Posted on 02/10/2007 1:39:11 PM PST by TitansAFC
There is no point to electing Pro-Family, Pro-Life, Pro-Free Speech, Pro-Second Amendment candidates anymore. At least, that's what we're essentially being told by the Rudy Giuliani for President crowd. The candidates themselves have no impact on such issues, we're told, and so we shouldn't take that into consideration when choosing whom to elect.
Yes, the Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Speech voters should not take their respective issues to the voting booth. They are issues that can be addressed simply by nominating judges. That's all that matters. So we're told.
So this is where the Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Speech crowd stands with the modern GOP, eh? This is all that's relevant for the Social Conservatives and Gun Conservatives in 2008, is it? Well, at least that's the perspective of many Pro-Rudy publications, such as National Review, and the clear majority view of GOP columnists nationwide.
Let me sum this up: Those of us who are Pro-Life, Pro-Traditional Marriage, Pro-Family, Pro-Second Amendment, and Pro-Free Speech have been reduced to a three word expression determined by Pro-Rudy pollsters and perhaps some time previous to his candidacy:
"Roberts and Alito" (Also accepted is "Thomas and Scalia.")
That's it. That's all we are to them anymore - that's all it takes. This alone should be enough to placate the base, or at least enough to stem fears of any GOP candidate so long as there exists a Democrat on the ballot. Just three words, whether the candidate has a history deeming this implied promise credible or not. Just three words, that's all.
It's a shame, isn't it?
Never mind Embryonic Stem Cell research; never mind the Mexico City Policy. The President has no effect on life issues.
Never mind a push for Hate Crimes Legislation or Campaign Finance Reform. The President has no effect on Free Speech issues.
Never mind the Assault Weapons ban, or lawsuits against gun manufacturers, or calls for federal laws against guns. The President has no real effect on Second Amendment issues.
Or so we're being told.
"Roberts and Alito!" -- Oh yes! Problem solved; all questions answered! Whatever were we concerned about in the first place?
This is what they want us reduced to. They want our free labor as volunteers, for certain; they want our votes and unending party loyalty, no doubt. But our issues? No. Not anymore; not in 2008.
We're at war, after all! How can anyone take those peripheral issues seriously in a time of war? Abortion? Bah! The Soviet Union might nuke Washington tomorrow! And we're supposed to address abortion?!?!
Oops, sorry. Replace "Soviet Union" with "Islamofascists." Same argument, different decade.
Yes, that's the other thing. We're supposed to table our issues - not that they'd ever table issues like taxes and Free Trade - but we're supposed to table ours until that mythical time in the future when no one on earth means us harm anymore; that day in the future when war is no longer upon us or even imminent.
You see, our issues need to be put aside during a time of war; and we've declared perpetual war. How about that?
It comes to this: we are to be Republicans first, and issues voters last. Or so we're told. Voting is always a choice between the "lesser of two" evils, and Democrats are always, under every circumstance, the greater evil. Why, it would be irresponsible to stay home or vote third party just because our issues are off the table - even all of our issues.
After all (reading from cue card), "Roberts and Alito."
Perhaps most frustrating in all of this is the strange lack of concern the National Review and Pro-Rudy types have about his record. He spoke at NARAL, called for the purging of the Pro-Life platform from the GOP, raised money for Pro-Abortion groups, called for federal laws against guns, sued gun manufacturers, spoke out in favor of tougher Hate Crimes Legislation and Campaign Finance Reform, just to start. He has been an abortion rights activist, a gun control activist, an activist for limitations on Free Speech, and an activist for gay rights.
An activist, yes. He has taken active steps in every case, using all of his influence as mayor to promote said issues. He has stood hand-in-hand with the enemy onthese issues, and often used what powers were availoable to him as Mayor to enforce them.
Does this concern the Rudophiles? No. They are still unabashed Rudy apologists. What concerns the Rudophiles - get this - is that values voters might have a problem with this and hold it against him.
Yes, you heard that right. They are concerned not with his stances, issues, and record - they are concerned with the Social and Gun Conservatives having a big problem with it when the First Tuesday in November, 2008 comes to pass.
Make no mistake about it, if the Social Conservative and Gun Conservative movement is willing to bend this far, the party will not be asking them to bend any less in the future. This will not be the last time the base is given an abortion rights/gun control/ gay rights activist and told he's the "next Reagan." On the contrary, these new stances will be the standard for future "Conservative" candidates, having proven that they can not only fail to address Social and Gun Conservative issues and still win elections, but they they can run candidates who have been activists on the wrong side of every issue and still win.
"Roberts and Alito! And now that I've addressed all of your issues........"
So now, there's no point in fighting for those Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Free Speech candidates anymore. They cannot have any effect, after all, on any of said issues - with perhaps the exception of voting on judges. We can win a lot more of the Moderates and Independents if we takes those issues off of the table, anyway, and simply run as an anti-tax, pro-defense party - stance we know that large majorities can easily agree on. Just say, "Roberts and Alito;" that should be enough. Asking for anything more would be, well, unreasonable.
Or so we're being told.
'"Roberts and Alito!" -- Oh yes! Problem solved; all questions answered! Whatever were we concerned about in the first place?"
Rudy is shrewd. He remembers how President Bush said that he would pick judges, like Scalia and Thomas, which was probably the deciding factor in Bush's winning the election, so Rudy is playing the same kind of politics, and too many naive types are falling for it.
You could pull Barry Goldwater hisself out of the grave and dress him up in a modern suit and he'd be thrown out of the race at the first mention of personal responsibility.
"Vote for whomever you damn well please...but don't you DARE come back on FreeRepublic in 2009 bemoaning the state of the Country.
Let me ask you what precisely you are doing to forward your choice for Presidential nominee? Hmm...
When the 2008 election happen, you know damn well you will push the lever for the guy with the R next to his name because the person with the D is 1000 times more dangerous. So if you think you can get the person you want nominated, GO AHEAD...get off the computer and start doing something. Ranting on FreeRepublic ain't gonna get it done, Buddy,"
NEWSFLASH Hildy,
Did you know that the primaries haven't taken place yet, and there's still time to get a CONSERVATIVE Republican for the president's race?
Hope I helped.
I will be glad to support your pro-gun, pro-life, AuH20 protege in the primaries, and I will vote for them in the general election against Hillary or Oboama, etc.....if you'll tell me who that is.
See? I can support your preferred candidate against the Dems.
Do you see the difference between us?
We can't seem to provide you with anyone acceptable, so all you have to do is get us a better option. The ball's in y'alls' court.
A few years ago I was hoping we could eliminate the liberal democrat party, sadly at this point, it looks like the conservative republican party will be eliminated.
"Do you see the difference between us?"
Yes. You value winning over principle. I do not.
Yes. I did. You said you wanted a true conservative. I give you AuH20. How can you possibly have anyone more conservative that Barry Goldwater?
If a black, woman Barry Goldwater twin sister were alive today, would you or would you not support her? I would. And yet, I think when you look at the decay in America, and the gimme-gimme Katrina attitude in such a large part of even Red State America, that such a Trueblu Conservative would be labeled an "Aunt Jemima/uncle Tom sellout" and would absolutely set the record for landslide loss in America today.
These United States nearly elected psychotic Kerry and Algore by the slimmest of margins! For God's sake, it is not 1964 nor 1980 anymore!
Dear sam_paine,
"...if you'll tell me who that is."
There are many Republicans for whom I'd vote with at least some happiness, and others for whom I'd even hold my nose and vote.
Some of these folks suffered in 2006, and may not recover for a run for the presidency. Others seem uninterested. Others are running.
I'd vote for Duncan Hunter.
Or Mike Huckabee.
Or Bill Owens.
Or Tommy Thompson.
Or John McCain (with great reluctance).
Or Haley Barbour.
Or, if they could recover, George Allen or Rick Santorum.
Or heck, if we were stupid enough to nominate another Bush boy, I'd even vote for Jeb Bush.
It's unlikely that I'd vote for Mr. Romney. At this point, I judge him a phony. However, I'm open to the possibility that he may persuade me otherwise.
Mr. Giuliani is about the only one that is pretty much completely unacceptable to me.
And even that could change.
If he wore sackcloth and ashes, and walked down Broadway, loudly wailing and lamenting his previous crimes, and tearing his garments and his hair (what little there is to tear), flailing at himself with a nice cat o' nine tails, proclaiming his repentance and conversion on important issues like life, and the right to bear arms, and preserving the traditional family, if he dumped his current floozy, Ms. Nathan, understanding that as a Catholic, he is in a continuing adulterous relationship, then I'd give it some thought.
If you have other Republicans to mention, I'll tell you what I think about them.
sitetest
What he said! (Well said at that!)
Fine. You're superior to me. Okay. Lead us.
Who do you want that will satisfy you, so that you can use my vote to push for pro-life conservative principles and make sure that we don't become the USSA with Hitlery as the Commisar in 2008. Just tell me who to vote for in the primary. [ Listening. ]
See 109
These are my thoughts too. I'm tired of being bled to death from a thousand paper cuts by our so-called friends. As much as I want to deny her that honor, it may be the only way.
This is where the battle shall be fought.
Don't fork the choice over to the MSM of whom we should choose as our nominee!
(Not so dirty little secret is they are voting for the Dem no matter what!)
Dear sam_paine,
Oh yeah, I'd also vote for these guys, too:
Sen. Brownback, Rep. Tancredo, Rep. Paul, and Gov. Gilmore.
If you know of anyone else considering running, let me know, I'll tell you whether or not I'd vote for them.
sitetest
Which, of course, he would of course have to do in any case since he is a popular former Mayor in the most liberal city on earth, so he's got some things that make him popular with "eeeevil" people, thus he smells to high heaven tored staters, just because! [Neew York Sitteee!?! Gitarope!]
I'm fine with any of those that you've got in your list, like I told Narses, I'm an ABH.
Look down on me all you want, but I have one principle, and that is that this country cannot be handed over to an open Marxist like Hillary, because it can NEVER be undone, and it undermines the hopes for every other fiscal and socially conservative principle for the rest of my life and most of our kids'. That is my one principle that narses won't give me any credit for.
BTW I still can't understand what anyone ever saw in Geo Allen. I had heard so much hype about him and then I heard him on MTP or something, and I thought, "Good Lord what an uninspiring milquestoast muddle-feet." Sure nuff, he got taken out by the wit of a college kid.
sitetest named a number of conservatives but none are running. so how can anyone recommend a person to you that's not running. the basic idea is that presently we're being limited to John, Mitt or Rudy who do not represent conservative ideas. also, if you'll recall, Barry Goldwater turned liberal in his later years.
Oh yea, Bush also said he would institute tort reform, fix S.S., NO amnesty, etc., etc., etc.. Like we're going to fall for what a liberal politician promises us.
Yes sitetest does have great positive things to say, doesn't he?
Still waiting on same from you.
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.