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.
Dear RockinRight,
"Social Conservatives strayed from their fiscal conservative roots and ended up causing a backlash."
Ah... I'm not so sure that I agree with that.
I think it's MR. BUSH (as much as I respect him and am glad that he was elected in both 2000 and 2004) who strayed from fiscal conservatism.
I wouldn't say that Mr. Bush is a social conservative first (if he is, then he isn't really much of anything first).
We social conservatives have raised less of a fuss about it, perhaps, then the folks who are primarily fiscal conservatives, but frankly, a lot of us were unhappy, as well.
I know I've been unhappy with the No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare Part D, etc.
But all this really shows is how powerful a president is in his own party, that he can readily warp its principles and its views, and often command obedience to deviation from principle, no matter how reluctant that obedience may be.
sitetest
I'll agree with that.
Bush has done some great things. I think his social record has been fine, but fiscally, on issues like you mention, he hasn't delivered.
Where do you think he has failed on social issues?
I'm going to paraphrase something another Freeper said and I hope it's the right one (Tony, tell me if it wasn't you) who I am going to also ping:
Conservatism is like a bird with two wings, one fiscal one social. You can't fly if one wing is missing.
Dear RockinRight,
"Where do you think he has failed on social issues?"
It's less that he's failed than that he really hasn't seemed to give much priority to them, and at times, has seemed as if he'd rather bring the crazy aunt down from the attic than deal with them.
I just don't think that he is a social conservative first and foremost. I think that he viewed himself initially as a supply-sider first. After September 11, I think he's come to see himself as a war president first and foremost, and that might actually be the closest to the truth.
"Conservatism is like a bird with two wings, one fiscal one social. You can't fly if one wing is missing."
Well, I can identify at least four wings: social conservatism; fiscal conservatism (deficit hawkism); economic conservatism (supply siderism); and limited government conservatism (which intersects to a degree with each of the three previous).
sitetest
OK...your analysis also works. Good way to look at it.
Where do tax cuts fall? The economic/supply-side end?
And does ANY possible '08 candidate actually posess 4 functional wings using that model?
I'd say Gingrich does, and maybe Hunter, but Hunter has a little tendency towards big-governmentism.
Sometimes a great leader emerges, and the country benefits immensely - but the great leaders usually emerge in times of great conflict. As of today, Giuliani is the only candidate out there with that sense of leadership.
*** We have a great leader emerging in this time of conflict -- Duncan Hunter. Rudy doesn't qualify as a great leader. NO Mayor has ever won the presidency. If Rudy was so great at beating Hildebeast, he would have taken that chance and ran against her for Senate. He is NOT a great leader, and has wishy-washy principles to boot.
Anyone who has said that he believes that the FedGov has no business deciding the Abortion issue,
***What's up with that? Suddenly you dive down to details when it comes to abortion? The FedGov already decided it with Roe Vs. Wade so your position becomes academically meaningless.
and that stare decisis can change over decades,
***That's a litmus test for you? What does it mean? Why is it so important?
and anyone that actually believes that the commerce clause should not be used willy nilly to deny states rights.
***That's another interesting one. It's kinda already decided, so why is it such a big litmus test to you? How exactly does Duncan Hunter not fit the bill? Even Reagan used the commerce clause to push through the standard for 21 years old as the legal drinking age. These issues don't mean much to social conservatives that I hang around with, so why do they mean so much to you?
Vote for Duncan Hunter.
You've got someone better? CATCH UP.
***We do have someone better. Duncan Hunter. Jimmuh Carter and Bill Clintoon were relatively unknown at this stage of the race when they first ran. All it takes is one good video on Youtube and our candidate will be a household name. And he won't need to shed any baggage the way Rudy McRomney needs to.
We could put in a bid for this one...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1764342/posts
World's smallest country up for sale
Reuters ^ | 01/08/07
Posted on 01/08/2007 2:39:02 PM PST by presidio9
For sale: the world's smallest country with its own flag, stamps, currency and passports.
A lot of fire and passion in this piece.
Abortion will kill as many people as died in the Twin Towers each day its legality continues. Moral decline in the area of sexuality will continue as long as abortion is available as a fallback. Our daughters attending public schools are at risk of falling prey to the free love zeitgeist that abortion's availability has helped to facilitate in the first place.
Just as abortion ruthlessly and without trial executes the innocent, a threat to our right to keep and bear arms removes our ability to deter the not-so-innocent. It also makes it easier for an ever more intrusive government to invade our homes with impunity - anathema to the men who wrote the words "We the people..."
Rudy, you are to be commended for your work following 9/11. No one can take that away from you, and you deserve your full mead of praise and our undying admiration for what you meant to your city on that fateful, tragic day. The person we need to lead this nation, however imperfect, must strive to embody her virtues.
Hunter is out there, concentrating his resources in early primary states. It would be a waste of money for him to advertise on, say, KING-5 or KOMO considering where we are in the primary. But the Hunter snowball does seem to be picking up speed and inertia...
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.
You bring an interesting and salient perspective. Excellent point you've made here.
Jimmuh Carter and Bill Clintoon were democrats. All Republican POTUS have had nationwide name recognition.
Wrong if Rino Rudy is nominated he will lose. He will split the party. Anf it will be the fault of his supporters for putting up someone totally unacceptable to so many. I for one will vote third party rather then vote for this rino.
Excellent!!!! Wow that was right on the money! I wish you were running for President. I would vote for you in a second.
Man are you so right. Even though we have had few successes with the top prize, we have done very good in stopping the agenda on the left to go further than it has. Can you imagine the state of our beloved country had we not stopped anything. That is enough to make you shudder.
I don't know if it will destroy the GOP because I thought after 2004 the Democratic party was over or at least just a small party from now on. Well things do change. If the GOP gets what is alleged than I think after the disaster it could be, the GOP will regroup and get back to fundamentals. At least I hope and pray it does.
Can you please seriously explain to me how you can say Newt Gingrich is pro-family. Please. I want a true conservative not some person who says it but does the complete opposite. Duncan Hunter is what pro-family means. I am being very serious and would appreciate your insight.
Hullo! :)
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.