I believe that the democrats have out manuvered the GOP on this issue. Talking to 2 college girls about abortion, they stated they had to vote democrat because they let you keep your baby. I said “WHAT”, they said they let you keep your baby. I asked What does “pro-choice” mean? -they said it means you can keep your baby and you don’t have to get an abortion. I then asked them what the republicans believe,- they didn’t have any idea,- I asked them what Pro-Life means - they never heard of that. I then asked them where they learned this, they both said their high school teachers and their college professors - AND they went to different high schools and different colleges.
We have been out manuvered on our message!
We are not reaching the youth of this country and they don’t understand our message
Funny how women desperately want to murder their offspring. Maybe this is a sign that the country is in its last days. No sane society would promote the murder of their next generation like half this country seems to.
We’ve been through this before, when a moderate Republican lost the Presidential election. The liberal Republicans are embarrassed when their friends roll their eyes about religious and social conservatives, so they don’t want to have to explain about them anymore. They just want them gone.
These idiots are utterly and completely wrong. Lets trying running a real conservative at the top of the ticket. Pro-life, pro-God, anti-big-gov, anti-tax. Um, like Palin? The only GOP candidateto draw crowds comparable to Obama?
But the RINOs who run the GOP are scared of that because they would lose power. Hence open primaries and idiocies such as this article...
I’m a big tent republican. Evangelicals go in the tent first.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
Money quote.
McCain’s divorce didn’t help him either.
You know what these current RINO charges about abortion and social issues and evil scary religious conservatives are?
Opportunism, pure and simple.
Anyone with half a brain knows that abortion, etc. had diddly to do with the election this year. It was economy, economy, jobs, economy, The War, and economy that people cared about. As Limbaugh says, ~4.1 million Republicans sat this one out. I’d wager that it had more to do with the excessive economic libertarianism that got absolutely no play outside the base this year, and ticked off a lot of populist-minded GOPers.
Yet, people like Parker are trying to use this year’s losses to scare the party leadership into distancing itself from its social conservative wing - all because Parker and others don’t themselves share these socially conservative values. In other words, they are trying to split the Party, instead of focusing on the 80% of issues we all have in common, because of their own personal, petty, spiteful agendas.
To this I say: Piss off, Kathleen Parker, and any other “moderate, socially liberal” Republicans like her. We don’t need you. Once we get our heads on straight about the economy and start taking some sensible approaches to taxes, spending cuts, fair trade, and actually caring about the little guy’s employment situation beyond merely telling him that tax cuts will solve all his problems, we’ll get more than enough Reagan and populist Democrats back into the fold to replace you.
“Plus Karl Rove tells us that there were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004, some of whom he believed turned independent or Democratic for this election, which might validate Kathleen's thesis, except that Rove says that most of those 4.1 million “simply stayed home.”
What's even more interesting is there was an almost identical drop-off (4.1 million) of those voters who attend religious services more than once a week (evangelicals, anyone?).”
So, if McCain had not attacked evangelicals, but had their support even as much as President Bush, he would have likely won the election. This completely refutes Parker's assertion.
I couldn't believe we didn't even get a pro-evangelical candidate except Huckabee, who was a big government governor, increased taxes, and supported amnesty.
One of the depressing things about this election is that I couldn't think of a single GOP candidate who could have won. Could Fred Thompson have rallied the evangelicals to his side? All 4 million who stayed home? I don't think so.