I won't defend Howlin's overall demeanor in the forum.
But IMO, the post that everybody is outraged about has been overbolown.
Taken in strict context, she says the Republican Party will definitely NOT be DNC-Lite, but will have to move a lot more to the center if it expects to win elections.
And the conservatives that are strident on abortion and gun laws are going to have to become 'average catholics'...in analogical parlance.
Good catholics who practice birth control. Divorced ones that still go to church and give up sweets for Lent.
We're looking for religious right members that could...IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...hold their noses and vote for him rather than allow a Clinton to run this nation again.
Sorry. Can’t do it.
You just told me to do mortal sin. Do you realize that?
I just want to interrupt to say that if a person is gone, they’re gone. After several hundred posts, we can leave Howlin behind now, I think.
-—Good catholics who practice birth control. Divorced ones that still go to church and give up sweets for Lent.-—
These aren’t particularly good behaviors. You just told me I have to be a person who commits mortal sin to be a republican.
Think about what you say before you say it.
Who is "we"?
I won’t
And there we have the basic problem before the house. Expecting people to violate basic and non-negotiable principles is simply asking too much.
I held my nose when I voted for both Bushes, both times. But, I COULD do that.
Rudy. No way. None. Zilch. Nada.
I’m not a catholic (I’m not sure what being catholic has to do with it anyway) but am staunchly pro life. No way would I want to stand before God and try to explain my vote for a proabortionist.
I find your whole premise rather offensive - I cannot wink and nod at my religious beliefs, then vote as if they don’t matter. Either my beliefs and God given principles rule every area of my life, or they are worthless. There is no moral relativism when it comes to my beliefs.
We’re looking for religious right members that could...IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...hold their noses and vote for him rather than allow a Clinton to run this nation again.
***Sounds like a talking point to me. Why don’t you just opus and be done with it? Why would you be looking for saltwater fish in a freshwater pond? If I were looking for middle-of-the-road rockefeller republicans I wouldn’t go to a meeting of welfare moms.
IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...
That’s a BIG if. It’s also a false dilemma, especially during the primary season.
Since you’re so focused on this false dilemma, I would expect you to answer this false dilemma.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he splits the base, possibly splits the republican party, and loses the election.
Rudy followers’ contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer the rudy followers’ hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Regardless of who wins or loses, Free Republic and the republican party is better off with Duncan Hunter than Rudy as the candidate. This social liberal candidate is simply not healthy for the republican party nor for FR. And rudy followers are proving to be very impolite freepers.