Posted on 03/04/2007 4:15:07 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Anger on Display Among Conservative PAC Audience
Sunday , March 04, 2007 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — America's conservatives are mad and they're not going to take it anymore.
That was the message the movement's leaders delivered throughout the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. last week.
One after another, conservatives told FOXNews.com that they are angry, irritated, frustrated and in some cases depressed. And the target of their angst and ire is none other than the Republican Party, which wants and needs their support to win the 2008 presidential election and avoid losing more seats in the Senate and House next election.
Many of these conservatives, whose national stars began to rise with the presidential election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, described the GOP's state of affairs in Washington with words like "failed," defeated" and "in the grave."
"The Republican Party apparently has a death wish, but that doesn't mean we conservatives have to go along with it," Richard Viguerie, a movement veteran who helped elect Reagan, said during his wildly-received speech delivered Thursday. "Let's focus on the conservative movement, not the GOP."
"We've got to stop being lackeys of the Republican Party. We've got to be a third force," said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an online activist network. He is running as a Republican in the June special election to replace the late Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., who died of cancer on Feb. 13.
Several candidates vying for the GOP nomination appeared at the conference. But one — Arizona Sen. John McCain — was notably absent, and the frontrunner in generic opinion polls — former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — acknowledged to the crowd that he has differences with his audience on social issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That's the point: if you choose to personally insult and attack people - do you really think they are going to be nice to you and respect your views?
Examples?
I don't think either side is going to change the others' minds. The battle is for the undecideds. If pointing out past actions and policies is what you consider "attacks" then what do you call the gross misrepresentation of Rudy as a conservative? It is a lie. Everyone knows it here on a conservative forum. Let's just leave it there for now. Neither side is going to convince the other. The more we argue it, the more divided we become. Give it a rest for about 10 months.
Hence, my tagline...
My thing is simply that we must reverse the tide of socialism. No, I don't expect to slash the size of government overnight, but even holding it at inflation would be fantastic. Reagan tried and failed. The Gingrich congress actually succedded for two year. Then W, Delay, and Hastert ruined it all and were worse spenders than LBJ.
Quite simply, the nation can't survive when the government takes the place of the family. The War on Terror is of course important, but look what a generation or two of nanny-state has done to Europe? When the government emasculate's the family and culture, it loses all moral bearing and isn't even capable of dealing with the muslim invasion.
That is why it is critical that the President is a believer in small government.
Now, Giuliani may be that man. He has a lot of good supply siders on his campaign team. If he comes out strong on a flat taxish sort of thing, I'll vote for him despite the abortion and homo stuff. But, that's why it is important we not just give him our support. We need to demand his attention on the less government side.
Just what of their agenda did the socons get accomplished? We still have abortion on demand, we still have the cultural-Marxist agenda being forced on kids in government schools, the media spew filth into the air, and the country is being invaded by 3rd-worlders of all types, hardly any of whom are going to be conservatives of any variety. The people who had their way are simply a bunch of professional politicians, not adherents to some principled cause; they use socons the way they use the other components of their base; the same way Demonrats use blacks, union workers, and the rest of THEIR base. If the base was ever satisfied, how could they marshall them to vote? So they never fulfill any "Contract with America." The fulfill the contracts with the big-money contributors by giving them specific things they want--like cheap immigrant labor for agribusiness. Like free trade with China for big business.
Common people don't matter at all to them.
Ok I promise not to go on Hunter or Brownback or Romney threads and attack. I will probably attack McCain - but only if his name comes up on a thread I'm on(s). How about you?
I will avoid direct attacks, but if attacked I will open fire again. Fair enough?
Perhaps I should amend what I said to "a perception that they filled their agenda".
They didn't ban abortion because they can't. But they got a lot of it de-funded, etc. They got absitnence into the schools, they got faith-based initiatives, etc. Perhaps those are all small potatos compared to immigration and other things, but they were in the press a lot. As for the schools, I mostly didn't see socons trying to abolish the department of Ed as much as try to take it over for their own purposes.
A majority in the Supreme Court.
Well it's a start. I take it you mean you will continue to frequent Rudy threads?
Your vote belongs to you and no one else. If Mr. Hunter doesn't represent what you believe or disagrees with your beliefs on too many crucial points, I won't trash you for refusing to vote for Mr. Hunter. Even if your refusal to vote for Mr. Hunter causes him to lose the general election, your vote is yours, and I respect your right to vote for someone who represents what you believe.
You claim that the WOT is crucial. Maybe it is, but I see nothing to suggest that Mr. Giuliani will be a strong president in that war. He advocates amnesty for illegal aliens, and that amnesty would lead to more of them coming to this country regardless of what other policies we put in place to stop them. Our being lenient about overstayed visas played some part in the September 11 attacks. If we want national security, we must have border security, and Mr. Giuliani is weak on this issue.
If you don't like Mr. Hunter for reasons related to policy and issues, why don't you suggest another candidate? I'm nominally supporting Mr. Hunter right now, but I could change my mind as the field changes. Former Governor Gilmore of Virginia has formed an exploratory committee. Being governor is a stronger qualification than being a Congressman. I don't know where Governor Gilmore stands on the issues, but if he is pretty good on the important issues, I might be able to support him. If you can support him and not Congressman Hunter, maybe he would be a good compromise candidate for us. Newt Gingrich wouldn't be my first choice, but I could probably support him. I haven't ruled out supporting Governor Romney, and I would likely vote for him even if I didn't volunteer for him in the campaign. I might even be able to vote for John McCain if he had a good enough running mate, but I'm uncertain about that vote. Why can't we continue looking for a good candidate who will be broadly acceptable instead of trying to force someone on those who cannot support him?
Bill
Your mind escapes you. The GOP ran RINOs and turned their backs on social conservatives, offering them no viable candidates except for a few. They also did not offer support for many regional districts, specifically those affected by illegal border invasions. Any candidate who did not support GWB's wussy position on illegal immigrants was shunned, and most lost.
the contract with american contained proposals on abortion, gays, and guns?
The Fiscal Responsibility Act
The Taking Back Our Streets Act
The Personal Responsibility Act
The American Dream Restoration Act
The National Security Restoration Act
The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act
The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
The Citizen Legislature Act
The Family Reinforcement Act
The Senior Citizens Fairness Act
Now I will grant you that the Bush administration may have waffled on a few things.
But look at the list of issues above - the most vocal part of the base isn't interested in what the candidates have to say about them, they are second tier issues now. Look at the anti-Rudy threads here, all anyone wants to talk about are abortion, gays, he wears a dress, etc.
Second, my understanding is that we lost in '06 - not because conservatives stayed home but because independents moved their support from the GOP to the dems.
Third, my understanding is that Rudy is a fiscal conservative - just not a social conservative. But that he can be talked into a deal to not oppose the social agenda and to appoint strick constructionist judges.
The really hard core conservative Christians don't want the Federal government taking over public education. Many of them have so little trust of government at any level that they choose to home-school. I'm afraid you're assuming that G.W. Bush is representative of Christian conservatives. I can remember when Jeffrey Hart said W wasn't a conservative, but a Christian socialist, and there was a storm of protest and abuse here on FR. Now I don't think there are many Bushbots left. Bush looks good only by comparison with the Demons, and as Gingrich said, we can't win any more just by being "not as bad" as the other party. That's one reason I'm against Rudy. He's more of the same...not "one of ours", but we're supposed to swallow him because he's a slower poison than Hillary.
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.