Posted on 02/22/2007 5:49:00 PM PST by NewJerseyJoe
Keen observers of American politics have been quick note that the three leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination have been subtly (or not so subtly) inching rightward on social issues. The list of flip-flops is by now quite lengthy. It was just six years ago that John McCain denounced televangelist Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance". Then, last May, McCain delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. During his ill-fated 1994 Senate campaign, Mitt Romney told voters he would do more for gay rights than liberal lion Ted Kennedy. Now he says he rejects both gay marriage and civil unions. And then there's Rudy Giuliani, who once moved in with a gay couple while moving out of a marriage gone bad. For some strange reason, he isn't bragging about the experience.
These twists and turns are well and good, but the social shift might hide a second, equally unconvincing attempt at collective amnesia. This one has to do with guns. Believe it or not (they would rather you not) the same three candidates have long histories of supporting gun-control legislation, which is about as close as a Republican can get to outright apostasy. Giuliani-the-mayor nailed miscreant gun traffickers and manufacturers with some hefty lawsuits, and supported the federal assault weapons ban. Romney, meanwhile, signed a statewide version of the same bill. And McCain pushed hard to close a legislative loophole that allowed virtually anyone to buy firearms at a gun show. Why look, there's even a gun-control bill with the senator's name on it.
And yet, like converts to some miraculous and well-timed religion, the three seem to have woke up one February morning and decided that guns aren't such a bad thing. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk ...
And, of course, Great Britain, whose gun grab has done so much to reduce crime, is perfectly positioned to lecture us on the subject.
Guess they forgot they lost that opportunity when they stacked arms at Yorktown.
True. But the Guardian is just pointing out the candidate's waffling on guns. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
btt
Perhaps the whole experience left a bad taste in his mouth.
Ol' Conor should take heed of the words of his countryman, Dr. Ben Johnson. "Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".
And of course if conservatives worked and supported Duncan Hunter we would have someone who appreciated our values and could beat anyone the dems and the media throw at us. But again, the media doesn't want a conservative to go against the liberals. If they continue to push the romneys and giulianis at us they get what they wanted in the first place. A liberal in the White House.
I hope it's an NRA steamroller and it's not there to give any gun grabbers a ride.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Plain and simple.
The media didn't want Reagan either. In fact, they waged a relentless propaganda war against him. Reagan prevailed in spit of the media and the intellectual pseudo elite because he was Reagan. Duncan Hunter represents everything I believe in. However, I am not convinced he can do what Reagan did.
You didn't read more than the title, did you? The whole article is about how Romney, McCain, and Guilani all have suddenly had 2nd Amendment revelations and want to try to fool us into believing that they don't support the gun control that they once supported. They all sicken me. If they are our best hope at the WH, I would just as soon see it go to a 'Rat that will wear the name proudly instead of a RINO who will stab us in the back every time we turn around.
I don't know if Hunter can do what Reagan did, because Reagan was a movie star with a lot of glamour, and Hunter is a tough old vet without a lot of it.
But as far as I can tell, I agree with Hunter on every single issue I have heard his position on, which is amazing.
I don't know precisely where he stands on stem cell research or on the inheritance tax, but on everything I DO know about, I agree with him more than I agreed with Reagan.
So, I am supporting Hunter.
I don't care whether he can win or not.
I agree with him.
He's my man.
If there are enough of me, then nobody will win and the GOP will have a brokered convention. At the brokered convention, conservatives can hold the rest of the party hostage and get Hunter or someone like him.
I don't know if Hunter would beat a Hillary or an Obama, but I do know it would be a direct, frontal choice between the two ideologies. There would be no overlap and no wiggle room.
So, I say to hell with calibrating electability. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a pro-choice Republican for President. If that means President Hillary, then so be it. I don't trust Romney, I know Giuliani favors abortion, and so does McCain: he supports stem cell research, which is abortion.
They're out.
Nominate them, and I vote third party, or I write in Hunter, or I do something else on election day.
If I'm all alone in this, who cares.
If there are millions like me, we determine the outcome of the election.
I am UNAPPEASABLE on abortion.
I will vote for life, or I will not vote for the candidate AT ALL. Give me what I want, or to hell with you and the country too, because a country that murders babies deserves to fall apart.
I respect you. I feel that abortion is the defining issue in our society as well. Tactically however, I may disagree. There may be fewer babies killed with Romney on the ticket than with someone who is clearly unelectable. We want to save lives.
I assume you mean, "he supports fetal stem cell research, which is abortion."
Adult stem cells are from sources like umbilical cords and the patients themselves.
I read the whole thing - including the snide remarks about the NRA [I'm an Endowment member], and the implicit disbelief that anyone should change their anti-gun philosophy to court the vote of "crazies" like me.
You are not alone in this.
If conservatives who are pro life look the other way in this nomination, neither party will heed their voice for a long time to come. The "I know I disagree with him on X, but we have to have a republican nominate good justices" crowd will send a clear message about what issues matter, and it is not the one we want heard.
Besides, if Bush could not get the justices we want in, there is no way that the person currently of interest will be able to, could if he wanted to, or would not find it convenient to have his nominations shot down in order to have a place to point his finger as he works toward goals we find anathema.
vade in pace
And, two of the three of the candidates (Romney, McCain) said that the Iraq war was a bad idea, even though they supported it initally.
First of all, I'm not sure this Clarke is a Brit, I think he's an "American." Secondly he's right, Julie, Mitt and McCain are all gun controlling liberals, echos not choices in our little media dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, who only recently began pretending not to be.
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.