Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
I am looking at its implications for ME. My job. And the country. You seem unable to grasp such, which is why I question your sanity.
And up until his death they re-elected Ted at every opportunity. Look on the abortion issue Reagan wouldn’t have passed muster with these folks. Somewhere along the line the single issue abortion voter loses sight of the forest for the trees
I don't think anybody here wanted Coakley to win. The issue is more of a "win the battle lose the war scenario".
Scott Brown won last night. The Republican Party won last night. The opposition to the current "Health Care Bill" won last night (for now). Did "we the people" really win last night (in the long run)? Did the unborn win? Did those who foundationally/constitutionally oppose government run health care win? How about the sanctity of marriage: Did it win? (I hope so, but I am not so sure.)
RINO's have consistently been a thorn in the side of conservatism and care for Country and Constitution. They constantly compromise and side with liberals who look to establish amnesty for illegals, and with those who talk about a "green economy", and with those who look to seat judicial activists, and with those who pass Stimulus Bills in to law, and with those who find constitutional rights for abortion, sodomy and housing, etc., etc., etc.
With RINO's in office, we eventually get where the anti-constitutional, anti-capitalist liberals want us to be...
...but just under an extended timetable.
Brown is not foundationally opposed to government run health care (look at Mass.)....He just doesn't agree with the current versions. Given that, in what form will he vote for government run health care?
Is it really good enough to just slow the march of tyranny and statism down?
Is it really impossible to altogether defeat?
Will we continue to settle for potentially short term, short sighted Republican victories that provide only a temporary and false relief to our frustrations and to the crushing threat to freedom?
“So now we either run Pickett’s charge indefinitely, or we’re surrendering? That’s your choices?”
No, that’s another false dichotomy you’ve cooked up.
The alternative to the surrender you propose is not Pickett’s charge.
Once again, your argument rests solely on the belief that real conservatives can never win, thus your reference to Pickett’s charge. However, this proposition is false. Real conservatives can win, have won, and will continue to win.
Good point. Reagan was one who knew the importance of incremental-ism. The Conservative movement has been slowly moving forward incrementally. Eventually, the Snowe’s & Collins’ will be replaced by the Brown’s, & so on. If guys like Keyes & EV had their way, & ran nothing but true blue, rock solid Conservatives in liberal states, the Conservative movement in all likelihood would have been snuffed out by now.
Reagan realized that. That’s why he governed incrementally & often backed those of his party that were less than bedrock Conservatives. He understood that you have to win & lose some battles w/ the hand you’re dealt in order to win the war. Sometimes you have to fight w/ those that are mostly, but not totally of your mindset to win the war. More importantly, these wars are not won overnight.
How do you think the Dem’s were able to take over a few years ago? They won on the heals of conservative Democrats, those that were not fully in their ideological camp. Why have they been losing lately? They forgot what got them there, & have started running nothing but libtards & pushing their unpopular ideology.
Reagan, our standard bearer, knew the art & importance of compromise. Unfortunately, some so-called Conservatives here have yet to learn that principle. It’s all NOW or nothing. The Dem.’s are learning right now just how well that attitude works. Will we?
“Brown is opposed to amnesty, but there is no mention of that, because it blows away their core premise.”
No, there is no mention of it because we are taking issue with his statements on baby-killing and sodomite “marriage.”
That’s not dishonest; it is just sticking to the point.
There is a reason why Keyes has lost like 39 elections.
I would have voted for Brown. That doesn’t mean I think he’s a hero and future leader of the conservative movement.
Brown is opposed to amnesty. That's my problem with this article - it tries to claim Brown offers nothing to advance conservatism, but that is just plain wrong. I agree with your larger points - but the Dems had us up against our own one-yard line, and Brown's election just gave us ten yards. And we needed that ten yards badly. But there are some who are complaining that we didn't score on the play.
“What was Reagan’s record on abortion? What the hell are you talking about?”
As Governor, Reagan signed the very first abortion law in California.
Wrong. From the article:
Has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats;
That is Keyes' claim - do you find it accurate, given that Brown is opposed to amnesty, just for starters?
That’s a half-truth, at best.
Don't even go there. The law Reagan signed was restrictive, but doctors abused its provisions. Reagan was never pro-choice.
That's because telling the brutal truth and winning popular elections are mutually exclusive in this country. That's how we got into the mess we're in.
There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.
We protest the Supreme Court's intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent's obligation and right to guide...
This is Reagan's 1980 platform position on abortion. It was a contentious issue and there was probably no item in the platform that recieved more careful deliberations than this one. It made clear what the Party in general stood for but recognized that there were countervailing arguments by men of good faith. It was not in the least exclusionary.
I’m not talking about what is best for the GOP, though.
1.5 million abortions per year were performed during each of the 8 Reagan years.
This talk about abortion issue purity is totally disconnected from what should be the real goal: less dead babies.
“The conservative movement is not going to get anywhere until it becomes unwilling to compromise essential principles on the altar of political expediency. The sucker’s game will continue until the suckers wise up.”
The “conservative movement” is defined by what voters decide. Politics is different from religion or philosophy.
On that we agree.
I would hope that we can work together to make that happen more often in more places.
If you had state that to begin with, Titus, you would have had no reply from me. Good day.
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.