Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
From your profile - "W in '04!"
Looks like you are too. Maybe this explains why you seem to think that reducing spending and deficits aren't part of the conservative agenda.
Again with the personal insults. Not exactly a sign of winning an argument, and it does nothing to raise the level of debate on FreeRepublic.
By the way, how did Snowe’s, Collins’, and yes, Arlen Specter’s cloture votes on the Stimulus Bill advance the conservative agenda?
“The hatred of Keyes is, was and always will be about abortion. Nothing else.”
Is it that simple? How disappointing. I was hoping they had a rational position that they could defend with facts and reasoned argument.
Winning requires compromise. That's not what Alan Keyes does. If you look back to the 2000 primary, he won every debate without winning a single delegate. Of course he knew he wasn't going to win. But he elevated the campaigns, put the abortion issue on the front burner and forced the other candidates to address it in depth. He made Bush a stronger candidate and probably helped him win that election.
There is utility in what Alan Keyes does. Personally, I think "purists" play an essential role. That's why I have such a high regard for Ambassador Keyes, even though I'm well aware he'll never win a popular election.
And for anyone suggesting he's trying to sabotage the party, I'd like to point out that this piece was written the day after Scott Brown's victory, not before.
If this site were a Republican site, you may have had a point. Supposedly, this is a Conservative site, thus your point falls completely flat.
Exit question: Is Alan Keyes just a horrible candidate, or is he just TOO Conservative to win in the liberal states he's run? Has he even come CLOSE to winning national office?
As a part of his campaign, I'll be interested in your response.
Unwillingness to rip a child limb from limb at one point in time when you support ripping them limb from limb one minute earlier is not praiseworthy in my world. I’m sorry if that impresses you.
Are you comparing Scott Brown to George W. Bush? I’m not on “Team GOP”, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t vote for Republicans.
Not only do you vote for them, but you defend Republicans who vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. How that decreases/minimizes abortion is beyond me, but I look forward to your rationalization of Brown’s vote in MA.
“A fire-breathing social conservative can win in Texas and Oklahoma....not in Massachussetts. Get your head on straight.”
I was born in Texas and lived for years in Oklahoma. One thing I took away from that is the principle that you do not give up.
When you advocate pre-emptive surrender, I think a lot of people in Texas and Oklahoma would be saying something to *you* about getting your head on straight.
It's not an insult when it's an accurate assessment. You may have the last word, there are plenty of sane people on FR with whom one can have a discussion based in the real political world.
It’s a sad day when you’re sitting here providing political cover for a pro-abort. Actually, you’re a prime example of why candidates like Brown are bad. You’re further setting up the Republican Party as a party with no firm principles worth talking about.
It is disappointing. But I don’t know what other conclusion to come to when every one of these threads descends into “socon” bashing and childish “loser” taunts. I can’t recall the last time one of them countered the substance of anything Keyes has actually said.
You LIED, EV. LIED. You claimed that Brown’s position on abortion was identical to Coakleys. And when I demonstrated it was not, you then change the subject, rather than admit you lied. That’s pathetic. And that is NOT how you bring people around to your point of view.
I've been thinking the same thing all morning as I debate with fellow conservatives, and I realize how differently people within our movement view reality. I feel like this is a conversation that needs to occur within conservatism, and by extension, within the GOP. Some people seem to think that anybody with a "R" next to their name is better than the alternative. For the party, I agree 100%, but for conservatism, I am far from convinced. The strawman arguments of seen about Keyes never winning are true, but IMO, they are a distraction and are not relevant to Keyes' views on the conservative movement.
I am glad that Scott Brown won, primarily because it means Obama lost, but I get nervous when I read fellow FReepers feting him. It's almost like, for at least today, Scott Brown is the FR version of Barack Obama. Each poster can paint whatever image they have of him on him, yet all we have to go on is his record; a record that leaves much to be desired in terms of advancing traditional conservatism.
LOL. So now we either run Pickett's charge indefinitely, or we're surrendering? That's your choices?
Kamikaze strikes are not a viable long term strategy.
If he sides with the rest of the Republicans on the important votes, he's a keeper. If he turns into another Arlen Specter, McCain, or Snowe, then get rid of him in the next election. He's only serving the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term.
I just want people away from New England to know the size and shape of the pig in the poke they just bought. Use the old Pareto Principle ... the 80-20 rule. I know I am going to agree with about 65-80% of Brown's actions. The other 20% are going to give me and everyone else on my team fits. He was the best that could be done at the time and Thank the Lord for him. I wish he was twins.
We have a two party system*. It's a system, may I add, that has embarrassing factional overlaps. E.G., Massachusett's own Virgin and Holy Martyr, St. Jack of Hyannis, ALWAYS voted with the Southern Democrat Segregationists. Now he's an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. Did Scott P. Brown talk about Nixon and Reagan. No. He talked about JFK!
*It's really a one-party system, with factions that are in or out. Center Right overlapping Center Left, with absolutely no firm ideology dividing them except to stay IN. Far Right and Far Left, where the ideology happens. Scott Brown is right down the old middle and leans a bit to the Right. But he is our guy, and he's In! Nobody on the Far Right is In. Wish I could say the same about the Far Left. They are In all over the place and that is what is causing the pain.
No American will find his own ideology fully expressed in either party. If one needs that, move to Europe. They have a party for everyone, and with proportional representation in parliaments, one might even be lucky to have a representative voice!
In regard to Mr. Brown: It's a big win for sure. But every Massachusetts politician, like the natives themselves, is either a whore or a hockey player. And I repeat, we ain't seen our boy skate yet.
In other words, you're not going to answer my question on how the votes of Snowe, Collins, and Specter on the so-called Stimulus Bill advanced the conservative agenda. I guess that isn't part of the "real political world". Have a great day!
Folks, this is a seat that's been Dem since 1952. For most of that time, it was occupied by one of the biggest socialists in the Dem party.
For the moment, lets just celebrate that it's no longer Dem, before throwing bricks at the current holder. Let's just give him a few months and see what kind of Republican he is.
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.