Posted on 12/03/2004 10:10:21 AM PST by gubamyster
I agree. However, if the religious right pushes its social agenda too strongly, social moderates and social libertarians will drift away from the party.
My wife is a good example. She votes Republican, but would not vote for a GOP candidate who pushed for a hardline religious right social agenda.
There are, IMHO, three major GOP planks: social conservativism, fiscal responsibility and limitation of government. If you focus too much on one of these 3 areas while ignoring the other two, you lose voters.
So be it!! "Be nothing but American. We have room for but one flag here." - Theodore Roosevelt 1919
I'm not convinced there is a "secularist right social agenda." If anything, it's an absence of a social agenda (at least, when it comes to government action).
BS.
Great rebuttal.
"Without the religious right there is no GOP party" - Not true. There may not be a GOP MAJORITY, but there would still be a party. Whether you want to hear it or not - public opinion just does not support the complete abolition of abortion at this time. If the GOP wants to be a minority party again, just outlaw abortion. We ought to work slowly at the margins, and not lose our cool. If we can send it back to the states (which is where it ought to be anyway IMHO), great. Seek to minimize the damage and make abortion less frequent and less tolerated.
Bush family the ultimate eltist bump. I voted for him twice but that is because the GOP gave me no choice. The GOP better wake up we are getting tired of this - I would rather vote my conscience in 2008 then get another liberal republican like Bush. I would vote for a democrat if they are tough on the border, against affirmative action and are pro-life. Unfortunately it wont happen.
Re your #3:
"Bush is wrong on this one. Very."
Yeah...; Whenever Sen. Susan COLLINS or OloSNOWE "support" President Bush, it's a pretty good indicator that our esteemed Chief Executive has pulled another royal gonger, and flipped off his conservative "base" - which, in between election campaigns, he has no trouble doing whatsoever.
Feels kinda funny having to buck the POTUS you just helped get elected - but the wisdom of puckering up our borders in self-defense despite any potential political issues is just such a no-brainer!
What do you or your wife consider a "hardline religous right social agenda?"
...three major GOP planks: social conservativism, fiscal responsibility and limitation of government.
What do you consider an adequate level of social conservatism then?
I am really interested since these terms can be rather vauge and have different meanings depending on the individual.
You are correct but that does not change the fact that abortion is, in most cases, morally indefensible.
I am sure public opinion did not support revolution against England or the abolition of slavery but somehow we got those two things behind us.
Tancredo is right.
So, the religious right can stay in the party and get a portion of their agenda, or it can stay home and get nothing, or it can start a third party and get nothing, or it can go DemocRAT and get nothing.
Re #6 -
"IMHO, this is the issue that broke Tom Ridge's back -- and he resigned."
I dunno 'bout you, but I'm darned glad we finally got rid of RIDGE, who I have long regarded as a blatantly incompetent PC-loving political hack.
If Ridge ever cared a whit about our porous borders, he never managed to communicate that concern to me.
Did I miss something over the past 4 years there?
And I dunno what is tearing your Party apart, but here in Maine the issue of prenatal infanticide has pretty well polarized the GOP up this way. From what I can discern (and I was pretty involved in Republican politics in this ME county (until I kinda got shown the back door of the big tent, that is...) and am left with the distinct impression that there are at least two "Republican" Parties here in Maine. And neither of our Senators represent one of them.
And by the way, the immigration thing is not like abortion. It DOES cross party lines and ending illegal immigration DOES have the support of a huge majority of Americans.
Just a few examples: pushing for prayer in schools, fights to include the teaching of creationism in public schools, the ten commandments in schools and courthouses, increased obscenity prosecutions and (in her case, but not mine) attempts to outlaw abortion.
What do you consider an adequate level of social conservatism then?
For one, I agree that the secular left has gone too far in their attempts to drive religion out of the public sphere. Though I support keeping government out of religion, that does not mean that our society needs to be made religion-free. Similarly, I think social conservatives are dead on when they argue that schools have become socialist re-education camps.
Furthermore, I'm a "soft" opponent of gay marriage- I do not want to see gay marriage forced upon us by the courts, but I think states should be allowed to decide the issue for themselves (so long as other states can opt to ignore gay marriages from states that do allow it).
If I've missed any issues on the social conservative agenda, I'd be happy to comment on them if you bring them up.
Agreed. These are the options. I choose the first, stay in the party and exert influence.
I see the balance of the religous right to the libertines in the Republican party as that of an accelerator and brake. Without the accelerator you can't get going and without the brake you fly off the road at the first sharp turn.
Which one is the accelerator and which one is the brake? It doesn't matter, we will have both sides with us forever.
I think you meant to say "libertarians."
And you are incorrect. Tom Ridge left primarily because he will be exploring the possibility of running for president in '08. The way politics works these days, anyone who's serious about running for president needs to begin laying the groundwork almost immediately after the most recent election is over. It's an enormous undertaking.
There's a fairly long list of Republicans who are at least taking a look at the possibility. '08 will be the most wide-open field in both parties in the last 56 years, because no incumbent president or vice president will be running.
Re #30:
"#(2) The religious right's social agenda...."
That wouldn't be our bothersome opposition to PRENATAL INFANTICIDE, now would it?
That's the knife sticking out of your back.
But at least some of us warned you that it was coming.
You better get used to it, there's more to come.
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.