Posted on 03/02/2007 4:16:56 AM PST by Jim Robinson
I erred on the low side
;-)
When the number was 1 it was too many!
The problem with this great sounding program is the old problem that Conservatives are working people and don't really have time for organizing all those groups. The activist left mostly don't have real jobs but rather leech from the rest of us by living on tax money and grant money or on University tenure and some are just shiftless or live directly on the support of the grant and tax organizations that hustle them around the country. Some live large by blackmailing corporations who are only too happy to give in and give out. Conservatives just naturally don't live the sort of lifestyle that is regarded as superior and an inalienable Right for the left.
Of course it's no different, but guys like Vigueri want to disavow themselves from the very people who elected Reagan to two terms. That to me sounds like he wants to disavow himself from Reagan's vision of America and become totally irrelevant.
If that's his vision of Conservatism, I want no part in it.
The Republican establishment has done that pretty well by itself.
Actually that is a pretty good description of how the Democrat Left operates but Conservatives just can't live that way. It is part of being conservative. We work for our livings and for the leftist lifestyle, too. We are the ones who buy the products that support the foundations and other grant-givers and pay the taxes that the government funnels into the pockets of the Left.
I don't buy that the problem with the conservative message not getting out is the fault of the republican party. The conservatives need to bring their message into the 21st century. Sadly enough, the 80s are over.
I agree with you on both accounts.
....and we really need to "draft" Newt to be our spokesperson. He's the only one I can think of who can state our case with a degree of tact and eloquence that has been missing for the last 6 years. Regardless of his "baggage" he is by far the best person to be the "voice" of Conservatism.
So now we need to eagerly embrace and promote abortion and homosexualism, right? and ditto the Mexican invasion? and maybe it's time to confiscate all the guns? and turn over dismantling of the economy to Algore? Maybe we should turn over the ME to Iran? Then we would be oh, so modern and 21st century! and confine that so old-fashioned Christian religion to the home and require soundproofing so it won't interfere with multicultural muezzins or offend polygamists.
I know the math. I was asking you to clarify what you were saying. Do you believe it is false to claim that more have died in the American abortion holocaust than died in the German holocaust of the Thirties and Forties?
If that's his vision of Conservatism, I want no part in it.
But Viguerie was around in Reagan's days, too, and to me he sounds pretty much the same. Reagan's vision for America may be redefined these days, but back then, it was what Americans wanted. I can find nothing conflicting with Reagan's vision in what Viguierie says now. If you can find something core and specific, I would be interested in knowing.
Your definition of "conservative" must differ from mine and from that of Ronald Reagan as far as that goes.
You can't blame the Republican party for Conservatives whining and complaining of being "left out", "threatened", and "bullied" by those "big bad guys in the Republican party".
If these "true conservatives" want to affect change within the GOP that they believe they are an appendage of, they'd do well to actually show up on election day and participate in the public square of debate instead of staying home and stewing, bawling, and crying.
Too many of them did that in California during it's special election, bragged about "staying home" to everyone on FR, and they wonder why the state lurched leftward since then.
I'm tired of listless individuals.
Your interactions with me on FR have been such that I have to believe that you disavow much of what many of us consider to be "the vision for Conservatism."
For example, you and your crowd have made a bloodsport out of attacking Alan Keyes, one of the few consistent visionary proponents of constitutionalism in America these days.
So, it is very difficult for me to take you seriously when you talk about your "evangelism" for conservatism as you've described on this thread.
You believe what you want, I believe the claim is true.
Your bad attitude towards "true conservatives," as you call them, oozes out of every post. You can't help it.
Millions of conservatives worked their hearts out in the last election, and you smear them all. You, and too many of your friends on FR, continue to peddle the big lie that the loss of the Congress in the last election was the fault of conservatives, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Crying about not getting 100% of what you want in the shortest amount of time is not my idea of Conservatism. You want to wander aimlessly through the political desert another 40 years digging and looking at your navel, that's your business.
That's not what it sounded like in your original post. That's why I asked you to clarify. It sounded as if you were mocking those who compare the two holocausts.
You just have a hard time accepting reality.
You're the only one I see here "crying" about anything. "It's all the fault of those nasty 'true conservatives'!"
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.