Skip to comments.Vanity: Questions regarding the Republican Platform, is it pro-life, pro-family?
Posted on 02/04/2007 1:31:12 AM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
post 229 referred to the war on terror issue.
even the most ardent Rudy detractors here on FR, don't compare his position on that, to the Dems.
The lesson is the same - only when forced to. Left to his own devices, the path will remain fixed inexorably to the left.
we saw how well the conservative base in PA, did in returning Santorum to the senate. and Allen in VA, and Talent in MO.
Nice try. If you know anything about PA politics, you know the degree to which Santorum alienated his base with his active support of Specter in 04.
He probably would have lost in 06 anyway, due to the general GOP bloodbath (you leave out the losses of "conservative" stalwarts like Lincoln Chafee and Gang of 14 author Mike DeWine in your analysis, BTW).
Santorum was faced against a candidate whose namesake father is probably the most famous ardently pro-life Democratic policitian of the past quarter century. I'll bet in PA, where the senior citizen population is much larger than most states. many thought they were voting for the old man. Bobby Jr. is not his father (he'll vote however Dingy Harry tells him to vote), but his father's good name with social cons in this state certainly didn't hurt him.
Allen lost to a supposedly pro-life, pro-gun veteran on the strength of one dumb word, followed by an unprecedented media assault. Don't know much about Talent, other than he almost lost to a dead guy in his first election and thus was a marginal candidate in a down GOP year anyway.
Once again - nice try.
I really don't see them as indistinguishable from core WOT concerns. They all deal with the protection of Americans.
Abortion kills as many in one day as died in 9-11 - every day.
The 2nd Amendment, if not restricted, would be a better safeguard against domestic terrorism. Gun-free zones become killing fields once penetrated by terrorists.
And it's not about the fact that abortion might not be curtailed in the next four years or that guns might not be confiscated over the next four years. Instead, it is critical that these positions be fought for as to not allow backsliding, lest the next four years after that be when it goes down.
who were the two judges he refused to re-appoint? he likely had some specific grounds for those two (my guess is, corruption), rather then a blanket dismissal of the system.
did you read the entire link you posted, take a look at the judge Koch is criticizing Rudy for going after:
"NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE HELEN FREEDMAN WAS
RECENTLY THE SUBJECT OF GIULIANI'S DEMEANING LANGUAGE
IN HIS EFFORT TO TERRORIZE HER AFTER SHE RULED IN FAVOR
OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY'S HOMELESS FAMILY RIGHTS
PROJECT, LED BY COORDINATING ATTORNEY STEVEN BANKS, IN
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY'S ONGOING CASE AGAINST THE CITY.
GIULIANI, ACCORDING TO THE POST, SAID FREEDMAN NAS
BEEN ISSUING "IRRATIONAL ORDERS" TO MAYORS FOR 13
YEARS. "IT'S ABOUT TIME SHE STEP ASIDE," HE SAID.
CONTINUING, "ANY JUDGE THAT HOLDS A CASE FOR A DECADE
OR MORE SHOULD GET OFF THE CASE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS
THEY BECOME THE PURVEYORS OF POLICY RATHER THAN
DECIDERS OF CASES THAT COME BEFORE THEM." HE VICIOUSLY
AND PERSONALLY ATTACKED FREEDMAN -- AND SAID, "SHE
ISN'T RULING ON THE LAW, SHE'S RULING ON HER OWN
PERSONAL IDEOLOGY." IF THAT WERE S0, SHE WILL BE
REVERSED ON APPEAL"
read it, and tell me if that sounds like a person who supports liberal judicial activism on the bench. just the opposite is what I read there.
excuses, excuses. so our only problem in 2006, was that our candidates were "bad" - it wasn't that the conservative base couldn't deliver the votes needed to elect them.
GOP Platform Draft Turns Left
Friday, July 28, 2000
Calls for expensive federal social programs, backtracking on big government, pandering on "women's health," backing off on illegal aliens is this the Democratic or the Republican platform? Except for a stand against abortion, the GOP draft platform released Thursday blurs the distinction between the two major parties.
This year's preliminary platform shows a turn to the left from the conservative 1996 platform on many issues.
Education: The 1996 plan called for abolishing the Department of Education and ending "federal meddling in schools.'' The far milder 2000 draft calls for programs improving literacy, replacing federal fiats with grants, offering Education Savings Accounts and defending home schooling.
Teachers, not even mentioned when Bob Dole was the Republican nominee, are wooed with programs promising merit pay, improved training and protection from ''meritless lawsuits.''
Bureaucracy: In 1996 Republicans also called for eliminating the departments of Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development and the National Endowment for the Arts. The tame 2000 draft merely includes a vague call for "downsizing" the "mess" in Washington.
Guns: The 1996 and 2000 versions affirm the right to bear arms. The new draft adds a call for "individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms'' and a crackdown on youth violence.
Health: The 1996 platform made no specific mention of women's health. The 2000 draft says Republicans are leading the charge to improve women's health, including increased National Institutes of Health funding on diseases that affect women more than men.
Curiously, there is no such pandering on men's health, even though:
On average women live years longer than men.
There is far less spending on prostate cancer research than the trendy cause of breast cancer research despite the fact that the two diseases are comparably serious.
The 2000 draft says the GOP is reaching out "to underserved and minority female populations, where disparities persist in life expectancy, infant mortality and death rates and cancer, heart disease and diabetes."
Immigration: The 1996 platform said U.S. borders should be secured "from the threat of illegal immigration.'' The 2000 draft omits opposition to non-emergency public benefits for illegal aliens and no longer demands a constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
The draft merely says the "long-term solution for illegal immigration is economic growth in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.'' It dwells on the "enormous treasure'' immigrants have brought to the United States.
In 1996, Republicans called for "the official recognition of English as the nation's common language." However, the 2000 draft simply says, "Another sign of our unity is the role of English as our common language."
Discrimination: The new draft keeps anti-discrimination language but adds disabled people to the victim list. It does not mention discrimination against homosexuals and omits earlier language rejecting the "distortion'' of anti-bias laws "to cover sexual preference.''
Medicare: The new draft vows to give Medicare "a new lease on life" by giving its 39 million beneficiaries a choice of health plans, a reference to efforts to get more private insurance plans involved in Medicare.
Environment: The 2000 draft calls for increased environmental spending, the Washington Post reported today.
The 2000 draft does keep the 1996 platform's anti-abortion language.
"The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,'' the draft platform says, adding that a recent Supreme Court decision upholding partial-birth abortion "shocks the conscience of the nation.'' There remains opposition to using taxpayers' money to pay for abortion or organizations that promote it.
Language calling for passage of a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, and for the appointment of anti-abortion federal judges, remains intact, the Washington Post reported today. However, Bush supports exemptions for rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother, and he says he opposes litmus tests in judicial appointments.
Bush agreed to keep the abortion language while he was building his conservative base before the South Carolina Republican primary, and he has used this promise to win party conservatives while liberalizing other stands, the Post reported.
The draft contains new sections on technology issues. It opposes Internet taxation and says the government has a responsibility to protect privacy.
It hails the lowering of the capital gains tax and urges more tax cuts and sweeping changes in the "dysfunctional'' federal tax code.
The platform is a formal statement of Republican core beliefs that would nevertheless not be binding on Texas Gov. George W. Bush, whose nomination is expected Aug. 3.
The draft was written under the guidance of Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, the platform committee chairman.
Thompson said Thursday that the draft reflected Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and showed "a more uplifting view of the Republican Party, one that's more inclusive, that attempts to build a winning team, that people can rally around."
The draft will be reviewed and possibly rewritten, then voted upon by the 107-member platform committee over the next two days. The full convention will consider the result Monday, the New York Times reported Thursday.
Better question, regarding moot points such as the above, If Hunter were the nominee, would those here asking that question of us regarding Rudy, support him?
||Giuliani||Clinton||Dem Platform||GOP Platform|
|Abortion on Demand||Supports||Supports||Supports||Opposes|
|Partial Birth Abortion||Supports
|Roe v. Wade||Supports||Supports||Supports||Opposes|
|Taxpayer Funded Abortions||Supports||Supports||Supports||Opposes|
|Embryonic Stem Cell Research||Supports||Supports||Supports||Opposes|
|Federal Marriage Amendment||Opposes||Opposes||Opposes
|Gay Domestic Partnership/
|Openly Gay Military||Supports||Supports||Supports||Opposes|
|Defense of Marriage Act||Opposes||Opposes||Opposes||Supports|
|Amnesty for Illegal Aliens||Supports||Supports||Supports||Opposes|
|Special Path to Citizenship
for Illegal Aliens
|Tough Penalties for
Employers of Illegal Aliens
Ignoring Immigration Law
|Protecting 2nd Amendment||Opposes
|'Assault' Weapons Ban||Supports||Supports||Supports|
Against Gun Makers
|War in Afghanistan||Supports||Supports
Voted for it
|War in Iraq||Supports||Supports
Voted for it
Voted for it
2001 & 2006
Take a look at Spiff's very cool chart (hat tip to Spiff!), is that how you envision a win?
Thanks to Spiff. His work, my clipboard!
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.
A very scary quote.
I think his opinion is fairly accurate. The GOP platform has increasingly become a fundraising/vote getting press release.
The GOP powerbrokers are in control of the platform, and so long as they continue to take us (and our votes) for granted, it will remain an "inside the Beltway" tool.
Well, that's my take on it, anyway.
It is without question that these positions are indeed primary components of the republican party platform.
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.
Your motion is flawless. Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, who understands the constitution, and puts America first, would agree with your position and agree with your premise.
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?
Too much to ask? Certainly not. However, by continuing to look the other way when the leadership of the majority parties ignore these basic realities and continuing to support them regardless, how can we expect any different result?
Or is there a movement underfoot to remove these planks from the platform?
A movement? Yes indeed, the leadership of both major parties have been doing their level best to render these covenants meaningless, sometime overtly, sometimes in a more sneaky manner, but the movement is in full swing.
You must have missed my post.
Rudy is a Log Cabin Republican.
The Log Cabin Republican's platform is now Anti War. If Rudy wants their endorsement, which he has had before, he will also have to be anti war.
And... Giuliani also said this, quoted in the same source:
THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS.
I posted that link because it provided the FACTS about the Merit Selection System in NYC, and how Giuliani changed it to serve his interests. The above quote is not unlike Giuliani's behavior when he defied federal courts and SCOTUS on the reporting of illegal aliens in his city.
Bush refused to speak before the Log Cabin perverts... that should tell people something right there...
Maybe you should do a search on FR for the voter fraud threads. Our votes can't deliver anything with corruption.
"Rudy is a Log Cabin Republican."
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.