Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
Don’t worry. If Keyes had a significant following, he would have pulled down more than 40,000 votes in the 2008 primary. Nobody’s following.
From a GOP perspective, I agree. I am completely thrilled that Ted Kennedy's seat is in GOP hands. That said, from a conservative perspective, I don't see anything wrong with not being completely jazzed about Scott Brown. After all, this is a conservative website, and not a GOP website, right?
They deceive, we compromise. Six of one, half-a-dozen the other. The point of my post was that, in light of that reality, purists are needed to keep things moving toward the ultimate goal. For them, and for us.
They understand that... they value and fight for their purists. We destroy ours.
That’s very kind, thank you.
Your graphic didn’t display on my screen.
“And when Eternalviggy and DSC can convince 51% of the people in Massachussetts to get right on abortion with y’all, then they will be ready for a true pro-life conservative candidate.”
So, conservatives are to be expected to compromise their beliefs on baby-killing, but libtards may not be asked to compromise theirs. That about it?
That said, although there are no reliable polls or studies these days, it is clear that a large majority of Americans favor at least some restrictions on abortion. At least some of those would rather see a complete prohibition than complete deregulation.
“Those Blue areas that went for pro-death Coakley. How exactly do you win those with a Pat Robertson fire-breathing social conservative?”
A “Pat Robertson fire-breathing social conservative” is not the only alternative. A pro-life conservative could be more acceptable to more people (without stooping to deception).
Ronaldus Magnus carried Massachusetts in both 1980 and 1984, though demonrat election fraud nearly stole it away in 1980.
A conservative with the country’s best interests at heart can never say it’s impossible to elect real conservatives.
My point exactly. The advice of someone like Keyes to the party is counterproductive to actually being able to win.
“I think Keyes is a kook”
Why?
“”Too conservative to win” is pretty much how Republican poohbahs analyze most conservative candidacies across the land. It’s been going on for years, and the outcome of this race will strengthen that position. Those who won’t face this are fooling themselves.”
Brown won 89% of votes in the Primary in December, against opponent Jack Robinson (pro-life). Robinson then endorsed Brown.
This was and is the verdict of the people, and it is real world politics.
Those who won’t face this are fooling themselves.
“Could you people try to be at least a little honest? Even a little?”
It is only you and your side who are arguing dishonestly.
He can be a nut, but he’s right on this point.
I’m not saying that being a kook is a bad thing, but he’s had some pretty odd statements. As a conservative, I have no problems with him.
“What I said was, “As for gay marriage - well, his position is the 10th amendment position. If you have a problem with that, then you ultimately have a problem with the Constitution, not with Scott Brown.”
“How you construed that I was saying that being against gay marriage means you are against the Constitution, I have no idea.”
Because that is its clear meaning.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant.
Those who won’t face this are fooling themselves.
They are doing worse - they are telling utter lies about Brown. Pretty pathetic if you ask me - the GOP takes away the Swimmer's old seat, and they crawl out like garden slugs to slime the guy who won.
As I posted earlier, some posters (such as you, apparently) are looking at Brown's election through the prism of political party, and it's implications on the GOP.
FreeRepublic is not a GOP website, it is a conservative website. Perhaps that is why you are struggling to understand why some posters are not as amped up about Brown as you are, and perhaps that is why you are resorting to personal attacks when posters don't agree with your valid opinion. It's all about perspective.
As did other state pro-life political entities (you know, the kind of folks who help get out the vote instead of just bitching on the Internet).
“Brown is against...federal funding for abortion.”
But in favor of state funding for abortion.
Either way, it ain’t pro-life.
"I can do better. We can go down there and hold the line. We can go back to the drawing board on health care. As the forty-first Senator I can tell them to do better, and try again and get something like we have here in Massachusetts."
So you would vote for Reagan in 2012 like I would? Right? Even knowing his actual record on abortion?
But EV flat-out lied when he said that Brown's position on abortion is identical to Coakley's. You don't make valid political points through lying, but EV and Keyes are deliberately staking a position that Brown offers nothing for conservatism, and that is frankly based on lies and distortions about Brown. As a prime example, Brown is opposed to amnesty, but there is no mention of that, because it blows away their core premise. But we all know what Orwell said about omission - it is the most powerful form of lie.
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.