We can only keep on keeping on and hope that wise words and a little leadership will show them the true path.
Posted on 04/26/2005 8:15:38 AM PDT by Trueblackman
It is time that someone went nuclear on a few Freepers around here. When I joined FR back in 1998, we use to kick asses and take names, but now I feel like I am on the internet's version of the UN in some ways, talking about bolting and losingn in Washington. I am seeing post from people who are whining about an AP piece on Frist striking a deal with Reid on our stalled conservative nominees, rather than whine, why are we not using our tools to express our anger Rush, Hannity, Liddy, FoxNews and so forth. I have been in these Congressperson's offices and they do listen. We should not be expressing our on FR but get out there and phone, fax and email them and be ready to combat groups like MoveOn.
Sorry for the rant but it is time for some tough love around here and a reminder of how we use to fight these clowns tooth and nail. Rove said no deal and lets back him and the President up.
I dislike 'conservatives' who equate the term to religious terms, rather than the true fiscal and political meanings of the word.
True political conservatism has nothing to do with the church one attends.
Well, that's your opinion. I think conservatism includes fiscal *and* social conservatism (pro-Life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-2nd amendment, etc.). It just so happens many Christians support that viewpoint.
I think what you are supporting is libertarianism (small "l"), not conservatism.
Washington, D.C.:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)
God bless ya, Sarge.
Come home safe.
I have done the same, on many matters. Kerry and Kennedy offices tend to just give you the Dem talking points, and hang up, but I keep sending letters and calling anyway!
Emails I generally get the form letters back from the Rep here, "I am sorry we disagree, I believe in blah blah blah, I do not believe in the discrimination of anyone or the granting the means for that discrimination blah blah blah. The Senators offices never bother to respond.
We try, but we really have no one in Congress for MA.
I let them know when I didn't like the story and today I got to tell him I liked the standing firm.
Great great point though.
I'm a conservative because of Evangelical issues, not because of spending/growth issues...so, dont disparage those of us who have made the R a majority party. We tried the "cut spending/growth ways" and it never got us anywhere.
That's your opinion. Quit telling us what conservative means to you. conservative doesn't mean economics to me. It means social conservativism.
In fact, if the two parties agreed on social issues, there are some economic issues that I would side with the Dems on (bankruptcy legislation, for example). I'm a tax cutter and for small gov't in many cases, and for conservative values on education and social security, too. But, what makes me a conservative is the social issues like abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc.
I agree with you. But there is a very vocal subgroup of Conservatives/Republicans who don't see that there are more Republican voters who are rejecting Liberalism than there are Republican voters who agree with the Religious Right.
There are more voters registered as Independent than as Republicans or Democrats. Rush likes to call these people the "mushy middle" who don't know what they think, but I think most of them are opinionated, and reject both Liberalism and the Religious Right. They vote for whichever candidate agrees with them most.
If the GOP adopts only the Religious Right views, many will either go to the Dems or just stay home.
"Well, that's your opinion."
No, those (reduced federal spending, reduced size of fed gov't) used to be actual planks in the Republican platform. Now, in today's "conservative" platform, it's OK to ask for more gov't and more gov't intervention into one's personal life if that means pushing a religious agenda. That belief is anathemic to the Jeffersonian Republican ideals the party was founded upon. It may be part of a newly-defined 'conservatism' (It's certainly social conservatism, no argument!), but I'm referring to what used to be the Republican Party's main platform planks of anti-Big-Gov't and anti-spending.
BTW, my insistence on a protected border makes me very ANTI-libertarian! Libertarians are pretty-much Open Borders people.
"We tried the "cut spending/growth ways" and it never got us anywhere."
When was that tried? Since the GOP didn't have a Congressional majority for the longest time until 1994, I'm curious when we've seen an extended period of reduction of gov't and reduction in spending.
Also, with a GOP majority and an evangelical platform for 4 years, what changes have we seen since 2001? Abortion is still legal, same-sex marriage still appears inevitable in some states, gays are still in the military, Terri Schiavo still got murdered....Wait - our trade deficit is at record high, there were more global terrorist attacks in 2004 than ever in history, and fuel prices are through the roof. I guess we've seen a few changes after all...
Just curious what parts of the Evangelical platform I should be happy about or proud of, since I don't see anything different coming out of DC.
Of course, my tagline sums up my feelings on the topic nicely...
"Quit telling us what conservative means to you. conservative doesn't mean economics to me. It means social conservativism. "
Quite telling me what conservatism means to you!!!
And apologies, but political, Republican conservatism has ALWAYS meant fiscal restraint. Just because it doesn't mean that to you doesn't remove it from the party's platform...although with a record trade deficit, collapsing dollar, and staggering fuel costs, it apparently doesn't mean much to this administration either.
We can only keep on keeping on and hope that wise words and a little leadership will show them the true path.
I didn't say remove it. I said, dont go around strutting around like some freaking ostrich teling the rest of the party to go to hell. I think that the fiscal conservativsm is important, but the social conservativism is more important.
and, to answer your other thread--why do you think we never had a majority until 1994? Because SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES were not active. That movement started in 1988-1992 and came to life in 1994. Look at the progress since.
Before Reagan it was all economic republicans and that got us nothing.
Don't you realize the country has shifted? The people want some aspects of government and going around demanding cuts here and cuts there get syou nowhere. What gets Republicans elected is social conservatism, not screaming about government.
That's why I clarified small "l" versus big "L".
It seems we absolutely agree on reducing federal spending. My last tagline was "It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism." Pretty cut and dried, eh?
Still, I think social conservatism is ultimately more important because morality issues are what undergird every freedom we enjoy as Americans.
"I think that the fiscal conservativsm is important, but the social conservativism is more important. "
I respectfully disagree. Every attempt at ever legislating morality has been a failure. Latest studies on such "socially conservative" attempts like abstinence teaching have shown no real change in the sexual lifestyles of teenagers, for example. Not disastrous results, but certainly not a roaring success either.
" That movement started in 1988-1992 and came to life in 1994. Look at the progress since.
Before Reagan it was all economic republicans and that got us nothing. "
Let's see...abortion was legal in 1988 and is still legal today. Terri Schiavo probably wouldn't have been murdered in 1988 but was in 2005. The gov't was smaller, as was non-discretionary spending and its influence on our daily lives. Gays didn't even attempt marriage in 1988 but attempt it in 2005. Do you remember people whining about God in the Pledge or 10 Commandments, or the immigration nightmare in 1988? Yeah, neither do I. Gas was also a helluva lot cheaper in 1988. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the 'progress' you're referring to supposedly made by 'social conservatives'...and by your accounts, this movement has been in place for over 16 years.
Also, to say that Reagan economics "got us nothing" is a slap in the face to all Desert Storm I veterans who confidently served in the Reagan/Bush military and freed a country in 1991, rather than the falling-apart, sand-in-helicopters military of Jiminy Carter. It's pretty ignorant to think that Reagan's economic policies, which helped ultimately break the Soviet Union without launching a single missile, were of no use to millions of people freed from Communism.
Maybe you saw nothing really wrong or harmful about double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates, or maybe you're too young to remember them. Who gives a damn about social conservatism when you can't find a job, can't feed your family, fuel your vehicle, or get a mortgage?
"The people want some aspects of government and going around demanding cuts here and cuts there get syou nowhere"
Disagreed. The dollar is clearly collapsing to somewhere as a result!
"What gets Republicans elected is social conservatism, not screaming about government."
Yet, who is going to enforce your idea of federalized morality? The same people who'll be taking orders from Hillary in '08?! Remember - your boys/girls won't be in power forever. Careful who you want to hand all that federalism and moral enforcement to.
Also, to repeat myself, I'm not too impressed with the social conservatives to date. They haven't done anything 'wrong'...really, they haven't done much of anything, other than to make a lot of noise about the Pledge and the 10 Commandments.
"That's why I clarified small "l" versus big "L"."
Ah..gotcha. My oversight.
It seems we absolutely agree on reducing federal spending. My last tagline was "It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism." Pretty cut and dried, eh? "
I like that one alot, actually.
"Still, I think social conservatism is ultimately more important because morality issues are what undergird every freedom we enjoy as Americans."
True, but history has shown pretty conclusively the results one gets when morality is legislated. Who does the legislating and who polices the legislators? Recipe for disaster, as Prohibition showed.
Respectfully,
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.