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.
Popcorn Bump...
Bingo. Left is left no matter the letter behind the name.
I'd hate a Hillary presidency in every other way, but in this one very-important-to-me issue, Hillary would be (gasp) better.
Truth. We seem to have a choice between a tub of sh*t and a swimming pool of sh*t.
All that differs is the quantity.
Very well. I think I understand your position completely. You'll know what you want when you see it, and you ain't seen it in a while.
I think the Dems understand it and see it as a wonderful oppty to divide and conquer.
I think the GOP recognizes that there is nothing they can do to recover your vote either.
So everyone takes a step left. Wonderful.
BTW, I note that you say "they need to find." Is that how it works in your mind?
Good article. It perfectly captures my view.
We'd be better off with lefty Hillary, because then there would be some vigilance and defense from the right. Rudy would be like boiling the frog so gradually, he never notices to jump out of the pot.
Yes, we'd be better off with Hillary. (I'll vote 3rd party, however.)
It should be obvious by now, the political world doesn't produce a Washington, Lincoln or Reagan for the benefit of social conservatives every 4 years. So you try to do the best you can with the choices presented that do the least amount of damage to the country.
Sometimes a great leader emerges, and the country benefits immensely - but the great leaders usually emerge in times of great conflict. As of today, Giuliani is the only candidate out there with that sense of leadership.
I think the GOP recognizes that there is nothing they can do to recover your vote either.If so, they haven't paid attention. Good, solid conservatives often win. East coast liberals pretending often lose. See the Club for Growth and their track record.
I was at a relative's Birthday Party today-there were probably fifty or sixty family members there spanning three generations. When the talk finally got around to "talking about the candidates for President 08", the Democrats & Republicans seemed to agree on one thing-there were serious flaws in both parties annointed frontrunners.
That means President Hillary and that is why Rudy should not get the nomination.
Rudy has a track record. So does Hillary. They look an awful lot alike. Spiff has a chart.
Double plus bingo!
It wouldn't surprise me coming from a dim, but, coming from a republican is what can't be swallowed.
This thread makes it quite clear that "we" (1) do not believe in a common set of principles, and (2) some don't even think "Hillary" is anything more than a scare tactic of the not-quite-really-conservatives.
Sooo.....who is the candidate that satisfies you?
Sooo.....who is the candidate that satisfies you?
Scary!!
Put anyone with an "R" in the presidency. We just wanna win.
Life (real world) imitating art (reality tv, sports, etc.)
Rah! Rah! Sis! Boom! Bah!
What you're seeing is a repeat of history, i.e. the disintegration and demise of the Whig Party.
I believe that's how some on here view it. That's indeed scary.
Rah! Rah! Sis! Boom! Bah!
Let me go get my little girls pom poms and I'll join you, however, I'll leave it to you to do the jumping up and down. :-)
Mike, Aren't you listening to what they are saying?
There really is a group of people that at the same time admire Thatcher and Reagan, that wish abortion were illegal, and yet, think that Hillary is either a potemkin candidate created by country club Republicans to scare us into voting GOP-no-matter-what, and thus they don't worry about her, -or- if she is for real, and she is elected, then they will be on the high ground of having taught the country a lesson.
These are people that have decided that if Hillary and Rudy are social liberals, then their other stances on WOT, military funding, taxes, fairness doctrine, nationailed healthcare, nationalized oil industires, EPA regulation, UN-global-test-mandates, UNICEF control of child abuse laws....etc... are totally meaningless.
This is the landscape a candidate must operate under these days.
The Dems couldn't ask for a more wonderful oppourtunity, I think.
Sooo.....who is the candidate that satisfies you?
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.