Posted on 08/31/2010 4:17:24 PM PDT by wagglebee
There is already a movement dedicated to and focused upon ending abortion in this country....it's called the PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.
I couldn't agree with you more strongly. The Tea Party Movement isn't a populist movement for change generally as the author asserts. It's been specifically focused on fiscal issues from day one.
There is already a movement which addresses the Life issue, it's called the PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT. The TEA PARTY MOVEMENT doesn't need further attempts to hi-jack it.
Much agreed. Great post. : )
Looks to me like there are definite signs on this thread that there are Republicans who want the Tea Party to be pretty much what the GOP is.
MSM credits Joe Miller’s AK GOP primary win to pro-life vote
The Msinstream Media is giving the pro-life community some credit in the victory of Joe Miller.
One reason is the Parental Consent law on the ballot at the same time of the primary.
Many pro-life voters, according to the article, voted for Joe Miller since they were going to the polls about the Parental Consent Law.
How much of a factor this was is unclear.
The TEA Party movement should get the lion's share of credit, in my opinion.
Let me start by saying I'm not questioning your integrity in any way. I'm a social conservative also. I'm staunchly pro-life and have written extensively on that topic here on Free Republic in years past. I was one of the few defenders of keeping the embryonic stem cell research ban in place back in the summer of 2001 and wrote many passionate articles defending it even though I might've directly benefitted from the results. (I'm one of those people with a spinal cord injury who proponents of HESCR claimed the research would help.) I believe in protecting human life at all stages from conception through natural death. I don't say these things to 'brag', I just want to establish my credentials with you so we can have this discussion.
Now, the Tea Party movement is one of fiscal and governmental power restraint. That is its narrow focus and I believe strongly in it. There are other movements that deal with protecting the dignity and sanctity of human life, and I believe strongly in those movements.
What I object to is one movement trying to hijack another by saying "in order for you to be successful, you need to do as we say!" The 'three legged stool' talked about in the article we're discussing does not have to be the pro-life movement hijacking the Tea Party movement. It can be the "coalition" you speak of by maintaining narrow, focused efforts which each movement excels at, not by 'hijacking' one movement and blurring the lines between efforts which is precisely what will happen if the pro-life movement 'hijacks' the Tea Party movement.
That is the 'three legged stool' Reagan built his coalition on ... individual focused efforts addressing the issues each organization excels at doing, with the strong merits of each standing on their own, united by the Republican principle of limited government power.
Now back to Glenn Beck: I do not believe based on what I saw that he was trying to "unify" the various factions of Conservatism. That's like herding cats, Conservatives often disagree on the details while agreeing on the larger principle. This is where I'd like us to focus, and if we do so, we can be successful together as the 'three legged stool' united by the principle of smaller, limited federal government power.
Respectfully,
USC
Oh, please. No one is asking you or anyone else “to put abortion on the shelf.”
I agree that abortion is murder. However, it is a fallacy to suggest that the resolution of a social issue like abortion will somehow change the scope of what is happening with our country and our government.
The author of the article started out by coming down on Palin for not including the right to life issue as one of the top five problems facing America. When you are speaking of the survival of our country as a free, powerful, enduring nation, that particular issue has absolutely nothing to do with it. Palin was right to not include it.
Actually, it seems that some want the Tea Party to be what the GOP is MINUS any pretense of social conservatism.
Subsidizing the masses is not fiscally conservative. Secondly, they became militarily weak because they could not afford everything they had promised, such as paying to subsidize the masses *AND* maintain their military. Again, that isn't fiscally conservative, either.
Rome was fiscally conservative (in that they effectively lived withing their means) for hundreds of years longer than the United States. They managed to be "fiscally conservative" only because they were a tyranny. If they did not have the Roman Army at the ready to collect taxes and tributes, they would have collapsed hundreds of years before they did.
They did not live within their means. Most of their invasions were not just for the territory, but to seize the treasury of that nation. So Rome, in essence, survived by spending other people's (nation's, in this case) money. Again, not fiscally conservative.
Um, ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
No fiscal conservative would say that. The problem is that social conservatives, like the author of the article we're all commenting about, demand that we give up fighting for limited government to support socially conservative causes.
And that is just as asinine as the opposite.
Where exactly does the author say that?
Have you actually read what the author wrote or are you just spouting some libertarian talking point?
Here is what the author wrote and in no way does he demand or even suggest that anyone give up the fight for limited government (any added emphasis is mine):
We should learn something from the old-fashioned milking stool. There are three legs to a successful agenda that will change America for the better. Each leg is critical and the current grassroots movement for change in America will collapse if any of these legs is ignored. These legs are:1) Revival of the Economy: This leg requires the establishment a strong robust economy that creates full employment and does not burden small businesses with taxes and oppressive regulations that hinder job development. Limited government and reduced taxation are at the core and are necessary to bring the nation out of the serious economic recession/depression in which we find ourselves.
2) Maintaining a Strong National Defense and Protecting Homeland Security: This leg requires a serious commitment by the government to win the war on terror and protect our country’s border from those who would illegally enter and do us harm.
3) Protecting the Family Unit and Restoring the Right to Life for All: The social issues – protecting the sanctity of marriage and restoring the right to life – are issues of equal importance. Millions of Americans, including myself, have placed these issues at the top of the priority list for the next generation of political leaders to seriously address.
You know, I can't help but notice that the libertarian crowd that is so intent on keeping social conservatives out of the Tea Party doesn't really seem to care about a strong national defense either. Fiscal conservatism, by itself, isn't really conservatism at all AND it will always fail.
The tea party IS the American people and at this point, I believe they will continue to make their voices heard and come out in November whether there is an organized tea party movement or not.
By that definition, no government in history has ever been "fiscally conservative".
Dear Jim Rob,
Your forum, FreeRepublic, is socially conservative. In fact, its the political hub of social conservatism online.
Do you promote giving up fighting for limited government to support socially conservative causes? Do most posters here promote giving up fighting for limited government to support socially conservative causes?
Is it possible that all these posters on this thread making this assertion are just bald faced liars who want to jettison social conservatives from the conservative movement?
I think I’ve identified your problem. You need to look up the definition of “include.” It does not mean “set aside” or “be set aside by.” So when we say “Successful Tea Party Movement Must Include Pro-Life Issues” it doesn’t mean what you think.
The Constitution consists of more than just your favorite part. Let me guess, the 2nd Amendment? How well would our nation function with a Constitution that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, but sacrifices everything else our current Constitution recognizes? The same principle applies to conservatism. You can’t pluck one of its elements out and call that the entire package.
These threads make it more and more obvious that when some say “limited government” they are really advocating an anarchist position of no government.
You mean we need more than just the 2nd Amendment? Who’d of thunk?
Ahem, it's the other way around. It's the LEFTIST/LIBERAL/LIBERTINE/LIBERTARIAN social issues that need and require huge government to enforce them and clean up after them and take care of the human debris that inevitably is created.
I and most others who call themselves social or actually Constitutional conservatives want the fedgov to do only what the Constitutional allows it to do, which is about 10 to 20% (or maybe even less) of what it presently does.
Prove with facts your above statment. PS - I bet you can't.
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.