PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[unsycophant]

I believe we still share a common understanding of what is right and wrong.

Fact is, Keyes ran on the morality ticket, and he didn't win. We heard lots about how Republicans voted for moral issues, yet he didn't garner even as much support as GW did in the same state. Considering this fact, it can only be perceived as a rejection of his interpretation of morality. I don't believe people want to be made to feel they are being judged and condemned to hell for not conforming to someone else's moral persuasion.

We all agree abortion is not the answer. We disagree about making it illegal in order to legislate morality (meaning imposing our beliefs on women). You can bet if we started applying the same sort of control to men and couching it as moral convictions, it would be a different story entirely.

Illinois GOPers undermined their own party, and there are rumors that the information which caused Ryan to withdraw came from our own side-disgruntled party members who never wanted him in the first place. You are right about the corruption that exists in both parties, but I suspect that is going to be taken care by the state committee before the next election cycle occurs there.

[The Red Zone]

Evangelicals are the make or break for the GOP. To ignore them on a question that most Americans (let alone GOP) would more or less agree upon, would be absurd

[Howlin]

Well, the guy who WROTE the report for Pew Research disagrees:

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

[MHGinTN]

Take 15 million votes away from the Pubbies and see who wins elections.

[Howlin]

Nobody is ignoring them; we're just pointing out that the GOP has grown across the board and no one group has the right to say they should be listened to "or else."

[Howlin]

Well, I can tell you this: 15,000,000 votes don't win ANY national elections.

[EternalVigilance]

Conservatives who are trying to advance a conservative agenda have an interest in maximizing the power and influence of conservatives.

The fact that you are spending your energy on this thread trying to minimize and marginalize the influence of pro-lifers, evangelicals and conservatives says some very uncomplimentary things about you, Howlin.

[The Red Zone]

Fact is, Keyes ran on the morality ticket,

Half (conservative) morality, half outer spacewalk. The outer spacewalk is what sunk him.

I don't believe people want to be made to feel they are being judged and condemned to hell for not conforming to someone else's moral persuasion.

Well, if they ARE judged and they ARE going to hell, then far be it from us to refrain from telling the truth... and besides, there is no such thing as a law that is "amoral"; it always fits in with SOMEBODY'S morality.

[The Red Zone]

The GOP would fall between the cracks and it would be a total Democrat victory, without evangelicals hiking to the polls.

[Artist]

"Nobody is ignoring them"

I see you're trying the treat-them-with-utter-contempt-approach instead.

[The Red Zone]

15M votes gone would very thoroughly LOSE a national election for the GOP.

[Henchman]

Well stated. The summary is"Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us." Basically, what I have been saying since this Specter warning to BUSH started.

Bush's cleaning house at the CIA is 4 years over due, but is in retaliation for their having screwed BUSH. Conclusion: We throughly understand that principal.

Now there is an attempt to allow Specter to sit in order to get "moderate" (abortionists) through as opposed to strict Constitutionalists. The object is to increase the appeal to the"moderate" (pro-abortion) Dems. As I have said in past posts, we cannot vote Democratic, but we can vote in the primaries and vote selectively after the primaries. That said, and as put forth above, screw us and we will screw the GOP. 2006 is around the corner.

[Howlin]

Unlike you, we maintain a large measure of loyalty, even though the left wing of the party has no such scruples.

You know, it's statements like that that make you one of our most popular Freepers.

And your reference to power is a telling one. Like most of your type, power is about the only thing that might move you.

Well, it's pretty obvious power isn't on your agenda, as you've yet to back anybody who can win, but you want to hang around the GOP and try to tell the people who put their hard work and time and money into actually putting people into places where they CAN make a difference, rather than just sitting abour bitching, just how YOU would do it if ONLY you could have some power; and if we who did manage to get people elected don't cowtow toyour ever whim, then you hold your votes hostage and threaten to leave.

And even that sometimes won't overcome your bitterness towards conservatives.

You know, I'm surprised you aren't struck dead when you type stuff like that; you have accused people on this very thread who don't hold your agenda of being leftists; you accuse people of being pro-abortion, socialists, pro-Obama, all sort of things.

But if I were to say that IMO you represent the Taliban wing of the GOP and are the ugly face of the GOP, you'll hit that abuse button like a crack addict reaching for his pipe.

I don't have bitterness toward conservatives; I do however dislike conservatives like you who continue to maintain that the rest of us aren't as "good" a conservative as you are because we don't agree with your hell fire and damnation routine.

[hocndoc]

One third of the voters is quite a substantial amount. (It's probably more than 20.6 million, although the proportion might not change, since this source is still quoting the Nov 3 numbers.) Now, add the Catholics to the evangelicals to the non-denominationals, the Jews, the Amish and Menonites, and lets throw in the agnosticandgodlessheathens and PLAGAL.

And, don't forget that the President has repeatedly stated that he is for the culture of life.

If the prolife voters of the Republican Party have no mandate, then who does?

[Henchman]

Pew states it, "PHEW"! The 16mm pro-life voters have been voting GOP fir years. Now the GOP has the WH, Senate and House. If they do nothing, then they have lied to us. 2006 will be the demise of the GOP, not the expansion they hope for based on the Specter "moderate" murder approach.

[Howlin]

The fact that you are spending your energy on this thread trying to minimize and marginalize the influence of pro-lifers, evangelicals and conservatives says some very uncomplimentary things about you, Howlin.

If you had just a dime for every single time you've posted that to somebody on FR, you'd be rich.

I'm not trying to marginalize ANYBODY; it's you who is trying to do that by claiming that the rest of us are wrong and aren't "real, true conservatives."

[EternalVigilance]

You are right about the corruption that exists in both parties, but I suspect that is going to be taken care by the state committee before the next election cycle occurs there.

Change in Illinois will not come from that bunch, unless they are forced to it, politically.

Change is coming to the GOP in the Land of Lincoln, but it is coming from the grassroots.

[The Red Zone]

But if I were to say that IMO you represent the Taliban wing of the GOP and are the ugly face of the GOP, you'll hit that abuse button like a crack addict reaching for his pipe.

If you did that nobody would hit abuse -- because they would be falling off their chairs laughing at you.

[tpaine]

-- We're done. Take the last word. Feel free to shoot down yet another position I haven't made.

Actually, your making an obviously false argument is irrational. I suppose that it is you that loses by default. As does any argument that tries to make legitimate a legal "right" to procuring the death of one's unborn child.
sitetest

[Howlin]

I see you're trying the treat-them-with-utter-contempt-approach instead.

Well, I prefer to "give" rather than being on the receiving end like we have for the last five years.