Posted on 12/14/2006 8:37:44 PM PST by neverdem
Limit gov't & put American interests ahead instead of globalists. Then the social issues will take care of themselves.
Luis Gonzalez wrote: "Uh...it appears to have worked rather well for the Democrats."
Agreed, but I don't agree with you (from your previous posts on other threads) that the Republicans need to sacrifice conservative goals in order to appeal to the moderates. The Republicans need to articulate why conservatism is much better for this country. I believe small government IS better, but the problem is, IMHO, many Republican leaders don't. I suspect the moderates would have voted Republican if they had something worth voting for. Saying Democrats are worse is NOT an effective way to win elections. Take just one issue, Social Security. What rational person wouldn't prefer a reform that gives you the OPTION of owning your own retirement funds, guarantees you'll never have less than what the present program pays, and promises no changes for existing recipients who don't want to participate? THAT is something that should sell very well to conservatives and moderates.
BTW, I'm not saying you are wrong for wanting to compromise on the issues. I think many conservatives would just like to see a few issues actually swing our way when we vote for people who profess to support us. It's not like a ban on partial birth abortion, for example, was all that earth shattering, or do you think we were reaching too far?
DaveyB wrote: "The worst part was how half-a$$ed the republicans acted in the Schiavo matter!"
Agreed. If any of them truly thought it was murder, they basically stood by and let it happen. Rather than take a stand, they tried to pawn it off on the judicial system, and the judges weren't interested in playing.
My point was simply that libertarians who wanted to save Terri because they thought her opinion in the matter (right to die) wasn't clearly established, effectively wanted the same result as social conservatives who wanted to save her for moral reasons. In other words, we are natural allies against the liberals, but you wouldn't know it from reading many of the posts in these threads.
I hope you aren't taking offense where none was intended. I most certainly don't consider all of those who defended her right to live a zealot or incapable of considering the constitutional questions that were raised.
arderkrag wrote: "I should know, my sister is a card carrying-Democrat."
My sympathies. It's funny how nearly every extended family has one.
Frankly, people who demand spending cuts in wartime strike me as brain dead.
You obviously don't get it. Most Libertarians do not belong to the LP or any other political party. They comprise a large swath of voters who just want the government to stay out of their lives. You know, the large swath of voters that told the GOP to take a hike.
Have fun getting elected with out us.
You need us more than we need you. Bush is perhaps the most pro-life President in modern political history and abortion is still around. Do you think by running solely on social issues the GOP can win? Look, tell the party bosses to stop putting so much emphasis on abortion and gay marriage. We know the GOP is pro-life and defenders of the family. Do they have to make it a central issue all the time?
The GOP needs to focus on the meat-and-potatoes for now. Once people have money and the economy's booming the social issues will take care of themselves.
EEE wrote: "Social issues should be fought at the state/local level."
I bet a majority of Americans, myself included, agree. It's the liberals who believe in a living Constitution (meaning, we'll interpret it to mean whatever we want).
My main point of opposition with your post lies right here:
"I don't agree with you (from your previous posts on other threads) that the Republicans need to sacrifice conservative goals in order to appeal to the moderates."
Self-described conservatives seem to believe that they own the GOP, and that everyone else who belongs needs to adhere to their ideology.
The Republican Party, in order to survive, must be a coalition, that coalition must recognize dissimilar points of view, and honor its membership by supporting their causes.
If conservatives feel that this is something that they can't tolerate, then they need to form the American Conservative Party, and advance their own ideas.
I was of a mixed oppinion on the whole Schiavo thing. On the one hand I support a persons right to end their life or refuse medical treatment and I think a spouse's say is more important than other family members in this matter. On the other hand though, her husband really seemed to be a jerk and letting someone slowly die of dehydration seems to be excessively cruel. If someone killed their dog by depriving it of water for two weeks we'd all agree that that person was a monster who belongs in jail. Personally I think it would have been far kinder to have given her an overdose of barbituates.
FReeper Southack posts s listing of the Bush administration achievements. It's quite an impressive list, even if you only examine the victories scored in the process of rolling back abortion in America.
Pretending that nothing swung in the conservative way during the Bush administration s one of the most annoying habits of so-called conservatives.
Now, I ask you, if you were the GOP, and conservatives did nothing more than complain about what they weren't getting when you knew that they had scored more victories than ever, why would you continue to court them?
EEE wrote: "Limit gov't & put American interests ahead instead of globalists. Then the social issues will take care of themselves."
I think we need both limited government and social conservatism, but I think I see your point. If we eliminate the big government safety net that reinforces irresponsible behavior, we'd get a return to morality, right? On the other hand, we are unlikely to get fiscal conservatism with a massive illegitimacy rate, because a lot of those single moms want government to be daddy. In any event, it doesn't hurt libertarians and values voters to work together for BOTH limited government and social conservatism. It's not like the libertarians have to give all that much up to put some reasonable restrictions on abortion, or is it?
The "Values Voters" were all united behind keeping Terri Schiavo alive. There are tons and tons and tons of people who are against abortion, gay marriage, & etc., but did not believe in the "Save Terri" stuff.
Those voters absolutely saw through what the Republicans were doing- passing meaningless laws that sounded tough at a surface level but didn't actually change any laws. I'm not at all convinced that is the reason Bush's ratings went down, but it did feed the cynicism.
That attitude is EXACTLY the reason why Republicans lost this last election. Military spending is only 19% of the federal budget and you're telling me it's brain dead to demand spending cuts in the other 81%? Republican socialism sucks!
Dolphy wrote: "I hope you aren't taking offense where none was intended."
No offense taken. I assume religious zealots are those who want to act on their faith. I know many people who fall into that category. When we discussed Terri Schiavo, the morality of the decision wasn't the only reason we opposed killing her. It was one of the reasons, but not the only reason.
The MSM paints a very different picture of us fundamentalists. Yes, we are guided by faith, but we aren't unthinking. The MSM image of uneducated, screaming, intolerant Bible thumpers is GREATLY exaggerated.
ndt wrote: "The defense of personal freedom in the GOP has atrophied."
If so, it hasn't atrophied any worse than the goal of social conservatism. I think you are overly pessimistic. From what I see, limited government, social conservatism, and personal liberty are still important issues to rank and file Republicans. The real threat comes from liberals who have absolutely no reservations about using government to achieve their goals. It's not like conservatives appointed the SCOTUS judges who recently voted to let your property be confiscated and handed over to another citizen.
Luis Gonzalez wrote: "The Republican Party, in order to survive, must be a coalition, that coalition must recognize dissimilar points of view, and honor its membership by supporting their causes."
I don't disagree with that. Just remember recognition goes both ways. It doesn't mean I give up everything I want so you can get what you want. And, that's the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread. I don't think it's a big deal for libertarians to let us social conservatives have a few things while they get what they want. I ask again, was it really that great a sacrifice for the libertarians or moderate Republicans when we tried to save Terri Schiavo? What was so unreasonable about trying to save the poor woman's life?????
elmer fudd wrote: "I was of a mixed oppinion (sic) on the whole Schiavo thing."
And yet, despite all of the reasons you quoted, some FReepers are offended that social conservatives said, "Whoa! Maybe we should slow down before we rush to kill her." It was a worthy cause, IMHO, and even if some Republican moderates disagreed, I don't think we conservatives were asking for much. I mean, was it really that unreasonable to try and save her life? Is THAT what moderates think? You know, it was possible to fight for Terri Schiavo AND cut government at the same time. It's not our (libertarian, moderate, and conservative) fault our leaders sold us a bill of goods.
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.