Posted on 11/25/2007 9:28:09 PM PST by Kurt Evans
(30-second ad followed by 4-minute segment)
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council talks about the Republican primaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Comments as usual are welcome.”
Seems a little pessimistic to me. :-)
http://m-w.com/dictionary/pessimism
Excellent point...
**9/11 did more than wakeup America to an Islamic threat**
I don’t think we would be having this discussion if America really woke up because of 9/11. Instead we rolled over and went back to sleep.
Think about it, do you really believe that people would put social conservative issues as the most important reason to select a President during a time of major crisis. Do you think that in 1864 that Abe Lincoln reelection would hinge on his stand on Abortion? Or the biggest issue of 1944 election would be illegal immigration?
When people feel that national security and the economy is fine then social issues become the foremost topic.
No it does not.
Anyway, I’m not aware of FR supporting or funding the GOP much, so a supposed “split” with a disdained party should matter not.
Perhaps not permanently, but he'll sure drive 'em away from the polls come election day.
Sad. Night All.
“Arnold is a good case study for showing what Rudy would do to the GOP at the national level.”
They’re both crafty liberals who’ve avoided massive conservative opposition simply by registering Republican.
You can deduct the rest from there. Rudy (9/11 man) will become less and less significant as the Iraq war winds down. My guess...people will turn their eye to home on issues like the border and the culture war on social conservatives, no matter how hard the MSM tries to avoid it, that's a 2007 political reality that all players will try to ignore to their own peril.
That way we can at least have a hope of guiding his Presidency in some crucial or having some small influence. In a world where the reality is that you simply can’t always win... that is the best course of action.
The alternative is to not support Guiliani and end up with President Hillary by default.
That would be more correct.
I am again collecting field arms in the hope that your statement is not our fate.
Probably, any further elaboration on my statement will get me banned.
>He seemed to be encouraging me to fear Hillary Clinton more than God.
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
I agree with him - I do fear her more than God.
Far more.
“Four years of Clinton the I gave us a majority in congress. Four years of Clinton the II will do the same.”
I think 2.
Question - can the Republic survive 2 years of total rule by the Dems?
AlaskaErik wrote: “This staunch supporter of the Second Amendment will never vote for a gun grabber like Giuliani. Or Romney, for that matter.”
I thought Tony Perkins made an interesting point in the video. He said regardless of how Governor Romney may have come to his current policy positions, he’s intentionally painted himself into a corner where he’d lose his political viability if he didn’t actually pursue those policies.
http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Second_Amendment_Supreme_Court
I’m getting the impression that Tony may see Governor Romney as a possible compromise candidate between social conservatives who support a Marriage Protection Amendment and fiscal conservatives who aren’t inclined to support Governor Huckabee. I’m not sure whether rank-and-file evangelicals would buy into a strategy like that, but it’s definitely thought-provoking.
“Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I’m sure you know. The court forgot that marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father.”
- Governor Romney, Boston Globe, March 2, 2005
__________
September 14, 2007
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?”
Governor Romney: “Boy I sure do. You know that’s a topic that’s really, I think very important to the country, because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it’s very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you’re still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children, and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we’re going to have one standard of marriage in this country, and that standard ought to be one man and one woman.”
1) They support Amnesty even if they don't admit it.
2) They support big government health care administration.
3) They have untenable liberal positions on social issues guaranteed to drive the off conservative base.
4) They have a record that stands against conservative principles that will guarantee a Hillary presidency due to lack of turnout.
Which is the only reason they get vast amounts of air time versus qualified conservatives such as Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, who are noticeably "blacked out" by the media. Particularly Fred, who is either ignored or attacked in a concerted effort to paint him as "Lazy" despite his high polling numbers in LARGE conservative states.
Oh, I should toss McCain in there with Rudy, Romney and Huckabee. McCain positions don't matter as much as the fact that he's an unstable nutjob who collaborates with the other side so often they need to put up a crossing sign in the senate.
5am is too early for me to read, apparently. I need to slow down my scrolling. I thought that said “take arms against tranny”. Glad I scrolled back. :)
What makes you think Rudy will pick conservative Judges, much less strict constructionist judges. This is the guy who said that he believes the right to abortion is a constitutional right and that he could “...see a strict constructionist judge upholding Roe v. Wade”
Clearly, Rudy doesn’t have a clue as to what strict constructionist means, but at the end of the day, do you believe that Rudy would donate all that money to NARL over a period of years and then appoint a judge that will rule against NARL.
And I’m sick of that a vote for anybody but Rudy in the general election is a vote for Clinton. With Clinton in office, at least we can pursue a conservative amendment without hesitation, whereas with Rudy, we will spend 4 years embracing a liberal agenda on immigration, gay marriage, gun control etc., The conservative movement may be stronger after 4 years of opposing Hillary, but it may never recover after 4 years of supporting Rudy.
Yeah I’m with you on this one. Any of the GOP candidates is better than a vote for hillary. Or for that matter, better than any democrat.
now having said that, you’d better put on your titanium underpants because you’re going to get hillary. Nothing can stop that now.
That's an outright lie and the differences between them are huge. And please, don't show me that stupid comparison chart that cherry picks.
Conservatives are tired of having to choose between the lessor of two evils.
Well us conservatives who are adults that live in the real world and not some delusional fantasy world understand that sometimes that is your only choice. Closing your eyes, holding you breath, making believe it's not so, only works when you're a toddler, age 4 and under.
The big, big problem with your cute little scenario above is that it totally ignores that tremendous, long term damage that can come to this country if someone like The Witch and her ilk get into power. Good God we are still dealing with the effects of that idiot peanut brain Carter 30 years later (Iran).
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.