Sitetest,
I answer your intelligent post by re-posting something I said yesterday in another thread...
"This thread is truly depressing. When a group of committed patriots like the good people of this forum are willing to risk the election of a Left Wing President, someone unwilling to defend this nation at a time of War, then we as a country are probably doomed to be a sad footnote on the scrap heap of history.
The nation is already in deep trouble as some 20-30 percent of the population are European-type COWARDS who will not do what it takes to guarantee the continued existence of this nation. That's bad enough. But when good and decent folk like the posters on this site are unable, or unwilling, to recognize the danger they advocate by supporting a third party candidate at a time like this, then I fear my children will have no future, or at the very least, they will inherit a country that has been beaten into submission by the forces of evil in the Islamic World.
At the risk of sounding dramatic, what will you say to yourselves when Hillary Clinton sits in the White House, and inspired by her retreat in the War on Terror, Islamo-Fascists bring about 1 Million "retroactive abortions" in the form of a nuclear device? Dead men have no principles my friends, and at this time, electing the wrong President could mean catastrophic results for this nation.
Reading this thread has been even more depressing than reading DU or Kos...your inflexibility will eventually lead to the downfall of this nation as you allow 5th Columnists like Hillary and her ilk to run this country!"
Dear MarkDel,
Well, it comes down to the fact that even though we are each conservatives, we disagree on some things.
First, I'm not persuaded that Mrs. Clinton will receive the nomination of her party. She's just not a very effective politician. There are folks here, when it is suggested that Mr. Giuliani run against her in '06, who state that she'd just duck that contest, and decline to run in '06. The funny thing is, the same speculation exists in the Dem Party, too. That doesn't suggest that anyone, Republican or Democrat, is especially impressed with Mrs. Clinton's political skills.
Second, I don't think she would harm our country as much as Mr. Clinton harmed it, and we survived him. We survived EIGHT YEARS of him. I have little confidence that President Clinton II would obtain a second term.
Third, I don't view the islamofascist pigs who are trying to destroy our country as being as much of a danger to our country as abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, etc. From my perspective, the culture of death into which the West is evolving is a greater threat to us than the islamofascists, who attack us from without.
In fact, from my perspective, it is the internalization of that culture of death that makes us vulnerable to the islamofascists. It is that embrace of death that makes individuals into cowards who will not defend their nation, nor permit others to do it for them. It is a culture that no longer distinguishes between the innocent life of an unborn child and the life of the incorrigible aggressor that lays down its defenses, to be overrun by another death cult.
So, to me, our defenses against the islamofascists are brittle and hollow if we succumb to our own cultural annihilation.
Much of Europe's pretty far gone in terms of embracing the culture of death. It is these same nations that also have no will to defend themselves, their culture, their civilization. In fact, they have repudiated their civilization, their history, in favor of their death cult.
The United States has followed a far way down the same road, but Republican presidencies that at least paid lip service to the Culture of Life have had some positive effect. The fact is, attitudes really have changed on some fundamental issues, the fact is that we are seeing a growing pro-life majority.
But if we say that that has in part occurred because of at least nominally pro-life Republican presidencies for all but eight of the last 25 years, then we must admit that a pro-death Republican presidency would tell in the other direction.
Like I said, MarkDel, most of us social conservatives will accept flawed Republican nominees. But if you read us out of the party by nominating someone who would be left of center in the DEMOCRAT Party on social issues, then don't expect that we're going to beg to be let back in the tent.
Folks often call the Republican Party the Stupid Party. There's a reason for that. In 1990, George the Father raised taxes, after telling us to read his lips.
But the Stupid Party is not the profoundly retarded party. The Stupid Party does learn, if with difficulty. What it learned in 1992 is that if you kick your anti-tax conservatives in the groin, they won't vote for you. Ever since, no Republican presidential candidate has suggested that raising taxes might be a part of his policy.
You gotta dance with the one(s) that brung ya.
That being said, although I'm not pleased that Mr. Bush didn't nominate someone who is clearly pro-life, I'm willing to refrain from judgment until things become clearer.
However, if either Mr. Roberts or Ms. Miers turns out to be squishy on life, well, then, I, and many other social conservatives will have to seriously rethink our allegiance to the Republican Party. Because of the unique texture of how this issue has played out in our society, pro-life Supremes are a non-negotiable element of our membership in the party. The only realistic chance we have of even returning the questions of life to the political realm are by changing the composition of the Supreme Court.
We've been burned by Mr. Reagan, with Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy, and Mr. Bush, pere, with Justice Souter, on this issue, and I gotta tell ya, 25 years in, we're unwilling to be fooled again.
sitetest