Conservatives Want Republican Purge Trials

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 12-02-09 | THOMAS FRANK

[SoConPubbie]

The Greedy wing of the GOP!

Also known as big "L" Libertarians.

As you posited, almost totally useless, except for economic conservatism.

[Bob J]

[freekitty]

Exactly. There is nothing moderate about them.

[SoConPubbie]

It makes absolutely no sense. The are parts of the country where Social Conservative cannot win. In those ares you need to have moderate Republicans run. Yes, they may be pro-choice or pro-gay marriage, but at the same time, there are a lot of Republicans that are tha way as well. Are you willing to get rid of Republicans who are socially moderate or liberal? If so, like I said, get ready for a lifetime of Democratic control of Congress.

Right.

You probably would have been spouting the same thing during Reagan's time, when he won 49 of 50 states preaching not only economic conservatives, as well as, Pro-Life.

And this was when much less than 50% of the country considered themselves Pro-Life.

Now, over 50% of the country considers themselves pro-life.

You, my friend, are on the wrong web-site peddling this RINO elitist GOP crap!

Furthermore, you could not be more offbase with your snarky "Are you willing to get rid of Republicans who are socially moderate or liberal? If so, like I said, get ready for a lifetime of Democratic control of Congress." comment. It is illogical and the political trends across the country do not back up your empty and silly claim.

[SoConPubbie]

On some issues, others I am Conservative. Personally, I will not vote for a social conservative and chose to use my vote on fiscal conservatives.

You need to do yourself a favor and read up on the purpose of this site. You might want to wander on down to some moderate GOP sites, they would probably be more to your liking. Otherwise, your stay will probably be short and painful here. As proof, I offer the Purpose Statement of this website from the owner and boss, Jim Thompson:

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Learn it, Love it, Live it!

Otherwise, you're going to get beat up real bad on this site, rhetorically speaking, of course.

[DTogo]

Frank tries to make RINO-hunting Conservatives look foolish by saying that Presidents Bush and Reagan might flunk the new litmus test.

Which is why there should be a test, to learn from history and avoid the same mistakes:

- let's NOT do another Amnesty with Shamnesty

- Let's NOT make deals with the lesser of two evils as we did with Iran-Contra, supporting the Mujahadeen, or bombing Serbia

- Let's NOT do another budget-busting Prescription Drug program or RomneyCare by arguing the tenants of ObamaCare

- Let's finally become energy independent with an "all of the above" approach and avoid the folly of AGW

etc, etc

[MaggieCarta]

Thank you, GOP_Lady.

[Louis Foxwell]

Democrats did this decades ago. JFK could not be nominated today.

Precisely. Democrats burn their conservative members at the stake. When Republicans dare to define themselves they are Robespierre.

(The French Revolution ironically was a failed revolution: Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité quickly descended to the towering figure of Robespierre and his Reign of Terror as the revolution spun out control and began to murder itself.) - rigeib.com

[okie01]

An important consideration relative to your discussion...

Does it make any difference whether a Senator or Congressman or Governor is pro-life in thought, word and deed? Really?

At the present time, abortion is a legal issue, not a political one. The only practical involvement that a Senator might have with the issue is their vote for a Supreme Court justice. A Congressman or a Governor have absolutely no influence on the issue.

Sure, you'd actively want a President to be pro-life -- because you want pro-life judges. But even Giuliani -- personally pro-choice -- has indicated he would appoint originalist judges. And that's literally all we pro-lifers can ask for!

And I've little doubt that any GOP majority in Congress-- even the "moderates" -- would vote to confirm an originalist judge. Specter is gone, remember -- and none of his ilk are coming back.

The pro-life movement needs to recognize that it has already won the argument. Now, it's just a question of reversing Roe v Wade -- which is going to require a Republican President appointing an originalist judge and a Republican Senate confirming him (or her).

The sooner the better...

[La Enchiladita]

Well, the RINO label and the way it is used make no sense. Because, if the “true conservatives” despise the Republican party to start with, then why blame someone for being Republican “in name only?” Right? Because “Republican” is unacceptable to them to start with. It looks to me like a third party is in the making. Folks who want that should be honest about it and proceed as such.

It is so ludicrous to propose running everyone you don’t like out of the GOP and then “taking over.” Then you become Republicans, the ones you despised in the first place.

[Luke21]

Let’s see...Show trials, Reagan the Rino, rather than as he really was, and Republican “litmus tests”. The press always always used that term about abortion. Then Clinton came along and established the pro-choice litmus test for SC judges, which was just fine.

This is just the usual media hysteria and projection. This clown’s people are in power. What’s he so worried about?

[Yorlik803]

Like Clemenza said in the Godfather “ We need a war from time to time to get rid of the bad blood”.
The GOP is a stable that is in need of a good mucking out.

[DTogo]

This is just the usual media hysteria and projection. This clown’s people are in power. What’s he so worried about?

Worried that actual Conservatives would run, get elected, and start legislating a Conservative agenda!

[StormEye]

"If the Republican Party continues to accept, and promote the “BIG TENT” direction, the “Reach across the aisle” business, of which btw the Democrats, Leftists do not reciprocate, then there will be only the Leftist perspective in our governance. There will be no debate, which is what makes our Republic unique, and successfully so."

So true. However, if the Republicans still continue with this "reach across the aisle, bend over and take it" RINO behavior, there will be a conservative third party created to put the Democrat lite "Republican" Party out of business! Guarantee it! As far as I'm concerned the "Republican" party has run out time.

[Hardastarboard]

Thomas Frank is the replacement for the heinous, lying scumbag Al Hunt. He’s not as good a writer, but he’s not quite as obnoxious. It’s sort of like the difference between cancer and heart disease.

[StormEye]

" Thomas Frank is one ultra-dense idiot if he believes conservatives had anything to do with this economic catastrophe. There have been very few conservatives in congress or the senate in recent years, even when the Republicans held the majority in both houses. Outsouring American manufacturing and jobs to out enemies is not conservative. Fomenting an invasion of illegal aliens is not conservative. Importing 140,000 visa workers per month to displace American citizens is not conservative. Manipulating markets to the detriment of American citizens and calling it Free Trade is not conservative.

All these actions and more are the behaviors of the global socialist neo-con RINOs and their soulmates, the communist Democrats.

Conservative means conserving, protecting and defending the US Constitution, bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Well stated! Thanks.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

I’ll gladly second that. If the Pubbies can’t straigten up by the next election, I’m done with them.

The last election, for the first time in 20 years, I contributed no funds to the national party. But I did vote for their candidate. That’s over; I’m not voting for another RINO.

[Minn]

Good way to keep the Democrats in power forever.

Your argument seems intuitively correct, but I don't think the facts support it. Did you notice the most leftist senator imaginable just got elected president by hoards of politically squishy people, in states like Virginia no less? Non ideological people will vote for people of strong convictions, no matter what those convictions are. When combined with the party base, they can do better than non-principled people. Voters respect conviction and disdain opportunism.

Do you think Norm Coleman might have had a bit better chance of getting reelected if he hadn't spent the last two years pointing out to the Dem inclined voters how much like the Democrats he was, and in the process losing the respect of all?

[meadsjn]

Voters respect conviction and disdain opportunism.

Good point. And right now, as voters are becoming increasingly concerned about their futures, and their childrens' futures, they do not want to hear a sales pitch from smarmy pretenders.

[Minn]

I will not vote for a social conservative and chose to use my vote on fiscal conservatives.

Social liberalism leads to societal pathologies that drain the treasury. You've never noticed the economic cost of fatherless children, drug addled criminals, and medical expenses spawned by the "if it feels good do it" culture? It's only possible to be a social liberal and a political conservative if you have trouble noticing obvious causes and effects.