Posted on 08/01/2007 11:24:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
Kansas ping
Remember, by your definition, keeping a Communist/Soviet puppet regime in power is "Conservative." "My" definition is one shared by most Conservatives. ;-)
"Or perhaps you can tell us what it was, exactly, that made Bill Avery, Bob Bennett, and Mike Hayden RINOs while leaving abortion out of it?"
Avery was not included. He was seemingly the last Conservative Republican. As for Bennett, Hayden & Graves, in the case of Bennett, he was clearly the Establishment choice and was to the left of his DINO opponent, Vern Miller. Bennett couldn't even manage to win reelection in 1978 in the heavily anti-Carter year, even as the GOP won back the legislature, held the Senate seat and knocked off a 'Rat incumbent in the 2nd. I don't know what Bennett's position on abortion was. Hayden was also a similar Establishment disappointment, and like Bennett, not only couldn't win reelection, but lost the House of Reps to the Dems, real brilliant. To prove his bonafides, he works as a department head for Gilligan-Sebelius. Oh, and yes, he was a prominent pro-abort. Less than useless. Graves was also another pro-abort whose "popularity" he used to halt a Conservative from succeeding him. As I wrote in an analysis last year, the RINO as a Governor almost uniformily fails to deliver a Republican successor no matter how ostensibly "popular" they are (and in what few instances that they do, it's usually because of a flawed Dem opponent). Of course, I predict, as usual, you will consider Bennett/Hayden/Graves "giants" instead of midgets.
"I know why I voted for him, but what was it, exactly, that convinced you that Tim Shallenberger was a rock-solid conservative? And if his views on abortion differed had from your's, which of his primary opponents would you have voted for and why?"
Shallenburger was the only logical choice. Too bad Graves and his RINOs sandbagged him. Can't let those filthy Conservatives win, y'know. They might actually accomplish something positive.
"She's lived here for 33 years so I think you can drop the 'carpetbagger' label. And I think she got her name from her husband."
33 years, huh ? Interesting, since that happens to be the year that her daddy, the worst Governor of Ohio in the last 100 years, was unceremoniously dumped for reelection. Interesting, too, that she just happened to marry the dunce son of a respected Conservative GOP former Congressman. But since Keith Sebelius was deceased, there was no way he could give his opinion on his Socialist daughter-in-law using the name to get herself elected to statewide office.
"But it was people like you, single issue Republicans from the moderate end of the party, who stayed home or defected that put Moore in."
Uh-uh, you can't have it both ways. Now YOU have the nerve to criticize your fellow pro-aborters for bringing down Snowbarger ?!? Tsk tsk.
"The same kind of people who stayed home when Phill ran two years later. And then it was the single-issue Republicans from the opposite end who sat out the Taff-Moore race."
You should be praising Conservatives for not voting for the RINO Taff, or did you forget he was later sentenced to prison ? It was also alleged that Taff was closeted gay. Yeah, he would've been a real bright star in Congress as a Republican. Of course, were he a rodent, all would be forgiven.
"And oh yes, there are people just like you, people who make abortion the single deciding factor in their support for a candidate as well. Those are the ones who won't vote for an abortion opponent regardless of their other political beliefs. They're no different in their way than you are in your's."
Nope, because one is voting based on basic morality and decency, the other on the polar opposite. Like I said, while other issues are important, if a candidate fails this basic test, it proves they have no moral grounding and can compromise away anything and everything else. Something you fail to grasp.
Guess I’m the one person in 100. I knew she was a moonbat going in, and with her walking out on “positive” testimony on Iraq proved it beyond question.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873974/posts
Call me naive, but I think I’d rather see politicians take an oath of loyalty to their constituents and the law rather than to their parties. Oh well.
I think that should be a given without even needing an oath. But it seems that some members of the the more social conservative wing of the party don't agree and want to be able to publicly support a Democrat if that candidate meets their litmus test. I agree with you and think that they're wrong.
Well they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, for all the good that's done us.
Avery lost to Docking, a Democrat. And later lost to Dole, who must have been the Rat in the race since you claim Avery was the conservative. But you've avoided the original question entirely. What was it that made Bennett and Hayden RINOs?
Shallenburger was the only logical choice. Too bad Graves and his RINOs sandbagged him. Can't let those filthy Conservatives win, y'know. They might actually accomplish something positive.
That's not what I asked. What was it, exactly, that made Tim the conservative. And had he not shared your exact position on abortion, which of the other candidates would you have supported?
You should be praising Conservatives for not voting for the RINO Taff, or did you forget he was later sentenced to prison ?
Actually that problem came after his second campaign, the one against Kobach. Had the more conservative element of the party voted for him the first time around then he might well have won and the situation might not have occured. But I keep forgetting. In your view better a Democrat in the office than someone who doesn't share your exact views on abortion.
Nope, because one is voting based on basic morality and decency, the other on the polar opposite. Like I said, while other issues are important, if a candidate fails this basic test, it proves they have no moral grounding and can compromise away anything and everything else. Something you fail to grasp.
I grasp it very well, because you've made it clear over and over again. Unless the candidate is strictly in line with your views on a single issue, abortion, then you dismiss them as a Rino and would rather have a Democrat in the office. Something you refuse to admit.
Where do you come up with that ? A Republican primary contest need not always be made up of two folks of different ideological stripes. Both Avery and Dole were from the more Conservative side, at least Socially, although Avery was vulnerable on the issue that cost him reelection in '66, and that's taxes. Bob Docking got to the right of him on taxes.
"What was it that made Bennett and Hayden RINOs?"
I already answered.
"What was it, exactly, that made Tim the conservative."
His support of Conservative issues.
"And had he not shared your exact position on abortion, which of the other candidates would you have supported?"
Neither of the other main primary candidates, Kerr or Knight, were Conservatives.
"In your view better a Democrat in the office than someone who doesn't share your exact views on abortion."
No, what you don't get is that a liberal Republican in office does double harm, both to the party itself, and to Conservatism. It advances neither, and helps the Democrat party. If you're going to elect a liberal, better it be a rodent, let them inflict the harm and pay for it at the ballot box at the next election when a real Conservative Republican can win. Ya dig ?
No you didn't. You called Bennett the 'establishment choice' and to the left of his opponent, without giving your reasons. You failed to mention that Hayden spent time in the first Bush cabinet and ran the American Sport Fishing association for 8 years. But then you said, "Oh, and yes, he was a prominent pro-abort" so the truth did finally come out.
His support of Conservative issues.
Other than opposition to abortion which conservative issues are you talking about?
Neither of the other main primary candidates, Kerr or Knight, were Conservatives.
You didn't answer. Had Tim been even mildly squishy on abortion would you still have supported him? Or would you have supported one of the others? Or supported nobody at all?
No, what you don't get is that a liberal Republican in office does double harm, both to the party itself, and to Conservatism. It advances neither, and helps the Democrat party. If you're going to elect a liberal, better it be a rodent, let them inflict the harm and pay for it at the ballot box at the next election when a real Conservative Republican can win. Ya dig?
What I 'dig' is that to you unless the candidate is of the same mindset as you on abortion then he isn't a conservative. He could have detailed plans on how to shrink the size of government, spreadsheets showing how he would reduce taxes and where exactly he would cut spending to offset it, support a strong military, have detailed plans on how best to conduct a rational foreign policy, and unless he met your criteria on abortion then he's a RINO. Why is it so hard for you to admit that abortion is your sole criteria as to what constitutes a conservative? It plain in every post you make that you will not, under any circumstances, support someone who does not agree completely with you on aborition and you consider anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest degree to be a RINO. And yet you continue to insist you are not a one-issue voter.
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.