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?
Or, as is more likely, the joke will be on Republicans who are dumb enough to believe such tripe.
Who will you vote for if Giuliani runs as an independent?
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.
Rudy has said he is a strict constructionist. He said it some time ago and he said it here in SC in the last day or two.
Just Google Rudy+strict constructionist or Rudy+South Carolina.
Veronica asks what have the Republican Presidents done to fight abortion? They've been fighting a long war with many battles against an enemy that's been fortifying itself since Roosevelt inflated the Supreme Court.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the British had fired Winston Churchill after Dunkirk or cut and run after D-Day? The election in 2006 is when Republican voters cut and run on judicial reform. Admittedly - the voters stayed home because they lost confidence that the Republicans were ever going to fight for our causes.
Unfortunately, we keep running up against the William Wayne Justices and Stephen Reinhardts in the District courts, and we get bombed with Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens and O'Conner, as well as the lawyers and judges they taught and mentored.
In the last 20 years, Republican Presidents and the stronger National Party members have definitely raised the debate to one of "prolife" rather than "antiabortion."
We finally got the ban on partial-birth abortion passed and signed - and the education that resulted from the debate "changed hearts and minds."
The Prenatal Protection Act ("Connors and Lacy's law) was almost easy in contrast - and it's standing in Texas - more hearts and minds changed.
We have held the line on funding for destructive stem cell research while encouraging non-destructive research and umbilical cord blood banking. If the President had not made his wise, Solomon-splits-the-baby decision in 2001, I'm convinced that the backlash would have forced more unethical research in the country, faster.
Strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions, and societal changes.
By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.
See my post above.
Are you going to do the confronting?
The bankruptcy of conservative leadership in the nation (by that, I mean the complete vacuum of leadership since Ronald Reagan left office) has resulted in many conservatives gravitating back to some of their primeval instincts -- paranoia and reactionary impulses. Speaking very personally, I've been so discouraged by what I see of contemporary organized Christianity in America today that I simply now call myself a "follower of Jesus," choosing not to align myself with any denomination or theology. It's getting to the point where I may have to disassociate myself from any man-conceived political ideology as well. The further we drift from the Reagan era, the more bizaare conservatism seems to become.
Oh that's just hooey. We've been told for years we WANT a strict constructionist on the benches and in the presidency and now that Rudy has been saying that, ya'll want to change what strict constructionist really means.
I thought most of the candidates have been in the public arena. Hence the opposition here at FR.
Yes, I will. And if Rudy's positions turn out to be not quite the way they were characterized by certain Freepers, will you consider supporting him, particularly over Hillary?
In the public arena for the presidency? Come on; quit playing word games.
How many people in the mid-east have ever even seen Mitt Romney until the last few week. And people STILL don't even know what Hunter looks like.
For crying out loud.
Rino Rudy has a long history of appointing liberals to positions. I think he would do the same for the courts.
I have not necessarily believed that the majority of Republicans EVER supported/support the conservative Republican platform and have been amazed it is so conservative. Even if many Republican officeholders do not support the platform while in office, I would prefer to see it remain the same. It is a worthy goal we can all strive toward by running and electing conservatives in office who WILL uphold it. Until we can get more of those kinds of conservatives to run, we will at times have to elect some candidates who won't live up to it.
Why do you find it impossible to have the above, AND the rest as well?
We were extremely lucky to have this with Reagan. Sure I wish we could have again but it's not reality at this time. This candidate in this time in history would be un-electable and won't have half as much as Reagan's charisma or oratory skills. I suppose we can run this dream candidate and watch him loose. I for one do not want a liberal President on every single issue come January 2009.
I am looking forward to Rudy in the GOP primary debates. Lets get there and then decide. If anything he will assist the other candidates at that time and make them answer tough questions. There is no perfect candidate.
And yet Reagan gave us two lousy SC judges. I agree with the poster upthread that we're not going to get rid of abortion through any politician or Court.
It's going to be through changing the hearts and minds of people.
Women my age are becoming grandmothers for the first time and seeing the new ultrasound technology of their grandchildren and they're realizing, it's not a blob.
I'm saying the federal courts are all-important on the social issues we say we're interested in. What do you think is all important? Standing on top of a building and beating your chest?
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.