Posted on 10/23/2007 7:59:41 AM PDT by Hebrews 11:6
Conservatives were upset.
It was October 1986. Ronald Reagan...was giving the fall mid-term election campaign everything he had. The objective: saving the seats of twelve Republican first-term senators who had been swept into the first GOP Senate majority since 1954 with Reagan's 1980 election.
These twelve had helped provide the margin that controlled the Senate and thus enabled the passage of the Reagan agenda. In addition to supporting the new president's tax and budget cuts, they were key in one other area...Roe v. Wade.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Don’t flame me—I didn’t claim to agree with the author. But his point is certainly worth considering before deciding. It is a well-written article.
So - because some didn’t support RINO senators - we are at fault for Roe v Wade?
Not only was Spector against Bork, but so was the bumbling fool John Warner as I recall.
And Reagan didn’t exactly come out guns blazing in his support for Bork while he was being crucified as I recall.
Yes
In the primaries vote against the RINO or nonconservative.
In the general vote against the more evil candidate. ONE of them is going to win. Failing to vote for the lesser of to evils means you are accepting the greater evil.
Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
The only thing that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
effete elites trying to save Hillary Giuliani.
No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.
Well said, fireforeffect.
The realization that (this side of the grave) “the perfect should not be the enemy of the good” is perhaps the central tenet of conservatism.
BSBSBSBSBSBS! Sounds like more Rooty tootin’ bulljive.
My decision has been made. It isn’t Rooty OR Hillary.
I will also say, if the best the GOP can do is Rooty. I will let one of those new voters he thinks he can get take my place.
In the 2003 special election, many California conservatives were persuaded to forsake Tom McClintock, a solid conservative with a proven track record, in favor of the more “electable” Arnold Schwarzenegger. Four years later, California’s Republican conservatives find themselves in an impotent faction of a moribund party.
I know Hunter does not have a chance to win the nomination, but I am not going to get all upset and sit out the election because he did not win. I will vote for the GOP nominee and gladly do so. Anything would be better than Hillary.
Look at what happened with Perot in 92. Because of him we got Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. YUCK!! The Supreme Court is THE issue and I am not about to give Hillary a free reign with courts.
He’s also saying, we may not get another chance for a long time to overturn. Clarence Thomas is one justice who is willing to overturn a bad decision, and he has been able to persuade Kennedy on some cases to vote more conservatively. With Roberts and Alito there is a big chance to OVERTURN Roe v. Wade. Another chance. The author is saying that Roe would not currently be the law of the land if conservatives had listened to Reagan.
We’ve got another chance, a real chance now. If we can keep our eyes on the goal.
The big problem in the past few years was that Rehnquist and O’Connor and Kennedy have not been willing to try to overturn a bad law, stare decisis. If this author is correct they were willing in 1986, but not afterward. Now Rehnquist and O’Connor are gone from the court and it is possible to persuade Kennedy. One or two justices like Roberts and Thomas and Alito would make a huge difference.
I would not advocate a vote for Guiliani at this point, we need to be working hard for other candidates so that will not happen. It is too early to come down too firmly on that. There are chances for other candidates. But Dobson has come down against Fred too. And with his viewpoint on Harriet Miers, Dobson doesn’t seem to have much in the way of good judgment.
Wy do I doubt that?
It is never “principled” to act or not act in a fashion that gives victory to the enemy.
Pragmatism and the longer view have a place in our decision making.
Nothing in the article said “we are at fault for Roe v Wade”. The article correctly asserts that those who vote only for the “pure” may often hasten defeat of that which they wish to protect. Bork would have upheld the Constitution... an opportunity lost, perhaps because purist did not back less than perfect senators.
Do not misunderstand me, I loath RINOS, and being 100% pro-life would find it VERY hard to vote for Guliani (for example), but if witholding my vote results in the election of Hillary, along with a Dem Congress who will stack the courts at all levels with anti-Constitionists, I am assuring the continuance of Roe v Wade without any possible end in sight (life time judicial appointments).
"I hate Rudy because he will force women to have abortions and will steal my guns."
Some slacked jawed mouth breathing moron
“With Roberts and Alito there is a big chance to OVERTURN Roe v. Wade.”
Not with Hillary sitting in the Oval Office.
If Dr. Dobson has his way that’s exactly what will happen.
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.