Posted on 06/01/2011 9:45:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
You can’t make a coherent point?
So what you are looking for is a strict adherence to the Constitution period. Absolutely no other attributes. A Ron Paul man, are you? The Palin tag line is just for cover since she is one of these dreaded social Conservatives.
Maybe you could direct a dullard like myself to what a True Conservative looks like.
California used to be Republican, don’t know about your other examples.
>> the successful Republican in a blue state had to be a RINO (republican-in-name-only). Blue state Republicans had to lean towards abortion, towards green environmental activists, pro--homosexual causes. While Blue State Republicans might be slightly more conservative than their Democrat opponents in the Blue state, they are the left wing of the Republican Party <<
Using this article's logic:
Duncan Hunter, Michele Bachmann = RINOs (they got elected in heavily Democrat states, nevermind the fact not every region of their states are liberal)
John McCain, Jon Huntsman = Conservatives (elected in some of the staunchest GOP states in the country, therefore they must govern that way, right?)
Yes, the coherent point is, take your anti-conservative evangelism to the Democrats, they love that ‘let’s all drop, all that social conservatism’ message.
Not Congressmen.
“To be elected to an important position like governor or US senator, or mayor of New York City, in a blue state, a Republican had to forfeit many, if not all social values.”
That part you have correct. Adherence to the US Constitution, swearing to uphold and defend the US Constitution, is primary to being qualified to preside over the USA. That is the oath of office.
There is nothing in the oath of office about pretending to be a better religious fruitcake than the other guy.
California was never a Republican state, at best it was a swing state back then. Ronald Reagan was Governor in between the two liberal Democrat Brown’s (Pat and Jerry). Nixon, the homestate favorite, won by less than 1% when he ran for President in 1960, then lost it big time when he ran for Governor of California two years later in 1962.
As others have noted, people like Rick Santorum (not to mention my own former Senator, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois) were elected U.S. Senator as unapologetic social conservatives. They didn't forfeit any social issues. Ditto with Governors, like Don Carceli of Rhode Island, who was a socially conservative Governor of the one of most Democrat states in the nation from 2002-2010. This is another article repeating the silly myth that "only RINOs can win in Democrat states". Note that it never works the other way around. Kathleen Selibus was elected Governor of the strongest GOP states in the nation, Kansas. According to this article's logic, she must therefore be a social conservative and national Democrats shouldn't nominate her for anything. But of course the rules for GOP candidates running in the opposition's turf will NEVER apply to Democrats in GOP turf.
When California Republicans were winning most Governorships and a 9 out of 10 Presidential streak, that was Republican.
Nixon and Reagan were not good examples for you, I don’t know about the others that you used.
The vast majority of your type vote liberal, whereas the vast majority of full conservatives vote conservative of course.
Anti-social conservatives, and the anti-religious, are OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERALS.
My point was that Congressmen are not included in the writer’s position.
You've proven yourself quite incapable of discussing anything coherently, so you just throw labels around, hoping something will stick. You are perpetually wrong.
Really dude? You are going to call people like Reagan who was a social Conservatives along with Palin, Rubio, Toomey, Santorum, DeMint, et al a bunch of Religious Fruitcake Pretenders? Isn't there a Libertarian chat room somewhere waiting for your input on Ron Paul's campaign run?
I don’t understand how you can know nothing about how voter groups separate into which party they vote for in regard to their connection to faith and social conservatism, and who the constituency is of the two different parties.
There is a great difference between political conservatives who have "social values", and the fraudulent "social conservatives" who tend to use any means, political or otherwise, to advance their fraudulent snake-oil sales.
You obviously belong to the latter group, or you lack the discernment to differentiate the true from the false.
At what point did I ever bring anything like that up? Who exactly wants to do this? You keep shifting the argument with these non sequitors because you either have no idea what you are talking about or you have very poor communication skills. Getting back to Santorum, he has a full record of Conservative achievement. He has a very solid foreign policy vision and sees the threat of Islamofascists. Being right on the Life issue is not his only plus.
Your last two posts on this thread are gibberish,I don’t know what you are trying to say.
Perhaps. If he wants the votes of the 90% of commonsense conservatives, he would accentuate his conservative achievements, and not come out of the gate babbling religious snake oil, none of which has anything to do with governing conservatively.
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.