Posted on 01/13/2005 3:00:15 AM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Rock artist Kid Rock will not perform at the youth concert for the presidential inauguration, and conservatives are applauding the news because of outrage at the content of his lyrics."We have been informed that Kid Rock will not perform," said Donald E. Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association.
According to Wildmon, over 100,000 people called and e-mailed the Presidential Inauguration Committee to voice their concerns over news that Kid Rock was invited to perform.
Wildmon said Kid Rock's lyrics focus on recreational sex and send a message of female sexual exploitation, both of which contradict the values of voters who support the president.
The rock artist also appeared in a porn film in 2000, the AFA noted.
I asked you a question about your insults, you insult me in reply and then have the gall to call me a coward?
Have a good day.
After perusing several posts, I'm convinced the reason was to make you shake your head, roll your eyeballs, and remind you that there IS no such thing as "calling for a taxi" from the Free Republic Lounge ;-)
Yes. 12 years this Fall.
From post #244.
These Kid Rock threads, while discussing an "issue" which apparently was wholly manufactured by Donnie Wild-Man and WND and thus of no direct consequence, have nonetheless brought out posts, like that above, which give a VERY disturbing look at one segment of the conservative coalition. Such opinions as that are an indicator of why the GOP's victories of late have in fact been so close, when they SHOULD have been far larger.
If a small, but vocal, part of our movement persists in claiming that there is only one "true" strain of conservatism, and all others are simply some kind of suckers or "robots", then they will continue to drive people into other waiting arms.
It would seem almost that they cannot handle the idea of the Right containing people who like to enjoy life their own way, without moral tut-tutting from self-proclaimed "superiors". They would do well to remember that those who follw this line comprise only about 20% of the GOP vote, and that is considered unreliable.
As the younger set becomes politically active, they will bring with them their own ways of doing things, of entertaining themselves, and thinking. The party cannot "hold" itself to things of the past so strongly that that younger set decides it might be better served elsewhere. It cannot likewise provide ample fodder for the Left to bash us, as it SURELY would if such opinions as above recieved wide notice. Those posting them, who claim soo much "intelligence", seem to be ignorant of the overall effect of such nonsensical pronouncements. Furthermore, they should be asking themselves why they seek to sow such division amongst us, and why they feel that such division is useful.
We have been assured that a "true, pure" conservative can win. Alan Keyes provided ample evidence that this is false. Whether the moralists realize it or not, if a party is seen as hostile or condescending to those who like some spice with their politics, and anti-fun, it will be shunned by a larger and larger segment of society that WILL come of age soon, and which will hold off its support.
Younger people havbe every reason to support the GOP...it stands FOR reform of Social Security, taxes, and FOR national security in the face of terrorism. It also seeks reform of the legal system, and a return of sanity to the education system and the judiciary.
All these things are of strong concern to younger voters. So-called "morals", enforced at the point of a finger and emphasized with a sermon, are not, at least not as articulated by the preachers.
Good comments, LC.
By your rationale, to increase the margin of the GOP's "victories," maybe the Republican Party ought to rescind it's "pro life" platform, it's "pro-gun" platform," and maybe even reconsider Bill Clinton's White House behavior as "not so bad after all."
Goodness only knows how much larger the GOP's "base" would become after shoving those pesky issues off the table.
Should be a GOP landslide by then, right?
Yeah and how many of the idealogically pure were fleeced on that scam?
To quote Ronaldus Magnus, "There you go again."
If it's not everything YOUR way, you'll cheerfully demand eight years of Hillary Rodham Clinton and an even longer period of Democrats running the Senate and House just to s**t on those who you think are your moral inferiors.
Please! They weren't victims; they were (and still are) volunteers.
I agree with your comments. The GOP is comprised of all types of individuals. Some who feel they "own" Pres. Bush and are able to manipulate the agenda based on their religious views. Then there are others who believe in supporting Pres. Bush and letting people live according to their own rules and standards without judging others. Everyone has a right to express their views, but not dictate how they live their lives.
("I'm glad they vote GOP. I think it is simply that they aren't too bright. I think they are the oft spoken of "mind numbed robots". From post #244.)
Obviously this statement happens to be very false since their are plenty of us who express our views, don't follow the right wing agenda, and think for ourselves. As far as being able to guarantee our votes because we are "mind numbed robots....I can only speak for myself, but no one gets my vote without plenty of thought and consideration.
I'm a very big fan of Dr. Keyes and I think that Kid Rock kicks ass.
Kid Rock probably would have beaten Obama. ;o)
Excellent! Very well said. The one thing that is driving me up the wall about all of this is the assumption that...if we don't agree with them, politcally, that we are somehow lacking in morals and/or intelligence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess I am pretty typical in some ways, of the Gen-X voters that have come to be more conservative as I have grown. I have a strong belief in God, family, and community. I have served in the military. I attend church, and stay at home to raise my children while my husband works. I stay on top of what my children are exposed to, and boycott things I don't agree with. The health and well being of my family is my first priority. It is not a responsibility I take lightly, nor do I abdicate it to others outside of my control. I respect the rights of others to run their lives as they see fit...I am in no position to tell anyone else that they are unprincipled, immoral, or unworthy of being called a conservative simply because they disagree.
There is room enough for all of us under "the big tent", and I see no rhyme or reason in name calling and jockying for power and position. If some folks in our movement want to change laws to reflect their morals, then they have the perfect right to try to do so. Bashing people who share a lot of the same political beliefs (and those who do not) is not going to help them in their quest. People are more amenable to change if they are persuaded to it, rather than coerced. Change also has a better chance of becoming permanent if it something society mutually agrees on, rather than has forced upon them.
No one in this country-be it conservative or liberal-has the right to impose their personal beliefs on someone else. If this type of thing continues, then folks that behave in that way will find themselves in a diminished party, with very little power. Marginalized.
But here's one for ya:
"I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man. "
-- George Washington--
"If it's not everything YOUR way, you'll cheerfully demand eight years of Hillary Rodham Clinton and an even longer period of Democrats running the Senate and House just to s**t on those who you think are your moral inferiors."
Please tell me your joking.
Kinda makes you wonder who recommended him. The Bush girls? Stupid move on the part of the administration to even consider someone like him.
Thanks for posting that. If this is the kind of music he does regularly, even if he's a conservative, we don't need our young folks exposed to it at the inauguration. From an old prude.
By your rationale, to increase the margin of the GOP's "victories," maybe the Republican Party ought to rescind it's "pro life" platform, it's "pro-gun" platform," and maybe even reconsider Bill Clinton's White House behavior as "not so bad after all."
true.
I think you are wrong about there being a big enough tent for everyone.
NO TENT IS BIG ENOUGH for the moralizing bible thumping extremists. They think they own the tent.
We won despite their best efforts to split the party over the mcclintock/arnold contest.
We flat out don't need their stridency. Most of them are secret sympathizers of the 'constitutional' or 'reform' parties anyway.
All is not well in 'paradise'. If we continue to kow tow to them, we WILL LOSE in the next several election cycles.
Americans don't like others telling them what kind of music is 'appropriate' to listen to, or being tied to baby killing and gun conviscation because they listen to kid rock, the chevelle's or tool.
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.