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.
effete elites trying to save Hillary Giuliani.
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.
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?
This is an old and tired argument really. No matter how well written and no matter how much it appeals to the GOP die hards that could never stand to deal with voters who really believe in something. It is tired and it is old. And in this particular incarnation as well as many others it makes many mistakes and contradicts its own arguments in the process.
As a simple and succint guideline, vote for who really want in the primary and vote for the best possible candidate who has a chance to win, it is a guideline that I have gone with in my own voting more often than not.
As a rule-to-live-by-in-every-election it is foolhardy and possibly dangerous.
Here is an example from the long-winded article: The one person who could have lost due to being pro-death was Specter and he was the only one who won. So the idea that pro-lifers as one issue voters caused the results the author claimed they caused however indirectly is flawed.
If I had the chance at this date to vote for or against Specter in a primary I would vote against him. I suspect if I had the chance to vote for him vs. some worse candidate I might still not be able to bring myself to vote for him. My votes are somthing I take very seriously and do not cast based on anyone’s scare-tactics, not the dims and not the die hard GOPers either. No matter how much I like to look back on Reagan with good things to say all around, I think he did the wrong thing to help Specter win rather than helping to get a better candidate in and/or ignoring that state’s position to focus even more on the others he was helping.
One example in real life: I voted for Bob Taft as Governor of Ohio. Boy have I regretted that. I mainly voted for him in order to keep someone worse out, and immediately regretted it and spent years discussing with my husband how poor the GOP candidates in this state are and what I really need to be doing with my vote.
In recent years this has played out in that although I seriously believed in, campaigned for and gave money to a truly conservative gubanatorial candidate to replace Taft, we have a man who defends the NAMBLA agenda as our current governor. I guess I now know what it feels like for people living in Massachusets surrounded by those who vote in the likes of Kennedy.
For the GOP to keep trying to become more and more the party of the old style dems and still expect to scare true conservatives into voting for candidates that are only going to further our countries slide into oblivion is ludicrous. I am seriously unlikely to vote for Guiliani, or Mitney or McCain. Luckily I still have hope that Hunter or Thompson might be the main man on the GOP ticket, so I’m not yet having to freak out over taking that step into hoping that my vote becomes a part of some new and better system.