The GOP Gutless Wonders (Joseph Farah Slams GOP Front Runners For Dissing Values Voters Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 09/12/2007 | Joseph Farah

[dschapin]

Thats just because you don’t care all that much about Fred’s positions on social issues. He matches the views of the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party very well. However, on social issues he does not support the pro-life amendment, he does not support a an amendment banning gay marriage, he refused to take a public position on the Terri Schievo case, and he is unwilling to come to a debate sponsored by Social Conservative leaders. You can spin all day if you want but this does not look good to dedicated social conservatives.

P.S.
You can complain about us voting for hillary by not supporting your candidate. However, remember the libertarian/pro business wing of the Republican party has to be willing to push a candidate which we can also support. True we can’t always get everything we want but the compromises have to go both ways.

[roamer_1]

Fred helped get Chief Justice Roberts in - and has stated that's the kind of Justice he would put in. or have you missed all that?

"and has stated" -You accept his promise on faith rather than with certainty, I would much prefer the predictability of a solid conservative record.

Mr. Giuliani has also made many promises to act differently than his record predicts, including a pledge regarding judges. Shall we take him at his word as well?

[maine-iac7]

dedicated social conservatives.

"Social" conservatives - it seems like "social" conservatives still want the rule to come from Washington over States Rights...

Fred is a Federalist - and the United States is a Federalist government - per the Constitution. Washington is supposed to have few rights over the states and it's people to decide it's laws.

The main reason for Washington is do those things we, at a state level, cannot do alone or for ourselves, the main thing being to protect us against foreign enemies.

Fred is NOT against the things you accuse him of - he is for those rights to be returned to the STATES where they belong - where you and I and all others can have the say of what goes on in our back yards - where we live/

I thought republicans have been screaming for decades for less big government? Then along comes the first man that just is determined to bring that about and you 'social' conservatives are screaming bloody murder for the power to be kept in the hands of Washington.

So, one can wonder, are you 'social' conservatives the socialist republican counterpart to the socialist democrats?

We either go with a leader who will cut off the power from Washington and return it to our hands in our states - or continue on the slide into total SOCIALIST control from Washington that overrides = unconstitutionally = our rights - and responsibly - to determine these issues for ourselves in our home states?

[roamer_1]

I hope to he*l you Freepers out there that "taught the republicans a lesson" last election smarten up a bit this time.

I hope like hell you FReepers out there that continue to accuse conservatives of losing the election for you will smarten up a bit this time.

Your railing against us will do you no good. You need only to support a true conservative who will stand for conservative principles, and has a record to prove it. Then, and only then, you will receive the support of the base that you so fervently desire.

The conservative wing, re-branded "social conservatives" in a vain attempt to allow RINOS the luxury of inclusion, out numbers the Rockefeller wing by a factor of two to one. In the light of that, why is it the conservatives that are always asked to compromise their principles?

[dschapin]

Federalism is about the powers of the federal government under the constitution. I am federalist when it comes to issues like how expansive of a view the courts should take of the power to legislate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. However, when we amend the constitution federalism does not apply because any constitutional amendment is by its very nature within the powers of the federal government.

[roamer_1]

If the American people can’t understand him - and need these kindergarten formats where the candidates perform like trained seals, in order to decide whether to back a candidate or not - then, to me, they have little ability to make informed, individual decisions in the first place.

What an absurd statement. To compare the Value Voters debate to MSM debates is idiotic, as you well know. It is probably the only debate that will be substantive- and also allow enough time for a candidate to offer an elaborate answer.

Snubbing this particular debate was a drastic error on Fred's part.

[maine-iac7]

I find it curious that the posters here are knocking only Fred for the no-show - the others aren’t named....rather selective

[Old_Mil]

I find it curious that the posters here are knocking only Fred for the no-show - the others aren’t named....rather selective

The others were never even considerations. Threads like this one do a good job of letting conservatives see why Fred isn't a consideration either. Oh, he may collected enough money and corporate endorsements to make a run at the nomination. He'll proceed to lose a general election in grand style. Don't think that all these glaring faults (cancer, amnesty, etc) won't be exploited to the hilt by an array of enemy 527s.

[roamer_1]

I find it curious that the posters here are knocking only Fred for the no-show - the others aren’t named....rather selective

I was referring to your comments @ #137. Fred was the subject thereof.