Posted on 02/05/2007 11:37:15 PM PST by Reagan Man
Dear Always Right,
Zarf has been going around threads telling falsehoods to drum up support for his pro-abort candidates.
On another thread, the poster "quoted" Mr. Giuliani as saying that Mr. Giuliani believed that Roe was bad constitutional law, should be overturned, and the issue returned to the states.
Except, Mr. Giuliani didn't actually say anything like that. Rather, it was the musings of a columnist FANTASIZING that Mr. Giuliani might say that.
Clearly, zarf has a difficult time differentiating between reality and fantasy.
sitetest
Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism -- or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.
In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called "social" issues and those interested in "economic" issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?
I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.
Bingo.
And so much for those who claimed that Reagan didn't campaign on abortion.
Funny, that's exactly what the Rockefeller Republicans said about Reagan.
The same folks who always thought you had to run left to win over voters. And never figured out why they were a perpetual minority party.
Give me a break. If Reagan was running in 2008, you and others would be denouncing him all over like flies on stank. Funny how you guys trash Rudy/Romney record but are silent over Hunter's socialist voting record.
I will support whoever the GOP nominee is, aside from McCain. Unless Gov Sanford, Gov Perdue, or Gov Mike Rounds jump in the race, the best possible choices remain Rudy/Romney because of their executive experience. Congresscritters do not get elected POTUS - Cold hard fact that you and others can't simply comprehend. The other GOP presidential candidates are entrenched career Congresscritters with absolutely no understanding of the issues that face us today (See, here's the part where you post the Rudy in drag pic out of frustration)
hey guys.....I'm off to work and can't start a new thread but how about someone starting a true "Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan" thread titled as such and put in the sidebar for all to see.....his birthdate is February 6th 1911.. Thanks.....
Duncan Hunter's socialist voting record also makes him a Rockefeller Republican.
Bullcrap. Reagan was clearly pro-life by the time he ran for president. He was not a gun-grabber as well. He was clearly conserative. Rudy is not.
Funny how you guys trash Rudy/Romney record but are silent over Hunter's socialist voting record.
Oh, I have issues with several of Hunter's votes.
What is odd is how folks who supported Bush's agenda thick and thin - No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription, etc. - are now decrying Hunter for voting with the president.
"I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for "ideological purity." Whatever ideology may mean -- and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it -- it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country "ideology" is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don't happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.
I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism."
This is what the critics never seem to understand.
For a "Reagan Man" you are forgetful of the 11th commandment.Excuse me for butting in, but that "11th Commandment" is an urban legend.
There was a thread a couple weeks back and it documented that:
So while it sounds nice and altruistic as 'heck', it's nothing but a canard.
(and NO I didn't save the link)
Excellent post and thanks for it.
No one can tarnish the Reagan legacy. That doesn't mean BushBots and RudyBots haven't been trying for the last year or so to undermine the Reagan record and make the former POTUS look as bad as posible in order to build up their guy.
>>>>> .... and no one should tear down Rudy by comparing him to Jimmah because they dislike some of his positions.
Exposing Rudy for the liberal he is, IS what FR is all about. Fact. I didn't bring up Jimmah Carter, but comparing Rudy to Carter fits better, then comparing Rudy to Reagan. The ladder is just all wrong.
I've lost all respect for you with post like that one.
"The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since."
Reagan actually broke his own rule when he ran against PresFord for the GOP nomination in 1976. Reagan criticized Ford during the primary season, right up through and including the GOP convention. Reagan was a gentleman and he wanted everyone to like him. But when the chips were on the table, Reagan was a tough SOB. Reagan wanted to win and exposing Ford was part of his objective.
For all intents and purposes, the 11th commandment was/is a fallacy.
Right, I assumed you knew that ;-)
And all the other stuff you included in #56 is exactly what I was referring to.
(please excuse any slow response. I'm having mouse and keyboard 'issues' and have to get new ones)
Dear spikeytx86,
"With the exceptions of guns his positions are libertarian."
Sadly, I think that Mr. Giuliani is more of a statist than a libertarian. While mayor, he developed policies permitting New York City to seize folks' cars who were arrested for driving drunk, even if ultimately acquitted. Here's a quote:
"Let’s say somebody is acquitted," Giuliani said recently, "and it’s one of those acquittals in which the person was guilty, but there is just not quite enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That might be a situation in which the car would still be forfeited."
Here's a link:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/35644.html
Whether one agrees or disagrees with this policy (I don't), it hardly comports with a libertarian ideal.
sitetest
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.