Posted on 09/17/2007 11:07:54 PM PDT by goldstategop
Last night, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, businessman John Cox, Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Duncan Hunter and Ambassador Alan Keyes (in the order of their random podium placement) faced 53 questions from pro-family leaders at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts.
I'm writing this on Monday before the event, but I want to be on record with five predictions.
1. I predict the Values Voter Straw Poll will unify the pro-family movement and determine the nominee. Unlike other straw polls that are flawed by design, where candidates have bussed in supporters or paid for their tickets, more than 600 delegates to the Values Voter Debate Straw Poll were submitted by 40 national leaders to accurately represent America's largest voting block.
2. I predict the "Values Voter Guide" DVD will saturate the nation and make the largest voting block even larger.
3. I predict that the candidates who chose not to attend will regret the decision to snub us because they will not win without us.
4. I predict that there will be a Values Voter Presidential Debate in every presidential election from this point forward.
5. For too long values voters have been pushed to the back of the bus; last night they moved into the driver's seat.
The questions asked of the candidates are below. Their answers can be seen at www.ValuesVoterDebate.com. Prediction No. 6: This election just took a turn in the right direction.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
FYI - the question was addressed to Rudy who choose not to attend - there was of course silence! What else can you say to a person you would have killed.
This is what I like to see; however, what will we do about the fence and deporting the illegals.
Thank you to those that did attend.
No they didn't. The so called "value voters" do not represent me or the bulk of the conservative base. What a bunch of pretentious holier than thous. Value voters? I suppose no one but them has any values nor is concerned about values when voting. Some of the members of this group are questionable at best. The tone of this group, and of this post, is threatening. What a way to get people to agree with you.
People with "values" will definitely have an effect on the elections, but it won't be because of this narrow group or the constituency challenged candidates who showed up at their show.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“I predict the Values Voter Straw Poll will unify the pro-family movement and determine the nominee.”
And I predict that to depend on this and not concentrate on the getting the center to vote GOP will insure a loss in ‘08.
B/S. Run, FRed, Run!!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
So, what are these values that unite all conservatives?
I asked this question on an earlier thread and was told by a values voter that, "we don't make lists of our values." I never received a meaningful answer.
Okay...
Whether you choose to accept it or not, values voters make up a large part of the conservative base. They voted overwhelmingly for W in the last two elections. When H.W. lost to Clinton in ‘92, the eastern establishment RINOs blamed the values voters and tried to marginalize them, saying the Republican Party stands for fiscal conservatism only. When Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses, they spent tax dollars profligately. Fiscal conservatism went out the window. Without the values voters, the Republican Party stands for nothing.
It seems when GOP runs as moderates they lose - run with conviction as conservatives they do better. In either case when they run as moderates America always looses.
There will be plenty more debates. The candidates don't have to spend their time at all of them, or even most of them. Not that many people are watching them, anyway.
No, I don't much like it either, but you're perfectly well aware that the sentence above is entirely true.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This exactly right — and the reason why “value voters” don’t matter as much as some think. They have no place else to go.
The folks who will ultimately decide the election are the fence sitters who are decidedly not values voters.
Yes. People who go around proclaiming that they are the ones with "values" are, thank God, a narrow group of pretentious intolerants. The major candidates know this and rightfully ignored the self serving show this little group put on. People with values are a large group, egotists who call themselves "value voters" are not.
Alhough I excerpted only a portion of your post, it's the best answer I got so far, and I agree with your list.
Then at least we can run against her, oppose her in the legeslator an fight the fight for liberty -elect a RINO and there is no hope for there is no party left to fight for liberty and righteousness. No believe it or not I fear Rudy and Mitt as president more than Hillary - with Hillary conservatives can mobilize to fight; with the RINOs we are sold out and with out hope!
Better to die in battle for a righteous cause than to be stabbed in the back by a pragmatist friend! Either way your dead - one way your death meant something!
That's what they said for the last congressional election - turns out they can go home! Ignore the "value voters" at your own peril!
Before you can ''fight another day'' after a ''tactical'' defeat, you still have to have the means to do so, which throughout American history have been Constitutional means. With an effectively inoperative Constitution, there will be no other means except armed revolt. I don't believe Americans quite have the stomach for that...yet.
FReegards!
She has no use for the Constitution, and, after 8 years of court packing, with a subservient Regress, the 22nd Amendment will be a dead issue.
I will agree that they didn’t turn out in large numbers for a midterm — but will they turn out in large numbers for a Presidential election?
p.s.
No sarcasm intended, I’m really interested in your thoughts on this.
We cannot suffer 4 or 8 years of Hillary judge appointments.
That is a great idea! You have inspired me and I think I may have a variation on your idea that is even better.
What if instead of just listening and reading webpages, we compare what a candidate is saying and then see what he has done on that particular issue?
If your car breaks down and you need a mechanic; Do you care what a guy says about transmissions or do you want someone who has actually repaired one? If one of your pipes springs a leak and is flooding your house, do you really care what someone is saying about plumbing or do you want someone who has fixed a few leaks?
You may be on to something here! If a candidate has a slogan like, oh say, " secure the borders, kill the terrorists", let's start asking that candidate when he ever did anything to kill terrorists or secure our borders. Let's forget the interest groups, media hype and poll numbers and get right down there where the rubber meets the road. We may be onto something big here! :)
This is just asinine.
Actually, yes, the front runners did/do ignore the core of the conservative base.
The so called "value voters" do not represent me or the bulk of the conservative base.
Values voters, as typified by the elements such as evangelicals, make up a much larger portion of the conservative base than you're admitting.
What a bunch of pretentious holier than thous. Value voters? I suppose no one but them has any values nor is concerned about values when voting.
You've just imposed your personal bias into this. They did not claim to be superior or holier than anyone. They are stating that they place a high weight on values...you may base your decisions upon whatever you choose to. If you place a large weight on values such as life then you're likely to agree with these value voters.
Some of the members of this group are questionable at best. The tone of this group, and of this post, is threatening. What a way to get people to agree with you.
Again, your personal opinion as to how questionable some are. Additionally, if every group were judged by a limited portion of their composition one can denounce pretty much every group in the same way you have done here. As for threatening? You're going to have to back that up with something...unless stating that they believe that they represent a very large block of voters and any candidate that ignores them isn't likely to win in their opinion. Do you think it reasonable to expect them to vote for candidates that do ignore them?
Mr. Reagan, I believe, did the best he could under the circumstances, but there hasn't been a constitutionalist conservative in the White House since Mr. Coolidge, nor a conservative-dominated Regress since the days of Henry Cabot Lodge Sr.
That’s only because you haven’t heard that it’s directed by Quentin Tarantino.
Sorry, pal. If you’re leading up to we must support Rudy or suffer Hillary you’re gonna be in for a great fall.
“1. I predict the Values Voter Straw Poll will unify the pro-family movement and determine the nominee.”
I predict the writers at WorldNetDaily have lost their damn minds if they actually believe this.
“Fred Thompson will regret it most. He had an opportunity to establish a connection with the party’s activists and connect on the issues that concerns them - the state of our culture and our society.”
Thompson didn’t miss anything...or hadn’t you noticed that none of the A-listers showed up a all? Just the also-rans.
Like it or not, the reality is that most of the electorate doesn’t much care about values at the moment, other than their home values.
A Modest Proposal:
One Rudy thread per day limited to 45 minutes. All other mentions of Rudy on any other thread at any other time of day to be blocked.
And to all those Rudy lovers out there: I promise you, the guy does not have a chance in a national election.
I predict people will keep watching sports, news, porn, American Idol, and re-runs of Roseanne.
Janet Folger's infomercial is not going to rate well within the strategically important "Under-95" demographic.
As I noted in an earlier thread, in the past month I’ve met a half dozen Wall Street types who have been shown the door. Maybe just coincidence and maybe not.
Not certain where you got the notion that I can even tolerate that hypocrite...(scratching head).
Oops. Must’ve misunderstood a post. Sorry about that.
From my perspective, all GOP Pres. candidates except Rudy and Ron Paul have already expressed and displayed fairly conservative values.
I can support Mitt, Fred, Duncan, Huckabee, and/or maybe even Brownback.
(ron paul, of course, is a joke and Rudy would tear the GOP apart. McCain is too hateful)
That said, the main function of any of the above viable GOP conservative candidates such as Fred, Mitt or Duncan should be to meet, greet, and attract as many OTHER voters to their cause as possible.
With limited time, it is not always possible to meet and stroke every conservative group, ValuesVoters.com not withstanding.
“The calculus is pretty simple this year, goldie...vote for the Pubbie, or don’t, and accept Hitlery as President by default.
No, I don’t much like it either, but you’re perfectly well aware that the sentence above is entirely true.”
Personally, I’m not going to vote AGAINST someone. I’m going to vote FOR someone. This trap is how RINOs have managed to take over the Republican party. They ignore us because they know - with absolute faith, beyond any doubt - that no matter what they do we’ll vote for them anyway.
Are they right? Are we the “black vote?”
I already had my doubts about some of those (mostly the established RINOs) who did not show up. Now I have doubts about others who did not show.
...agreed. There will be no win without the support of social conservatives.
Pride goeth before a fall.
No conservative group has the right to demand that any candidate appear at any particular event.
“If Hitlery becomes President, in four years’ time there will not be anything resembling the Constitution as we have known it. Her Heinous has exactly no use for that document.”
We haven’t paid attention to the Constitution for a long time.Show me the line that says its a woman’s right to kill her baby. That is my bottom line value...the “right to life”.
What fiscal conservatives fear is that Hillary will take their stuff, and their stuff is all they have. Fiscal conservatives don’t care about my values, and I don’t care about their stuff. That’s the split in conservative politics.
There were no electable candidates in the "debate", and it's more than a year from election time. I believe that only one candidate has taken the right course, which is to recognize that more than a year and a half of campaigning is a waste of time and money. The bulk of voters do not even think seriously about their vote until about 6 months ahead of the election date.
Of those who participated in the "debate" you're referencing, if one or two of those are even still around by July 4, 2008, let alone the Sept. 1, 2008 Convention. I would be very surprised.
The money being wasted on the non-electables could have been better utilized if the field were narrowed to an electable candidate.
Election fatigue hurts the Republicans more than the Democrats, as the Democrats do nothing but pound the "Bush's Fault" drum in their campaigns, and that's what their voterbase wants to hear.
The MSM has been pounding that drum for 8 years (Bush lied, Halliburton, "we was robbed", etc., etc.).
As for the base question, we get the vote out and put our money where our mouth is. The value voters may be a little loud and passionate, but they go all out behind somebody they can support. Now the question becomes, is the GOP able to garner that support, or are we going to have another year of the Bob Dole-drums...
If we were really powerful in the process Rino Rudy and Flip-Flop Mitt would not be top tier candidates.
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.