intended to give them no help as president. No way Giuliani’s nebulous crossover appeal can grab enough middle-of-the-road voters to make up for all the members of the base who will stay home if he continues on this course.


74 posted on 04/05/2007 8:13:41 PM PDT by Polonius (It's called logic, it'll help you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
The only thing we true constitutionalists ask of social conservatives is to help us reduce spending and cut taxes. They have no problem with that, because they do not oppose it. So we must compromise for their support, but they make no compromises for ours.

What you stumbled upon is that who you are labeling as "social conservatives" are in fact plain conservatives. Those who are conservative on "social" issues tend to also hold conservative positions on national security and fiscal matters. But the same breath of conservatism can not be generally applied to those who view themselves as primarily fiscal or security conservatives.
75 posted on 04/05/2007 8:16:29 PM PDT by etradervic (In 2008, anyone but a Democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver
I don’t remember proposing anything that curtails your liberty. How does honoring God intrude on anyone?

Forcing me to pay taxes to pay for religious social services is an intrusion on my liberty, sir. Forcing teachers to pledge allegiance to intelligent design is an intrusion, sir. Regulating the Internet and using the force of law to enforce your personal moral code is an intrusion, sir. Proposing a ban on flag-burning, as distateful as that dispicable act may be, is an intrusion, sir.

If Christian fundamentalists think the world is going to hell in a handbasket, they ought to try being libertarians. We get squeezed from both sides and have precious few political victories as the tyrrany of the majority erodes the constitution a bit more with every passing administration.

76 posted on 04/05/2007 8:20:20 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

Flag burning republicans, on the horizon.
We’re doomed.


77 posted on 04/05/2007 8:20:34 PM PDT by topfile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

“What happened in California 20 years ago is happening nationally. It cannot be stopped. The social conservative movement, and fiscal conservative movement I might add, is all but dead in California. It is dying nationally.”

Sir, if what you say is actually true on a national scale, then conservatism of any kind (social, constitutional, and fiscal) are simply doomed. Why be a member of the Republican party if all you can hope to do is slow the rising tide of Secular Socialism? Your life will be a futile legacy of scorn, contempt, and public ridicule from “progressive America”.


78 posted on 04/05/2007 8:21:17 PM PDT by Bishop_Malachi (Liberal Socialism - A philosophy which advocates spreading a low standard of living equally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: etradervic
What you stumbled upon is that who you are labeling as "social conservatives" are in fact plain conservatives

I generally accept Russell Kirk's definition, which would hold that conservatism promotes the noyion that law should be used to preserve traditional ways and institutions. Usually, I refer to myself as a constitutionalist, to differentiate myself from social conservatives.

Tonight, I am trying to be more provocative, and apparently it is working, because I am getting flamed like the devil.

79 posted on 04/05/2007 8:24:23 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tcostell
LOL... banned already....

The question I have about the now departed terminatorsmithster is this: Was he/she/it a true rudybot or merely a disruptor from DU? Just the fact that such a question can be asked with complete sincerity bodes ill for Rudy's chances with us Social Conservative.

80 posted on 04/05/2007 8:25:29 PM PDT by Vision Thing (Let's warm the globe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-147 next last

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