Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
“Every time someone posts something by Alan Keyes, a gang of critics jumps in to call him “a flake” and worse”
Here, here. The only other topic that draws them out other than Mr Keyes is any story that details some alleged or real police wrong doing. Then we get the “jack-booted thug” posters coming out of the woodwork.
So who would you install in the Massachussetts Senate seat, since you think all you have to do is put a social conservative on the ticket and he walks away with it.
So you are against States’ rights?
Let’s see Brown campaigns saying he is FOR tax cuts, against Health Care Reform (at least as currently laid out), FOR smaller government....
What the hell else can he do??? Oh yeah he may or may not be ‘pro-life’. Look if he isn’t responsive to his cinstituents he won’t be in office for long.
And just for my gigles name one electable ‘real conservative’ in Massachuttes
Well no, that is a gross and dishonest reading of what he said.
First, abortion. Scott Brown's position, when you get right down to it, is more pro-life than that held by all these yahoos who want to pass a never-going-to-happen "Human Life Amendment." Brown specifically says he wants to reduce the number of abortions that take place. Unlike the Democrats, who just use that as cover, he then goes on to specifically lay out policies that he supports which would, in fact, DO JUST THAT - reduce the number of abortions that take place - parental notification laws, end PBA, consent laws, supporting adoption as an alternative.
Each and every one of these will reduce abortions, and in fact have already been proven to do so. In this sense, Scott Brown is more pro-life than every idiot out there whose sole goal in live is to pass an HLA to the Constitution, even though we all know it will never in a million years pass.
Scott Brown, as soft as his position is (and yes, I think it's soft and doesn't go nearly far enough), has saved more little babies lives than all the yapping about a HLA put together. And isn't that REALLY what being pro-life is about - saving little babies' lives? Or are you content with the pro-life movement being merely for show so that a few bigwigs at the top can rake in donations?
Second, gay marriage - He specifically said that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. He also supports that little regarded concept called "federalism" - you know, the 10th amendment and all that jazz? Or do you only support the Constitution when it's to your particular benefit to do so?
When it drives you to look a gift horse in the mouth like Keyes is doing here. A ghoul in favor of federal funding for abortion was denied Ted Kennedy's old seat, and this will kill the pro-death health care reform legislation. But only a myopic moron cannot see the benefits from such - and coming from Keyes, this is especially ludicrous, he only mustered 27 percent of the vote in his Senate campaign - you know, the one that gave us US Senator Obama.
Is a fiscal conservative and social liberal a RINO?
BullshIP!
Not in MY STATE OF TEXAS. Hell No.
But in socialist Massachussetss yankee cities? Yes the choice is between a anti-life communist party toad and a center-right fiscal conservative at best.
A fire-breathing social conservative can win in Texas and Oklahoma....not in Massachussetts.
Get your head on straight.
We got Ahnold because folks didn’t want to vote for Tom. Shame on them.....
“Keyes’ disaster run in illinois is partly responsible for “President Obama.”
Please explain how Alan Keyes is responsible for the zer0 being elected president?
......then try filling up your pipe with something other than crack. 0bama was chosen many years before he took office.
Well put. I agree.
I find this race, and this thread, frankly, to be a very interesting case study on the state of the Republican Party, and of the so-called conservative movement.
If Brown was 5% more conservative he would have lost -- and WE would have lost. Brown was the most conservative that Massachusetts would elect -- for now.
Let’s see I believe Robert Bird is still in the senate.
Look by not voting for Brown all one does is GUARANTEE that The One’s health care gets passed. That GUARANTEES that abortions will be paid for by the US taxpayer. Why not take a class in logic so you can see some depth to your positions
"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.
Barak Obama 70%, Alan Keyes 27%.
Says everything that needs to be said about what Keyes' opinion is worth on this subject. Alan Keyes hasn't won an election in his life - he never topped 40 percent in his two Maryland senate runs, either.
A Constitutional federal republic is incompatible with a single-issue voter, because a multitude of differing single issue voters will never agree.
For them, the only solution is a benevolent dictator who outlaws abortion by decree.
Scott’s deference to the several states regarding marriage is very appropriate and spot-on. This is the best CONSTITUTIONAL approach. The Federal govt should keep its hands off of this issue.
It appears then, that in some regards, that Scott is more of a libertarian. There is NOTHING RINO about libertarians, in my opinion.
And, whatever issues you may have with the pure Libertarian Platform, they tend to be strict constitutionalists (because our Constitution describes a government with very limited power, and maximal personal liberty), which is a big plus when the goal is small-govt... That’s my 2 cents.
The gift horse for me is that Obama just suffered a crushing blow to his efforts to destroy this great country. My gift horse isn't having Scott Brown in the Senate. Anybody who isn't a Dem would suffice for me, but let's not anoint Scott Brown as the face of a new GOP/conservative movement.
Depends on how socially liberal. Scott Brown seems to take soft positions on abortion and gay marriage, but to deem him a RINO because of them seems just a tad overblown. As I noted above, Scott Brown's stated position on abortion, if pursued to its logical end, is more "pro-life" than that of many of these hard-core pro-life activists - for the simple fact that it would save more little babies' lives than they would.
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.
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.