Skip to comments.Vanity: And now for the rest of the question: Has conservatism been defeated in America?
Posted on 02/04/2007 3:01:09 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Would you accept a gay agenda/NARAL supporting abortionist gun-grabber as your party's savior against Hillary Clinton even if it means we abandon the pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom of religion and pro-gun planks from the party's platform? And most likely ends any prayer of ever overturning Roe vs Wade or preventing gay marriage as the law of the land? And eventually leads to permanently ending any and all mention of God or prayer in the public square? And further erodes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
Will preachers speaking out against the gay agenda eventually become a hate crime in America? Will it soon become the law of the land that business owners must allow cross-dressing males to wear dresses in the office or face criminal/civil penalties like they do in San Francisco? Will man-boy "love" soon be accepted by the new American liberal society?
Has the anti-God, anti-America, anti-commonsense and decency ACLU, NOW and NARAL organizations defeated conservatism?
Is conservatism dead in the Republican Party?
Is the conservative movement dead in America?
Is God dead to Americans?
Are you ready for some FOOTBALL!!?
No; the attitude of "anybody but Hillary" is just as bad and myopic as "anybody but Bush."
But what are you saying? That Hillary might not be all that bad?
With hillary at least there would be republican opposition.
The problem with putting a RINO in the whitehouse is that both parties will end up supporting their liberal agenda.
That's the ticket, Jim! :)
and NO. America is a far, far long ways off from being OVER.
I quote John Belushi in Animal House:
It ain't over 'till I say it's over!!
No, but in all cases they're on life support. I believe the next 20 years are going to be rocky, but I truly do feel that Gen X and Gen Y will be significantly more conservative than their parents and grandparents. So while the short-term outlook is bleak, there's reason to have a lot of hope for the long-term.
Answer is no. THere are candidates for the presdency that are agaisnt all those things you mentioned. And it is up to us to ensure that one of them is our standard bearer in 2008.
The nonsense in the MSM that Hillary or Obama or breck girl are good candidates is just that. Nonsense. All are weak. And Hillary just flushed her chances down the drain with her idiotic statements about ending the war.
How could you possibly read that into my question?
Them's fighting words!
Conserving the radical ideals of the Founding Fathers is a different matter, and a cause that might attract broad support - if conservatives would actually dedicate themselves to conserving them.
It's not dead Jim.
Getting rid of Joe Schwarz and replacing him with conservative Tim Walberg is one of my proudest moments in my voting history.
Things look pretty bad right now, but it is still early. When Newt declares in October, or some other real conservative pops out of nowhere, then we will see if conservatism is dead.
To hearten you a bit, there was a report on FNC this morning that findings from an independent survey showed that 60% of the country believe the success of a nation, this nation depends on religious upbringing. When asked which the respondents overwhelmingly said Judeo/Christian.
* Is the conservative movement dead in America?
* Is God dead to Americans?
Just as you partly described, I think '08 will be anti-Hillary, not pro-GOP anything.
Sad situation, to be sure.
Unfortunately, I think Dick Morris is right: demographic shifts alone will spell the end of the Republican party as a major force in American politics within the next 20 years or so. That is, unless the Republican party simply continues to drift leftward to accommodate the increasingly socialist and divisive American landscape.
A steely determination to win the war on terror is really all that matters for the time being. Let us choose a leader with that quality above all others.
Then when we're well on the way toward winning the truly existential challenge that faces our civilization, we can deal with abortion, gun control, gay rights, overtaxation, judge-made-law and all the other socialist/leftist agenda items that plague our great nation.
Rudy is bad for the conservative cause!
Who could fight during the Superbowl? (Okay, besides Bears and Colts fans...)
I just mean I read the question as, "How low are we as conservatives willing to stoop to avoid having Hillary as President?" As in, there would be a threshold beyond which we'd rather settle for Hillary than get somebody worse who claims to be Republican.
I for one would suffer less under a Giuliani or McCain presidency (I think) than I would under Hillary, but I would not vote for either if it came down to a race betwixt Rudy and Hillary. McCain is anti-gun, and Giuliani is pro-abortion, neither of which I can vote for.
What do you think the chances of Condi running are?
Conservatism has not been defeated in America. All the democratic candidates that made inroads in non-liberal areas were by and large running on conservative or at the very least moderate platforms. As far as who our nominee is, It's all about name recognition now, when the campaign gears up and the candidates debate I don't think Rudy will be left standing. I definitely think he should get a cabinet job like Homeland Security but he is too liberal for the nomination and I think by and large the primary voters know that too or at least will by the time the primaries role around. My money on who will get the nomination is Romney or if he can get the money and a grass roots campaign going and some $$$ Hunter. If Gingrich jumps in though, then it's any ones guess. The election is ours to lose in 2008.
From a state where the Democrats are going to win (you're from the same state), so can vote for political groups who have roughly the same stances but probably won't win the presidency (so basically voting on principal--for President).
Way to take a position! ;-)
Limbaugh for President please.
Condi came out as anti-Israel. She lost me right then.
Speaking for myself personally, no, I could not accept a Republican candidate that is almost as liberal as the democrat"ic" candidate! I'm tired of being blamed for Republicans losing elections if they abandon their conservative base. Obviously, they can't win elections without the support of conservatives, so they had better start rethinking their strategies.
It's a very frustrating time to be a Republican!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Jim asks a great question What say you?
NO. I RATHER LOSE, and come back and regroup with a conservative candidate. If we put up liberal candidates against liberal candidates, conservatism doesn't have a prayer.
I'd rather lose. In fact, I'll vote for the democrat, in the hopes that the GOP will come to its senses.
Who cares if you win the battle, but LOSE the war?
There sure seem to be plenty right here that at least seem to want righteous conservatism, or traditional conservatism to be out of power. They seem to think America won't support it enough for it's candidates to win anymore and it seems to please some of them.
Appraising current candidates:
McCain: He's in the right lane with the left turn signal on. Any guy the media fawns over as a maverick is not to be trusted as a leader of the conservative/Republican cause(s).
Rudy: He has strong leadership in a lot of aspects, and a lot of people look up to him and respect him for his work post-9/11, and for his war on crime in NYC, but there is too much latent liberalism there, particularly the pro-abortion stance.
Newt: It seems he has been keeping way too low of a profile lately for him to come out of the starting gate now.
Jeb Bush: I doubt it.
Dick Cheney: No way.
Condi Rice: If she comes out and says "just kidding, I'm pro-life all the way" then I could really throw my support behind her.
A lot of other names are too obscure, or too long-shot to address.
Anybody you have your eye on, Jim?
No way, really??
let's see what emerges in the primaries - the debate, answers to questions, defense of positions, etc. I want to hear all that, I want to see some polls too - before excluding any candidates.
I myself won't sign up for a suicide mission with a candidate that can't win the general election, that puts Hillary into the white house. I can't do it. if that makes me an "un-conservative", then so be it, but I can't sign onto that. and to what end regarding the things you posted? if Hillary wins in 2008, Roe will be untouchable for another 30 years.
What's left to save?
And the pathetic thing is that the GOP establishment is authoring their own demise in that regard by pushing amnesty for tens of millions of new Democrat voters in a country so evenly divided politically. Either they don't see it or they just don't care. ....and I'm inclined to believe the latter.
I'll hold my nose and vote for a RINO, to keep "she whose name cannot be spoken" out of office. But if the RINO is a cultural liberal who supports gay marriage and a "living" Constitution, I'll stay at home.
America is Slouching Towards Gommorah -- a handful of True Believer Conservatives are just barely keeping America from racing towards Gommorah. Unless there's another Great Awakening, America will continue to slide lower and lower and ...
you'd rather lose?
well, you had best plan on making that comeback (regarding Roe) - sometime around 2040 then. Because when you look at the makeup of the court, who is retiring, who is getting old, that's the next chance you'll get to rebuild.
The election of 2004 was more indicative of where the American electorate actually is. The slight shift to Liberalism in 2006 was very small and hid the fact that the voters went for some Democrats who campaigned on somewhat conservative platforms and turned out some Republicans who they saw as somewhat corrupt. Unfortunately corruption is growing and the basically conservative voters will turn that out of office whether R or D, whether real or perceived.
Absolutely not - and the socialists in charge now offer a target-rich environment. Let's hunt some rat!!
.... and, yes, i am ready for a colts victory
It's too early to hand the nomination to Rudy. I am still keeping my fingers crossed that we can come up with Mark Sanford or Tom Coburn or somebody respectable. California Republicans threw McClintock under the bus and look what they got? I am praying hard that that does not happen on a national level.
"Limbaugh for President please".
I love Rush, and appreciate all he's done for the Conservative Movement, but couldn't vote for him for a national office. Multiple divorces = probable character flaw(s).
"Would you accept a gay agenda/NARAL supporting abortionist gun-grabber as your party's savior against Hillary Clinton even if it means we abandon the pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom of religion and pro-gun planks from the party's platform?"
There's not much left to support on principle, in comparison. The war effort would be all that is left, to differentiate the two. I'm doing what I can, to ensure that the choice doesn't come to this. The primaries are pretty heavily front-loaded, though, so it's do or die for other candidates who would better represent conservative principles, such as, imho, Hunter. I'm going to need a lot of convincing to believe that Romney is not mostly packaging.
If we are not careful it will be.
Republicans eat their own more than Democrats defeat anyone.
We have too much fighting against ourselves to defeat anyone else. As a result we lose elections.