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?
"Look at Massachusetts. Could any Democrat, even in that liberal state, have pushed through gay marriage and socialized medicine like Mitt Romney has?"
Good point! And no.
You evidently did not notice that Jim Robinson posted the Vanity which led off this thread. His thoughts . . . to put it mildly . . . are not your thoughts.
Wow.
Wow.
Give him credit - he's more honest than most of them.
"The party isn't getting my money or my time. They might get my vote."
Ditto.
Point taken.
Personally, I have little confidence that McCain or Romney are the men to fight that war. I admit I do not know enough about Duncan Hunter, or any of the others. However, I am willing to listen to their views on all the issues, and if one of the candidates incorporates all my beliefs then great they have my vote, if not I am voting for the person I believe can best defend us and right now that is Guiliani.
That being said, when I go into the voting booth on election day I will support the Republican candidate be it Guiliani or anyone else. The bottom line is, I know we will never win the WOT with Hillary or any other Democrat in office.
Jim, radical feminists have pretended to be Republicans since the middle of the 1800s for the purpose of re-making our Party into another Democrat Party. Even Susan B. and her friends specifically worked to flatter and recruit as many left-leaning Catholics as they could (quotes of Susan B. speaking for inclusion of those "counting" their "beads" in radical feminist organizations), as the immigration influx of the 1800s occurred. And as I wrote before, Anthony went with George Train (Democrat racist) later on and broke-up anti-slavery meetings with speeches in favor of secession. The romanticism of the "South" was attractive to her--an environment very conducive to her gathering of more adherents to feminism, public education, anti-defense speech (as to feminists, only "males" start wars) and so on. To this day, radical feminists work hard to affect Republican policies and give us what is effectively a one-party system.
Feminists (even though lurking in our own Party discourse) hate leaders with the views of Bork and try to sway us toward nominating male feminists. That's why with similar personal histories of divorce, they so much prefer Giuliani over a man like Gingrich.
I was posting at you. Keep turning it around.
Well, how do I respond to eloquence like the above? I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to so-called RINO's which I suspect is lable that you just slap on willy-nilly to every Republican who dares disagree with you.
DITTO
Thank you. This has been a very heartening experience since I wrote that post to Jim. Between the replies in the open and those in Freepmai, I've learned that here are lot of Rudy supporters who just didn't/don't want to come forward because it wasn't worth the flamefest.
Far be it for me to compete with charts.
Ok, for starters, my support for Rudy goes well beyond WOT concerns. Rudy is a grade A executive. Fiscally, he worked as much magic with NYC as he did with cleaning up the streets. The guy is simply great CEO material, and I believe that when he becomes president, he's going to do nothing but good things for America. That's why I'm helping to put him into office.
Amen.
We've definitely been infiltrated. That's to be expected. But who knows? Maybe we'll convert a few percent in this weighing of ideas.
Anyone who posts here, and those who come just to read what's going on know freepers have strong opinions and have no problem expressing them. That is what makes FR so great!
BUMP!
Make 'em look at it in black and white....err, uhh,,,red and blue.
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.