Replies

What I find the most short-sighted about this statement is that it assumes the "religious right" is bullying. Rather, I think the liberal element within the Republican Party is trying to bully conservatives and average voters into accepting Giuliani as the "default" candidate. I think the case could easily be made that the "religious right" is being bullied by establishment "country club" Republicans who have, with their large contributions and influence in societal discussion have been bullying values voters into a choice between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat--not much of a choice for people concerned about the erosion of traditional values.

A while back, I asked someone here what value or stand they wouldn't abandon just to get a "R" win. They basically said "Nothing. Party is all that matters".

When I posted more frequently, there were some who would try to blame me and every other Christian for the loss in '06, just like they will in '08 if Rudy is nominated. What they fail to realize is that there are those of us who consider our standing before God before our standing in the GOP.

Yeah, what you said. Ahh, err, Ditto.

I get the same treatment. I keep telling the FR RINO's here that Christians aren't the problem, Guliani is. You can't force me to vote for a liberal by putting an "R" behind his name. Jeffords has as much chance as Rooty to get my vote. If the Republicans can't give me someone to vote FOR, then it looks like Hillary to me. Republicans will slink back into obscurity for 60 years if they dis the Christians and suck up to the Rockerfella's. It is just as important to block homosexual marraige and abortion as get a tax cut if you want to win the vote.

A while back, I asked someone here what value or stand they wouldn't abandon just to get a "R" win

Turn that around. What are you willing to compromise on to get your principals advanced? Only in God is perfection found. Nothing in human life, especially not politics, is going to be perfect. So what are YOU willing to give on to advance your political agenda?

From your posting it is obvious you define everything you personally want as "Standing on principals" That feed the shouters egos, it does nothing to advance a pro-Life political agenda.

Which is abandoning principal? Staying in the fight in the hopes of getting something done on your issue, or quitting the fight because it isn't going your way?

Standing on Principal means fight for your views even when times are looking grim. It is not "standing on principal" to throwing your hands in the air and screaming "You're not doing what I want so a pox on all of you.

Using the logic being expressed here, by self proclaimed "Standing on Principals Freepers" a 3 year old throwing a temper-tantrum is "Standing on Principals"

NO the toddler is engaging in wholly self destructive emotional grandstanding. So are all the supposed adult Freepers who continually define their own personal opinions being immediately gratified at every turn with "Standing on Principals.

With the GOP most, if not all, of your values are being advanced and strengthen. On Judges alone the GOP has done more good for Value Voters in the last 7 years then the Democrats ever will.

With the Democrats, Value Voters get 100% of what they claim to loath imposed on them. With the GOP, Value Voters have a seat at the table when Judges are nominated, legislation is crafted ect.

Demanding the you get only 100% of what you personally want and nothing you oppose, is NOT "Standing on Principal"

What they fail to realize is that there are those of us who consider our standing before God before our standing in the GOP.

OK, fair enough.

This hasn't happened yet, but it might: If a Justice for SCOTUS retires or dies prior to fall 2008, how will you explain your involvement in electing a Democratic Senate?

Serious question, asked honestly.

I hope you will answer in the same spirit. I've asked that question before, and only got dodging and dancing in return.