[BrooklynGOP]

Also by those standards, can someone like myself be considered a “conservative” if I actually just don’t care about the abortion issue?

I think so.

[wideawake]

Put me down as one of those short-sighted individuals who thinks that millions of slaughtered children are more important than tax cuts.

[tiamat]

I'm not.

I won't ditch someone good if they MOSTLY agree with me.

I am anti-abortion.

I still think Condi Rice is important and I would support her if she ran for office.

NOTHING in this life is pure or perfect.

Tia

[Garrisson Lee]

I've noticed that if you go against a certain cadre of bushbots on any issue, you become a one-issue conservative and "malcontent."

If you want the Constitution upheld as intended, that makes you a one-issue person.

[W04Man]

This is a very Interesting Question that also follows from a recent local discussion about a "Broad Tent" concept for a local Republican Committee. I'm very interested in the following comments on this thread.

[AuH2ORepublican]

If someone would rule that there is a constitutional right to an abortion, then that person would not be a conservative judge, since he would believe in legislating from the bench. However, if a politician believes that abortion should be legal, he would not be *my* kind of conservative, but could be deemed to be a conservative if he takes conservative stances on other issues. Of course, it has been my experience that people who believe that abortion should be legal also believe that gay marriage, drug use and pornography are OK but that religion is somehow harmful, so I would posit that very few people who believe that abortion should be legal are true conservatives.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I'd much prefer we all just stopped talking about abortion. It's really hard to agree to anything when the fundamentals aren't even agreed upon. If one person believes the baby is created at the moment of conception (such as myself), and another believes it isn't actually alive until it is born, how can they agree on anything?

I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and leave it to the states. That would have been much less divisive. The problem is that both sides believe the other side is truly evil. Who compromises with evil? I'd really like to see some sort of compromise, just to stop this whole debate. My proposal is to allow first term abortions, and after that gradually steepening penalties. But that's just me. Any thoughts on this idea?

I'm really not a very good Conservative. I believe the government should just leave us alone unless it can prove beyond reasonable doubt it has a reason not to do so. I voted for Bush in 2000, and I probably will again in 2004, but my biggest problem with him is that he doesn't seem to want to shrink the government. Plus he sold out to the farmers and steel industry. So I'd say I'm about a 6 or 7 issue Conservative. But in the end, Conservative means that someone believes proven societal actions should be discarded only with great proof of their uselessness.

They way things have always been done and smaller government are always better until proven otherwise really really well.

[CounterCounterCulture]

How many here are one-issue conservatives?

Tends to be a phrased used by pro-aborts to marginalize those who respect the pro-life views. I'd say virtually all of us are multi-issue conservatives, but hoo-boy, abortion is one the big ones. I'd have a hard time voting for somebody who agreed with me on everything with the exception that they believe in slavery, or lynching blacks, or whatever appalling issue is on the table.

In the primary, I make sure to get someone who respects pro-life. I find that those who support abortion tend to support other far-leftist ideas, especially here in California. In the general election between a Democrat and pro-abort Republican and perhaps a pro-life 3rd party candidate, I have to really weigh the implications of who would get my vote. Sometimes then I'll hold my nose and vote for the Pubbie, sometimes not under extreme circumstances.

If you believe that abortion should go back to states rights, then you should hope for a justice that would overturn Roe v. Wade and not some O'Connor or Souter type.

[HairOfTheDog]

A year ago I would have told you abortion is a dead issue and will never move. But I think I was wrong and it might be relavent how a candidate feels about it. Still, as long as half the country favors it there will only be baby steps in either direction. But abortion is not a deal breaker for me if their defense, gun control and taxation positions are in line...

[BagCamAddict]

I really looked forward to reading the replies to your thread. I think it is a very good question, and I see it happening all the time in politics - where one candidate is ostracized based on one specific issue (rather than looking at the whole package that the candidate represents).

I thought you phrased your question in a very simple and straightforward manner. You were asking whether or not someone could be considered "Conservative" if they take a non-conservative stance on ONE single issue.

But it was unfortunate that used abortion as the example... because apparently LOTS of people were incapable of answering your actual question because they were too busy trying to debate the abortion issue yet again. What a tired tired irrelevant waste of posts, considering they didn't even answer your actual question.

So I might suggest that you repost your question, but this time, do not name a specific "one issue". Or choose a less "touchy" issue than abortion, if you can think of one! Maybe then people will be able to keep their own personal politics out of it and actually answer your SIMPLE question.

Tired, tired, tired... same old posts, with the same old arguments. Yawn.