Posted on 02/05/2007 4:55:12 PM PST by Jim Robinson
When the members of the Republican party betray the sound conservative principles of its founders and its own longstanding party platform and then vote in a leader whose personal beliefs and public record are more in line with those of the degenerate socialist Democrat party, then obviously the Republican party is sliding to the left. When large numbers of the members of a conservative party enthusiastically (you might even say overzealously or militantly) campaign for a social liberal and against sound conservative principles and candidates, then they are pushing the conservative principles, conservative candidates and conservative members out the exit doors.
Should the large number of members militantly campaigning for a socialist liberal for the presidency win out, and the only choices presented to the electorate by the two major political parties both share identical immoral socialist liberal ideologies, and the voter is left with voting for a socialist or a socialist, then obviously the resultant elected government will be a socialist government.
When the Republican Party abandons its conservative principles and abandons its fight against encroaching socialism, then obviously it is no longer a conservative party and we no longer have a major party fighting for traditional American values and against socialism.
When the American people abandon their longstanding traditional conservative family values and instead openly embrace socialism and perverted lifestyles, then America has moved left and is obviously no longer a traditional conservative nation.
When and if the American people abandon their traditional Judeo-Christian morality and traditional American conservative values, and instead opt for corrupt godless liberal/socialist immorality and perversion as the norm, then obviously America will have lost its way.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Founding Fathers warned us that our style of Republican government would only work for a moral society. When and if we as a nation turn our backs on God and the nation abandons our American traditional Judeo-Christian morals and values, and rampant godless socialism takes over, the America of our Founders ceases to exist.
You can spin it, twist it, deny it, make a million excuses and logical explanations for why electing a social liberal at this time is a good idea, but you cannot deny the simple truth. A social liberal is a liberal and liberals begat liberalism. Liberalism begats socialism. Our nation was founded on the self-evident truth that our unalienable rights come from God. Socialists deny God exists. Socialists say our rights come from men in government robes. What men in government robes give, other men in government robes can take away. Without God we have no unalienable rights. No unalienable rights means no freedom. No freedom means no America.
Aww, crud. Now you've done it.
Whip out the bongs!
If it had been "obvious", I would not have asked the questions I did.
We need Reagan.
Badly.
I don't like moderates either. But Rudy/Romney have strong fiscal, pro-business backgrounds. And they have the money and experience. They have the means to convey their message to those idiotic sheeple who voted for the Democrats in last year's mid-terms.
Hey, I agree. To me, being a conservative means that I don't want the government doing much of anything more than providing for our nation's security by means of a strong, well-equipped military & maybe constructing interstate highways. I want to see them protect the constitution as written by my forefathers and I do want to see laws that protect people from murderers and thieves and assaulters - I want to see such people taken out of society, locked up or executed.
I don't want the government taking away my guns, or taking my hard-earned money to use for a bunch of social programs. I want to see a government that promotes personal responsibility. I'm not a kooky religious fanatic that thinks everyone should believe the way I do or they are automatically going to hell. As far as what people do in the privacy of their own homes - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else - have at it.
But I still think Rudy is too liberal for our party.
Just goes to show that sometimes there really are dumb questions.
"Maybe driving out the people you agree with 60% of the time wasn't the greatest tactical move?"
There is nothing wrong with welcoming those that agree with 60% of the platform, But if the other 40% of their views insists on being a turd in the punch bowl, no, we don't need or want that.
Hillary will win. A legitimate third-party candidate will Naderize Rudy and he will lose.
So, don't run him. He has no chance of winning, which makes him a non-viable candidate.
Reagan didn't just lead the Presidency. He led a movement. We are recognizing that the movement he led has come off course greatly.
Newt tried to get it back on track. 94 was revolutionary. That needs to happen again.
It needs to be a coordinated effort at the right time. It needs to happen when the most amount of seats are up for housecleaning. Part of the problem we face is the 'spirit' of Capital Hill. A handful of freshmen Republicans get elected with bright and refreshing ideas. True conservatism in their hearts and then WHAM! The Washington elite on both sides reign them back to the so-called Washington reality.
"Look son, I know you have the best intentions, but this is how things are done here."
That has to change first, otherwise whoever you put up in the Executive chair will be like a lame duck from the start.
What we need (or needed, as I'm not sure if it is too late to stop the bleeding before the Dems control the Exec chair) is a leader of the RNC who has the vision, and the the plan to pull it all together at the right time.
That will have to be done when the most House, Senate, and Presidential seats are up for grabs.
Now Rudy/Romney are able to attract these voters without alienating social conservatives.
That's highly questionable.
> Yeah just look at the great victory the moderates just
> handed the republicans.
Might one not, looking at the election results, conclude that the only reason the dems did so well was by tempering their ideologues and shooting for the moderate vote, or the squishy middle?
Nice riff. I think you've accurately characterized much of the "dialogue" of late on FreeRepublic.
One of the MSM pundits on the conservative side said it might be best for all if the dims win in 2008. Then, they will have an iron in the fight against terrorism rather than being a brake on it. They will be executed as quickly as repubs under sharia law, so there's a motive win the WOT. Having a repub prez and dim Congress only hurts the effort by polarizing the country.
You must be one of those newby "purists" we were warned about.
/sarcasm
Very well put. Thank you! Too bad that many of our Libertarian friends right here on FR seem to disagree with some of that.
I'll stay and keep working to keep it as conservative as it can possibly be. And that means socially conservative too."
Liked it so much I had to see it again.
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.