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?
I have been to several state Republican conventions (Texas) and a national convention, and I can tell you the answer is: always. The attempt to remove the pro-life plank will be particularly serious this year, as the sitting President will not be running and will exercise much less influence.
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?
No, it is not too much to ask from a moral standpoint, but from a lawful one, probably so. In Texas there was a movement to actually write into Party bylaws that a candidate could be removed from the primary election ballot if a party committee of some sort decided to do so. That's how I remember it. Such a thing would have been unconstitutional and was never enacted.
Again I ask, what, in practical terms, has been done about abortion since then, given that we've had a few Conservative Presidents?
Do you attend your precinct conventions and local county conventions? If not, do so! It takes only a little time and makes a great deal of difference.
So the fact that we have been unable to get enough justices on the Supreme Court means we should surrender the issue? Do you think we should also surrender every other cause that doesn't seem to be going our way?
Before his installation as RNC chair, Mehlman met with alarmed pro-life leaders, wherein Mehlman agreed to some of their specific recommendations.
I believe the correct terminology that has been applied is "zealots". Supporters of Terri Schiavo were also blamed for 2006's loss, though it's unlikely the majority of the country remembers that even happening their attention span is so limited. Oh, and something about how the Win at Any Cost'ers won't "let the religious right dictate who the candidate will be." I guess being against abortion, the homosexual agenda, and gun-grabbing are only God-driven ideals.
The 2008 threads sole purpose is becoming to bash other members whose opinions differ on WHAT an "electable" candidate is, and WHAT issues matter in this election and in a candidate. Pre-emptive bashing: it's all the rage.
We all want the same thing. Victory. But some of us aren't willing to back a candidate just because they have an "R" behind their name when the traditions and significance of that "R" mean nothing to them.
You are correct.
Republicans are no longer welcome here at FreeRepublic.
While I can see why you would say that, I don't necessarily agree..
There's been way too much animosity between Freepers who support different candidates.
And if I've unintentionally offended anyone, I apologize. But not for my opinions or my positions.
But both sides need to back off the personal stuff and stick to the debate at hand.
So you are saying he was belligerent to social conservatives before he became chairman and that he changed?
Dear cgk,
"We all want the same thing. Victory."
For me, the election of a pro-abortion Republican is defeat.
sitetest
Pacify conservatives...a little, anyway, compared to the Dems.
I'm not buying it, anymore. The party isn't getting my money or my time. They might get my vote.
Good points
The Log Cabin Republicans aren't endorsing the WOT.
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.
How is that? To the contrary, it appears that many social conservatives are voluntarily jumping ship under their own initiative before this race for the nomination even starts to take form. I, and others, have been saying on this forum for months how Rudy can effectively blunt the so-called social conservative opposition to him, and do it easily. But some on FR simply don't want to listen to him, even before he starts to articulate his issues.
Then I say you're both naive about what the crucial aspect is on pro-life issues. It's the courts. From what I've heard so far from Rudy, his appointments to the Supreme Court may end up being better than Ronald Reagan's.
Bring back the platform of lower taxes, less government, strong national security, and personal freedom and responsibility.
YES!
There is a problem with social conservatism (sanctioning the government to promote the 'public good'). The problem is what happens when the opposing party (the Democrats) gain office? They've been sanctioned to use government to promote their version of the 'public good'. Suddenly, instead of promoting straight marriage, abstinence, pro-life causes, they're using the government to promote all of the opposite, and they're just as justified as Republicans would be in doing so.
The problem is that there is no discipline in the party to try to force its candidates to abide by the platform. The party might as well just chuck the platform altogether, since forming it is just a waste of time.
Giuliani supported both Roberts and Alito, and said that his choice for Chief Justice would have been Scalia, not Roberts.
ping....
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.