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 ...
You say: Can I assume from this you are pro-abort?
My choice of words for this is harsher than yours, yet you assume I'm pro-infanticide simply because I disagree with you on whether pro-infanticide Republicans should be thrown out of the party?
No wonder you don't see your own hypocrisy, you can't even distinguish your allies from your opponents.
That's why I made up my mind before the last election, that I will never again sell out my principles or my vote to any party that will not openly and readily defend human life.
Respect for Human Life and Human Rights is primary. The lives of millions of pregnant unwed mothers and their children are a great risk.
NONE DARE RISK MURDER.
The pope has repeatedly warned us: "A Nation that kills its children is a nation without Hope."
John Paul II, I will follow you.
1. Democrats ALWAYS get the same turnout
2. The Republican vote VARIES GREATLY based on the turnout of conservative base voters
Democrats have gotten virtually identical turnouts in each of the last five presidential elections. The following chart dramatically illustrates this startling fact:
| 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 | |
| Voting age population in millions | 157.6 | 172.8 | 180.7 | 185.6 | 194.8 |
| Democrat votes in millions | 35.5 | 37.5 | 41.8 | 44.8 | 45.6 |
| Percent of Democrat votes | 23% | 22% | 23% | 24% | 23% |
It is the Republican message -- and its effect on the conservative base -- that determines Republican success in presidential elections.
The fundamental reason for the victories of Ronald Reagan (1980 and 1984) and George H.W. Bush (1988) is that they ran on a solid conservative agenda that was easily understood, and believed, by conservative base voters.
Both President Bush (1992) and Bob Dole (1996) lost because their campaigns lacked conservative credibility, resulting in fewer Republican votes as the conservative base abandoned them by either staying home or registering a protest vote for Ross Perot.
Rove said that one reason the 2000 election was so tight was that as many as 4 million Christian conservatives did not go to the polls, reported "The Chicago Tribune." Although the Bush campaign had expected 19 million evangelical voters to vote for their man, election returns revealed only 15 million turned out to cast ballots.
Republicans must present an easily-understood, credible conservative agenda. When we do, we win; when we do not, we lose. I am sorry but Christian conservatives still have strong influence in politics whether you like it or not.
As to the Bushbots, I don't know what to tell you. They've had so many warnings that DUH-bya is not what they think he is, yet the true-believers just keep on believing no matter what.
"Just wait'll next year" -- the motto of losers everywhere.
Bush has been b*tch-slapping conservatives ever since he got elected. More proof that the old GOP is dead, long live the
NEW! Deal Tax and Spend GOP.
And all you anti-abortion folks,I’m pro-life, but I’ll respond anyway.
don't bother to flame me -- I stated facts -- don't like them myself, but it is the fact. If one-issue folks sit on their hands and don't vote for Republicans, then you can kiss goodbye any chance of getting even partial birth abortion banned and any anti-abortion Supreme Court nominee of President Bush will not get approved by the Senate!And one more fact for you. You are correct that if we abandon the Republicans we won’t get abortion banned. Equally true is that if the Republicans abandon us they won’t get any of their goals enacted. It is a two way street. When you leave us you have no right to expect us to stay. Guys like this do not support our candidates. He can raise all the money he likes, but what good does that do a pro-lifer if all the money goes to pro-abort republicans?
No one has answered my question regarding if he will have influence over where the money he raises goes. I guess that makes the obvious even more clear. He does, and that speaks volumes. If we need money to get pro-lifers elected, but this guy has his way, how does that help us?
patent +AMDG
Bullshit! Roe v Wade didn't change hearts; it changed law. The bastards legislated from the bench and rended our Constitution like Christ's death tore the curtain in the Temple. To say otherwise is to admit your ignorance or your cowardice.
Every single poll has shown Americans don't want abortion used as birth control and they support LIMITS on abortion. There is no reason we can't ge started today. Pro-abort politicians from any party are liars, cowards and killers.
Agreed. What's a few million murdered children among friends, after all? I mean, how does that really compare to the joy of being able to shout "We won! We won!" and "GOP!" at the watch party?
And "allies" and "enemies" are subjective headings. By appointing the leader of the GOP movement to remove the pro-life plank to chief fundraiser position of the GOP, the GOP appears to be willing to jettison the pro-life plank for votes and donations.
Thus allies become enemies on the shifting sands of situational ethics in the GOP.
Pity the kicker remains that it's the Stupid Party -- at present, invincible in its ignorance -- that perpetrates the Real and Present Evil.
For example: I, for one, find the far more egregious act is outfitting the likes of Clinton with a federal police force and then stepping up -- on Nov. 8, 2000, under cover of "election crisis" -- to then excuse his actions at Waco as "by the book".
Appointed conservative judges, strict-constructionist judges, pro-life judges. These appointees are working their way up the judicial system, several now in place to be tapped for the Supreme Court. Its like a farm system in baseball. Plus several Supreme Court appointees(OK, Souter and O'Connor didn't work out on abortion, but at least she intends to stick around until Bush can appoint a conservative replacement).
Attempting to gain greater control of the House and Senate, so as to be able to pass more laws restricting aspects of abortion(since they cannot yet simply pass a law banning it).
Most importantly, attempting to sway public opinion over time. You need public opinion to pass a Constitutional amendment, to keep in office a conservative legislature that would restrict aspects of abortion, to keep a conservative administration in office that will enforce Pro-Life policies.
And we are winning the battle for public opinion, polls show that an increasing percentage of the public is against abortions. But the doom and gloom R2L crybabies always forget that, because it is a slower process than we would like, it isn't everything accomplished now.
So given the above gains we are making by voting GOP(and more that I could not think of off the top of my head), once again, please show me how staying home and allowing Democrats to be elected will do ANY of the above, much less overturn RVW? No, all it does it solidify RVW, by packing the Supremes with baby killers. If that happens, why then would the blood of those babies not be on your hands?
This guy, if finally selected, will have a big effect on the RNC. He will have control of the pursestrings. He will be at the meetings where they decide who will be supported and who won't. AND knowing his Bill Clinton-like past, the people at the meeting are going to be wondering the whole time whether he is currently fooling around. Eisenberg can only be a distraction, no matter what.
The GOP has shown by its actions that it has been neutral on abortion for at least 10 years now. What they're moving to is a pro-abortion position as they fill more and more leadership slots with pro-aborts.
The Libertarian Party may well be more prolife than Bush!
What has this President and his Party done to begin changing hearts in the last year?
There is no shame in forthrightly presenting the case for respect of the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. He doesn't even have to argue the case for Respect for Human Life on religious grounds. Pat Buchanan has just revealed in his new book the consequences of the liberal Death wish --the destruction of The Cradle of Western Civilization built on Judeo-Christian law and principles.
Science clearly defines when human life begins even though the Culture of Death people are busy finding new aphorisms and Orwellian NEWSPEAK to convince the public that they should have a "Choice" in redefining the beginning of life to justify the murder of our tinest little brothers and sister and convincing our grandparents and mothers and fathers that their DIGNITY depends on "choosing" the way and day of their own deaths.
They have to do this because the younger generations do not have the numbers to support a huge, rapidly aging population.
The Respect for all Human Life argument is not being presented to the public from the bully pulpit nor in the halls of Congress or our state legislatures. Some campaign consultants and pollsters call the Right to Life a "second tier" issue in direction opposition to our Founders' Declaration of Independence.
Tell me that, and then I can show you why we gotta lay the groundwork the way Bush is doing it. We have a good consensus on this, but people just don't VOTE that way.
Within 6 years the GOP WILL jettison its pro-life plank.
What then?
Pro-life is the core of social conservatism.
Without it real Christians have NO PARTY. Period.
Where will you social conservative real Christians go WHEN (not if) the GOP jettisons the pro-life plank?
And by the way, the GOP will cease to exist as a viable party once it does go neutral on abortion.
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.