Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ol' Sparky
No, judges would be a big part of the criterion as well.... Anyone not thinking that the nomination of judges isn't as important as any issue is a fool

That's very disingenuous.

The only reason a "values voter" or "social conservative" would give a hoot about federal judges is due to their stand on abortion.

The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter, which is abortion, though occasionally with some equivalent concerns about whether a Presidential candidate is "born again", and very often with an obsessive concern about a candidate's personal and private marital issues, including whether that candidate's wife has been photographed in public with her cleavage revealed.

"Values voters" and "social conservatives" frequently get so obsessed about an infracting candidate that they have and will literally rip the most scurrilous and mendacious libels from leftie and Socialist web sites and post it here on FR as truth. It doesn't matter how untrue that propaganda might be, so long as it creates a smokescreen for the "social conservative's" actual but hidden malice toward the candidate, in particular because of their self-constructed fantasies about the candidates personal and private marital life (which they actually know nothing about, though they'd never admit to that).

62 posted on 08/07/2007 7:27:47 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: angkor
The only reason a "values voter" or "social conservative" would give a hoot about federal judges is due to their stand on abortion.

You're full of it. EVERY social conservative I know is also an economic conservative. In fact, Republicans that aren't social conservatives are almost always liberal period.

Further, if you think a justice can be strict Constitutionalist and uphold Roe or that Giuliani would ever nominate a judge that overturned it, you're a fool.

64 posted on 08/07/2007 7:33:54 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: angkor
>>>>>The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter ....

Pure BS! I'm a social conservative and while I would never vote for someone who advocates abortion on demand as a Constitutional right --- like Hillary, Obama and Giuliani --- there are many issues beyond Roe v Wade that drive my conservative politics. Most social conservatives I know believe in a broad range of issues that drive their politics.

Anyone who advocates comprehensive liberal immigration reform, anyone promoting gay rights, anyone who advocates gun control, anyone who supports liberal global warming bunkum or any candidate who supports expanding the welfare state and raising taxes, along with any candidate who believes government is the end all to solving the problems facing America today, will never get my vote.

If you read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and throw in the Federalist Papers for good measure, who'll get a better understanding about what the Founders had in mind for our Republic. And abortion on demand is not a right you will find in the any part of the Constitution or the DOI. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are at the very core of our basic human rights. The Founding Fathers believed a right to life was at the top of the list of fundamental human rights. If you don't believe that, you're a heathen.

71 posted on 08/07/2007 8:19:59 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: angkor
You win the booby prize!

The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter

Written like a liberal parrot who does not know the first thing about conservatism.

That's like saying fiscal conservatives are by definition single-issue voters who only care about taxes.

Put 'em together, and the whole conservative movement is made up of social and fiscal conservatives, people who only care about either abortion OR taxes.

82 posted on 08/07/2007 10:07:30 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Romney : "not really trying to define what is technically amnesty. I'll let the lawyers decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: angkor
"The only reason a "values voter" or "social conservative" would give a hoot about federal judges is due to their stand on abortion."

============================

You say that like that's a bad thing.

===================

"The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter."

==================

Nonsense. Just because I am unbending on abortion does not make me a single issue voter, it makes me a man of principle.

I don't believe conservatism can be split between social and fiscal, and here's why:

I don't believe someone can be considered a conservative unless they embrace the entire ball of wax.

ANY deviation makes them a liberal with some conservative leanings, but a liberal nonetheless.

There is no such thing as a conservative with some liberal leanings.

They are NOT moderates. They are liberals.

A liberal could be a moderate one, but they are still liberals.

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal.

I welcome RINO votes, but they are liberals and have no business telling conservatives how to run the GOP.

91 posted on 08/07/2007 11:22:27 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson