Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
Apples and oranges...
Some want Republicans to win elections...
and Keyes wants to win to save the Constitution and the Republic.
So Scott Brown voting for taxpayer-funded abortions is the same thing as Ronald Reagan’s inability with a Dem majority in Congress to ban abortions?
It’s a very unique position you’re taking. I don’t buy it at all, but I suppose it could make sense on some level.
Oh I completely agree that this, as well as other leading issues hijacked by the federal government, should be left to the states. Always have, always will.
Distorting and lying about Scott Brown is not the best way to go about doing that.
I'm not sure I've ever read a post that misses the mark like this one does. Conservatism is static in theory; it's application in reality may be hindered or advanced by politics, but the theory does not change based on the whims of voters. Ideology is different from politics as well. People seem to be having a difficult time separating these two entities in light of Scott Brown's deserved victory.
Sorry, but Keyes is lying about Brown in this article, by claiming there is no difference between him and the Dem socialists. You can't tell the brutal truth while lying about your subject.
Do you really see a difference? Does an aborted child see a difference?
I think both are terrible. But Reagan and Brown are less dangerous to the republic than Mondale or Coakley.
Then Alan Keyes is your man. Vote for him early and often.
What a sad spectacle Keyes has made of himself. I regret I ever admired him.
“Reagan was one who knew the importance of incrementalism…often backed those of his party that were less than bedrock Conservatives…knew the art & importance of compromise.”
Here’s the difference. Reagan actually had the bedrock conservative principles, and when he compromised, it was—as you say—in the interest of eventually winning the war.
RINOs do not *have* the bedrock conservative principles, and when they compromise, it is in the interest of their own political careers.
While it is true that sometimes you have to ally yourself with those that are mostly, but not totally of your mindset to win the war, and that these wars are not won overnight, we must remember that these wars are *never* won if no battles are ever fought, and fought to win.
RINOs don’t fight those battles, much less fight to win.
“If guys like Keyes & EV had their way, & ran nothing but true blue, rock solid Conservatives in liberal states”
Neither of them has proposed that. They have taken note of the fact that Brown’s positions on baby-killing and sodomite “marriage” are not conservative. They didn’t say he shouldn’t have run, or shouldn’t have been elected. It’s just a matter of seeing things as they are.
That said, we’re not really faced with the prospect of running nothing but rock solid conservatives; we are faced rather with a GOP that seems to deplore conservatives and support nothing but RINOs in primaries and elections. And that is something about which a conservative can reasonably complain. It is also reasonable for a conservative to favor cleaning the RINOs out of the GOP, and running more conservative candidates. Not blindly and recklessly, as so many here wish to assume, but rationally and with full consideration of political realities.
“Why have they been losing lately? They forgot what got them there, & have started running nothing but libtards & pushing their unpopular ideology.”
So, pushing an evil, destructive ideology grounded in lies is the equivalent of pushing a rational, tried and true, successful ideology grounded in truth?
The fact that many people seem to recoil in horror from the demonrat ideology when finally they confront it is in no way an indication that they would recoil from conservatism in the same way.
“It’s all NOW or nothing.”
No, no one has proposed that or anything like it. That was fabricated and attributed to conservatives so that their opponents would have a criticism that at least sounds rational.
I never indicated he was pro-choice. However, as Governor, he had the choice of signing the bill & vetoing it. He chose to sign it. It’s part of my last post in which I described the necessity of compromise at times. Reagan was Pro-Life. He signed the bill never the less. Why didn’t he stand on principle? There were reasons.
As with gun control, Reagan wasn’t always 100% conservative in his governance or even thoughts. Thank goodness, or he would have accomplished little at the time.
If Reagan were running now, he would be castigated by some here for that signing regardless of his other conservative stances.
I posted that I would vote for Scott Brown. That doesn’t invalidate the questioning of his conservative credentials, does it?
Those two things should be enough to satisfy any conservative. If not, no one will be good enough.
Who is this “real conservative” you speak of?
I understand what you are saying and I agree that it was a score, for today, but...
How significant of a score is it if Brown ends up supporting and voting for some form of governmemt run health care? Who really scored then? Surely not "We the People".
Conservative contempt for anti-constitutional liberalism is way too easily satiated and blunted by temporary scores (and I hope this isn't one of them but the hand writing seems to be on the wall).
I love his views on national security, but I'm not at all convinced that he has stopped whatever “ObamaCare” ends up being. In other words, your post is not grounded in reality.
“Precisely, and sarcasm is not reasoned rebuttal.”
OK, then here is a reasoned rebuttal that has already been posted:
Obama: 69.97%
Keyes: 27.05%
Keyes would be lucky to get 40% nationwide. Not even 24 hours and some folks are back in their sackcloth and ashes.
“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?”
Oh, my.
My, my, my.
Keyes did not claim that Brown “Has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats.”
Here is what the article actually says:
“Scott Brown in Massachusetts is the advance guard for Mitt Romney in the White House (or vice-versa). He becomes the poster child for the RINO clique’s archetypal GOP candidate who:
Has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats...”
Scott Brown becomes the poster child.
It is the RINO clique’s archetypal GOP candidate who has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats, not Scott Brown.
Now, you’ve been calling people liars on this thread. I wonder how you will react to this.
I wonder if you will stretch for a save by saying that, if Brown is the poster child, then every quality of the RINO clique’s archetypal GOP candidate necessarily accrues to Brown.
That’s not true, of course, but I know lots of people who would grasp that straw rather than admit they had misread something.
Brown has said it should be a state issue and I'm fine with that. If my state institutes such a policy, I can always move to another.
He’s not lying. He sees a dinstinction without a difference. You’re free to disagree, but disagreeing with you does not make anyone a liar.
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.