Free Republic

YES. ABSOLUTELY.

When I say normal....I mean average people who aren't drawn to politics and causes the way WE are. I AM NOT NORMAL. :)

If we had employed more successful tactics, and been thinking about PR and how to reach people who don't think the way we do, NOT only would the babies who have been saved, been saved...but many more.

Too many conservatives are to egocentric and think what appeals to them, appeals to people who don't think the way they do. We must learn to be able to see things through the eyes/minds of people we're trying to persuade.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that statement.

Most Republican candidates always did keep comments on these issues to a minimum during campaigns, especially the general election, and particularly now. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the candidate makes his stands on these issues clear. Obama used social issues like contraception to scare college students into voting for democrats and Santorum's incessant and persistent elaboration on them, particularly contraception, made it easy for Obama to do.

BTW, I happen to agree with Santorum, and have no problem with conversations about them in the grassroots, that is part of our purpose....it is a BAD idea for a presidential candidate to discuss them at length as Santorum did. Even Reagan was wise enough to avoid it and that was 34 years ago.....since Reagan WON two terms to the presidency, and Santorum hasn't even won the Republican nomination (and likely never will) it is far wiser for a Republican Presidential candidate to follow Reagan's example than Santorum's. BTW, Santorum spent little time on these issues either time, in the general elections for the PA Senate.

There is a minority of Republicans who would like to see social conservatives go away, you're absolutely right. However, all Republicans must understand, we're ALL a part of the Republican Party and must learn to respect the right of members of our party to hold varying opinions on these issues. That doesn't mean we can't still continue to try and win over people's hearts and minds both on our side and the left.

Excellent questions and points on this thread, C. Edmund Wright. Randall Terry took the pro-life Movement and it's operation rescue tactics in the wrong direction all those years ago....I recognized it at the time and it still hurts us today. Unfortunately it was all about him. Some lives may have been saved....but many normal people were turned off to the movement, people who may have gotten involved. I often wonder how many more lives would have been saved with more effective and appealing tactics, and how much closer we may have come to overturning Roe vs. Wade. I wonder if it was a task we may have well accomplished, perhaps years ago.

In any war in the modern day world, PR matters. Looking weird doesn't help to grow the movement....and these kinds of tactics make our pro-life position look weird and extreme. And as well all know, it isn't.

Also, stop calling them abortuaries and mills....terms that are only appealing to the already converted and even some of those have an aversion to them. While such language may be binding to some in the pro-life movement, it's alienating to others.

It isn't about us...it's about the babies. I think the tactics of the woman in this article, draws more attention to her than the cause of the babies....to the clueless public, negative attention I might add. They also feed and fulfill the egos of such people...something we must be very wary of.

So many of the posters on this thread have been active in the pro-life cause for years....I have seen you here time and again; I LOVE and admire you for that. I pray very fervently that you rethink these tactics. Tactics mean the difference between success and failure. A fact the founders were very much aware of. If the forefathers hadn't been concerned about plans and strategy,and had the ability to see what worked and what didn't, we would have lost the revolutionary war and there would be no America.

Also, please remember, disagreeing about tactics doesn't make those who disagree any less fervently, pro-life.

Bulls eye! Laughing out loud really, really loud.....you summed it up extraordinarily well. : )

"An excellent choice except, first time presidential candidates usually get beaten up the first time out. It is the second time around that they win the nomination"

Excellent point. But as wonderful as Scott Walker may be, and he has indeed been a magnificent Governor, I can't see how a candidate in our current society, with the emphasis on education beyond the college level and the current Liberal press, is elected to president without a college diploma even on the second try.

Bravo.

Thank you. There are many reasons for Romney’s defeat, and plenty of blame to go around, THAT attitude being one.

Republican Unity is absolutely CRITICAL to defeating the LEFT and the democrats, which should be our number one priority.

The original Tea Party was temporary.....the contemporary Tea PARTY Movement is also temporary and was never meant to be permanent. But the conservative Movement will live on....

I doubt it.....

Cantor may have ceased to be responsive to his district, was part of the Republican Leadership and may have sung a different tune on immigration and a few other issues than most in his district, but he was still a conservative on most issues. Murkowski was not...and the state of Alaska generally is probably less conservative than Cantor's district.

Cantor will honor the decision of his district's Republican voters.

"The guy having a religious background and promoting Ayn Rand’s objectionism is a contradiction to me."

I've had the same thought a number of times over the years. Poignant point.

BillyBoy, spot on...my thoughts and sentiments exactly. We shall see.

JBM's an opportunist, a poser, an utter and complete phony and fraud who has no discernible caring, experience or knowledge about politics, strategy or the conservative movement. It's all about her and the oodles of money she can make.

It was clear back in 2009 but few could see it and warnings by some of us went unheeded and still do. Tragically, she squanders the hard-earned money of thousands of sincere, often naïve, grass root patriots.

"And they are all out today begging for money taking credit for Dave Brat’s win."

Sadly that's their usual routine. Despicable.

Absolutely IMPRESSIVE argumentation, rational and research on your posts, all accurate and on point. A joy to behold and a pleasure to read. Thank you!

“He’s a self promoting gadfly telling you what you want to hear about how the establishment sucks to sucker you into your support, you may not see through him but the majority of NJ Republican voters clearly do as they’re rejected him time and again, he only won the Senate nomination because some clueless newcomer was his only opponent.”

You have Steve’s number down pat....Steve worked hard to manipulate & bully Tea Party Groups in New Jersey so he’d have a base of support whenever he chose to run again. Most unfortunately, this is all too common among candidates who seek the support of Tea Party groups....give them the anti-establishment spiel to gain their support. I’ve seen it over and over again to a nauseating degree, and it’s pretty much the modus operandi of “Tea Party” candidates. Sad so many TP folk are naive to it.

“You may like him, most people in NJ do not like him, that he is a jerk with a huge ego is the common opinion.”

To know Steve is to despise his nasty, disagreeable, mean-spirited self with an ego that knows no bounds. He publicly called MacArthur a “monster,” but really most understand Steve was projecting and was really talking about himself. He’s a repellent who turns his best friends into his worst enemies. Hiding his ugliness from those around him is quite the impossible task, trust me.

Actually the newcomer, Alieta Eck, wasn’t clueless (and she’s running again for Congress in a tough district). She’s a stellar human being and good candidate who couldn’t compete with Steve’s name recognition. Of course, Steve tried to have her thrown off the ballot.

“Then former Governor Reagan lost once (barely) to a sitting President, comparing Steve to him is ludicrous, this is his is 5th or 6th failed attempt to win an office higher than small town Mayor.”

Sixth. But it’s getting tough to count, eh? : )

“People like this are called “perennial candidates”. They are jokes and they almost never win, heard of Harold Stassen? This guy carpetbagged into that district from Northern NJ, why? Because he’s desperate to serve? No, because he’s desperate to be an important politician. He sounds like those establishment figures he rails against. I think it’s embarrassing to have guys like this associated with the conservative/tea party movement.”

Lonegan will do just about anything to get into office and it’s all about him. It is embarrassing as well as shameful to have him associated with our movement as well as our party. Steve conducts his scorched earth character assassinations of political opponents and Alinsky campaign tactics as well as the best of the leftists. This was the most dishonest campaign I’ve ever witnessed from someone supposedly on the right. There should be no room for such people in our movement or the Republican Party.

“If McArthur is no good (wait and see, I’m not at all convinced he’s a RINO because Steve says so) then I hope a prominent LOCAL conservative opposes him in 2016. Steve’s friend, RINO Leonard Lance had a tea party opponent that actually did better than Steve, lost by only 9 points, pity Steve supported Lance because Lance campaigned for him in the Senate race. So I guess being an establishment RINO is just fine with Steve as long as you support him? Doesn’t sound very principled.”

Spot on. Lance has been opposed by Dave Larsen three times counting this last...and Steve has supported his bud Lance over the more conservative Larsen ALL THREE times. According to the definition of some that would make almost any other conservative/Republican a RINO. Somehow this standard doesn’t apply to Steve. BTW, Larsen is actually sharper, more articulate, more conservative and more charismatic than Lance...and his challenges have made Lance more conservative...unfortunately Lance is still the darling of the local Sierra club....and Larsen has far stronger positions on energy issues. Larsen lost by EIGHT points to Lance doing FAR better than Steve against MacArthur. BUT keep in mind this is a very Republican district and whatever Republican wins the primary will also win the General. To support Larsen here, against the incumbent Lance, is not risking the seat. For those aware of this, and that’s surely Lonegan, it may be one of the better ways to discern who the REAL RINOS are..... : )

I have met gotten to know all these candidates personally some better than others, having worked with and been in the company of Lonegan the most. Very initially I was a Lonegan fan, but that changed quickly and early on. Character counts....Steve is a person of very poor character who cares little for those around him, while MacArthur is as decent as they come...thoughtful, considerate, hardworking, serious about the problems in our country, selfless and humble...placing the cause before himself. That more than makes up for the couple of issues where he may not be as conservative as I’d like...and on those he is open to discussion. He is, more than most I’ve met, VERY willing to engage.

Runyan was more conservative than the democrat he defeated (by 2 points) Adler, and MacArthur is more conservative than Runyan....We ARE moving the needle rightward. But the general election will not be easy and must be hard fought. This is by no means necessarily a Republican District....and we would have lost it if Lonegan had won. Congratulations to the Republicans in the 3rd district. They deserve a round of applause. They KNOW what they’re doing.

Thank you! Perfectly stated and exactly right. Absolutely BOGUS tripe from Levin.....Lonegan is a despicable, lying bully and about as bad as it gets on the right. “True” conservatives are HONEST and decent and that’s not Steve, who’d have difficulty getting elected in any age/time.

It’s just barely a GOP seat. Runyan won it by two in 2010. You can thank the people who had the savvy to back Runyan then, (and for the most part that didn’t include Lonegan’s hardcore fans) that we can, for the moment count it among our own.

“But he’d be running against a local rat this time, Burlington County Freeholder Aimee Belgard.”

I’d only add that the election against Booker was a special election with very low voter which most always favors Republicans. An unlikeable outsider against a county native will not fare at all well. It is an excellent point you made, that I plan to use frequently ‘til June 3rd.

Too funny and too true.