“We’re looking for religious right members that could...IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...hold their noses and vote for him rather than allow a Clinton to run this nation again.”
I saw the above post go by, but don't see how it's an offensive post, how it is a non conservative post, or that it identifies the poster as a non conservative. If you've a mind, would you explain to me how it is any of those things?
I think we all have a tendency to see the worst in the posts which argue against our points of view and be forgiving of the posts that agree with us.
***That’s true, it’s human nature.
I see the anti Rudy posts as being the most rude, for you it’s vice versa. Could be the truth is in the middle, could be one of us is right, like me ;-)
***If you’d been on the rudy threads for the last few months you would see it differently, that is, unless you’re “forgiving of the posts that you agree with”. If I went over to a liberal forum and started telling them they need to adopt conservative values, it would be rightfully considered as rude. It’s kinda like if you see 2 people arguing, both of them rude and one of them is sitting on his own private property, the other guy who’s a visitor selling Amway is by default MORE rude. Keep in mind that this is a socon forum. Why is it that socons supporting a socon candidate on a socon forum have to face this kind of hostility, as shown in the thread below?
Duncan Hunter, RRRINO: Reincarnated Reagan Republican In Name Only
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798412/posts
I saw the above post go by, but don’t see how it’s an offensive post, how it is a non conservative post, or that it identifies the poster as a non conservative. If you’ve a mind, would you explain to me how it is any of those things?
***Did you see some of the responses? Some folks said they would be committing a cardinal sin if they followed that request. That’s just one example. It’s an open admission that they are trying to separate socons from their socon beliefs. And if they can’t separate from their socon beliefs, they want right wingers who can “hold their noses” vote for him rather than allow a Clinton to run this nation again.” That is the classic rude false dilemma. Here is my standard response to that false dilemma. Please do answer it.
IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...
That’s a BIG if. It’s also a false dilemma, especially during the primary season.
Since you’re so focused on this false dilemma, I would expect you to answer this false dilemma.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he splits the base, possibly splits the republican party, and loses the election.
Rudy followers’ contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer the rudy followers’ hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Regardless of who wins or loses, Free Republic and the republican party is better off with Duncan Hunter than Rudy as the candidate. This social liberal candidate is simply not healthy for the republican party nor for FR. And rudy followers are proving to be very impolite freepers.
This goes back to this message, I believe:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=13846#13846
This was the part that I reacted to:
DCPatriot, not realizing the implications of the context (I hope, cause I like DCPatriot!)
And the conservatives that are strident on abortion and gun laws are going to have to become ‘average catholics’...in analogical parlance.
Good catholics who practice birth control. Divorced ones that still go to church and give up sweets for Lent.
Which was saying, join the ranks of the unfaithful or else.
Catholics might behave in that fashion in real life, picking and choosing from church teaching as they feel comfortably with, but the church says they aren’t being good catholics when they behave that way, although they might be good people. Encouraging a seriously faithful catholic who knows the church teachings on these issues is to invite them to commit mortal sin.
I am sure that’s not the intent of the analogy; but the problem is, conservatives that care about conservatism before general GOP membership would no doubt react the way I did on the invitation to join the ranks of those who are unfaithful to the church. There could be a point I could not hold my nose and vote for a GOP candidate just out of party loyalty. My core values could be stretched too far.
If the party drifts to far left and becomes too much like the Democrats, it will leave the conservatives behind, like the Democrats left southern conservatives. If it drifts far enough left, it will leave enough conservatives behind to form a viable new party. And when that happens, it will be ripped to shreds, like the Whig party before it.
The answer, IMHO, isn’t to become a Democrat-lite. Every step in being the party of the middle, instead of being seen as being a party of clearly defined values that are different than the left, undercuts the need for a Republican party.
But that is MHO. Your mileage may vary.