Posted on 03/03/2007 1:05:48 PM PST by gpapa
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
"What moral absolutes are nonnegotiables with you, please?"
Survival of the US, the American people and the Western Civilization.
Do YOU care about that at all? Nothing else will matter if the terrorists will nuke us or we surrender to them, as the Dems are working hard to do.
I read the deceptive article all the way through. No deal from me. I, of couse, speak only for myself. I cannot stop this self-destructive course the party seems bent on taking.
Dreams of outlawing abortion on the one hand, or, on the other, of seeing it funded, legitimized, and enshrined as an unassailable civil right, ...
***This statement juxtapositions "dreams" of outlawing abortion versus seeing it funded, legitimized, etc. That's a misrepresentation of where we are today with abortion. First of all, I don't know anyone in the pro-life side that sits around and "dreams" of outlawing abortion. And the fact is, abortion IS funded/legitimized. The pro-life side that I see dreams of saving as many lives as possible. My "dream" is to see a human preborn baby have at least as many rights in this society as a california preborn condor. It makes absolutely no sense that a woman whose baby dies in a car accident with a drunken driver can extend rights of protection to that preborn but if she decides to kill the baby, that preborn doesn't have the rights to protection.
have faded in the face of a large and so-far unswayable public opinion that is conflicted, ambivalent, and inclined to punish any political figure it sees as too rigid, too strident, or too eager to go to extremes.
***Great writing, but frankly, bogus. Those "dreams" of saving tens of millions of babies' lives have not faded. Public opinion on partial birth abortion is in the high 90% for banning it. Public opinion is changing each and every day on the abortion issue as more & more people see sonograms and KNOW that it is a baby that's getting killed.
Excellent post. Bookmark.
Oh, and um, notice the crickets.
Cool post.
frame your argument in non-Manichean terms, AND provide an alternative.
***The alternative is Duncan Hunter. Most of the rudophiles agree that they could support Hunter. There's a problem with the converse, in that socons cannot in good conscience vote for a solib, regardless of the first initial in his party affiliation. The answer for the party is to not risk a split and go for Duncan Hunter.
Thank you for the civility; such sparrings as these are less a bother than duels--I stubbed my toe badly on my shovel recently after a duel, digging yet another grave. ;^) < grin >
First, please note that in my own case, I said I personally intend to vote straight-ticket GOP--and I pray that does not mean Rudy. There is a LONG interim until the primary, so I'm going to do *everything possible* to get the truth out about Rudy and to get nominated the best possible Social Conservative. Conservatives will close ranks AFTER the primary. Truth, meanwhile, seems quite a scary shot across the bow of the Good Ship Rudy.
I emphatically do not accept the premise that Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary--nor the premise that Hillary will even BE the DNC contender in 2008 (likely yes but not certain). I don't condemn those who vote third-party--from a related troubled conscience. I do insist that anyone who stays home and doesn't vote is foolish. FOOLISH. It is a stewardship issue, scripturally.
On to other matters. I must reject several of your premises.
First, you speak of SoCons marginalizing the middle of the bell-shaped curve. The reverse is the truth. The goal of Conservatism is not to drift to the morally-relative middle but rather to throw a lifeline of hope, grace and truth to those drifting along without moral anchor (he who hath ears, let him hear).
Since you imply willingness to use the Bible as your baseline as do I, let us both be careful to not take matters out of context.
The taxation-related verse you cited is in context of Rome's having conquered Israel and at the time of Jesus' statement, occupation of Israel. When in Rome, do as the Romans? The Romans had a fabulous military yet collapsed morally--read Gibbon. The Jews held on hope for fulfulment of God's promise that they would be FREED from Rome--free of rendering unto Caesar. God's plan was to remove the tax-levying entity! All are instructed to obey the laws of course. But remember that there was a Year of Jubilee, which is antithetical to Kelo, a fiscal-conservatism issue that Rudy seems to support.
Next, Proverbs and Psalms are--all the Bible is--full of cautions against compromising with evildoers. One that comes to mind is in Proverbs and refers to a polluted spring sullied by mud, when the righteous compromise with evil. There's the spit in the wind, or face, scripturally.
You postulate that this is strictly a temporal, geopolitical matter, not spiritual? Consider the passage in Scripture that says "The Earth is the Lord's, and the Fulness Thereof." The Lord of the Flies is a usurper, thief and liar and his possession of earth and its high places are temporary but most certainly not strictly temporal. Again, your premises are based on misapplication or misunderstanding of context.
Consider the victory over Jericho--and the sinfulness in the camp that resulted in a humiliating defeat at Ai.
It most certainly is a spiritual battle. Our Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase 'One Nation Under God and our Flag symbolizes sovereignty where it is raised. Surely you know something of the vile tyranny that results when any but God is the ultimate sovereign.
If it wasn't a spiritual battle, why would anti-God atheists have conspired to outlaw prayer in schools yet have no problem with Muslim indoctrination on campuses?
If it wasn't a spiritual battle, why would the same folks conspire to outlaw displays of the Ten Commandments on public grounds? I won't belabor this point further.
If you don't believe there is a conspiracy among evildoers, read about Gramsci, just for starters.
You ask for respect for those who have antithetical views and you posit the premise that they also are here in good faith. I am not so naive. After all, the Serpent in the Garden was a beautiful creature and quite glib.
I have observed the failure of numerous posters to reply to my own posts. I do not believe all such are here in good faith--but many--I believe most--ARE here in that good faith, which may not be, and need not be, Biblical Christianity. It is a free country.
As for expecting to avoid political spit or mud, if it wasn't a battle of good vs. evil, if it wasn't a battle 'not of flesh and blood' and if everyone told the truth, we wouldn't have trolls here. We wouldn't even have arguments.
If everyone in America subscribed to the Founding Fathers' beliefs it would be great. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
I don't know if we'll get very far in this little parakeet dance, you and I, but perhaps they are playing our tune. The fourth stanza of the one I dance to goes like this:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Cheers.
Well now, Al. What do you have to say about Joesbucks post? It's your contention that the party won't split because of the article that starts this thread. But Joesbucks goes right on ahead and openly admits to a candidate which is snubbing the socons. All along I've been worried about a split in the base and that causing Hillary to WIN, but here we have a split in the base when the republican wins. It's a recipe for a third party.
One question, joesbucks: Why all the acrimony from Rudophiles here at this socon website if socons are such a negligible group?
The Looming GOP Rift: Will the Right Secede?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1791057/posts
Thanks. But you don't see a clear and present danger to America from within due to moral decay and an enormous inflow of people who may one day within a very few election cycles somehow have obtained the ability to vote you and me into disenfranchisement?
I share the same general goals you stated but I don't consider the WOT our only immediate threat.
It's a moral battle of the wills, not a battle of flesh and blood.
If he were in the democratic party where he belongs I doubt he'd have a prayer at winning the nomination or the presidency.
***Interesting you should say that.
Rudy Giuliani video on YouTube: "I would like to run on the Democratic line "
YouTube ^
Posted on 03/01/2007 2:53:19 PM PST by Kevmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Then they are not PRO-LIFE, if they are willing to accept someone who believes its okay to slaughter a 9 month term baby by driving a pair of scissors into his/her skull and sucking the brains out, all the while the baby is squirming in pain as it dies.
Please explain what good is a candidate (Duncan Hunter) who can't win the R nomination to start with and if by some miracle, he would, he would be trounced by Hillary, giving her 100% of the electoral votes and 80% of the popular vote.
***The nomination is 10 months away. He can win it. He came within 1% of rudy and mccain at Spartanburg. He's right on WOT, immigration, RKBA (all 3 issues linked to WOT) so he keeps the base together. That's a good 10-15 Million votes right there. His stance on illegal aliens and fair trade cuts across party lines and he pulls in blue collar democrats. Keep in mind that proposition 187 won in california even though the MSM pounded against it 24/7 in this Liberal state. Duncan touches an undercurrent of support that the other namby-pamby candidates don't. He provides a geniune choice against Hillary so that the american public can see for themselves -- we're running a real McCoy versus a phoney. He doesn't drive the party leftward like rudy would. In terms of money, he's building a strong grass-roots organization that almost won in Spartanburg against Rudy's team that had 2 paid staff members, so he's good with spending money wisely. And on the other side of the money angle, he's been overseeing a $530BILLION budget that looks like rudy's city budget look like chump change, so he's been rubbing elbows with some big-money kingmakers. He's gaining tons of momentum. He has the support of most members of Free Republic. That's just what I could come up with in these few minutes.
Rudy is the Norm of Cheers Bar. Everyone knows his name, but a smart bar owner wouldn't trust him with the keys to the bar.
Hi guys:
I didn't see the Duncan Hunter ping list over here, so I thought I'd give it a try.
There was one other sentence in there but it must have gotten cut out in my haste to type away. Basically, a second issue that cuts across party lines and draws in democrats is the fair trade thing.
Are you a socon? It appears from this post and a few other recent ones that you aren't.
Why would you come onto a socon site and say that they're irrelevant? If we are irrelevant, then you're wasting your time. What motivates you to do that?
Your argument makes no sense. Laws passed that limit 2nd Amendment rights are aimed at US Citizens, are they not? How does limiting OUR gun rights solve the problem of "temporary visitors from third-world cesspools" using guns?
The reason that Reagan won over Carter, was that the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, held a massive campaign to register, educate, and promote conservatism. They had powerful results.
Add to this that Rudy wants to give citizenship to all the 'visitors' who have illegally entered into and stayed in our country and it makes even less sense.
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.