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.
As is your right...
You wish to avoid the abomination of a Hillary Clinton administration? So do I. So let's not make Lefty Giuliani the Republican nominee. Let's give social conservatives a real choice, a real Reagan social conservative.
If you insist on Rudy, you will get Hillary.
I don't know how much clearer that point can be made.
So, a Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton contest would result in all of the Kerry social liberals who voted Democrat in 2004 going to her, most social conservatives going third party, and Republican RINOs banding together with the small number of Lieberman Democrats in a losing bid to support the inevitable failure of Rudy "drag show" Giuliani!
Yep. You got it. Rudy is Hillary's best bet.
If Rudy lost and even if Hillary won I do not think it would get passed as easily as if Rudy was POTUS pushing the exact same thing. In a Hillary vs Rudy race if Rudy wins we have in effect two GOP's. Rudy will do the DEMs bidding and take half the GOP with him added to the DEMs doing so. I've seen it happen before in Tennessee. A liberal RINO governor did the DEMs work for them and the party was hard pressed to oppose him on important issues.
On the other hand most GOP elected would fight against Hillary trying to do the exact same things as Rudy and worse. At least more so than a split GOP would with Rudy. Sometimes winning and election is worse than loosing especially when your party candidate is the other parties useful idiot.
Sad to say the pre-1994 GOP had far more will to fight against the liberals agenda than the GOP majority since has shown. Electing a RINO will only compound it. What few hard fighting Conservatives left will get no help.
As blacks are to the Democrats, Conservatives are to the Republicans?
As to Giuliani, he is completely "pro-choice", and it would be irrational to presume ---no matter what spin Hannity lets put on the topic--- that he would appoint Supreme Court Justices that do not share his view on Roe.
And ultimately, protecting babies here in America is far more important than Iraq.
Well done!
However, even with the Rudybots and their "Roberts and Alito" shibboleth, I'm not overly impressed with Roberts and Alito. They've not done anything to earn my ire, but I haven't stood up and cheered about much of what they've done either. I'm sure they're the best Bush could have done but they're no Judge Robert Bork. For me, the jury is still out on Roberts and Alito because they're so new to the court and I'm not going to pretend otherwise just because the Rudybots believe that they are the be all and end all of great Supreme Court justices.
I get it. I disagree on how, when and why abortion will recede as a choice. It won't be because of politics. Pro-life politicians certainly haven't made a bit of difference.
And I disagree on the importance of Iraq, and the importance of this country believing it's right to defend itself against terrorism.
That's what's important to me. I won't badmouth you for hoping for a different candidate, I won't even try to put down other candidates. I don't think eating our own is good for business. But these better candidates of yours better start getting themselves some airtime if they're going to catch up.
I agree with you. I'm also both. But it seems the FC only crowd neither desires nor feels the need for SC support unless social conservatives abandon their philosophical positions in pursuit of chimerical 'electability'.
Excellent post. As I said on another threa:, When we abandon our principles for power, we ultimately end up with neither.
Dear RockinRight,
I'm an economic conservative as well as a social conservative.
However, if you make me choose between what's good for my wallet and recognition of and respect for fundamental human rights, well...
I cannot vote for president for someone who is a pro-abort, for someone who believes that abortion is a constitutional right, that Roe was rightly decided.
sitetest
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this is still the best country around in general. That's the sad part. If I were rich enough, I'd go live on the Palm Islands in Dubai and just watch the morons destroy what's left of the West in general and the US in specific.
I do see some truth in that.
However, I don't see an easy solution.
excellent, insightful.
I was just pointing out my opinion on WHY we're seeing so many pro-aborts lately. Social Conservatives strayed from their fiscal conservative roots and ended up causing a backlash.
Fiscal Conservatives who aren't social conservatives will put up with social conservatives as long as they get what they want fiscally. They haven't been. Hence what happened.
I'm not saying it's RIGHT...just that it happened.
I could almost go for that.
Newt has some personal issues, but his positions are acceptable for almost all fiscal and social conservatives. He's not IDEAL, his history of marital problems guarantees that, but if he had enough influence on Rudy as Rudy's veep candidate I might be able to swallow that ticket.
Got a link to that article?
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.