Posted on 12/29/2013 7:06:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Well, in all honesty, I doubt that the GOP’s candidates since 1988 have been of “exactly the mold which Neil recommends.” He obviously doesn’t like the focus on social issues, but I doubt that means he wants candidates that are not conservative about anything, and that is what the GOP has seemed interested in for some time now.
One of the prerequisites for having Smaller Government is for the populace to be socially conservative.
If you destroy the family, government will fill the void.
There’s KIND of a point here. They need to be more go and less show, in some cases. The social conservatives that are actually personally sincere are far less of an obstacle than those who talk social conservative guff and meanwhile live like hell. That’s why Ronald Reagan was so special, and why Sarah Palin was. These folks outclassed 99% of their colleagues. (Poor John McCain, he was a shell.)
Hypocrisy, thy name is human, not just Democrat. Jettison the pride, take up the love (of the Lord, and then to share that love around) and you will succeed greatly.
boortz is a moral-less slime bucket and justifies any coarse behavior with the "I'm a libertarian" meme.
It takes someone of character to recognize truth when it is uttered by a fool.
It’s a trial balloon. Hannity wants to know if he can go down this route, but wants plausible deniability if it backfires.
Boortz loved to spew his pro-abortionism on the radio, all the while saying, “And I’m not going to take any calls from you anti-abortion people.”
Anybody who thinks this country can survive while killing millions of babies is dreaming.
It’s folly.
At the same time, even fools can learn wisdom from those who display the wisdom, and its fruits, in how they live. Could it be unfair stereotyping on Boortz’ part based on avowed social conservatives that are hollow?
neils boortz social libertarian brand has prevented a republican majority
Neil may be an idiot, but he absolutely NAILED the last election when almost nobody on our side was even close to right.
it’s not social conservatism that this nation needs, it is a Bible based shaved your head and cover yourselves in sackcloth and ashes revival that will save this country
we are doomed without that
I heard a brief moment of this show and did not know who was subbing. I changed channels pretty darned quickly. Now I know who this @%&! was.
They’ll keep the House, but they’re not going to get the Senate and I’ll tell you why – because they simply cannot resist the urge, the impulse to get into this social conservatism.” – Neal Boortz
Filling in for Sean Hannity earlier this week, Neal Boortz suggested that Republicans will be unable to take the House in 2014, and that the reason will be social conservatives and cultural issues.
Duh
> (Poor John McCain, he was a shell.)
FYI, You misspelled ‘shill’ here.
;)
Well yes, being a shell enables someone to be a shill. It’s the core that counts.
Off topic, but for those that may be interested in this great interview—it will keep you in your seat; read FreeRepublic while listening to this interview of Jim Garrow by Dave Hodges on republicbroadcasting:
The Dave Hodges show on tonight IS a rerun of the one on December 22nd that was so fantastic—
http://republicbroadcasting.org/
I heard Boortz on this show and was again reminded why I detest morality free libertarians.
Senator Jesse Helms used to say: When you show me an unborn baby who has committed first-degree murder or some other capital crime, I will consider abortion for that baby.
The answer to the rape gotcha is simple: “What crime has the baby committed?”
Our target seats are in conservative states. Embracing faggotry isn’t gonna help to beat Mary Landrieu.
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.