Posted on 02/14/2009 4:43:12 AM PST by Jim Noble
I agree with you that it wasn't right, but his tone was the bellwether for his belief... For all that I don't like Palin, at least she was closer to where the folks were by a country mile.
You’ve been chastened with good cause.
Let it go.
Oh, really? Do you know that this election, for the first time that I recall, the Republican party candidate did not fully embrace the Pro-Life position (and neither did his vp, btw)?
Did you know that for the first time that I can recall, the Republican candidate did not stand before the Value Voters (the default forum for the Christian Right's views in the election process) EITHER during the Primary or during the election?
Sure the GOP is trying to throw the Christians under the bus, and have been for quite a while. They are trying to redefine the Christian Right, even as they have already redefined the Fiscal Right, and ridiculed the Libertarians. They want a socially Liberal "Christian Right", as the Saddleback Forum defines it.
The key is to build a coalition that takes into account the concerns of Calvinist/evangelical/Pentecostal voters, while not driving away those of other religious traditions, or the seculars/holiday Christians for that matter.
The ONLY coalition that is needed is the Reagan Coalition.
To embrace multiculturalism, you must, by the very definition of it, throw the Christian Right under the bus. What they stand for is a single principled social culture, which IS he Judeo-Christian Ethic, and they will (and are) leave you in droves for compromising with their enemies.
How would you know? It has not been tried since 94, and even then the party was against it. Try it, You'll like it.
Yet you are there, and I am here. Enjoy your crap burgers. They tell me Heinz Ketchup makes 'em tasty.
Have you ever heard of the Dixie Chicks? Same kinda' thing. The Bush's got a pass already with son number one. He went waaayyy past "NO!!" into "OH HELL NO!!"... End of story. See you at the signing.
When McC named Palin as VP, I had great hope. But then on the Spanish speaking TV channel Univision, here is her Q&A:
I have not heard anything further on that subject from her. She may come to her senses eventually. Maybe she felt compelled to support McCain's position.
That is such a general statement, I don’t see how you could read amnesty for illegals in it. I also support a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who aspire to citizenship. It should start with them either (a)getting the hell out of the country or (b)volunteering for military service then applying to come here legally.
No cause at all.
You should’ve let it go in the beginning. But I’d rather you be an ass with me than kick your defenseless dog.
Read the whole interview in the link. Usually “a path to citizenship” is a politician’s code for the kind of amnesty Bush/McCain/Kennedy were pushing in summer 2007.
Sorry, the requested document does not exist on this server.
The people here are generally pro-life, would have big problems with letting the gay nazis redefine marriage, but would have no problem giving them some substitute such as civil unions. A hypocritical Bible thumper like Huckabee would have been lucky to have gotten 40% here-- roughly the percentage of the population which is not Catholic.
I don’t have to tell you that does trouble me.
Sarah may develop properly over the next few years, and we may find out more about her and realize she’s no better than the rest of the turds who want to lead our party.
It is startling to me, how out of touch with Conservatism people are.
Should it really be a shocker that the citizens of the United States would object to citizenship being so discounted as to be something they would essentially give away for free to folks who don’t even want to become Americanized?
People who can’t understand this have a screw loose. They’ll claim we’re extreme right wing nuts, rather than face reality on this subject. Since when is supporting the laws on our books a rabid anything, other than a rabidly sound Citizen.
Common sense is so uncommon these days.
True, thanks. Since illegals are not as big a problem in Alaska as elsewhere, that could be a reason why she had not thought deeply about immigration before that interview.
I agree. I suppose her state is removed to the point of her not understanding the issue. I’ll have to say though, it honestly bothers me considerably to hear of any Citizen who hasn’t come to terms with illegal immigration as a very destructive vile problem.
1/3 of them are dead, and Reagan did not empower Evangelical Christians to the point that he turned off white Catholics.
The Bush-Rove elevation of Evangelicals, while tactically good for Bush, was not in the long-term interest of the party.
Usually, a politician's response to that comment would be, I am opposed to illegal immigration, will secure the border, but...." followed by a strawman argument about how "We can't round up millions..."
I agree. At which point I write them off.
I was ONE person in Reagan's time. Now, through my marriage, the conversion of my wife to a Conservative view, and our children, We were THREE this last election, four if you count my eldest son's house, which is just beginning to form. Next election we will be FOUR anyway, the one after that we will be FIVE. Soon enough, all SIX of us will be voting.
In that time, my father has died, but the rest of us are still right here, doing as we always have.
I use my own house as an example of what you don't see. Conservatism is a way of life, not a set of political theories. Conservatism is part and parcel, the very definition of the American Way. It lends definition to a set of principles that are handed down, father to son, mother to daughter, since the beginning of this nation. That is what we CONSERVE.
It is in no way dead. It CANNOT be. Conservatives out breed Liberals, and never convert. Liberals abort their young, and generally lose their base through attrition to Conservatism, as with age comes wisdom, and the truth of Conservatism cannot be denied.
You have no idea what Reaganism would do for the Republicans, and you have no idea how man Conservatives there are, because the Republicans have fought Conservatism all the way along. and there have not been consistent Conservatives in charge since the 1994 Congress. The reason Conservatives are not there is because they have been hemorrhaging out of the party, almost from the very moment Reagan's foot left the White House threshold.
Reagan did not empower Evangelical Christians to the point that he turned off white Catholics
Without Reagan, you would not have a Christian Right at all. As I said up thread, Conservative Catholics are a big part of all of the Social Right's agenda, as are Conservative Hebrews. You cannot have both, so take your pick: Either you get the liberal church, or you get the Conservative Church. What you should be looking at is how turned off the Christian Right was.
And Bush did not elevate Evangelicals, btw. Not by Conservative standards. He just gave them their due. What is wrong with what happened is that he did not give the other conservative factions their due as well.
Those who wish to bring down the Christian Right will bring down the whole house. what must be done is a reestablishment of the other pillars in their rightful place, in their own rightful power alongside of the Christian Right.
That is Reaganism.
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.