Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to “rule” over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
You must not be in the 45-55 age group.
I think it boils down to this. Bush is pretty much in the center of the GOP - left of center on some issues, right on others, but on average in the middle. So is Fred( I think Fred is probably a bit further right than Bush overall). You and I might spar over instances where I felt Bush was too far left, but we were still at least in the same political area code.
From that position in the center of the party, folks from all over the party can gravitate to the standad bearer. You get a stronger sense of party unity because the candidate offers something to everyone in the party.
However, folks that are at the far left of the GOP now feel more of a political attraction for Rudy than, say, Fred. They don't have very far to go to back Rudy. And quite frankly, given the contempt many of the bannees displayed towards social conservatives, most come off as Rockefeller Republicans who always hated that Reagan showed the party how to overcome decades of liberal Republican ineptitude and win elections. They hated Reagan - I know because my grandmother (RIP) was a quintessentail Rockefeller Republican who was a delegate to the 1976 convetion and voted for Ford. She saw Reagan and his movement as interlopers into her domain.
However, for those of us to the right of Bush on several issues, Reagan is the gold standard and we see a long, long leftward trek to accomodate Rudy - a trek that would undo decades of progress for the conservative movement. We don't like where that road takes us.
Throw in the fact that Rudy had no problem endorsing a Democrat for NY governor in 1994, and it's going to be hard for the GOP to demand loyalty if he's the nominee in 2008.
And the more I see of Rudy, the more overrated I think he is. Every article you've posted would be a pretty hard shot in and of its own right. Throw in all the articles and the guy just isn't the right candidate at all - from both a political and personal basis. Heck, he makes McCain look palatable - something I thought impossible. And he was profoundly unpopular in New York by August 2000. His reputation was only salvaged by 9-11 (and even then he wanted to stay on longer than his term allowed, which should give folks in a representative republic pause).
As a campaigner, he has shown a complete inability to stay on message, which makes you wonder just how serious his efforts are to reach out to the right, plus he has shown he sees Ahnold as a governing style to be emulated, not abhorred. And for all the talk of him being the right guy for the WOT, I just don't see it. Talk is cheap. Clinton talked tough about fighting our enemies. And then did squat. I think Rudy is a egomaniacal authoritarian freak who should only go to the White House on a guided tour. And his supporters seem to be sucked into the same cult-of-personality mindset that drove a few folks on this site to defend Bush even when he was clearly wrong.
But beyond that, if the GOP nominates such a person to go up against a Dem who is unsuitable for the job as well, what the hell has the party become?
Prayers sent RIP
Ouch! LOL
I’ve been working on my anti-opus over the last few days. The lyrics are down and all I have left to do is compose the music.
The flaming is an unfortunate byproduct of politics. Since the dawn of time, I reckon. By all sides, as well.
:-D
In many circles, the 'peasants with pitchforks' style of political debate is actually considered disrespectful, believe it or not!
Flames tend to convince lurkers that the flame-ers aren't worth trying to have a rational discussion with.
Jim Robinson thinks that Giuliani is a 'baby-killing, homo-loving, gun-grabbing, cross-dressing' liberal and has said so MANY times. This is his forum.
Now, was that an opus? Because I smell the strong smell of opus in the air around you.
Sorry, pal. I will never be comfortable speaking to abortionists. Never have, never will. Abortionists are a scourge on our society.
I have read this, and your subsequent posts in this thread, and I commend you on your calm and deliberative approach to this discussion. I believe I can understand your unease at the ongoing melee, but I also believe your worries will prove to be unfounded.
That said, there's a question I've been wanting to address to you since your initial comment above: "Are you aware of the logical contradiction of the two positions?"
If you are politically conservative, and yet vote to put social liberals in charge of government, how do you expect to pay for all the liberal government programs which will inevitably ensue without violating your "politically conservative" principles? And if you put conservatives in charge, you will by definition have to deny your socially liberal companions the government programs they will demand.
This is not an attempt to slam you. I simply wanted to know how you have managed to reconcile espousing these contradictory positions.
There is a term, with a corresponding set of principles, which does satisfy the conditions of what I believe you're aiming for: "Classical Liberal". There are still a few of us around. I believe if you research this you will find it a more appropriate and comfortable appellation.
The feds will have to pass a law first and it will be put to the courts, no doubt. But R v W has to go first, otherwise we will lose the case.
“think Duncan Hunter can beat Hillary or Obama.”
Really? How? he better start raising some big dinero, then.
I don’t recall him much
Dominic, we’ve disagreed already, okay. So on my side of the disagreement let me say that anywhere you go for calm and reasoned debate the division will follow. It will be proportional to the effectiveness of whatever group you’ve found. Maybe if you have a invite only, application approved, ruthlessly moderated, pay as you go site, but then you’d have the echo chamber that some of us are afraid will happen here.
Heck no. I love revivals. The preacher at the last one I attended spoke for 90 minutes on Matthew 7:3.
I was thinking the same things. If we have those four, we can work on the rest.
I prefer “pro constitution”
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
One problem is that many Rudy supporters here will not simply admit that they are pro-abortion and/or pro-gay and/or anti-gun. They say national security trumps all, they say look at the polls.
They will not admit that they wholeheartedly support all or parts of Rudy's socially liberal agenda. If they support it, if they think it would be good for the country, so be it. At least they should admit it and debate such issues accordingly.
When I have directly confronted Rudy's supporters as to such issues, they refuse to debate--they ignore the questions or change the subject. It has happened repeatedly.
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.