Replies

Ronald Reagan Conservatism.

I think we all need to look at who are elected Republicans are, and if we do not like them we need to recruit against them in the Primary.

I think, after the Primary, most of the time, we should vote for the Republican and NOT the Democrat.

However, I think we need to recruit against ANY Republican who is not with us on Social and Economic issues.

If for no other reason than the fact that this will get that “sacrificial lamb” candidate some experience for future runs, and the fact that this effort will FORCE the incumbent Republican to the RIGHT.

By “FULL BORE CONSERVATIVE” I mean that we need to be recruiting and fighting in the trenches.

We can fully afford to have a few elected officials who are not with us, on every issue, as long as MOST of Congress is WITH US on ALL the issues.

(We need Conservative Republicans to be in the majority. We need to make sure that those Republicans that do NOT agree with us on everything, cancel each other out.)

The PRIMARY is where Conservatives show their strengths and make CHANGES!

Go for it.

Exactly: what’s the definition of conservative anymore?

Levin’s book has a better approach. Liberal and conservative don’t mean much anymore in a world where Specter is a conservative. If McCain, or Bush, is a conservative, what does that word mean?

The original 10 amendments to the Constitution, and the founders’ own philosophies are all you need.

You either believe the State has all the rights, and determines which rights the individual gets, or the individual has the rights, and defines which rights the State gets.

Things get pretty simple at that point if you’re running for President. Seriously, if all you have to worry about is your philosopy on the nine rights afforded the federal government, the rest of your answers become:

“It’s not a right the federal government has. To the extent SCOTUS and the left believes that the state does have that right, my belief is that people are going to differ on that issue, and they should have the right to live in the state the most appropriately reflects your views on the matter. Personally, I’d rather live in a state that values life, or believes marriage is first a religious rite and secondly a legal status. Regardless, for the federal government to deny people the choice of living in states that better reflect their values, and to have a national set of values imposed on those citizes is the opposite of what the founders intended. If Utah believes that public prayer in State-owned facilities is appropriate, then it should be legal there. If MA feels differently about that, and the people there agree, then that’s OK too. Those that disagree in either state are free to swap houses and live in places that more reflect their values.

Here’s my promise: I won’t allow the federal government to overstep the boundaries the founders imposed on it. The states are the laboratories of society, not the fed. I will guarantee that the fed will meet its constitutional responsibilities.”