Jim, I'm going to be uncharacteristically frank again. I'm not naive enough to believe that party platform is anything other than a carefully crafted document who's sole purpose is to pander to as many special interests as possible in order to garner votes. The platform committee's sole function is to sit and argue about how much it will cost in money and votes to pick Pepsi over Coke.
Poor Bob Dole was way too honest when he admitted that he really hadn't paid too much attention to the party platform. However, Bob was just honest. None of the others are going to really show the slavish devotion to the platform that they'll promise they will in front of the crowd de jour in support of the cause de jour. I supported Dole btw, he was a good man.
Jim, I've always supported true conservative issues. True conservatives being those that will genuinely strengthen my country. I'm never going to get behind a divisive candidate like Alan Keyes (to safely pick someone not running) who despite the assurances of the faithful pulls 3rd party numbers in two party races. Again, being blunt, Keyes and his supporters are at least in part responsible for Barak Obama's meteoric rise to prominence in the Democratic Party. Had Keyes record setting poor showing not given him a landslide that statistically dwarfed Reagan's, he might not be the media darling he is today. At the very least, it's safe to say that the stellar victory didn't hurt.
Sorry Jim, but radical candidates like Keyes are bad for the party, and ultimately bad for the country. They have no real chance for national office no matter how well they are polling on Free Republic. Jim, please, don't fall into the trap where mainstream (yes mainstream, not liberal, not RINO, but mainstream) Republicans are no longer welcome here at Freerpublic. Like it or not, mainstream Republicans are your conservative choice and your best weapon against radical liberals.
((((( PING PING PING )))))
Outstanding.
Bump.
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.
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.
Well said and kudos.
Excellent post Melas, and I agree.
I've kept a low profile on the candidate threads so far, because they've gotten far too heated, far too soon, and I don't want to spend the next 21 months mudslinging with other FReepers.
As far as what matters to me this election cycle, electing someone who will not throw the WOT to the dogs is very high on my list. After that, the 'minor' issues are gravy. There is no candidate today, Democrat or Republican, who will win on a 'gun grabbing' platform, 'abortion-centric' platform or a 'gay marriage' platform for that matter, and I am tired of it being used as a red herring to disrupt the debate about Rudy Giuliani. None of them are issues that should be National Policy issues. They are precisely the kind of social policy Conservatives would be wise to argue should be decided locally.
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.
|
|
Giuliani | Clinton | Dem Platform | GOP Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abortion on Demand | Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
| Partial Birth Abortion | Supports Opposed NY ban |
Supports | Supports | Opposes |
| 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 Defined at state level |
Supports |
| Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions |
Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
| 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 |
Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
| Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens |
Opposes | Opposes | Opposes | Supports |
| Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law |
Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
| Protecting 2nd Amendment | Opposes |
Opposes | Opposes Supports bans |
Supports |
| Confiscating Guns | Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged. |
Supports | Supports Supports bans |
Opposes |
| 'Assault' Weapons Ban | Supports | Supports | Supports | |
| Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers |
Supports Filed One Himself |
Supports | Opposes | |
| Gun Registration/Licenses | Supports | Supports | Opposes | |
| War in Afghanistan | Supports | Supports Voted for it |
Supports | Supports |
| War in Iraq | Supports | Supports Voted for it |
Supports Weak support |
Supports |
| Patriot Act | Supports | Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006 |
Opposes | Supports |
Take a look at Spiff's very cool chart (hat tip to Spiff!), is that how you envision a win?
"A nation that values its privileges over its principles will soon lose both"
Dwight D. Eisenhower, inaugural address, 1953
If you cannot stand upon principle, then you can hardly expect others to do it for you. And if you abandon principle for the sake of convenience or 'practiciality,' then you can't complain about the results. Think of the message that you're sending.
What the Republican Party needs is a good, strong high-pressure enema to remove the 'progressive' RINO stools with which it seems to be impacted. Unfortunately, nothing short of a civil war will do the trick at this stage of the game.
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.
BUMP!