Posted on 04/28/2006 5:58:15 AM PDT by areafiftyone
LOL. Back to personal attacks. Telling the truth? You are the one having a hard time with the facts.
There was an Internet in 2000 and 2004.
Come on. You're they guy trotting out the old tired RINO "you're a single-issue voter" canard over and over and over again.
You're predictable and tiresome.
Yeah, I expect our own country club sect to be all over this thread thumping for Rudy, Romney, or shhh...McCain.
Which of course were not the elections you mentioned in your post.
Dear kabar,
"I don't need to be lectured about the Rep Party. I am a registered, card carrying Rep who has contributed time and money to the getting candidates elected. I am also a conservative and have been for 40 years."
Great, then you should understand that a nominee who can't unite all parts of the Republican coalition just won't win the general election.
sitetest
And it's time you guys learned to understand that a single-issue, no-exceptions to abortion candidate will never unite all parts of the Republican coalition, NOR will that candidate ever win the White House.
Dear Corin Stormhands,
"And it's time you guys..."
I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys." I've repeatedly stated that although I expect the Republican candidate to be pro-life, and willing to appoint justices who will overturn Roe, I'll vote for someone that I view as not perfect about this issue.
And I've argued that position to other posters who insist on a more purist view of things.
As well, I've talked to other pro-lifers that I know, and I believe that most will support and vote for a Republican nominee who makes clear that Roe must go.
sitetest
Ah, you've decided to use that lying RINO canard, too. Doesn't speak well of George Allen that that's the best his closest supporters can do.
Why do you believe that no one who takes the Reagan pro-life position, the one decided upon by the GOP in its platform for the last 25 years, 'can win'?
It's a really nonsensical position to take.
As well, I've talked to other pro-lifers that I know, and I believe that most will support and vote for a Republican nominee who makes clear that Roe must go.
Not sure I'm following you here. That seems like and "of course..."
Where are you going to find another Reagan?
For the sake of clarity:
The 'single-issue' charge against conservatives is designed to marginalize conservatives, the base of the Republican Party, and is nothing but a ploy to make squishy moderate to liberal candidates palatable.
While this bludgeon has proved to be successful for them in the past, it is a big lie.
In fact, the base of the Party has a wide agenda that includes the protection of innocent human life; the uncompromising defense of America and Americans, including the protection of our borders and our national sovereignty and the right to keep and bear arms; the protection of all the God-given rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights; fundamental tax reform; spending restraint; judicial reform; the protection of private property rights, etc., etc., etc.
The use of this slander should be a huge red flag to all conservatives about the agenda of those who feel compelled to use such arguments.
It's a canard that should be dealt with sharply and swiftly every time it pokes up its ugly nose.
And those who use it should be viewed with suspicion, I think.
Dear Corin Stormhands,
"Not sure I'm following you here. That seems like and 'of course...'"
No, not really.
A candidate who says he isn't in favor of highly restrictive abortion laws, but IS in favor of getting rid of Roe, so that the question can be returned to the political process is a candidate that is clearly flawed from the pro-life perspective.
However, I think that most pro-lifers will probably vote for such a candidate.
sitetest
Not in the U.S. Senate, probably.
It depends on what you mean by "pro-life." Do you mean a total ban on abortions and a criminalization of those who perform them. If so, then any candidate who espouses such a position will not be elected.
As well, I've talked to other pro-lifers that I know, and I believe that most will support and vote for a Republican nominee who makes clear that Roe must go.
George Allen has said as much, i.e., the decision on abortion needs to be made at the state level, not by the federal government. The general public, aided by the pro-choice movement, sees the overturning of Roe synonymous with banning abortion. Even if Roe is overturned, states like NY, WA, and Mass could still have abortion. So then what?
You doth protest too much. You are the one who won't vote for McCain, Allen, Romney, Rice, etc. because of one issue.
Senator's Sessions, Allen, and Coburn come to mind.
I see you're becoming obsessed with George Allen, EV. I note your new tagline.
Dear kabar,
"It depends on what you mean by 'pro-life.' Do you mean a total ban on abortions and a criminalization of those who perform them. If so, then any candidate who espouses such a position will not be elected. "
I mean that a Republican candidate must be genuinely pro-life. I'm an "extremist," and I will not rest until all abortions are in all cases always illegal, and the murderers who perform them are incarcerated for serial murder.
However, I understand that we're a long way off from that. I don't believe that I'll live to see the day when I may rest on this issue. Candidates who state that Roe must go, that the Supreme Court must throw out this piece of cr@p, and that the ideal abortion regime will ban all abortions except in rape, incest, and the life of the mother, are probably the best we'll get for now, and I will accept that for now. If we were to have a legal regime that banned all but those abortions, we would eliminate 96+% of abortions, and that would be a good start.
Sen. Allen is pretty flawed in that he'd permit most first trimester abortions, which is to say, most abortions.
But he has said that he thinks that a state like South Dakota should have the right to ban all abortions. Thus, his stated opinion does appear to vitiate Roe. However, I read a transcript of him recently, with one of the news talking heads, where he almost acted as if he didn't realize that the South Dakota legislation directly contradicts the core holdings of Roe.
I'm sure he realizes that that is the case, and is just trying to be cutesy. I think that perhaps he wants to overturn Roe without saying that he wants to overturn Roe. I don't think that strategy will work. I think that he'll just make folks on both sides upset. He's going to make pro-lifers itchy, nervous, and not inclined to support him strongly, and he's not going to make up for it by attracting any pro-deathers.
Sen. Allen's a smart man, and I think he'll figure it out, probably sooner rather than later, that he's just better off with the circumlocutions that President Bush has used.
"Even if Roe is overturned, states like NY, WA, and Mass could still have abortion. So then what?"
Most of us pro-lifers have no illusions. Overturning Roe is only the start of the battle. And it is quite possible that our victories for many years to come will be incomplete and inadequate.
However, babies will be saved, and some unborn children will begin to be protected in law.
sitetest
Senator's Sessions, Allen, and Coburn come to mind.
Senators like Sessions and Coburn spurred my use of the word "probably", yes.
Allen, no, of course. I don't support those who support abortions for 'fetal abnormality'.
You can't count? Abortion, fetal stem cells, borders, spending, nationalized health care, abuse of the First Amendment, out-of-control spending.
All of those reasons and more are reasons to oppose your RINO list.
Add them up. Do they equal "one", genius?
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.