Posted on 04/20/2007 9:51:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
You're welcome.
It sounds like you are saying if we nominate a “real” conservative then they will come. I don’t think we have any examples of that from recent history.
Don't put words in my mouth. W is pretty liberal thus the need for "compassionate convervatism" instead of the real thing. But, he ran AS a conservative.
Instead we have a fairly liberal Nixon, Ford (who wasn't elected) and both Bushes. We can talk about Reagan but Carter’s presidency was far more of a disaster than Clinton’s and this made it easy for Reagan to win.
Great point. The liberal Republican's didn't work out very well for us did they?
People didn’t vote for Reagan because he was against abortion or that he believed in God, they voted for Reagan because he had a positive outlook on life, the economy stank and Carter’s foreign policy was humiliating.
You're just out and out wrong about that. Ford lost not just because of Watergate but because of Roe vs. Wade and how he ignored it thus weakening the base's support. Reagan was only the second Republican Candidate to run after Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land. We were begining to not just see but realize the impact of the decision upon our nation.
The desperation of the pro-aborts is just now starting to manifest itself. The world is no longer going their way. THAT is why there is a coarsening of our culture. THAT is why the views are so stridently expressed now - because the liberals are losing. They don't like it.
Reagan defined conservatism - and was blessed with the excuse of a dem controlled congress and Tip O'Neill for when he swayed. So, he was able to keep his principles intact.
Regards,
TS
I think you hit the nail on the head there. This is another reason I don't jump into the vitriol over Rudy and sometimes jump to his defense. I feel people will eventually come around and his numbers will drop. Likewise McCain is old and tired. I thought his skin cancer would give him the perfect way to bow out with honor. Which leaves who? Romney? Someone the conservatives don't trust either - flip-flopper or Mormon, I'm not sure what bothers conservatives most. Then there is Thompson or Hunter. Thompson could I think pull everyone together but he's not in it yet and recently announced cancer too (which an issue will be made of) and Hunter who nobody knows. We have to avoid the stereotype of a conservative candidate - a grouchy old white guy. Hopefully Thompson and/or Hunter can avoid that.
The Revolution was led by both freethinkers and devout men. They were smart enough to understand (as did Reagan and most other Republicans before Bush Jr) that religion needed to be kept at arm's length from politics in a society where everybody had the right to practice different beliefs, or none at all.
The GOP under Bush turned into Statists who were no different from the Democrats-they just did their social meddling in the name of Jesus. That is not conservatism, nor is it Republicanism. Being passionate about defending your beliefs is one thing-trying to impose them on those who don't agree with you is something else entirely. Unfortunately, that is what a lot of social conservatives seem hell-bent on doing.
This kind of narrow thinking is what is costing the GOP and real, small-government conservatism support.
I don't buy it! You're placing a liberal candidate over conservatism. All the RudyBoosters need to get this through their thick skulls. Most of us around FR place conservatism ahead of any liberal candidate. In the world of conservatism, Rudy Giuliani is persona non grata. Period.
He ran as a compassionate conservative who said that although he was personally against abortion the public wasn't ready to make it illegal and that he believed the proper approach was to change people's hearts. This is a an approach which appealed to the middle and after 8 years of Clinton follies the conservatives were willing to accept it. I wonder if they'd accept that now.
People didn’t vote for Reagan because he was against abortion or that he believed in God, they voted for Reagan because he had a positive outlook on life, the economy stank and Carter’s foreign policy was humiliating.
You're just out and out wrong about that. Ford lost not just because of Watergate but because of Roe vs. Wade and how he ignored it thus weakening the base's support. Reagan was only the second Republican Candidate to run after Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land. We were begining to not just see but realize the impact of the decision upon our nation.
No way, I respectfully disagree and think you are looking through your own prism. I realize that abortion is a big issue for you and your friends but there's no way Roe was a big deal in that election for most of the country during that election. Ford lost because of Watergate (which we both agree), for pardoning Nixon and for running after he promissed not to run. Abortion was not a big issue in that election even though it may have been a big issue for you.
Huh...I did what? You don't buy what? What liberal candidate? What conservative candidate? Why are you Rudy-haters so quick to anger? Where did that come from?
Reagan won because of Carter's ineptitude. Again, he didn't deal with Roe V. Wade because he considered it settled law. It has not been an issue in any Presidential campaign except among the single-issue voters for more than thirty years and this is not going to change.
Me and my friends? I thought you and I were having a discussion?
This is a an approach which appealed to the middle and after 8 years of Clinton follies the conservatives were willing to accept it. I wonder if they'd accept that now.
No, because it was a principled stand based on W's beliefs. He was credible when he talked about it. Romney's not credible considering his record. I believe McCain would wilt under scrutiny just like he did in South Carolina in 2000. Guiliani - to his credit - knows he's not credible but he hasn't even tried to build a bridge - he's burnt the bridge and mined the bridge heads.
Please don't characterize me by other's posts.
Regards,
TS
Well Jim it’s As I said here way back here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587294/posts?page=196#196
You must remember there is a heavy infestation of party (both sides), government, alphabet soup agencies & Zion Zealot, Spin doctors and poll pushers on FR. Specially
after 911 and really during & after the 04 election.
You can read the old FR threads and see the difference.
If all of the above is true (and it is) then why would we not say that the root of conservatism is our belief in God?
Some were devout and some were not. Some were devout in, ways that were not in line with the established church. Certainly their standards of moral conduct varied quite a bit.
You are right to that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but I think there was one specific principle that had heavier influence on the founding than the others -- and a principle, furthermore, that was strongly affected by the enlightenment. This is the concept that each person answers to God individually.
In some ways it was a radical concept. The European nations, for the most part, had official churches -- something that was explicitly rejected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the founders rejected an explicit statement of morals in favor of rights (which is why the first ten amendments were called "The Bill of Rights," not "The Bill of Morals."). The rights were God-given -- but in the idea of "natural rights," is the point that they cannot be denied, even by those who do not believe in God.
Those rights exist so that the individual may determine what God wants of him. That is the founding principle that should be the foremost to be concerned. As such, the problem with law based on morals, rather than rights is that they often clash with the founding principle and are, as such, not conservative.
The irony is that the government, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, ought not base its law on Judeo-Christian morals. Rather it should respect the individual relationship (or lack of same, perhaps, in some cases) between man and God and and rule based on rights.
I believe that is what the nation was founded on. I believe, therefore, that it is a conservative, if often radically libertarian, outlook.
(Abortion, BTW, does not fit neatly into this framework, because there is a debate of when the fetus becomes a human individual with the rights of an infant. Even if you think the answer is obvious, the question is presently being debated.)
Yes we were and I'd like to consider you a friend too since your on FreeRepublic. I'd assumed you have other friends who believe as you do too.
Do you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about?
No one is suggesting that Ford could have overturned Roe vs. Wade.
Reagan won because of Carter's ineptitude. Again, he didn't deal with Roe V. Wade because he considered it settled law. It has not been an issue in any Presidential campaign except among the single-issue voters for more than thirty years and this is not going to change.
You consider the 1980 blowout - 489 electoral votes to 49 - to be caused by Carter's ineptitude? It was a wipeout. Abortion is an issue and it's an issue on both sides of the aisle. Do you remember 2004 when one of the main deciding issues was who would appoint the SC Justices? Why do you think anyone is interested in the Supreme Court?
Regards,
TS
I have taken a respite from posting because I have found myself so enraged by Giuliani and his minions. I couldn’t figure out why I despised this man so much.
But Rudy is the embodiment of what we fight against. He is a metrosexual. He represents the political correctness bootlickers. He believes abortion is a right, but gun ownership isn’t. He isn’t fully honest about his views because he thinks he can just change them to suit the moment and the audience. That’s another thing we don’t need. Too many politicians insult our intelligence every day.
East coast Rockefeller liberalism nearly made the Republican Party a permanent minority, back in the sixties and seventies. We are now being asked to return to the heady days of Gerald Ford. Ford’s legacy is John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. That nomination is the curse that keeps on cursing.
We have a consensus candidate, Fred Thompson. Hopefully, he will enter the race soon. I want to thank you for your service to conservatism and for this wonderful site.
In 2004 the main issue was the Iraq War.
Bravo!
I don’t remember any of the Justices Reagan appointed overturning it, do you?
Scalia would vote to overturn and both Bork and Douglas Ginsburg would have voted to overturn.
That doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that Reagan believed Roe was "settled law". He did not and there is clear evidence to the contrary. For example, the following passage from Reagan's Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.
It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.
As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy...
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.