Why Bother Electing Pro-Gun, Pro-Family Candidates Anywhere? (The Rudophile Philosophy)

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:

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

For people who don't think that Rudy pushing for civil unions is a big deal, I don't think they understand the gay agenda. It is incremental, like a frog slowly being boiled to death. FIRST you convince the masses that "civil unions" are fine, and it esculates.

Here are some examples of how the gay agenda is winning, but I hope that people will do their own research, as well:

"On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston had announced that it was being forced to shut down its highly regarded adoption services, since it could not in good conscience comply with the government's demand that it place children for adoption with homosexual couples. Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as "gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese had hoped to obtain a waiver on religious-freedom grounds. But when legislative leaders refused to consider the request, the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.
snip

Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly common, but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet insist nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both sexes. That is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the kneecapping of Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be unsafe to express.

"As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, "the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination.... Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."

The ax fell on Catholic Charities just two years after those words were written. Where will it have fallen two years hence?"

[url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031606.php3?printer_friendly[/url]

ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training 7/14/2005
By Robert Knight
Group goes to court in California, Kentucky to promote the “gay” agenda in schools.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing school districts in California and Kentucky in an attempt to force them to conduct mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions for students and staff.
In south Los Angeles, the ACLU of Southern California, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), reached a settlement requiring mandatory attitudinal training at Washington Preparatory High School.
“The training is a model for the state,” said Christine Sun, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, in a press release.

[url]http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8541&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport[/url]

National Education Association's (NEA) proposed new pro-homosexual resolutions
June 1, 2001
In July, the National Education Association (NEA) will vote on new resolutions designed to encourage and promote the idea that teachers across the nation should increase their efforts in furthering the homosexual agenda in schools.
Specifically, the new resolutions encourage the development of curriculum to
“meet the needs of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender students (GLBT),”
solicit the “involvement of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender educators in developing” classroom instructional material,
disseminate programs that support GLBT students,
recognize GLBT teachers as “role models,”
encourage teaching students about GLBT people throughout history, and
coordinate with GLBT organizations to promote the “heritage, culture, history, health and care of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.”

excerpt: [url]http://www.karenholgate.com/ar010601.shtml[/url]

I see as much hatred for the fiscal conservative wing coming from the social conservative wing.

My, how far we have fallen from the heyday of Ronald Reagan, and even Gingrich, where one could be both socially AND fiscally conservative. Sure, some (Reagan) seemed to focus more on the fiscal end of things and others (Santorum) on the social end, but we meshed together.

It seems that there is a contingent of social conservatives who sing a one note song about abortion, which is of course honorable, but then they support ANY pro-life candidate, even if he/she is a damned Socialist on economic issues, or a cut-and-runner on foreign policy.

On the other side of that coin, you have the fiscal conservatives who abhor the thought of losing their nudie bar down the street and get mad at anyone that dare mention abortion, or gay marriage.

It's disheartening. Can no one be both a social AND fiscal conservative, and still want to keep the illegals out and kick some terrorist a$$?

Voting for a RINO with SO much LIBERAL baggage, would be like paying ransom to kidnappers, or releasing terrorist prisoners because the terrorists kidnapped one of ours.

It's just gonna make things WORSE in the long run, and not just for one poor sap, but for EVERYONE.

If we say O.K., we'll vote for RINO-rudy THIS time, even though he has SO many liberal positions, then the door is WIDE OPEN to other so-called "conservatives" to try and play us for FOOLS in the future.

Voting for a RINO will set an EXTREMELY bad precedent that will put TRUE CONSERVATIVES in the WILDERNESS for YEARS to come, NOT just the four or eight painful years of a demonRAT presidency.

JUST SAY NO TO ANY AND ALL RINOS.

For the good of the party, and for the good of the COUNTRY!

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.