Replies

When will you admit that you are not a conservative?

I'm not sure that's a fair question because there's no agreement as to what a conservative is.

We all have differences on various issues, otherwise this forum would be pretty boring.

I don't think you can do a litmus test. If I'm a social conservative who supports limited government and fiscal responsibility, yada yada, but opposes the death penalty for some reason, am I not a conservative? If I'm an atheist who supports all the conservative positions but doesn't think public prayer in school is a good idea, or at least worth fighting for, am I not a conservative?

The questions are rhetorical, but my point is that "conservative" is kind of a blend of positions which, on the balance, are favored by conservatives.

I would certainly classify myself as a conservative. Pin me down on 50 particular issues, and I'd suspect only a percent or two would actually agree with me on all of them, maybe less.

When will you admit that you are not a conservative?

I didn't ask everyone that question, just repeating a question that has been asked to her over and over including from the site owner. Some people have over exposed themselves as what they really are.

As Rush Limbaugh wrote about the other day, there are many trying to redfine the word "conservative":

"RUSH: While I was gone, I noticed something. With all these Republican candidates for president -- you have Giuliani; you have Romney who got in today. McCain. I can't even remember them all. There's a distinct effort, there's a big move underway now to redefine conservatism in a way that fits the candidacy of one or the other of these candidates. They are conflating electability with a serious discussion of conservatism. Much of it's coming from the New York and DC elite. It reached its zenith with a column from George Will that I saw Sunday, in which there's a big swipe taken at Reaganism and that conservatives' view of Reaganism is a waste of time, that Reagan was one man at one time and never will be again.

It's a stunning, stunning piece -- and all these things together amused me, because have you ever seen liberalism wring its hands and try to redefine itself to fit one particular candidate? Liberals don't make excuses for who they are. They do their best to hide who they are, and they do their best to camouflage who they are with different names (like "progressives" or "moderates" or what have you), but they never have any serious disagreements over the fundamental principles of liberalism. Yet here we go with the people on the conservative side now trying to fit each one of these candidates into what is a conservative by redefining conservatism to fit the candidate, and this is important to me because it ought to be the other way around. If conservatives are serious about a conservative candidate, then the candidate ought to have to be conservative, not the other way around, and I see that happening."

I don't think you can do a litmus test.

That is a democrat phrase/talking point.

If I'm a social conservative who supports limited government and fiscal responsibility, yada yada, but opposes the death penalty for some reason, am I not a conservative? If I'm an atheist who supports all the conservative positions but doesn't think public prayer in school is a good idea, or at least worth fighting for, am I not a conservative?

We aren't judging everyone here, this is about Rudy who is in no way a conservative. In fact he is not even moderately moderate. he is a liberal. From Jim Rob:

Here are some of the negatives we've learned about Rudy recently: - pro abortion - pro partial birth abortion - pro taxpayer funded abortion - pro taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research - pro gay unions (gay marriage) - pro gay rights - pro gay agenda - pro gun control - pro suing gun manufacturers - pro illegal alien - pro sanctuary cities - pro environmentalism - pro human caused fixable global warming (pro Kyoto?) - pro McCain-Feingold - wants to close loopholes to make it stronger

Additional suspicions:

- experience as a government prosecutor makes him pro government - fights crime by restricting rights - says he's a problem fixer - suspect he'll use BIG government solutions - suspect he's pro developer vs private property rights - eminent domain - suspect he'll be eager to please his liberal friends, press et al (there goes the war)

Why would a conservative in any degree promote that?

I agree about the differing opinions, including those who are liberal. It would be boring, and no fun without them