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.
Word for word, I agree with sitetest. That is what my "ditto" meant.
"this country cannot be handed over to an open Marxist like Hillary..."
But an this country cannot be handed over to an open Marxist like Rudy is OK with you. Odd that.
Turned liberal. Well, I really guess I don't think I'd agree with that. I think, as I posted in #99 that there is no more true-to-principles conservative in the 20th century throughout his life.
Now, I will agree with you that there's nobody running that's an ideal conservative to get behind....certainly not McPain. He scares me as much as Rudy probably annoys you.
My only principle for 2008 candidate is that I MUST vote against letting an avowed Marxist like Hillary win, because for the rest of my forseeable life, no social or fiscal conservative principle will ever surface in federal government again.
I'll vote for Pro-Gun, Pro-Family candidates wherever they're put before me on the ballot.
I just wish some on this forum would stop blaming me for the lack of perfect conservative candidates at the national level. The simple fact is most Americans don't hang out on political forums all day, and have no idea who "Duncan Hunter" is. I do hang out on a political forum all day, and I still couldn't pick him out of a lineup. The fact is, if he wants to be a candidate, he's gonna have to get himself some face time and get known. The other fact is, Giuliani and McCain both have more name recognition, face recognition, and in Giuliani's case, public admiration for their experience. You've got someone better? CATCH UP. But don't blame me for the relative obscurity of the "better candidates" "true conservatives" would rather elect.
On a practical level, I don't think Guiliani, if elected will make a bit of difference on guns or abortion. Abortion has been a non-starter issue even with a pro-life president and Republican majority for most of the last 8. Honestly, I think the country will be ready to make a decision about abortion in the near future, but I don't think it will be because of party politics, it will be because medical technology will have made the decision obvious to everyone. Even the most strident abortion rights supporters will not be able to deny life has begun when it can be seen, recorded, and even cured in the womb. No matter who is president.
And on guns, I think it's also a non-starter issue. Gun control is a local issue, and even in my 'liberal' state of Washington, where we've had shall issue CWP since before it was fashionable, even Democrats don't run on a gun control agenda. Gun grabbing is not a popular idea, not even on the left. Heck, with the current paranoia on the left, the last thing they'd allow is for an any Republican President to take away their guns. They already think camps are being prepared for them. So gun control, on a national level, is a non starter, no matter who is president.
So - what difference does it make who's president? In my opinion, it makes a difference that we can be renewed and recommitted to winning the war in Iraq, and the continuing WOT. It is the only thing that matters. We've sacrificed a lot of good lives in that fight. Too many honorable, valuable lives to let it all be thrown away as a worthless effort not worth winning. We need to find a leader this whole country can follow where it matters. And Rudy Giuliani is the only one I see (yet) who is in the league to gain that kind of across the board respect on National Defense. We remember him from 'that day'. We respected his resolve and example, and would trust him again if we have more difficult days to come. We're not wrong for thinking that. And 'some' conservatives are making NO POINTS with me by insulting either Giuliani or his supporters, but you are beginning to repel me from you.
My two cents.
Check out the latest FR poll, where JimRob seems to be pointing out very similar viewpoints.
Free Republic Opinion Poll: Let's just say that Hillary (or someone equally as vile) gets the Democrat nomination and a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-defense, pro-borders, pro-small government, pro-low taxes, peace through superior firepower patriot gets the Republican nod. Who would you vote for in the general?
Good LORD that's annoying. What the heck is it supposed to prove?
Well, which is he then narsi? Is he a Country Club Republican business cabal puppet, or an "open Marxist?!" LOL!
Enjoy your Saturday nite. I'm off fer the evening.
Thanks for bringing content in above the background noise here. I look forward to positive discussions with you in the future about this. Have a good eve.
Dear sam_paine,
"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!]"
Not sure what your point is here.
If you have one, you may wish to try to rephrase.
"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."
I understand what you're saying but disagree for a variety of reasons.
First, I don't view Mrs. Clinton as the Dem's strongest candidate. And rumblings from folks I know suggest that a lot of Dems don't think she's the strongest candidate, either.
Second, I think that a second Clinton regime would provoke a second 1994, and that a Republican Congress would likely hold Mrs. Clinton largely in check.
Opposition to the first President Clinton gave real life and heart to Republicans, and created a stark contrast between conservative values and liberal values that resulted in a significant shift in the electorate toward conservative values.
Third, I think that a Giuliani presidency would take the life out of conservative Republican opposition to liberal legislation and government. As we see with President Bush when he's pushing liberal crap, it's tough for Republicans in Congress to oppose even the most liberal acts of a Republican president.
It is unlikely that the Republicans could get the same sort of traction against the liberal crap of a president of their own party to try to regain a congressional majority. The continuing Democrat majority would likely offer up plenty of liberal legislation, and why the heck wouldn't President Rudy sign it? Why the heck not go for federal Medicaid funding of abortion, federal funding of Planned Barrenhood, more gun control, federal ENDA for homosexual special rights?
Do you honestly think that if a Democrat-controlled Congress offered up this stuff, stuff with which Mr. Giuliani agrees, that he'd VETO IT?? Do you honestly think that the Republicans in Congress could get traction to oppose him when he responded favorably to feelers from the Democrats on these issues??
I suspect that a Giuliani presidency would result in a generational (or worse) setback for the cause of life, of protection of the family, of other social conservative issues.
I think that a Giuliani presidency could be fatal to the United States.
"BTW I still can't understand what anyone ever saw in Geo Allen."
I saw him govern as Governor of Virginia for four years, and he did a pretty good job.
sitetest
"Have a good eve."
You, too.
Then leave if it's so bad. I, for one, have a long life ahead of me and will try and soldier on however I can.
What if the restaurant gets taken over by another entity or shuts down entirely before they can change the menu?
Ah, yes, the open-borders, cut-and-run, pot-smoking types.
I'm a fiscal conservative, who is also a social conservative.
Why must it always be one or the other anymore? It sure seems like that.
"What if the restaurant gets taken over by another entity or shuts down entirely before they can change the menu?"
If they insist on selling what people don't want they will close.
Annoying and ignorant to both Rudy and Lord of the Rings. That's what I think of your point of view.
The reason for all this stuff is simple:
The social conservative movement completely shoved aside fiscal conservatism. Many so-called conservatives in Congress subscribed to the belief that one can be a statist tax and spender as long as they're pro life. Now, the fiscal conservatives have revolted within the party and taken over at the expense of social conservatism.
As someone who is BOTH fiscally and socially conservative...it is frustrating.
Then what do we do? Go find an uninhabited island and create a Republic of Freepland?
Wonderful post! Says it all. But I think this Rudy-mania is not something new. Many of these folks have been longing for the right moment since the days when we heard that Terri Schiavo would be the downfall of the social conservatives. Now they've got their chance, but to make it last, they are trying to pacify the rest of us with this vague nonsense about judges. If they were honest about their views, they'd come up with a bumper sticker like "KILL TERRI SCHIAVO FOR HER STEM CELLS! RUDY IN '08!"
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.