8mm
Posted on 02/04/2007 1:31:12 AM PST by Jim Robinson
I've long assumed that the Republican Party platform included pro-life, pro-family and pro 1st and 2nd amendment planks. Is this true or false? Or is the platform amended each election cycle to conform to the positions of the top polling potential presidential nominee (ie, the one with the most money or star billing and the MSM eye)?
If these planks are based on longstanding, sound conservative principles and are sincerely respected and upheld by the majority of the members, then I'd like to propose a motion that before being seriously considered by the official party powers that be, prospective nominees for the office of President of the United States must in the least demonstrate a solid history of being pro-life, pro-family and pro 1st and 2nd amendments, in addition to a solid history of abiding by and fighting for the other basic Republican planks, ie, national security, national defense, limited government, conservative spending, lower taxes, strict constructionist judges, local control of health, education and welfare, etc, etc.
Or is it too much to ask of the politician asking for our support for the highest office in the land to respect and abide by conservative principles and the basic planks of the party platform?
Or is there a movement underfoot to remove these planks from the platform?
ping
For myself personally, I've gone through a shift in thinking. The "party" is not voting in unity which renders the platform meaningless. I think it's time to lay "party" aside and look deeply into the individual. Unwavering support for life has got to be engrained in the fabric of a candidate's character before I will even consider him/her.
Secondly, those who would say that security is our #1 priority I would say this. Are we so limited today in the United States of America to have only ONE #1 priority? Is our congress so inept that they cannot or will not agressively legislate a constructive and restorative path for our nation? Life has become so irrevalent to our government and it is the key to our security in my opinion. For as a God-fearing American, I know where our "security" really comes from.
After all these years with a "Republican Platform", the little ones have been piling up to the throne of heaven. God help us.
Good post PTL.
(:o} Many blessings.
place mark
oops..please forgive typos, haven't found my glasses yet this morning.
I thought you wrote a vanity in November '06, just before the election, that the WOT was the most important issue.
Exactly.
Even Newt's Contract with America didn't mention abortion, gay marriage or guns.
Bring back the platform of lower taxes, less goverment, strong national security, and personal freedom and responsibility.
Not to forget------then-RNC chair Kenny Mehlman "leaked" to Log Cabin Republicans top secret WH election strategy.
Mehlman offered to resign over the "leak"---but his offer was declined.
In light of the Nov 06 debacle----leaving Pres Bush easy prey for vengeful Democrats-----Mehlman's activities at RNC make you wonder.
Longtime Republican donors reported Mehlman's antagonism and outright belligerency towards conservatives.
Link?
!
Ensuring personal FREEDOM requires eternal vigilance by the CITIZENS (NOT merely depending on the government, since history shows us that sometimes, government can be the enemy) of this great country, and that is hand-in-hand with protecting, supporting, and revering our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
Personal RESPONSIBILITY includes EXERCISING those rights, when necessary, to PROTECT our personal freedom.
If our 2nd Amendment rights are not mentioned in our party platform, in any "contract" with Americans, or by politicians running for office, does NOT mean they shouldn't be, because THEY SHOULD be - LOUDLY and PROUDLY.
We should also be LOUD & PROUD about being a party that values and defends LIFE also, especially INNOCENT life.
bttt
.....conservatives reporting to each other---not to the media.....
Great thread. Thanks to all contributors. BTTT!
More than that. See Scandals here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman
I am so very glad to see these questions raised here. Frankly, the majority of posters on some of the 2008 threads here seem to be arguing that electability is all that matters. Maybe the GOP could win by throwing the social conservatives overboard, but I hate to think that most FReepers now favor that strategy. If they do, then 2006 was a bigger win for the Dems than anybody thought at the time.
Bush has pursued the most aggressively low tax agenda of my lifetime. He surely deserves credit for that.
In my experience, someone who invokes "Goldwater" and "personal freedom" in the same sentence is often that most bizarre and illogical of political animals: a socially liberal fiscal conservative. Most Log Cabin Republicans are socially liberal fiscal conservatives.
A socally liberal fiscal conservative is quite willing to accept the complete and utter devastation of traditional social values and structures in the name of "personal freedom." However, he insists that he can do it without having to pay a price.
Socially liberal fiscal conservatism is the small government variation of the "something for nothing" scam that liberal Democrats play in promoting the welfare state. But socially liberal fiscal conservatives are less honest or more deluded than their socially liberal fiscal liberal brethren. The latter freely admit that that their "personal freedom" and demands will cost the rest of us a lot of money. That's why they love high taxes.
A socially liberal fiscal conservative usually isn't for "small government" in achieving his impossible goal either. For example, he usually favors new laws that force everyone else to adjust their lives and businesses to accommodate his favored social diseases. The social disease du jour is same sex marriage.
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.