[Jim Robinson]

And as I pointed out you are suggesting we compromise with the liberal positions on the loss of life and liberty and that is the same thing as compromising with liberals.

I will continue standing for God, country, family, life and liberty and if that means some people leave FR, so be it. Hopefully, like minded conservatives will continue to appreciate our efforts.

[Howlin]

No, that is your interpretation of what you think I am saying, and you are wrong.

We're all conservatives here. We support our country, support our president, support our military, support our constitution and support our traditional American values.

[colorado tanker]

What do we do, Jim? Two of the three front runners went from pro-life to pro-abort to get elected in the Northeast, then flipped back to something resembling pro-life, and the third is - McCain. Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!

And I have grave questions about the electability of the second rank candidates.

For the first time I can remember we don't have a solid conservative among the front-runners.

[sitetest]

Dear Jim Robinson,

I think that it's inaccurate to say that we social conservatives are unwilling to compromise. Over the years, we've compromised plenty.

Even on the issue of abortion, we've often compromised. For the good of the [pro-life] Republican Party, I've voted for folks here in Maryland who weren't pro-life. Folks who aren't completely conservative can be valuable in lower offices to help build coalitions and party strength. I understand pushing for the real conservative in the primaries, and voting for the much-less conservative in the general election.

As well, with regard to presidential candidates, most of us are willing to vote for candidates who are clearly flawed. An example was Sen. Allen.

Sen. Allen was in favor of abortion's legality in the first 8 weeks or so of pregnancy. However, he was also in favor of permitting states to come up with their own laws relating to abortion, ranging anywhere from total bans to abortion on demand.

That position, of course, required overturning Roe, which of course, would require appointing justices who could see that Roe's finding of a "right" to abortion in the Constitution was deeply flawed, and requires reversal.

I'd have voted for Sen. Allen for president, even though, as a pro-lifer, I found him far less than 100% in agreement with the pro-life perspective.

That's compromise - real compromise.

But the rudybots aren't asking us to compromise. Their asking us to capitulate. "Compromise" means being entirely defeated on the issues of life, traditional family, the Second Amendment, etc. Mr. Giuliani doesn't represent a partial victory for social conservatives, but rather a complete, utter defeat.

As well, the election of Mr. Giuliani to the presidency would be a more thoroughgoing defeat of conservatism, especially social conservatism, then the election of Mrs. Clinton, in that the Republican Party would be destroyed as a vehicle for future conservatism, especially social conservatism.

No, asking actual conservatives to vote for Mr. Giuliani isn't asking for compromise, it's asking us to commit political suicide.

But my how the rudybots, RINOs, and outright liberals whine when we refuse to drink the poison.


sitetest