Posted on 02/04/2007 1:31:12 AM PST by Jim Robinson
I've long assumed that the Republican Party platform included pro-life, pro-family and pro 1st and 2nd amendment planks. Is this true or false? Or is the platform amended each election cycle to conform to the positions of the top polling potential presidential nominee (ie, the one with the most money or star billing and the MSM eye)?
If these planks are based on longstanding, sound conservative principles and are sincerely respected and upheld by the majority of the members, then I'd like to propose a motion that before being seriously considered by the official party powers that be, prospective nominees for the office of President of the United States must in the least demonstrate a solid history of being pro-life, pro-family and pro 1st and 2nd amendments, in addition to a solid history of abiding by and fighting for the other basic Republican planks, ie, national security, national defense, limited government, conservative spending, lower taxes, strict constructionist judges, local control of health, education and welfare, etc, etc.
Or is it too much to ask of the politician asking for our support for the highest office in the land to respect and abide by conservative principles and the basic planks of the party platform?
Or is there a movement underfoot to remove these planks from the platform?
Very good point. Maybe the GOP needs to use the platform to articulate basic principles, not positions on specific issues. I'd like to see the platform reputiate the reliance upon government as a means of achieving a particular "public good."
Our so-called majority has included the likes of Kennedy and O'Connor. Plus, the court needs to have the right issues come to it before it can impact most of these issues that are dear to us. Roe v. Wade is now precedent, and it will take the right case on appeal, and a very skillful argument, to overturn Roe, but that is the only way that Roe will be appealed -- not through congressional or presidential action.
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, that makes four by my count.
Dear My2Cents,
"Then I say you're both naive about what the crucial aspect is on pro-life issues."
That's what the RINOs keep telling me. ;-)
I guess, like JimRob, I'm just too narrow-minded, etc., to go along with the trashing of the social conservative agenda by the NEW Republican Party.
"It's the courts."
It IS the courts. That's true. The Supreme Court first and foremost.
But not only. Until we're able to overturn Roe, we can do many things to encourage a pro-life perspective among other Americans by raising the issue through matters like partial birth abortion, parental notification and consent, Medicare funding, funding in military hospitals, funding for pro-abort groups, foreign aid funding for pro-aborts, informed consent, etc. Although none of these issues permit us to actually ban abortions, putting them and other related issues before the American public encourages folks to become ever more pro-life.
I kinda have my doubts that Mr. Giuliani would help us with any of these issues.
At all.
As for the courts, Mr. Giuliani has praised Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito. And Justice Scalia. That's great! He's also praised "justice" Ginsburg as being a fine choice for the Court.
He says he'd appoint "strict constitutionalists." That's great!
But he believes that abortion is a constitutional right, that Roe was rightly decided. Thus, for HIM, a "strict constitutionalist" may very well be someone who would vote to uphold Roe.
Not my kinda guy.
sitetest
Not enough focus and credit is given to his performance in his roles as Associate Attorney General under Reagan and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He has a long list of accomplishments. In the end, I will support the chosen nominee, whether it be a conservative Republican or a middle of the road Republican -- as long as they can keep the rats out of the White House. As always, we will have the opportunity to evaluate his performance at the end of his 4 year term.
I believe there are many of us who wonder about this lately
.....who took for granted certain ideas/& ideals.
Now I will go read the replies.
Let's let him speak for himself once he announces, rather than setting our feet in concrete. Is that too much to ask?
And as to your suggestions for how the administrative branch can influence the issue, even through executive order, all of what you say is true. But here in Calif., parental consent just got knocked off in a statewide ballot measure, yet again. Granted, California is probably a lost cause. But the point is that we can't assume that most American are tracking with these side-bar issues. I, for one, think that a change in the nation's attitude about abortion won't come through political means, but through a revival of Judeo-Christian convictions. There are limits to what politics can do, and what the current atmosphere of politics in this country does best is divide people, not bring them together into a new consensus. My wife and I meet weekly with another couple to pray for spiritual revival of the church, and for America in general. We do this because we do not see politics as the means to bring a change in the hearts of people. I'll do what I can, politically, to forward issues of importance to me, in a way that I believe is most effective, but ultimately I don't place my faith in the political process, or in any particular political ideology. (By this, I cite a lot of the attitudes one found here on FR during the Terri Schiavo case as an example of the failure of political ideology. People, self-identified consevatives, siding with Michael Schiavo, and calling Judge George Greer as a "solid conservative and Republican," in other words, willing to countenance a monsterous evil all in the name of "states rights." We now see hints of self-identified conservatives here on FR willing to allow another monsterous evil -- the Clintons back into the White House, all in the name of some kind of ideological purity. So, the conservative community is in great need of revival as well. )
I recently discussed this exact problem with my Republican state party chairman. He agreed that there has been a precipitous break down in party discipline in recent years. Although there are many partial explanations, the clear consensus is that the main cause is campaign finance regulation. State parties used to be able to give substantial sums to their parties candidates, but are now limited to the standard ($11,000?) political action committee contributions. This means that candidates aren't beholden to the parties leaders, activists, or the platform for anything.
Compounding this is the exemption for self funding campaign activities. Millionaires, who often tend to be renegades by nature and political novices by training (most usually trust-fund babies), have a unique advantage under the current regulations. Threatening dissenting incumbents in their primaries is almost impossible when they have both a personal fortune and an incumbent's war chest.
There doesn't appear to be a clear solution yet. Replacing open primaries with closed primaries or even caucuses would make it easier to nominate more loyal candidates, but this could also cause more voters to be pulled toward the open party's candidates. Ultimately, campaign finance regulation may effectively do away with our two-party system and the political and social stability it has provided our nation for over two centuries. Senator McCain's betrayal has done enormous damage to both our party and our country that will be felt for decades to come.
What good points you've made, and better than I've seen pundits make.
As George Will said on “This Week,” “His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them.
And by "rats," we mean the Clintons. I'm right there with you. But rather than worry about the Republican platform, I wonder why the Powers That Be here on FR aren't more concerned that your stated conviction seems to becoming the minority view on this forum.
Hmm - that's strange then that the Contract for America contained no mention of the word abortion. Or even pro life, as I recall.
One would think that Newt's contract for America would contain abortion if indeed it was part of the Republican plank as you stated.
Here is where I am: Being that Giuliani:
“The successful appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito are signs of promises kept. They are principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench.”
Promises kept by President Bush, not Giuliani. Has he himself made such a promise or confirmed he WOULD appoint similar judges? AFAIK, he has made no such promises or assertions, but has said "I don't understand how you cannot be for strict constructionist judges". Does that statement clarify what HE would DO? Is that statement supposed to give me hope that he will for the FIRST TIME work AGAINST abortion? Even the Giuliani blogs say he has not stated what he would DO, only that he admires these men as "models of what judges should be." He doesn't even fit the model of what a Republican should be when looking at his own record, so it's strange to think I should trust what his record COULD be.
Sorry Jim, but radical candidates like Keyes are bad for the party, and ultimately bad for the country."
The truth is ANYONE the Republicans ran in that primary who entered at the time and under the conditions Alan Keyes entered it, would have been defeated by Barak Obama. That said, Keyes couldn't have run a worse campaign. The problem with Alan (and I like him but not as a candidate) is not that he's "radical" but that he's not serious about winning. He uses his candidacies to get out a message. We don't have time for that. We need strong, solid, viable, conservative (in most areas) candidates who enter the race to win the seat, not to get out a message, for which there are plenty of other venues, if that is one's goal.
We'll see what happens; right now, it's pretty clear that the rules have changed. Anti-Rudy camp members are permitted to post spam on every page on every Rudy thread. Interesting, huh?
Oh, and those who like Rudy and think he'd make a good candidate are told they should wear some sort of Nazi symbol on their sleeves to identify them. How's that for social conservatism? I will change parties if this sort of behavior continues on FR. It's sounding more and more like a Stormtroopers meeting around here.
Well said and kudos.
There's a movement afoot every 4 years since delegates put the conservative planks into the platform to remove them and return to the good old days of the Rockefeller Republicans when Republicans were destined to be the "eternal minority party" distinguished by nothing from the Democrats but there "me-too-come-lately" positions.
Do you have a citation for this, because I've really grown weary of anonymous Freepers (particulary those who are opposed to him) trying to represent Rudy's position on issues. I've already seen too much intellectual dishonesty here on these matters to simply trust my "fellow Freeper" on these points. If Rudy has formally come out in favor of partial birth abortion, I'd like to see that comment, and then he needs to be confronted with it when and if he announces for President.
Me too. Because if I can't trust them to care about Life which seems to me the foundation of Freedom, I'm not sure I can trust them to understand the VALUE of life in fighting the War on Terror against those who hold life as something to be assimilated or destroyed.
____________________________________
I agree with you 100% on this.
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.