Posted on 01/17/2002 8:04:06 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A right-left split is straining the Republican big tent as the party's national committee prepares to meet in Texas this week.
Committee sources said that party officials have been maneuvering to keep ideological tensions from erupting into a public dispute in Austin.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Well it is clear that the time for you to be rational is long past, in any case.
The elimination of abortion is not the top priority of the Republican Party. Some, perhaps including you, think it should be. But it's not.
Why? Because there is precious little we can legally do to eliminate it. We can nibble around the edges, but until it's not deemed constitutionally protected, we can't stop it.
The Republicans have a vision for America that isn't limited to that single issue. We have economic issues and foreign policy issues. We have other social issues, including education, race relations, and social services. Energy is a top priority.
You can't affect any of those significantly unless you control Congress and/or the White House.
The truth is that we can't hope to be in the majority if our focus is primarily on abortion and we exclude those who draw the line differently than we do.
The country is divided on that. The Republicans themselves are divided on that. We need a coalition of people who agree on a broad range of issues that define conservatism. That means that we're allies with folks that disagree with us on some important issues.
The alternative is to form a party that agrees on every single important issue. That inevitably becomes a splinter group, and they always manage to come in last, in single digits. That's the reality.
Unless the party rules have been changed, Schundler's choice for GOP chairman will run the party apparatus for the next 4 years.
It is better than electing Daschecrats with BAD intentions, as you propose.
I think that the 100th member of the Senate was James Buckley (C) - NY.
I'll tell you what, if we have a GOP president, 435 GOP House members, and 100 GOP Senators, and nothing gets through, I'll agree with you. Until then, I will disagree.
Please list the last 5 pro-life Democrats to win 45% of the vote or more against a pro-choice Republican. That number is 0 isn't it. I have never voted for a pro-choice Republican, as far as I know, in the 38 years since my first vote (for Goldwater). Sounds like you will not be voting for many folks who will be elected, so you will have no one in office who will pay you any mind.
Cite examples, please.
Republicans for Choice is funded by arms of the Democrat party.
Finally we agree (see my homepage).
What Lenin's excuse for anything is not my concern.
We have a Declaration of Indendence that rfers to certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And in the Preamble to our Constitution, we reference adopting the Constitution not only for ourselves but our posterity.
Somewhere along the line before I graduated from high school, I got the idea that the Republican Party represented conservative ideals and principles. It wasn't from the Democrat home I was raised in, I'm sure.
And when one looks at the party platform, you find that they (used to) stand for a great many ideals; today you find they stand for nothing--jut a bunch of gibberish feel good words that would actually fit nicely with the Democrats mostly....beyond the plank about pro life which is due to Dr. Keyes and his people being willing to tear the convention apart should Bush try to get it deleted.
You know what, I'm willing to stand up and say, "If you are not pro-life, you can't be with the Republican party". I'm not afraid to stand up and say what I believe in. Its just too damn bad very few others will either.....they just keep backing up and re-drawing their 'line in the sand'.
You mention 'converting heretics'....how does the GOP propose to do that--by 'osmosis', or mental telepathy? Geeze, we got a damn president that thinks so much of the unborn he doesn't have a problem using embryonic tissue!! Is that how you convert heretics--say one thing and pray they do the other?
Your brining up Lenin doesn't bother me in the least, and I doubt if the original poster would take offense---as I see it, I guess one could use that famous old "clock" phrase!
Regards
Sorry Rowdee, it is the issue. Politics is the art of the possible. The impossible is for teaching, and preaching. Politics is not everything, to try to make it something it is not is to try to 'immanentize the eschaton'.
Agreed, although I will require the unknown to demonstrate they are 'Souter-like', before I finally decide.
Will you remember your words years from now when the next abortion case arrives & the Bush appointee is forced to show his cards? Let's hope Bush doesn't appoint any question marks to the Supreme Court.
Actually that is the way politics works, for those able to get away with it. At least we are not using the techniques of my screen name (not yet, anyway)
..." What makes you think that the public would have changed its mind?"...what makes you think they wouldn't have....again, how many people--not pundits--do you hear bragging they voted for the Pervert? Of course there are no guarantees.....but it would have shown that Republicans were willing to stand for something!
I don't give a flying monkey's leap whether a Democrat voted for anything! Had a real trial taken place, the lock-steppers would have been exposed for the hypocritical bastards they are! But as it is, we see the law for the kids on the street and we see the different laws for the elitists!
Believe me, I'd rather see them spend 23 months with trials as to pass their damnable legislation!! Naw....you're right....it isn't important for kids to see that justice is to be used for the powerful as well as the non-powerful; that there are minimum standards will be met.
The ironic thing in my book is that the Republicans were shown to be as corrupt as the Democrats......they worried about Clinton breaking an oath to a court, and those sonsabeaches, every single stinking smelly one of them, did the exact same thing!!
Going to have to disagree with you on this one too, Rowdee. When attending the Goldwater convention in 1964 I read the national GOP platform. While there were good statements, most of it was a laundry list of promises to special interests, generally regional economic interests. Others told me it had been that way at least since the start of the 20th century (no one admitted being politically active in the 19th century). If the current platform means nothing, why do the pro-choicers keep trying to change it.
To your first point, definitely yes, it would not be the first time I voted against reelecting a president Bush. To your second point I agree, with guarded confidence.
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.