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.

Reagan did it right.

He knew how to connect with people.

On one hand, he was a social conservative, who didn't get "preachy" with people but appealed to their old fashioned American values. Doing this he got the evangelical vote and the "Reagan Democrats" who weren't necessarily overtly religious but espoused traditional values.

At the same time, he was able to appeal to the Country Clubbers, the defense hawks, and the fiscal conservatives and supply siders by focusing on that side of his philosophy.

Then, he appealed to the libertarian types by focusing on small government.

I don't necessarily think that the Rockefeller Republicans are automatically against a social conservative. But when that social conservative decides that he should use his power to FORCE social values while IGNORING small government common-sense, they get resentful, and that's what has happened.

The GOP of 2006 forgot about that. People say "Reagan's gone, let's move on" and of course they're right, BUT we can't forget the lessons learned that he taught us, on how to be a winner, not a loser, and how to get things done.

Romney CLAIMS to fit the bill. I'm not decided on him. He seems to have changed positions too often, and he basically "gave up" during his Governorship.

Newt Gingrich fits the bill from a policy standpoint, but his personal life leaves much to be desired. I could probably forgive him, but could others? He'd get most conservatives and even probably most moderate registered Republicans, but Reagan Dems and Independents would be tough to get. Although, if anyone could pull it off it would be Newt.

Brownback does well on the social front but poorly on defense and is only "passable" but not great on fiscal and economic issues. The guy is also about as boring as the day is long.

Tancredo shines in all categories, but isn't a very "likeable" guy to most people.

Hunter seems to do well in most categories. He did support the Medicare plan and some of the other GOP big-gov't stuff, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to core values and how much is just going along with his President.

Rudy doesn't fit the bill. He seems OK fiscally, and good on foreign policy but fails in most other categories.

McCain sometimes comes across one way and sometimes another. He's a media whore and a loose cannon and isn't afraid of big government when it suits his agenda. McCain's number one issue is taking care of John McCain.

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.