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.
Good thing GWB has an R next to his name. He's really concerned about taking care of the invasion of illegals from Mexico because of that. Good thing there aren't any murderers or child molesters coming across the Mexican border illegally.
Just out of curiosity, where do you guys live?
You said-
Good thing GWB has an R next to his name. He's really concerned about taking care of the invasion of illegals from Mexico because of that. Good thing there aren't any murderers or child molesters coming across the Mexican border illegally.
OK, I get it. You're not happy with George Bush. So you would be happier with Algore or John Kerry?
They didn't think it was possible to impeach Gov Gray of Ca.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
So you are doing what?
And I think the politicians and strategists are ALSO learning that the social conservatives cannot be counted on to pull that lever for them, so in that respect, pat yourself on the back.
Unfortunately, congresscritters being what they have always been, are justifiably deciding that the only way to build a winning percentage today is to court further left and avoid touching the THIRD RAIL of social conservatives, abortion.
In 1980, there was such a thing as a social conservative democrat, aka "Reagan Democrats." Show me one today?
So, you can try to train the puppies in congress to follow your lead by letting go the leash, but I don't think you're going to get the result you want.
Thus I have a question for you Titan-think alikes. Is this "teach them a lesson" thing a suicide pact for the country? After 8-yrs of Hillary-care, where abortion-on-demand and empryonic stem cell harvesting is paid for by the federal government, do you think you'll be in a better position to get Roe v Wade overturned?
Since I don't believe things will get better any time soon, fear tactics don't work on me. I believe this country is destined to just get worse and I think it will be a very long time before things get better, if ever. I would be happier with Badnarik or Peroutka. But the sheeple and I disagree on a lot of things.
It may be he case that in the end Rudy is the candidate and the only one who can beat Hillary. If that time comes I will vote for him. What bothers me is that hear here we are, way before the election, and we are already supposed to cast aside out beliefs for this guy.
Well, if it is Rudy -V- Hillary (and I doubt that very much), from a social conservative POV, there is little or no difference. Rudy will appoint his left-wing East Coast white shoe law firm buddies. Hillary will too. No thanks. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to find a main-stream conservative, NOT a flaming gungrabber like Rudy.
If the GOP turns it back on the Conservative, I will turn my back on them.
If the GOP turns it back on the Conservative, I will turn my back on them.
If the GOP turns it back on the Conservative, I will turn my back on them.
Indeed. If they turn on life, I will turn on them as well.
Well, it's plain and simple. They are WRONG. Period! End of story!
Do I have to pardon your logic errors as well?
Fiscal [non-social] conservatives are Rockerfeller Republicans without the Country Club.
Logic appears to be an area of little or no expertise for you. What did you see as an 'error' and what causes you to think that?
Not everyone on FR was a born and raised Republican. Some of us got here when the Democratic party went totally left, with the exception of what I'd call the few remaining moderate Democrats.
Now that a lot of the Republican candidates are further left than than what some Democrats used to be, and many elected Republicans, especially in my home state of Texas, seem to have turned into Democrats despite the R behind their name, it leaves me in quite a quandry as far as casting my vote for a candidate who is in step with issues that are important to me.
Well said.
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.