Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dominic Harr

The problem is that the Socials now insist on injecting social issues into coalition. They're changing the contract.

Most of the socials were brought into the coalition by Reagan's pro-life position. Before the Republicans accepted the socials, the GOP was wandering in the wilderness. Now, it seems they want to go back.


417 posted on 03/08/2007 8:01:15 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies ]


To: freedomfiter2
Now, it seems they want to go back.

I'd argue the Rs took the majority based on the 'contract with America', which was all about political issues. Didn't mention abortion or gays at all.

In 06, when we were screaming for lower spending, ethics reform, etc, the social Rs gave us illegal internet gambling and the defense of marriage act. And they lost that majority we gave them.

The deal was that coalition focuses on political issues, and we agree to not do anything on the social issues we disagree on.

We voted for pro-life conservatives on the understanding that there was no plans for him to make a federal law against abortion.

Now that there's a possibility of a pro-choice conservative, the socials are threatening to bolt unless they get their way on social issues. Which makes us feel very stupid for backing the Socials like GW, who is not really a political conservative at all.

Ya'll took. Now it's time to give. And ya'll are threatening to walk, instead.

422 posted on 03/08/2007 8:12:28 AM PST by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson