Christian leader rejects McCain

NewsNetDaily.com ^ | Januaru 13, 2007 | Bob Unruh

[Victoria Delsoul]

Great post, Hitman! Thanks much.

[Mia T]

I'm sorry; this is pointless. You answer with non sequitur. You make no sense.

[streetpreacher]

Your hatred for Hillary Clinton has blinded you from the glaring flaws of many of her would-be Republican challengers. Which is worse, the wolf that you know is a wolf or the one who sneaks in among the sheep?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I'm sorry; this is pointless.

And your point is?

[Mia T]

Read my statements. I never said the others are not flawed.

To the contrary, it is my position that the professional pol is a self-selected subgroup of Homo sapiens that is mediocre and corrupt or corruptible almost by definition. The larger solution, in my view, is return to the Founders' idea of the citizen politician.

If you cannot discern the difference between the clintons and everyone else, then there is nothing more I can say to you... except this:

Did you listen to clinton's statement about the Religious Right?
If not, why not?
If so, it is you, streetpreacher, who is blind.

[HitmanLV]

Thank you for the kind words! :-)

[HitmanLV]

Too many folks on FR think being principled means turning off their brain at the door.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I think an increasing problem with social values voters .... is a very poor grasp of exactly what they want ...

I think not. If anything, its the moderate-centrist-liberal wing of the GOP, that has the serious problems with certain issues. Those issues are associated with and based on centuries old traditional American values and beliefs. The mainstream conservatism of the US Constitution. I think most social conservatives know exactly what they want from government. That would be, a limited welfare state bureaucracy, real tax reform, respect for human life, strong border sovereignty and the best national defense and security our tax money can buy.

You talk as though social conservatives are the enemy. LOL Social conservatives have been the life blood of the Republican Party for the last three decades. Social conservatives ARE the Grand Old Party.

>>>>>I see very little in the way of specifics from this type of voter. The result is a voter that is immature and motivated more by emotion rather than reason

What an outrageous statement. Of course the abortion issue is an emotional issue, and rightfully so. Abortion is the taking of an unborn human life. I believe life begins at conception, and therefore see no place in a civilized society for abortion on demand to exist. Besides, roughly 95% of the time abortions are carried out as nothing more then a birth control procedure. People who don't find that revolting, don't have a soul.

Its not immature to stand up and speak out in opposition to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. Killing the unborn child is one of the historic abominations in human history. There have been some 48 million abortions carried out since the SCOTUS passed Roe v Wade in 1973. Read the Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the greatest phrases ever written by man, and its meaning is REAL. The objective for all pro-lifers, is to overturn Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion on demand.

A social conservative by the name of Ronald Reagan had it right. In his essay, "Abortion and Conscience of a Nation", President Reagan wrote:

"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...

"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

Btw, when you attack social conservatives, you're attacking the vast majority of FReepers. Remember, the GOP is nothing without social conservatives. Republicans can't win elections without the votes of social conservatives. Period.

[HitmanLV]

I think most social conservatives know exactly what they want from government. That would be, a limited welfare state bureaucracy, real tax reform, respect for human life, strong border sovereignty and the best national defense and security our tax money can buy.

I think this is a good example of exactly what I am talking about.  Not one specific goal in there.  Some platitudes.  Poorly thought out and malformed ideas. 

• What limits on the welfare state are you looking for?  How do you distinguish between a good welfare program, and a poor one?
• What is real tax reform?  What tax laws would you reform?  Or scrap the whole system in favor or something else? 
  
• What do you mean by respect for human life?  Are you against the death penalty?  Against abortion in all cases?  Some cases?  How do you distinguish between an ok abortion and a not ok abortion, if at all?
• What do you mean by a strong border sovereignty?  Soldiers on the border shooting people?  A wall?  Land mines?  Tough laws stateside for captured illegals?  Do you want to go round up illegals and deport them?
• What do you mean by the best national defense money can buy?  Cool fancy machines we don't have the will to use?  Keep more of them coming?  Have  you thought this through?
  

And ultimately, what do you realistically expect to gain on any one given position if a big enough segment of the electorate disagrees with you strongly.  As in, 'we vote on it and you lose?'  What do you do then?  Do you have respect for the political process, or are some parts of your agenda much more important than what the people want?

You talk as though social conservatives are the enemy. LOL Social conservatives have been the life blood of the Republican Party for the last three decades. Social conservatives ARE the Grand Old Party.

Not at all.  I do think that anybody with unrealistic goals who sticks to those goals (at the risk of losing on their achievable goals) is a liability.  That can be any breed of Republican.

Abortion is the taking of an unborn human life. I believe life begins at conception, and therefore see no place in a civilized society for abortion on demand to exist. Besides, roughly 95% of the time abortions are carried out as nothing more then a birth control procedure. People who don't find that revolting, don't have a soul.

That's all fine and I happen to personally agree with you.  But you missed the point entirely.  Everything you typed here is fine, but what happens when the electorate just doesn't agree with you?  In other words, what's your legitimate pro life policy expectations in the face of an electorate where enough people want 1st trimester abortion to remain legal?  Everything you say is true, but has nothing to do with the core question.

I do think that in 2007, it is immature to expect 1st trimesters abortions to end or somehow be made illegal in the USA.

You then launch into a strange, misplaced litany about pro life.  That's all fine and I agree with it.  My point is, what can we expect to accomplish in a world that increasingly disagrees with us.

Your post actually illustrates a lot of the deficiencies in thinking I was addressing.  It was all good, but it didn't even pretend to have a logical nexus to the current political landscape.  That's just not very productive.

[Reagan Man]

For starters, I think you're missing what American politics and specifically, what conservative politics is all about. Not unusual in this day and age. It takes a lot of patience and a strong intelligent thought process to wade through all the crap being thrown at the average American. Clearly, your senses have been bombarded with so much trashtalk, you've lost your conservative focus. That's if you ever had a sound set of conservative principles to begin with. I'm doubtful. Conservatism is not about surrendering our principles, or compromising away what we conservatives have fought for over the last 30 years. And its not about out liberaling, the liberals either. Its about sticking to our principles and only compromising as a last resort, and then ONLY to advance a conservative agenda. This is not about advancing liberalism.

>I think this is a good example of exactly what I am talking about. Not one specific goal in there. Some platitudes. Poorly thought out and malformed ideas.

Either you didn't read my post, or you're being intentionally blind for argumentative purposes. Frankly, you sound like a 'liberaltarian', or maybe just a badly informed or misinformed voter. Right now, I'm not quite sure what you are in political terms, but I think I know what your objective is.

The idea of a strong national defense, limited government, tax reform and support for pro-life issues, was at the heart of the Reagan policy agenda of the 1980`s. It was also at the heart of Newt Gingrich`s, Contract With America in 1994 and the Bush campaign agenda of 2000. Today, opposition to liberal immigration reform policy and amnesty for illegals can be added as another major issue of concern for ALL conservatives, not just social conservatives.

You ask a lot of questions, but you offer no answers. If you are a conservative you would know what the answers are. The fact is, you seem to be a pragmatic centrist who believes that the incremental leftward tilt of the Republican Party under the leadership GW Bush for the last six years, has been just what the doctor ordered. So what do you support today? More leftward tilting? More liberal domestic spending policy? Open borders? Excessive taxation? A scaled down military? More welfare entitlement programs for seniors? More spending wasted on education at the federal level?

Have you thought this through?

If you knew anything about American politcs, you'd understand the success achieved by the winning coalition of social and fiscal conseravtives that Reagan built some 30 years ago, can be successful again. Opening up your big mouth, denouncing social conservatives and attempting to drive a wedge between social and fiscal conservatives, doesn't impress anyone around this forum. You will actually accomplish NOTHING in the longrun, except to further fracture the GOP and allow a Democrat to secure the White House in 2008.

So, is that your goal?

[HitmanLV]

I'd like to answer your questions, but only if you address mine.

Let's tart with one example. You are pro life (and so am I). What specifically does that mean? What do you want to accomplish legislatively? What is your strategy on the issue if a majority of voters align against your position?

Do you want to outlaw all abortion nationally - create a federal law making abortion illegal? If so, do you want to arrest women, doctors, or both? How will the ban be administered?

Do you want to outlaw some abortions and not others? How do you tell the difference between the ok kind and the not-ok kind? If so, do you want to arrest women, doctors, or both? How will the ban be administered?

Where do you stand on any jurisdiction issue - is this something the federal government has the legal power to do at all?

As for coalitions, that's part of my point - on this abortion issue, what if a large enough portion of the electorate aligns against your well formed goals and simply rejects them? What then?

I have answers to these questions, but the issue is what do you expect to accomplish on this issue, not what I expect to accomplish.

My position is clear (and not libertarian). I am against abortion except for cases or rape, incest, or serious medical danger to the mother. I think the decision should be made by the states on how to handle abortion policy, and that this isn't a constitutional issue.

That being said, I think every state, if it voted on it, would keep first trimester abortion legal. I think that stinks, but I honor that decision as valid policy if that's what people want to do. I'd support private efforts to change people's minds about the issue, of course. And support later efforts to change the law as values align hopefully again to our favor.

I think we basically lost on the issue. Actually I know we have. I think that sucks, but I know when I lose and I know when I win. Pretending we are winning well after the game is lost seems very strange to me, but I have to say, I see that mentality in a lot of voters (values voters and other voters, too).

[Reagan Man]

I can appreciate you wanting to argue point after point, and issue after issue with me. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. Suffice it to say, the outcome would leave me working to advance conservatism, and you wanting to advance a more pragmatic centrist policy agenda. In your world, everything is open to compromise, cause politics is the art of compromise. Right? LOL Like I said, I'm all for compromise, but only as a last resort, and only if it advances a conservative agenda.

Over the last six years there has been little compromise on domestic spending policy by Pres Bush adn the GOP majority. And that has been my biggest bone of contention with Dubya, Frist, Hastert and the other GOP powerbrokers. While Bush did promote a strong pro-life/pro-family agenda, and a set of instinctive tax cuts, this POTUS and the Congressional GOP leadership pushed through massive spending increases, expanding the federal welfare state bureaucracy, while promoting amnesty for some 15 million illegals. That was not what I voted for in 2000 or 2004.

What Bush`s liberal domestic policy agenda did do was to shift the national politics of the GOP leftward. The election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003 and his reelection in 2006, didn't help the conservative movement one iota. Now for the kicker. Nominating Rudy Giuliani to be the GOP standard bearer in 2008, is not the answer either. Frankly, I doubt Rudy can get the nomination. Social conservatives will not vote for him in the GOP primaries.

It may sound like a broken record, but I still think the answer for Republican victories in future elections exists in that Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives. Together those two constituencies make up probably 75%-85% of the GOP voter base. Remaining united and with the right conservative candidate at the top of the ticket, one that represents both factions, the GOP can retain control of the Executive Branch in 2008. Otherwise, it will be an effort in futility.

If we keep promoting left leaning, incremental policies based on pragmatism and compromise, that appeal to the small moderate-centrist-liberal wing of the GOP, Republicans will remain in the minority for a generation or more. For the most part, we've had 40 years of liberal policies. Aside from the eight years that Reagan fought liberalism to a standstill, the five years Gingrich was successful battling the Clinton's, and the "promise" of Bush43`s first term, whether its Democrats or Republicans, the government has grown so big its gonna take a political miracle to turn things around at this point.

I remain cautiously optimistic about the future direction of the Republican Party. Wouldn't be surprised to see the conservative movement break from the GOP at some future date and become the alternative to the Democratic Party.

[HitmanLV]

Your comments are right, but again misplaced.

My post has nothing much to do with compromise. The question is, essentially, what do you do when you have lost on a front? Pretend the battle is still going on? Envision that the country is going to turn some imaginary corner?

Seems to me when enough people align against a position I hold, hoping to work that through legislatively isn't going to be productive. It then becomes a challenge to convince people that the position doesn't suck. If I can't do that, I lose.

Pretending that without a serious effort at marketing all these folks who think the position sucks will just let their majority will get undermined isn't practical, and isn't something I think is the morally right thing to do.

And this dovetails again to the original point: you consistently are unwilling (or unable) to articulate specifically, exactly what you want. If you don't know what you want, how will you know if you get it?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Your comments are right, but again misplaced.

I don't think my comments are misplaced at all. In fact, I think my comments are right on the money. Precise and concise. My remarks are about supporting, promoting and advancing the conservative agenda for America. I do not find it necessary to debate the pragmatic, incremental politics of moderation, centrism or liberalism, versus the politics of conservatism. I know conservatism is the RIGHT political position. Period.

>>>>And this dovetails again to the original point: you consistently are unwilling (or unable) to articulate specifically, exactly what you want. If you don't know what you want, how will you know if you get it?

BULLoney. There are a myriad of issues that we can discuss. I've explained to you my position on abortion. What I haven't done is expressed my position in the way you want me to. I have articulated exactly how far I'm willing to compromise on abortion. See post #208. I've made enough specific points on this thread to satisfy your curiosity on the abortion issue.

More importantly. In my last post to you, I explained my major bones of contention with Bush and GOP`s policy agenda over the last six years.... liberal spending policies, expanding the welfare state bureaucracy and immigration reform, AKA. amnesty. You called those remarks, misplaced. Yet, I don't know where you stand on those issues. Lets not forget, issues related to the battle for Iraq and the bigger GWOT. We could be here for a week discussing my conservative politics versus your centrist politics. Cut to the chase.

Bottomline. No one who supports big government, gun control, an assault weapons ban, abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, special rights for homos and amnesty/citizenship for illegals, will EVER get my vote. Rudy Giuliani is persona non grata in my book. How about you?

[HitmanLV]

I do not find it necessary to debate the pragmatic

I guess that's where they depart. If you don't want to discuss how realistic a strategy is, I see no use. An agenda that can't be realized isn't worth much talking about.

How do you know when an impractical agenda is a success?

[Reagan Man]

You can stop opining. I've had your number for while.

Answer one simple two part question, please. Do you support Rudy Giuliani to be the GOP nominee in 2008? Would you vote for the Giuliani in the 2008 general?

[HitmanLV]

What's my number?

The answer is yes I might, and yes I would.

That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. If the Reagan Man is reduced to shallow posturing, you just don't live up to your name, jack.

And you still haven't been able to cope with the question I posed: what happens to your agenda when a majority tells you to stick it where the sun don't shine. Being right is good, but isn't worth a lick if enough align against you.

[HitmanLV]

I also supported and voted for Dubya, twice? So what's my number?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I think it has everything to do with what we're talking about. Posturing and all.

You've been doing pretty good, don't lose your cool now. Honestly, wasn't trying to impress or deceive. I'm a great fan of Ronald Reagan, and believe his idea of conservatism was a winner. Just wanted to know where you stood on the NYCity liberal, Rudy Giuliani. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

[Clemenza]

Would Dobson support the pro-gay, thrice divorced, non-Christian former Mayor of Noo Yawk?