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.
That is voting against but, in our system you vote for someone. If you vote third party it is neither a vote for Hillary nor the GOP it is a vote for....
And that is a fact? Facts please.
Giuliani is not the President that I want. I am Pro- Life, Pro Family, Pro-Free Speech, and Pro Second Amendment. I've not made any definite decisions on the 2008 run for President though Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich are the only two that in my choices right now. The Second Amendment is our Freedoms Guard so I'm really looking hard at who wants to be America's President.
I'll vote "r" but quite frankly don't see the so called front runners having a chance without a base.
Great article. You will only be served what you are willing to eat. Reject the chow and they'll change the menu.
Awesome, you nailed it on every point!
Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people... Exodus 18:21
Hey,,this is just going to the other extreme! I will vote for Rudy if the choice is between Rudy and a Democrat. It's that simple. I could never vote for a Hillary or an Edwards, or any Democrat for that matter. I do not see Rudy, if elected, attempting to destroy all of his Republican enemies. I do not see Rudy using the IRS to audit and destroy every conservative organization in America. I do not see Rudy attempting to overturn the constitution to stay in office for life! Rudy is a social liberal. I would rather fight in the political arena to stop a president from advancing left wing social agendas, while feeling safer from terrorists, than to fear both terrorists and a dictator-like president pledging to "take things from me!" If Hillary wins, we will long for the days of "social left wing agendas!"
There's a word for Rudy and his ilk: statists. And there's nothing more disgusting or more pathetic than those who are willing to stand up and applaud for that sort of thing.
The history of the last century doesn't augur well for those who applaud statists into office.
Very well said.
In the General, I blindly, and only once* reluctantly, pull for the "R" regardless of the name.
*Dole, '96.
Pro-Life, Pro-Traditional Marriage, Pro-Family, Pro-Second Amendment, and Pro-Free Speech
How each will falter further under a Democrat President House and Senate and potential to have several Supreme Court nominees....
I think most will realize this come election day no matter who the Republican candidate is ...or at least I can hope....
How are you missing the fact that Rudy's leftwing social agenda is identical to Hillary's?
If the GOP turns it back on the Conservative, I will turn my back on them.
Maybe these Rudy '08 people won't have as much of a problem with Hillary if the Republicans just nominate her. I'm sure Sean Hannity would start telling people she's really conservative and voted the right way on the WOT. With "conservative" leaders and commentators like these, who needs "liberals"?
Remember R = good and D = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
"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."
Its the duty of all Americans to get out and vote! Even if you vote third party. VOTE!
Rudy`s strategy is becoming clear. He will disagree with himself when necessary, obfuscate his liberal record as often as possible and generally employ rhetorical double-talk instead of offering firm answers on issues. That amounts to being an unprincipled person, with questionable integrity. Ready to make decisions based on political expediency. No thanks Rudy.
I will only vote for Rudy in the general election. I am as pure a conservative as one can get. Compared to Hillary,, it would be like voting between Hitler and Rudy. Or Mao and Rudy. I am not at all excited about Rudy. He is a lib. Case closed. I hope it does not come down to those two choices. But Hillary would be a complete disaster! She would be a monster unleashed. The first eight years of the Clinton administration would look like a warm up compared to what would come next. I personally do not think that she will be the nominee. I just can't believe that people really want another Clinton again.
I agree that if it's election day and my choices are Rudy and Hillary, I have to vote for Rudy (or whoever the Republican candidate is).
Babies won't be any worse off under Rudy than they are now but we ALL will be in a world of hurt, including babies, if Hillary is elected.
We should all try to get our personal choice nominated. But obviously we all don't agree on who that should be and therefore some of us are going to be disappointed. Never-the-less, whoever our nominee is, he/she will be better for the country than Hillary.
Once election day comes, we have to put country and our safety first. Be sure to vote and vote Republican, even if our nominee is not your favorite person in the world.
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.