Posted on 06/03/2011 9:46:39 AM PDT by Hawk720
Gov. Haley Barbour issued a warning to social conservatives in choosing their Republican nominee for 2012: “Purity is the enemy of victory.”
“Remember purity in politics, purity is the enemy of victory,” Barbour said. “We can’t start out with the idea out as the Faith & Freedom Coalition that our candidate’s got to agree with me on every single thing. We cannot expect our candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity. Winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing.”
“Conservatives, religious people, small government people, we are not going to have purity. We’re not going to have a perfect candidate,” Barbour said. “There’s only been one perfect person that ever walked on this earth. And there ain’t gonna be another one in this election.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
This is why I have been saying for months now that we need to forget about the whitehouse and focus on packing the senate full of true conservatives. We aren’t going to get the victory we seek through the whitehouse, not in a race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. No matter how such a contest pans out, conservatives lose. With the senate controlled by honest conservatives however, we can make sunshine out of any outcome.
It is this simple Republitards:
stand for what is morally, ethically and fiscally sound, truthful and consistent with our Constitution
Do that, and you will be the antithesis of the Democratic Party, not the product of a purity test. Simply repeating the term “purity test” in public makes you a tool and ally of the Marxist-socialist Democrats. And finally, the reason Republicans have been losing is BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABANDONED YOUR TIME TESTED PRINCIPLES!! And you guys keep calling wanting me to give money to the Republican Party . . . BITE MY A$$!!
And just what's wrong with that? We are talking primaries after all, and why shouldn't I vote for the one candidate who best fits my values? And it the elites don't like it, that's tough, IMO.
Unfortunately for your point, Mr. Reagan agreed with Barbour: “My 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy.”
The fact is that the FR echo chamber is evidence to the truth of Barbour's assertion about "purity" requirements among conservatives.
I totally agree. The republican party needs to stick to it’s platform and stop being the G.O.P. (Going On Progressive) party.
The TEA party will have to do if the GOP nominates another big-government establishmentarian.
Right! That’s the only way to look at it. :)
I have not read anywhere in the Constitution where “anti-purity” is a requirement to hold public office. Nor is being pure a requirement. But I will take a true believer over a middle of the road believer any day. I find it ironic that the one main quality that many of our founding fathers possessed, a belief in God, is now considered passe or weak.
Look, if you’re not willing to fight for life and liberty, you are no FReeper!! You can surrender yours somewhere else!!
We do seem ... blessed ... in that area.
We shouldn’t look for “purity” in a candidate because the compromisers and moderates of the ‘Pubbie party have done sooooooo well running the country.
“Perfect” may be the enemy of “good enough,” but most ‘Pubbie candidates are a d@mn sight short of “good enough.”
What's wrong with it, is that too many of us try to judge a candidate through the lens of a few litmus-test issues, and we demand conformance on them; when in fact we should be trying to find a person whose overall values provide a best fit to the solution of myriad issues, most of which have little to do with our litmus test values.
As a result, we end up with several candidates who are attractive on certain issues, and poor candidates overall. We end up having a very poor selection. If you look at McCain's campaign, he quite ably took advantage of that dynamic: his strategy was just to stay in long enough so that he could be the last guy standing.
I blame the GOP for this, as much as I blame the primary voters; a serious national party would be out there recruiting a set of good, general-purpose candidates. But that requires a kind of foresight and dedication that the GOP lacks.
And here's how it turns out: Suppose Ronald Reagan was running for president today. Let's apply a few of the litmus test issues that I have actually seen FReepers apply to discount a potential candidate.
Reagan was a former Democrat (used against Rick Perry)Reagan was a former pro-abort who actually signed the Therapeutic Abortion law in California.
Reagan endorsed Truman for president and campaigned for him. (Used against anybody except Palin who supported McCain)
Reagan was soft on homosexuality: he joined Harvey Milk in opposing Proposition 6 (a 1978 California initiative that would have made it "legal for teachers to be fired if it were known they were gay or lesbian. A teacher could also be fired for publicly supporting homosexuality." (source) )
And if we cheat a little bit and look at his record as president ... signed the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 which granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
Presided over a huge increase in federal spending and deficits.
The man was a RINO!!!!
zot
TWB
LLS
They want a MODERATE up there at the top. That's where the "old money" is going. Risk free; easy victory they imagine; but they want one of their own in there so the coupon clipping can continue.
I think we need to purge Prebius NOW, and not later.
Even though we are the majority block in the republican party, since 1988 we have been asked to compromise by the liberals in the party and for the most part we have held out nose and voted for the liberals they put forth. Although without Palin in 08 I was third party bound along with a lot of other conservatives I know.
Haley how shall I put this: enough, you compromise or get ready to lose your party and country.
Ironic that Barbour sends out this message on the very day that Romney states his belief in anthropogenic global warming.
Warning against demanding purity in politics is the same as encouraging us all to reward mediocrity, as we did in 2008 with whatshisname the loser.
And if McCain was a mediocrity, what are we to make of Romney, who lost to the loser?
We do have several factions. In America all major parties are made up of factions. That's the way it always has been, but we need not discuss that now.
BTW, my definition of RINO ordinarily requires that a candidate have run for office before as a Democrat ~ which Perry did ~ and he won. Ronald Reagan had not earlier run as a Democrat. He ran only as a Republican, and did so several times.
Technically, Reagan was not a RINO. Strom Thurmond was a RINO.
RINOism has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology ~ it has to do with partisan political affiliations!
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.