Skip to comments.Why Bother Electing Pro-Gun, Pro-Family Candidates Anywhere? (The Rudophile Philosophy)
Posted on 02/10/2007 1:39:11 PM PST by TitansAFC
There is no point to electing Pro-Family, Pro-Life, Pro-Free Speech, Pro-Second Amendment candidates anymore. At least, that's what we're essentially being told by the Rudy Giuliani for President crowd. The candidates themselves have no impact on such issues, we're told, and so we shouldn't take that into consideration when choosing whom to elect.
Yes, the Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Speech voters should not take their respective issues to the voting booth. They are issues that can be addressed simply by nominating judges. That's all that matters. So we're told.
So this is where the Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Speech crowd stands with the modern GOP, eh? This is all that's relevant for the Social Conservatives and Gun Conservatives in 2008, is it? Well, at least that's the perspective of many Pro-Rudy publications, such as National Review, and the clear majority view of GOP columnists nationwide.
Let me sum this up: Those of us who are Pro-Life, Pro-Traditional Marriage, Pro-Family, Pro-Second Amendment, and Pro-Free Speech have been reduced to a three word expression determined by Pro-Rudy pollsters and perhaps some time previous to his candidacy:
"Roberts and Alito" (Also accepted is "Thomas and Scalia.")
That's it. That's all we are to them anymore - that's all it takes. This alone should be enough to placate the base, or at least enough to stem fears of any GOP candidate so long as there exists a Democrat on the ballot. Just three words, whether the candidate has a history deeming this implied promise credible or not. Just three words, that's all.
It's a shame, isn't it?
Never mind Embryonic Stem Cell research; never mind the Mexico City Policy. The President has no effect on life issues.
Never mind a push for Hate Crimes Legislation or Campaign Finance Reform. The President has no effect on Free Speech issues.
Never mind the Assault Weapons ban, or lawsuits against gun manufacturers, or calls for federal laws against guns. The President has no real effect on Second Amendment issues.
Or so we're being told.
"Roberts and Alito!" -- Oh yes! Problem solved; all questions answered! Whatever were we concerned about in the first place?
This is what they want us reduced to. They want our free labor as volunteers, for certain; they want our votes and unending party loyalty, no doubt. But our issues? No. Not anymore; not in 2008.
We're at war, after all! How can anyone take those peripheral issues seriously in a time of war? Abortion? Bah! The Soviet Union might nuke Washington tomorrow! And we're supposed to address abortion?!?!
Oops, sorry. Replace "Soviet Union" with "Islamofascists." Same argument, different decade.
Yes, that's the other thing. We're supposed to table our issues - not that they'd ever table issues like taxes and Free Trade - but we're supposed to table ours until that mythical time in the future when no one on earth means us harm anymore; that day in the future when war is no longer upon us or even imminent.
You see, our issues need to be put aside during a time of war; and we've declared perpetual war. How about that?
It comes to this: we are to be Republicans first, and issues voters last. Or so we're told. Voting is always a choice between the "lesser of two" evils, and Democrats are always, under every circumstance, the greater evil. Why, it would be irresponsible to stay home or vote third party just because our issues are off the table - even all of our issues.
After all (reading from cue card), "Roberts and Alito."
Perhaps most frustrating in all of this is the strange lack of concern the National Review and Pro-Rudy types have about his record. He spoke at NARAL, called for the purging of the Pro-Life platform from the GOP, raised money for Pro-Abortion groups, called for federal laws against guns, sued gun manufacturers, spoke out in favor of tougher Hate Crimes Legislation and Campaign Finance Reform, just to start. He has been an abortion rights activist, a gun control activist, an activist for limitations on Free Speech, and an activist for gay rights.
An activist, yes. He has taken active steps in every case, using all of his influence as mayor to promote said issues. He has stood hand-in-hand with the enemy onthese issues, and often used what powers were availoable to him as Mayor to enforce them.
Does this concern the Rudophiles? No. They are still unabashed Rudy apologists. What concerns the Rudophiles - get this - is that values voters might have a problem with this and hold it against him.
Yes, you heard that right. They are concerned not with his stances, issues, and record - they are concerned with the Social and Gun Conservatives having a big problem with it when the First Tuesday in November, 2008 comes to pass.
Make no mistake about it, if the Social Conservative and Gun Conservative movement is willing to bend this far, the party will not be asking them to bend any less in the future. This will not be the last time the base is given an abortion rights/gun control/ gay rights activist and told he's the "next Reagan." On the contrary, these new stances will be the standard for future "Conservative" candidates, having proven that they can not only fail to address Social and Gun Conservative issues and still win elections, but they they can run candidates who have been activists on the wrong side of every issue and still win.
"Roberts and Alito! And now that I've addressed all of your issues........"
So now, there's no point in fighting for those Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Free Speech candidates anymore. They cannot have any effect, after all, on any of said issues - with perhaps the exception of voting on judges. We can win a lot more of the Moderates and Independents if we takes those issues off of the table, anyway, and simply run as an anti-tax, pro-defense party - stance we know that large majorities can easily agree on. Just say, "Roberts and Alito;" that should be enough. Asking for anything more would be, well, unreasonable.
Or so we're being told.
Nice work. People who think abortion doesn't matter should tell that to the people being torn apart every day. Cowardice isn't a conservative value.
Awesome. you hit the nail on the head:)
Saturday is funday!
Let me ask you what precisely you are doing to forward your choice for Presidential nominee? Hmm...
When the 2008 election happen, you know damn well you will push the lever for the guy with the R next to his name because the person with the D is 1000 times more dangerous. So if you think you can get the person you want nominated, GO AHEAD...get off the computer and start doing something. Ranting on FreeRepublic ain't gonna get it done, Buddy,
Nice rant. One I agree with in every respect.
Even those who are being touted as alternatives to the RINOs McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are saying NOTHING about the life and family issues that Social Conservatives like yours truly care most about. We're starting to feel like we've been marginalized. Doesn't make you want to go to the trouble to go out and vote. It sure does seem that the GOP is turning a deaf ear to Social Conservatives...
You forgot to mention the fear-mongering about him being "electable" and "the only to who can defeat Hillary". He sure has proven his ability to beat Hillary, hasn't he?
It may just be he is "electable". It doesn't matter to me. I'm pretty sure that regardless of who becomes the next president this country will continue it's downward spiral. It's only going to get worse.
Only 5 minutes and 33 seconds before the first bot snipe.
If that's the way the party goes, then "don't you know you that can count me out"... I'm not voting for Rudy, not in the primary, not in the general, not ever.
"Voting is always a choice between the "lesser of two" evils,"
Gee. I'm sure the target of your bile will thank you for your kind permission. /s
but don't you DARE come back on FreeRepublic in 2009 bemoaning the state of the Country.
If the state of the country is bad, it won't be the fault of those who tried with all their might to prevent such bad outcomes. It will be the fault of those who empowered those who actively work to prevent the restoration and preservation of our free republic, like you.
Right. That's why he was afraid to run against her for the Senate.
Good job. There is much more than just a single issue. But hey they don't need us so I am not sweating it until the time comes to pull the lever. In the meantime I will push for Hunter.
That really makes Rudy look good. Nevermind his record just vote R. Now be a good sheeple and run along.
Salute! The silent majority is finally being heard. Never mind the pro-Rudy, pro-John, pro-Milt groups that we hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils just to win. Winning without belief and principles is not a win. That's the RAT way of thinking We want a candidate that (1) we can trust, (2) reflect our principles and beliefs, (3) and make a country strong and economically prosperous.
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.