Posted on 12/01/2009 9:49:31 AM PST by TruthHound
You don’t comprehend real well, do you? I was in no way trying to be nuanced or think that others don’t get it. There are about 90% of the people on this forum smarter than me. I’m just stating fact, like it or not. Try just reading the words that I wrote and not what you think I wrote.
Do you have anyone in mind?
Well, in that case, we better nominate a moderate.
Moderates don't win, but we must pee in our pants at any hint of negativity.
How about Article I, Section 7. Yes, the President does have a part to play in spending if he chooses to exercise his powers.
“You think social conservatives will be satisfied with a cross-dressing, partial-birth abortion supporting adulterer”
How’s Obama workin’ out for ya? You pure-minded social conservatives put him in office by nominating a sure loser, McCain. A strict constructionist like Rudy wasn’t pure enough for you. Hope you like what you got.
And by the way, I’ll match Rudy’s character with anybody you can name any time. He showed his stuff when it counted—on 9/11. If you want somebody well-married, go vote for Jimmy Carter—or Obama, for that matter.
Do you really think such vapid evasion is effective? The analysis of HOW they won is not proven. AH.
Yet here you are signed on to a conservative activist group. Did you think that conservative activists would not make an effort to decide which candidates make it through the primaries and represent conservatism?
“Well, in that case, we better nominate a moderate. Moderates don’t win, but we must pee in our pants at any hint of negativity.”
That’s not our only option. We can nominate a Reaganite who polls well and has the right background to undo Obama’s mess.
Amazing, a newby Giuliani troll signing up to FR, what was your previous sign up name?
Go soak your head. I’m just as much a fiscal conservative as I am a social conservative, but if a man betrays his wife and family, he’ll betray the country. Adulterers do not have “good characters”, period.
And I won’t vote for anyone who thinks that dismembering babies is fine and dandy, and who wants to use taxpayer money to do it.
Not to mention he’s a gun-grabber. “Strict constructionists” are NEVER gun-grabbers.
Why should I? I'm always right, as well as high and mighty...or do you have trouble standing by your own dreck?
I think the question is legitimate. The poster may have been sarcastic in his question, but I am not. I really do want to know who is truly a conservative and who is just a RINO. I am very interested in politics — it’s my major in college — but I am just getting started. I really would love to have a list of conservatives. I would like to learn more about them, study them and use them as a guide. Regan was wonderful in so very many ways, but he did the whole amnesty thing — nobody’s perfect. The point is, a group of people to look at, preferably more than just 3 or 4 people, would give me a good idea of what to look for in candidates in the future. What they have in common would demonstrate what we’re supposed to be looking for...
You do that, Skippy.
Should be a piece of cake. There are so many of them out there. Romney, Huckleberry, Polenty, McKeating... You might even look into Hillary. She seems to have moved in one direction or the other.
Good luck to you!
Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, maybe a handful of lesser knowns.
The place to start is the way you have been taught. Memorize what is told to you.
Don't try figuring anything out on your own. Your brain is too weak.
It must be spoonfed.
Whatever you do, don't read any books or anything. Just memorize what other people tell you.
Yet you signed up to promote Giuliani and to attack Palin.
Here is a short little thread on Rudy that you may enjoy.
Will FR Embrace Socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican Presidential Candidate?
Where did you ever get the idea your fevered imagination has ANY credibility as political analysis?
Rudy's appeal was stricktly regional, and social conservatives (read: religious) have been a target of McCain's for years.
I apologize for the length of this post, but I’m rather torn on this matter myself. To be frank, as fond as I am of this place, sometimes there is a bit too much vitriol here for my tastes. I don’t complain - I keep my mouth shut because I feel that honest people are entitled to honest opinions and often need an outlet. There is a lot of valid frustration going around, and that frustration is compounded by the feeling that honest representatives of conservatism are few and far between.
I think at times we lose sight of the fact that conservatism is not a monolithic view. While we do have clear and definite views on certain issues, we lack the overarching orthodoxies that define the socialist left in this country.
The problem, unfortunately, is that over the course of the last eight or so years, the left has dramatically ramped up its assault on conservatism. They were absolutely furious that Al Gore, their first “anointed one”, lost the election back in 2000. Conservatism has been under vicious assault and, sadly, when a group is under attack it is natural to wonder who exactly are its friends and who exactly are its enemies. The trouble has been compounded by conservative-leaning moderates who consider themselves conservatives.
I’ll draw criticism on this but I frankly believe that such people are conservatives. The problem, unfortunately, is that quite a few of such individuals have shown a tendency to compromise vital conservative values in the face of the leftist onslaught. Conservatism is ultimately about ensuring that government is limited to the scope laid out by its founders. It is about protecting the character of our civilization - our language, our culture, and the Christian heritage that has enabled us to be free in the first place. It is about taking pride in our country and realizing that what has been built here is substantially different from what has been built in other lands; that it is better and that it is worth preserving. Finally, it is about recognizing the value of human life at all stages of development and ensuring that it is preserved and respected as far as possible without extending the role of government. Insofar as one might go wobbly on these principles, their position on that particular matter is not conservative.
Unfortunately, there are times when we lose track of the notion that there are more ways than one to pursue these ends. There is a very human tendency to assume that a difference in means is necessarily the pursuance of a different end. I’ve seen conservatives who support a proactive approach towards world issues and conservatives who support neo-isolationist ideals - while both might adamantly disagree on how it needs to be done, at least both certainly agree that there is value in securing the protection of our nation from outside threats. There is little point in disparaging individuals by denying them the title of “conservative” when, on deeper inspection, their core values are quite the same as your own.
And then there are people who might simply be misguided or flat out wrong on an issue or two. There are individuals who adamantly believe that abortion should not be legal yet mistakenly believe that government solutions to aid single mothers and poorer families might help prevent it. On the flip side, you have people who believe that pro-life legislation involves an expansion of government power that encroaches on individual privacy. Both views are certainly misguided, but I think there is folly in dismissing people who hold such views as “liberals” instead of building around the conservative values they do hold and framing the debate around that.
I believe that most Americans are conservative. The problem is that many Americans do not hold conservative values clear across the board when it comes to their beliefs and, because we’ve been on the defensive in maintaining the essence of conservatism, we’ve basically told them we don’t want them. We’re telling the hardworking guy who supports the troops and knows he’s getting squeezed on his taxes that he’s a liberal because he might happen to argue strongly in support of legalized abortion or gay marriage. For the sake of maintaining purity on one issue we’ve pushed away a potential ally on two others. While those are certainly very important issues that are very clearly defined within conservatism by fundamental principles, the fact remains that we do ourselves harm by pushing people away in such a manner.
I think that an insistence upon orthodoxy is going to kill us. While support is down for Obama, that does not mean that support is magically rising for conservatism. We’ve spent too much time telling people that they’re not conservative enough for that to happen; instead, they’ll simply go on to support the sort of milquetoast Republicans that liberals absolutely adore. While we certainly need to continue to present clear principles, we also need to remind the American people that they really do agree with those principles. There will be disagreements. Those disagreements, however, ought not stand in the way of promoting the majority of principles upon which we do in fact agree.
I believe that telling people with strong conservative positions on a number of important issues that they are liberal because of their views on a few others is a terrible mistake. If someone feels strongly enough about conservative values to identify as a “conservative” then they are a conservative in my book as well, despite the possibility of substantial disagreement on certain issues. We’ll focus on our agreements and go from there. Likewise, I think that our current tendency to focus on certain individuals who are orthodox yet do not resonate with large segments of the public is going to be a terrible mistake as well. I would rather have a candidate that I mostly agree with who highlights that on which we agree than a candidate with whom I agree 100% around whom the highlight becomes how everyone else believes differently. Movements that focus on the latter rarely achieve anything substantial regarding their goals.
I have been 'signed on' here for over a decade now and missed the bulletin that FR was an 'activist group'. I thought we were a on-line conservative discussion forum and my experience here is that there are a broad range of views expressed and supported here across the Conservative spectrum and we do not speak with one voice either for or against any candidate.
The Litmus Test people are those who will damn a candidate as a RINO based on even on 'failure' to agree with their own beliefs, and then challenge the conservatism of anyone else who dares to continue to support that candidate. While there are certainly some real RINOs in the Republican party, the Litmus Test people can find the RINO lurking in every candidate and under every bed. They demand ideological purity and that will never happen.
One thing that I look for is, do I believe that the person is truly conservative in his soul, is it genetic with him?
We all know that a President has to close the door and negotiate a deal with the left, that is why we use our instincts and a candidate’s past to decide if we think that a “conservative” will be fighting for every inch or not in that secret meeting.
We don’t think that about a Romney but we do think that about a Palin. I think that when Reagan or Palin go into a meeting that they are deeply, and personally driven to attain the most concessions that they can get from the left, not just for decorum or politics, but because they want it badly because they despise liberalism.
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.