Schlafly not keen on GOP frontrunners

One News Now ^ | 10/22/07 | Jim Brown

[Wallace T.]

The 800 pound gorilla in foreign affairs that few are discussing is the renewed danger from Russia and China. For all the rhetoric about Ahmadinejad, Assad, bin Laden, etc., they would not have been capable of their military, nuclear, and even terrorist activities without the active assistance of the old Communist powers and their allies in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. In their own way, those conservatives who talk about an endless war against terrorism and focus only on Islamofascism are as myopic as the liberals who favor Marxist-led international organizations over our own interests and the libertarians who believe that if the U.S. withdrew to its own shores, an epoch of world harmony would ensue.

Duncan Hunter is to my knowledge the most realistic of the Presidential candidates with respect to foreign policy and military affairs.

[RasterMaster]

The recent examples of 2000, 2004 and 2006 should be a major clue. The Presidential elections were close only because a REAGAN conservative wasn't in the running and the base stayed home. The 2006 election was lost when Republicans didn't stick to conservative principles, thus losing their base voters.

When you push "moderate" candidates, there isn't much difference in them or the democrat and that alone drives the base away. When you push for CONSERVATIVE candidates, it isn't even a close race.

[epow]

they all agree they cannot support a candidate who is not pro-life. The Eagle Forum founder tells OneNewsNow the only GOP hopefuls she is comfortable with are Congressmen Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

I must be a "values voter", although that's news to me. I won't vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and Hunter would be my first choice of the announced candidates if I believed he had a chance to win.

But Tancredo is a one note Johnny, and other than immigration I don't know where he stands on many of the other issues that are also important to me. In his brief TV appearances he hasn't impressed me as being presidential timber. In any case, I think it's safe to say that he won't be the nominee.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Thanks for your nonsensical reply. As if being in a war were a requirement for President. C'mon, we know something about these two: Rudy and Mitt. They are proven leaders, smart as tacks, and under no illusions about terrorism, which is certainly not true of all the candidates.

As for electability, why would you say I take information uncritically from the media? I judge based on how I think the candidates and their campaign staffs will fight and avoid icebergs. And yes, that means being politicians not purists.

[DesScorp]

I don't deny that Voltaire wasn't a Christian, but he did believe in a just God that created all. And did believe in the human soul.

"Religion was instituted to make us happy in this life and in the other. What must we do to be happy in the life to come? Be just.

I seem to recall Our Savior telling us to be just to each other too. Even if Voltaire is in Hell, he attacked what he saw as hypocrisy in Christian faith, of which there was quite a bit at the time. He may not have believed Jesus was the savior, but he defended the right to believe it.

And while he wasn't a Christian, he certainly espoused many Christian beliefs. And he believed that even if someone's religious beliefs were foolish, they should be utterly defended on the grounds of freedom and toleration. Voltaire was no Richard Dawkins. I don't agree with everything he believed or espoused, but he did far more good than ill. Church membership or belief or faith certainly wasn't damaged in any way.

Christ was the savior of man, but unlike some others here, I don't expect someone to be a Christian to acknowledge that they have done much good on this mortal coil.

[WildcatClan]

I agree completely, and I think “myopic” describes our leadership quite well. The points you made so well in your comment aren’t even discussed and that concerns me. Our leadership is myopic, now, but trending towards blindness.

I agree we have to swat the gnats, but, “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” is short-sighted foreign policy that must change.

[WildcatClan]

"Thanks for your nonsensical reply. As if being in a war were a requirement for President. C'mon, we know something about these two: Rudy and Mitt. They are proven leaders, smart as tacks, and under no illusions about terrorism, which is certainly not true of all the candidates.

You said, "I Like Rudy and Mitt for national defense" and then have the unmitigated gall to term my response, "nonsense"? You then go on to misrepresent my statements and define them falsely. I never once stated that serving in a war was a prerequisite for being president, those were your words, not mine.

I was replying to your comment that the 2 are so wonderful on national defense and simply made some observations that were connected with national defense. Neither has been in war or sent a son or daughter into one. Like it or not, this will matter to Americans and will be something Hitlery will gladly point out in the general when discussing the continuation and direction of the Iraq war.

As I know neither has worked tirelessly to see our military have what they need to fight a war. I am not sure either has a clue as to our military capabilities and limitations. If you thought I was being critical of how you reached your decision, I apologize. So allow me to put the ball in your court. What possible information do you have that brought you to the conclusion that either of these two are even close to being best on national defense? What have they done that has so convinced you?

A minor stipulation, standing on the rubble after the fact and "talking about strong defense" doesn't count. Rudy disarming citizens and trampling on the 2nd amendment doesn't count either.

[gondramB]

>>Phyllis Schlafly is a hero to all conservatives.

Anyone who has bad words for her is a DU plant.<<

Nobody should be above being disagreed with, if we think they are wrong.

There are some things about Phyllis Schlafley I admire, like he standing up to the John Birch Society when they wanted to go overboard looking for traitors among Americans - even at the cost of not concentrating on the the very real threat of the Soviet Union. I admire a woman in her 80’s standing up for her principles.

I agree with her criticism for the front runners and her concern about Americans who lose jobs.

But if she advocates high tarrifs and shutting down free trade, I’m gonna disagree with her like I disagreed with her when she didn’t want government to address AIDs early on.

Free trade was center piece of President Reagan’s policy - he got that right.

[pissant]

Free trade with enemies was not a centerpiece of Reagan’s policies. China is an enemy. The notion that they would improve their behavior with ‘free trade’ was ridiculous. We’ve enriched a nation of communists who are perhaps the most irresponsible nation on the world stage.

And no one, not Sclafly, not Hunter, want to stop trading. Hunter and Schlafly both decry our loss of sovereignty to the WTO on this issue. We were threatened with billions in fines for giving our exporters a tax cut, so we had to rescind them. It is something that Reagan would never have stood for. GATT is not the WTO.

[Wallace T.]

Phyllis Schlafly's most important contribution to the conservative cause was her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Had that passed, the reconstruction of American society along secular humanist, anti-family, anti-male lines would be even further along than it is now.

As for the issue of free trade, consideration must be given to what the legitimate military needs of the United States will be in the future. Unless you adhere to a Ron Paul-like position of withdrawing from world affairs, you must deal with the issue of the manufacturing and technological base needed to wage war successfully. (In fact, a neo-isolationist regime would have the same problem.) The Civil War and the two World Wars were won by the side that had the greater industrial capacity. If the United States lacks sufficient capacity in areas such as aircraft, motor vehicles, machine tools, electronics, primary metals, computers, and shipbuilding, our ability to project military power will be limited. Russia wants to restore its place in the sun, and China is a superpower wannabe. Neither can directly challenge us now, but that may not be the case in 10-20 years.

It may not be simon-pure Austrian economics, nor the received dogma of the foreign policy establishment, but if the United States is to play a leading force in the world against Muslim extremism, resurgent Marxism, and the Russian and Chinese threat, we must have the means to do so.

[Theo]

Schlafly contends that Huckabee was the winner among conference attendees who heard the weekend's speeches.

What's there to "contend"? It's the truth -- Huckabee was indeed the runaway winner among conference attendees.

[Theo]

“Kingmaker.”

Clever.

Remind me — where did either Dobson or Schlafly tell you to vote for a particular candidate?

[NutCrackerBoy]

What possible information do you have that brought you to the conclusion that either of these two are even close to being best on national defense? What have they done that has so convinced you?

Their words and deeds and track records.

It is a requirement for my candidate to understand the nature of the enemy as I do. CHECK!

I've read their op/eds and heard them speak off the cuff. How does a juror tell if a witness is telling the truth? One assesses credibility. CHECK!

Rudy was tireless as a prosecutor. Both men governed state-sized jurisdictions with high terror risk profile and didn't screw up. CHECK!

Neither has been in war or sent a son or daughter into one...As I know neither has worked tirelessly to see our military have what they need to fight a war. I am not sure either has a clue as to our military capabilities and limitations.

The last bit in bold is the first (in my opinion) valid point you've made against my assertion that "I like Rudy and Mitt for national defense." Years of experience and knowledge in this area would certainly be a plus, but what I look for in the potential Commander in Chief is the ability to grasp and have vision and lead.

[roamer_1]

I'll bet the remaining republicans get their balls out of their wives purses and start acting like real conservatives and tie the dims up constantly.

More than that, a loss this year is a vote of "no confidence" to the Republicans... It would force a change in leadership... RINOS to the back of the bus and Conservatives in the lead. That is needed more than anything. We need to clean our own house.

Now, I would much prefer that an uprising would occur prior to the nomination, but alas, the RINOs don't want to give up their hold, and our fellows (here included) don't seem to have the stomach for it yet, so I would suppose a RINO nominee and a big loss this year.

It is too bad. An uprising by the base forcing a Conservative change in leadership would open the coffers and get the money flowing... A Conservative nominee would have great coattails to help get others into office... and etc.

But people seem bound and determined to have a repeat of 06 for some reason... so I guess that's where we'll be going...

[roamer_1]

They are patriotic SOB’s. They love America. They don’t like gays. They hunt. They belong to the NRA. And they go to NASCAR. There are millions of them. And they VOTE. I grew up with people like that. I understand them. Heck, I am one of them.

Yeah, me too (except the Democrat part). That is the great secret of the Republican base... Conservatives are not loyal to party, and by that I mean either party. They are Conservatives, not Republicans or Democrats. The reason tat they vote for Republicans when they do is because the Republicans actually offer a candidate they agree with.

When they do, the magic happens and you get the landslide that Conservatives are famous for.

When they don't... Well, it didn't work out so good for the Dixie Chicks buckin' those folks... and it won't work out for the Republicans either.

[antisocial]

“This reader not keen on Schlafly.”

Not much of a conservative huh?

[antisocial]

“It’s generally very rare for her to actually have any idea of what she’s talking about.”

Now folks this is a perfect example of a liberal using the well known tool of projection!

[ken21]

you’re saying that reagan democrats

would not vote for fred?

[DesScorp]

“Remind me — where did either Dobson or Schlafly tell you to vote for a particular candidate?”

What both of them are indicating, Dobson especially, is that if the candidates aren’t to their liking, that they have the influence to keep evangelicals home, or steer them to a third party. They are in effect speaking for evangelical voters from a position of authority. I say call their bluff. I almost hope they call for a boycott of the leading candidates, because I think most evangelicals will promply ignore them. Some will vote for the lower tier candidates out of conviction...and thats fine...but I suspect most will pick one of the big boys and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.

Deny it all you want, these two are throwing their weight around, sometimes rather arrogantly. They need a reminder that most Protestant churches are filled with people that have an independent streak, and don’t like other people telling them what to do...or who not to vote for.

[pissant]

Sure some would. Fred is not a basketcase by any stretch. But he is not the arch conservative that Hunter is either.