GOP to Pro-lifers: 'Thanks for Your Votes, Now Get Lost!'

Republican leaders are jabbing a thumb in the eyes of pro-lifers whose votes were largely responsible for the GOP victory in the November 5, elections, an angry Ken Connor charges.

Connor, president of the Family Research Council, ripped into the Republican congressional leadership for not standing firmly against the bankruptcy bill which contains Sen. Chuck Schumer's hostile pro-abortion amendment.

"The GOP is saying to pro-lifers, 'Thanks for your votes, now get lost!'" Connor said.

"Instead of rewarding pro-life Americans for giving their votes overwhelmingly to Republican candidates in last week's election, the GOP leadership is jabbing a thumb in their eye barely a week after the election at the behest of the well-heeled business wing of the party.

"Pro-lifers are asking themselves why they bothered when the GOP appears intent on sticking them with a gratuitous anti-life law that would expose peaceful anti-abortion protestors to financial ruin," Connor continued.

"Meanwhile, as GOP leaders ram through the Schumer amendment, pro-lifers are being told there is not enough time in the lame duck session to get a Senate vote on the bill banning partial-birth abortion the House passed last July.

According to Connor, The Schumer amendment "effectively says, 'If you are a pro-life protester and you wind up with a money judgment against you for engaging in what we regard as constitutionally protected speech and activity, you are not going to be able to discharge that debt in bankruptcy,'

"The effect of that is to create a disfavored class for purposes of punishing politically incorrect speech, because the only group that is being singled out for this kind of treatment is pro-life protestors.

"It's imperative that the GOP leadership put the same muscle behind the partial-birth abortion ban as they appear to be giving to the bankruptcy bill."

Once again, the GOP leadership is proving that they simply don't know who their real friends are.

I doubt that I would accept your definition of "conservative"

Well, then how do you define conservative if not limited government and defending the Constitution?

and deny that the GOP turns its back on conservatives. If that were true why does the RATmedia get hysterical at the prospect of GOP control.

Instead of moving towards restoring Constitutionally-limited government, tehir main prioity is to create a new entitlement program for seniors. To me, that is turning their back on conservatives.

A "conservative" who cannot get elected is of no use to me or the GOP. MOst are simple cranks or one-note sambas not viable political leaders.

Clearly, you're not paying attention. Read teh platforms of conservative organizations and third parties. They cover a wide range of issues from a perspective of principles -- the principle of limited, Constitutional government, whcih is what I thought conservatives were supposed to be trying to conserve.

It is clear that W. is the most conservative electable president

If so, that is sad. But the country seems to be moving right, so maybe the next President will be somewhat more conservative -- if conservatives fight for our principles and stop blindly supporting liberals if they put Rs after their names.

yet that didn't stop the true "conservatives" around here from attacking him as a "socialist", "liberal" and many other brainless pregoratives.

First of all, it's "pejoratives." Don't you words you don't know in an effort to impress people.

Conservatives here and elsewhere have made POLICY criticisma of Bush. On numerous issues, he has not only not taken a conservative position, he has advanced the liberal position. There obviously will be compromises in politics, but as I said, the Republicans -- who are supposed to be "our" party -- should be trying to move the ball in our direction. Instead, they can't wait to hadn out more of my money to the elderly and to set up a new Cabinet department. Does that sound conservative to you? If not, why shouldn't conservatives criticize these things?

Government grows because that is what the people want. When the people are convinced that it shouldn't then it won't.

So if the people want socialism, we should just give it to them? Never mind what the Constitution says, right?

Did you look at the election returns? The people are voting Republican, expecting that it's the right-of-center party. The people are moving right, yet the Republicans want to increase government power, cost, and intrusiveness even more.

Shrinking government will never come from those screeching in the corner for all or nothing.

You obviously haven't read my previous comments or those of the people who express reservations about the Republicans. No one is demanding that they give "all or nothing." But some progress back in our direction would be useful. And it would solidify and increase Republican support. It would be good policy and good politics. Yet the GOP won't do that.

It can only happen when the people are determined to cut it off at the source- taxes.

Taxes are important, and I have long said that I'm for any tax cut for anybody at any time, including the Democrats' proposal to cut the payroll tax. I'm also for ending the income tax, and as a way station on the way to doing so, for ending withholding. But taxes are not the only issue. Spending is the issue, and even when Republicans cut our taxes (which is good), they increase non-defense spending. That isn't conservative.

And it will not be a 180 degree turn but slowly.

I agree with that. However, as I have said before, you have to start turning the car around and moving in our direction. Instead, the Republicans continue driving off the cliff, albeit more slowly than the Dimmycraps. And they betray us on social issues, too. So why do conservatives give them such automatic support?

Anyone who is a Republican is not necessarily a conservative. Why not support a conservative alternative when the Republicans act like Democrats Lite?

My idea of a conservative in America is one who abides by the beliefs of Washington and Hamilton and rejects the idiocy of Jefferson and the later Madison. A conservative understands that Liberty can only be protected by a strong government able to protect the nation. Many of those who call themselves "conservatives" don't understand the constitution or American history and believe that we were once freer than today. That is sheer mythology unless one is speaking of the frontier where there was no civilization and even there Indians, blacks and women had few if any rights.

You ignored the question of why the RATmedia is so hostile to the GOP if it is merely RAT lite. Obviously it is not and that is why it is hated by the liberals so much. When republicans act like liberals they lose my vote next time.

Read Hamilton's paper on the constitutionality of the National Bank before you try and discuss "limited" government. What I suspect is that you want impotent government like Jefferson.

Drugs for Old farts may not be my highest concern but it is not unconstitutional.

Encounters with Third Party candidates and thought is a waste of my time. Most are whackjobs without a prayer of election, eccentrics or ideologues.

There is no doubt that W. was and is the most conservative electable candidate. Who else was there? It is not sad particularly when you understand that most conservatives are utterly incapable of packaging themselves and their beliefs in a manner which does not scare the idiots who vote RAT. W. did a masterful job of diminishing the threat posed by conservative views and even that almost didn't work. He is definitely moving the electorate to the right but that doesn't stop the ideologues from attacking him from the right.

First its use not you. Don't use words you don't know in an effort to impress people.

True conservatives who want to protect the nation have no problem with a new department to do just that. MOst of the criticism from the right is just brainless hysteria with no real policy behind it. Because those criticizing never get elected to anything. Such criticism is of no more value than the opinion of a cab driver on economic theory.

Government spending was brought under control by the GOP under Clinton and the deficits ended. That clearly cannot be the case with a War going on.

But that doesn't mean Big Government. Big Government is inherently weak because it is trying to do too many things it's not supposed to be doing and it's not able to do well. And Big Government, as President Reagan noted, is essentially dangerous: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you've got."

Our government takes too much from us to do too much for us. That is a conservative idea. Protecting the nation is one of teh essential functions of government. When it engages in all these transfer programs and regulates all kinds of private conduct, it weakens its ability to perform that essential function properly.

Many of those who call themselves "conservatives" don't understand the constitution or American history and believe that we were once freer than today. That is sheer mythology unless one is speaking of the frontier where there was no civilization and even there Indians, blacks and women had few if any rights.

We were once freer than we are today. That's why G.Gordon Liddy titled his book When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country. People had much more ability to do as they chose (provided it didn't interfere anyone else's rights to do so), to engage in any economic activity that they thought would make money in whatever way they could make it work (again, as limited above), to associate with whomever they chose, etc. Our freedom to do these things is much more constrained today.

You ignored the question of why the RATmedia is so hostile to the GOP if it is merely RAT lite. Obviously it is not and that is why it is hated by the liberals so much.

The media is concerned with protecting their gang from the other gang. The Republicans are way too concerned with trying to make the media be nicer to them. They should just stand for their principles and ignore the media.

When republicans act like liberals they lose my vote next time.

Good. That's exactly what I've been saying. A protest vote occasionally (when Republicans are getting too liberal) helps to keep them more to the right. If the reason they lost an election is because of the Libertarian or the Constitution Party or some other conservative candidacy, then perhaps they'll eventually take the message that they can't take the conservative base for granted and perhaps tehy'll start moving the ball in our direction. But objectively, from the record (actions, not rhetoric), they have mostly been moving it in the other direction.

Read Hamilton's paper on the constitutionality of the National Bank before you try and discuss "limited" government. What I suspect is that you want impotent government like Jefferson.

Too much government is a threat to liberty. I've read Hamilton and I don't agree with him on this point. The Constitution is very specific in its limits on Federal power.

Traditionally, conservative principles have been that government's sphere of action should be limited and that government activity should be carried out, as much as possible, at the lowest possible level, to keep it close to the people, who are the real source of legitimate power. That is the principle underlying the Constitution.

Instead, we're getting new restrictions on civil liberties, new Cabinet departments (without getting rid of any old ones), more spending, more intrusive government, more regulation, and we're getting ignored or betrayed on social issues.

The campaign finance bill, for example, is clearly unconstitutional, yet W signed it.

Drugs for Old farts may not be my highest concern but it is not unconstitutional.

Actually, it is. There is no constitutional authority for such a program, at least at the Federal level. Can you show me the Constitutional provision that permits it?

To quote Madison, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." And he should know; he wrote it.

Encounters with Third Party candidates and thought is a waste of my time. Most are whackjobs without a prayer of election, eccentrics or ideologues.

That's your opinion, and you've said it before. Without somethign of substance, other than mere assertion, to back it up, it is merely name-calling.

Third parties do win occasionally. Ask former Senator Jim Buckley, for one. He won election solely on the Conservative Party ticket. I worked as a volunteer on that campaign. And third parties, if nothing else, keep the Republicans honest. They keep the GOP from straying too far to the left and completely abandoning conservative principles.

As the late Dean Paul L.Adams once said, "You only waste your vote when you vote for something you don't believe in."

There is no doubt that W. was and is the most conservative electable candidate. Who else was there?

Yes, he undoubtedly was. It's our job to make sure that someone more conservative can get elected next time. We do that by moving in the direction of limited government and showing that our principles work, by consistently selling our principles, and by opposing even this Administration when it tries to do things that increase the size, scope, and cost of the Federal government.

It is not sad particularly when you understand that most conservatives are utterly incapable of packaging themselves and their beliefs in a manner which does not scare the idiots who vote RAT.

That's not entirely true. The mainstream media has done a good job of conveying the liberals' demonization of us, but talk radio, FOX News, and other such outlets are changing that. But we have to figure out how to break through the media, as Reagan did. Bush isn't making the kind of effort on this that he should.

W. did a masterful job of diminishing the threat posed by conservative views and even that almost didn't work.

Conservatism is a threat? Are you a disruptor?

He is definitely moving the electorate to the right but that doesn't stop the ideologues from attacking him from the right.

We did get tax cuts, entirely too small and expiring after 10 years, but what else has he done to move the country to the right?

Since taking office, President Bush has proposed $5 billion in new aid for so-called "developing countries," supported tariffs for steel, supported and signed McVain's campaign finance deform act, supported the so-called stimulus package, which was nothing but massive new spending, supported a massive new (unconstitutional) Federal education bill, and it didn't even have vouchers or any school choice provisions but allows the Federal government to pick "good" and "bad" schools, declared support for a Palestinian state, pressured Israel to wimp out in the face of terrorism and criticized its response to terrorist attacks, refused to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama and 13 of the 19 hijackers, is an enemy, apologized to the Red Chinese after they shot down our plane, jumped all over the President of the ROC (Taiwan) for referring to two states across the water, and come out for "ballistic fingerprinting." His record as governor of Texas is mixed, at best. He attacked conservatives during his campaign.

True conservatives who want to protect the nation have no problem with a new department to do just that.

I have no problem with consolidating our national security functions under one umbrella, although the phrase "Homeland Security" makes me very uncomfortable. However, is it necessary to create a whole new department to do so, rather than consolidate them under an existing department? And why aren't we trying to make room for this by getting rid of some of the existing domestic departments so that the overall power of the government doesn't increase?

Most of the criticism from the right is just brainless hysteria with no real policy behind it. Because those criticizing never get elected to anything. Such criticism is of no more value than the opinion of a cab driver on economic theory.

There are concrete, coherent policies behind it. They are the policies the conservative movement has championed from its inception. As Barry Goldwater said, before determining whether a program is necessary, we must first determine whether it is constitutional. While we cannot restore constitutional government overnight and therefore may need to move incrementally (as the liberals do), we must move in that direction.

Government spending was brought under control by the GOP under Clinton and the deficits ended.

To some extent, true. Yet it still went up significantly. What the Republicans accomplished is to put some limits on the increase, which is good as far as it goes, but government still increased.

That clearly cannot be the case with a War going on.

Sure it can. While we need to increase defense spending and spending to secure our borders, we also need to reduce the domestic involvement of our government in our lives. We could at least try to abolish some departments such as Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Education, and others that do things that are prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution.

I don't believe you have read Hamilton's opinion on the constitutionality of the National Bank since your opinions express the false view that any constitutional act must be specificly traceable in the constitution. Hamilton's essay was directed at refuting this view and it did in such a devastating fashion that Jefferson's contrary argument was annihilated and Washington signed the bill. At the CC the proposal to put "explicitly" in before "enumerated powers" was rejected. This left great powers in the federal government undefined and all the founders accepted that as proper.

American government has grown almost totally because of the threat of warfare. Before the Civil War the government was insignificant in size and power. After the attempt by the Traitors to destroy the Union it grew but not tremendously.
Only after two more world wars had it reached any significant size. The external threat after WWII kept it larger than before.

Given that there are major external threats of a nature unconsidered by the founders and that life is much different than when households were 20 miles apart we will have a government much bigger than that generally acceptable to the far Right. There is no way to go back to simpler times.

Liddy's book's title is mere rhetoric and has little bearing on what was reality. It is not true that people had fewer rights impinged upon by money making activities. It is true that they could not do anything about it when comibinations of wealth and power decided to do what ever they wanted. It is just that fact that led to bigger government as people demanded governmental protection in areas where their rights were violated. When companies polluted the ground water and peoples' wells they could do nothing but move or die. Laws to prevent such things were demanded and enacted - to protect rights.

The RATmedia hates the GOP because it is too conservative.

The New York Conservative Party has had no significant influence since Buckley's victory and only by allying with the GOP could he have had any. Libertarians are not to the right of the GOP just the opposite.

LIke it or not the "General Welfare" clause gives the feds immense undefined (purposely) powers. Many things you or I may not like are easily justified under that clause. However, I am not willing to pretend that this clause has no real meaning like those who are opposed to its operations. Congress is clearly given the power to regulate federal elections and if the limits on contributions enacted earlier are constitutional (as the Court said) then I don't see how the recent CFR law is not.

Yes, obviously conservativism is portrayed by the RATmedia as a threat. This is why it has been reduced in power.

Most of your other comments are mere rhetoric without much weight and I don't have the time or willingness to deal with all the misrepresentation, half-truths and falsehoods therein.

This is the view of the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, and many others. You assume that if one reads Hamilton's opinion, one must automatically agree. Not necessarily.

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government. While it needed to be increased and strengthened over what was in the Articles of Confederation, the Founders were very afraid of the kind of tyranny they had thrown off. They clearly intended to limit Federal power.

The Tenth Amendment makes this extremely clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is reinforced by Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

American government has grown almost totally because of the threat of warfare.

While wars have been major contributors to the growth of government, this is not really historically accurate. The government has grown in this past century cnsistently without regard to war or peace.

Only after two more world wars had it reached any significant size. The external threat after WWII kept it larger than before.

Given that there are major external threats of a nature unconsidered by the founders and that life is much different than when households were 20 miles apart we will have a government much bigger than that generally acceptable to the far Right. There is no way to go back to simpler times.

This comes dangerously close to the doctrine of the "living Constitution." The Constitution is the rulebook for the country. When you watch sports, would you want the officials deciding in the middle of the game to change the rules "to make it fair"? Of course not. You can't just change the rules without following the procedures.

A "living Constitution" is no Constitution at all.

Liddy's book's title is mere rhetoric and has little bearing on what was reality. It is not true that people had fewer rights impinged upon by money making activities.

People had a lot more freedom to earn a living, to conduct their lives the way they wanted, to eductate their children, and so forth 50 years ago and 100 years ago. There is no way to deny that.

It is true that they could not do anything about it when comibinations of wealth and power decided to do what ever they wanted.

But they couldn't just do whatever they wanted. For one thing, there was competition. No monopoly ever existed without government protection. For another thing, no one disputes the government's right to prevent fraud and to enforce contracts (although there may be different perspectives on how to do so most effectively.) And unions arose to pressure business to do certain things to the advantage of workers (and originally to keep blacks out of the labor force, BTW.) These factors, plus the "Invisible Hand" of consumers, work together to keep business abuses in check.

However bad these were, they are not nearly as dangerous or as harmful as the violations of our liberty that come from Big Government.

Laws to prevent such things were demanded and enacted - to protect rights.

You're kidding. That may have been the stated intention, but I don't believe it. These laws were enacted to keep teh people down, increase the power of the politicians, and make people dependent on the politicians so the politicians -- most of whom, unlike the early days of the Republic, couldn't get a real job if they had to -- could stay in their cushy jobs forever.

The RATmedia hates the GOP because it is too conservative.

I posted earlier a number of issues on which it isn't. Add amnesty for illegal immigrants to that list. The Republican Party may not be out-and-out Socialist like the Dimmycraps, but it is not functionally conservative.

The New York Conservative Party has had no significant influence since Buckley's victory and only by allying with the GOP could he have had any.

Actually, I know something about the Conservative Party. It rarely elects people on its own, although it does so sometimes. The Mayor of Buffalo was elected on teh Conservative Party ticket alone 7 years after Sen. Buckley's victory. The Conservative Party can exercise a measure of control over the New York Republican Party (which needs it) by conferring or withholding its endorsement, thus pulling the NY GOP to the right. That is a good thing.

Libertarians are not to the right of the GOP just the opposite.

I'm not a Liberatarian, but this really depends on how you define "right." If "right" is toward limited government, then the Libertarians are indeed to the right of the GOP. I will say for the Libertarians that they are committed to limited government, and I can't say that for the Republicans.

If, OTOH, you define "right" in moral/social-issue terms, then the Libertarians are to the Republicans' left. Social issues are where I have the most problems with them. Economically, we're very close.

And one things libertarians have done (thanks to Rand) is to bring back the moral argument for capitalism. The practical argument for the superiority of the free market is strong enough, but the moral argument for the superiority of the market is just as strong. Both make our case.

LIke it or not the "General Welfare" clause gives the feds immense undefined (purposely) powers.

See my comments abouve about the "living Constitution." Using this argument is effectively an argument for unlimited government power. Anything any politician wants to do can be attributed to the "general welfare." I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that the power of the Federal government is unlimited, or virtually so.

This is why a right to secede, as we did to the British Empire, is important. As Dr. Walter Williams points out, if the states can't secede, they have lost their ultimate enforcement mechanism and the Federal government can do anything it wants to them.

Congress is clearly given the power to regulate federal elections and if the limits on contributions enacted earlier are constitutional (as the Court said) then I don't see how the recent CFR law is not.

The Court has said that money is speech. The First Amendment protects speech. The provision barring any advertisement by an outside group mentioning any candidate's name within 30 days of an election is clearly unconstitutional, as it restricts the speech not of politicians or the media, but of citizens.

The precedent of Buckley v. Valeo will get this bill tossed, IMO.

All the founders during the 1780s understood that every power possessed by the federal government was not specified, including Madison and Jefferson. All understood it was impossible to list all the things a government must do in a short document. Only after Jefferson began to foment his treachery against the Washington administration did the Republicans come out against "implied powers."

I do not believe you have read Hamilton's essay. If so please refute his points. Jefferson and Madison couldn't but maybe you will have better luck. Hamilton is as much an authority on the Constitution as Madison. He probably had more to do with its creation and adoption than even Madison.

The purpose of the Constitution was NOT to limit the federal government since the government had essentially collapsed and had no power to limit. The purpose was strictly "to form a More Perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..." They certainly wanted to control the government but the purpose of the Constitution was NOT to limit the federal government. The tenth amendment is merely a rhetorical device without meaning in the development of constitutional law. Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary. It and the other useless amendment you reference was strictly concerned with local police powers, health regulations etc. They were passed primarily to reassure the slavers that the feds would leave their victims in their power. Neither amendment had anything to do with increasing freedom but the opposite.

Governmental growth had an explosive growth spurts this century during WWII other than that the rate of growth was very small.

Obviously the Founders did not want to straightjacket the nation by giving it a "Dead" constitution. This was prevented by providing for its adjustment to human life by the amendment process. No document is capable of extension far into the future to control a living process. Thus, Hamilton laid particular emphasis on the men who would have to activate the constitution. By itself the constitution would be useless. A "living constitution" is merely an understanding that the constitution can be changed by a process created within the constitution itself. Of course, it was never intended that it could be changed by judges outside the constitutional mechanism. That is not a "living" constitution but a cancerous one.

That is still false. Only CERTAIN people had all those rights. Blacks did not. In the little town I was raised in in south Arkansas they had the right to work in the sawmill but not the better paying paper mills. They had the right to go to the inferior Black schools but not the superb white schools. They had the right to live in the unpaved, unsewered "quarters" but not the right to live in the paved, sewered rest of town. This was not an anomaly but consistent with conditions all over the South. After the Civil War thousands of ex-slaves were murdered and even in this century race riots by whites killed Blacks in many cities including those in the North. The only people who had more rights back then were wealthy, white men few others. In early America there was strict control of personal behavior, even debtor's prison, churches were given tax revenues and non-attendance fineable or punished. Let's not ignore reality to paint a nostalgic, false picture of the past.

Unions only arose when the workingmen were able to defeat government assistance to the employers. In small towns often one big industry dominated everything. In Crossett, Arkansas as late as the thirties such a company not only owned all the housing, it owned stores and even hired and fired preachers in the local protestant churches. This again was not an anomaly. Anyone who dared speak out against the Company was run out of town. So much for their rights. I am very pro-business and anti-Union but the truth is the truth. We have far more choices today and far more opportunity to advance and learn than ever before. My options were far greater than my parents and my childrens' will be greater than mine.

Laws are not passed because government wants them but because the voters want them. It is false that the government does not represent the voters. It does, to our shame it does. The problem is not government but the American electorate and its drive to ignorance. That is another falsehood about the past. Almost all the founders were professional politicians. How many years was Madison in Congress and the White House? How many political offices did Washington hold? Only Abe Lincoln was a truly non-politician and Hamilton. The rest were professional politicians. Maybe like the Virginians they used the labor of others to pay for their play at politics but they were virtually to a man professional politicians. Care to tell me of some who weren't?

There never was a right to secede from the federal government. Every founder would have told you so. See Washington's Farewell Address. Walter Williams is not an expert on Constitutional Law or american history and his reflections on those subjects clearly demonstrate that. I won't argue with him about economics but he is out of his league in the other subjects. States have no true sovereignty so the only legal way for them to secede is to pass a constitutional amendment allowing it

There are, in reality, few practical limits on the federal government. The federal government can do anything it wants which does not violate the letter or spirit of the constitution. Sovereignty implies the right of a government to protect itself and the constitution was as perfect a creation as is possible by men. Hamilton recognized the inherent weakness of political documents and laws and stressed the importance of electing leaders of virtue and wisdom. The men make the system not the opposite.

The court clearly allows limits on speech and contributions to campaigns thus, it has already established the precedent of controlling the use of money in federal campaigns. Article I section 4 clearly gives Congress great power in controlling federal elections therefore I am not confident that the Court will throw out CFR.

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.