Posted on 09/18/2007 8:04:36 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Monday night the Value Voters Debate for Republicans was skipped by the so-called “top” candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Thus showing they don’t have any values, and are chicken.
The Value Voters Debate involved the Republican “base,” the folks who win elections. The “top” candidates ignored them.
Of course, Ron Paul attended, and won. He has more values than all the other candidates combined. Here’s his closing statement.
And here are the questions the “top” four candidates refused to answer by not attending. Even though they weren’t there, lecterns were set up for them, and questions were asked. There were no answers, of course. But the questions are revealing.
As quoted in Salon’s War Room:
Question for Rudy Giuliani, asked by a teenage girl with an apparent speech impediment:
“Eighteen years ago, an abortionist was hired to kill me, but he failed. Nuns came and rescued me and took me to the hospital, where I stayed for two months. My heroic parents then adopted me. Mayor Giuliani, your position on abortion would have left me dead. Now that you see me, Mayor Giuliani, do you honestly believe that an abortionist had a right to kill me?”
Question for Mitt Romney, asked by Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth About Homosexuality:
“Governor Romney, you are running as a pro-life and pro-marriage candidate, but you have a history of being strongly pro-abortion on demand and pro-homosexual. You supported Roe v. Wade and said abortion should be, quote, ’safe and legal.’ In 2002, you opposed a state constitutional amendment that would have stopped homosexual so-called marriage in Massachusetts. You said homosexuals should be allowed in the Boy Scouts of America and, as governor, you officially celebrated ‘Gay-Straight Youth Pride Day,’ whatever that is. You sat on Marriott’s board of directors for 10 years, while it profited off the sale of hardcore pornographic videos to its guests. My question is: Why should voters trust you after you spent so much of your career aggressively promoting anti-life and anti-family positions? I understand a change of heart, but a change of position on life, marriage, gun control, pornography and immigration, all preceding your run for president?”
Question for Fred Thompson, asked by Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel:
“While you were senator, you opposed the federal marriage amendment, but recently you stated that you would support a marriage amendment that would prevent judges from imposing same-sex marriage, so long as it would not prohibit state legislatures from adopting same-sex marriage. This reasoning is like saying that you favor a constitutional amendment that prohibits judges from imposing slavery so long as the state legislatures were free to do so. Does not your position fundamentally misunderstand the universal importance of marriage in the same way my latter example about slavery indicates a misunderstanding of human dignity?”
Question for John McCain, asked by Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action:
“Senator McCain, I know that you were invited because your office called several times to say, “Stop the phone calls. We’ve shut down the campaign. We can’t make outgoing calls, there’s so many coming in,” encouraging us to come to the debate, which I just want to remind you that all those calls are all those voters. Just a little reminder. But my question to you, Senator McCain, is this: I was troubled by the lawsuit that you and other members of Congress filed against Wisconsin Right to Life for airing radio and television ads to encourage the public to lobby their senators to oppose the filibuster of the judicial candidates. While, thankfully, Wisconsin Right to Life won the lawsuit, was it really your goal to gag and prevent groups from being involved in the legislative process during the ‘no free speech zones,’ 60 days before a general election and 30 days prior to a primary election, as your campaign finance reform law required?”
I remember some nation wide Value Voter petition with all 12 signatures on it.
This appears to be some tiny website that interests 15 people.
Anything change since I last looked into it?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
So, where’s Ron Paul’s softball question you asked?????
Lay off the crack.
John...are you naturally stupid or do you have to practice?
Has a big time home office. LOL
Ron Paul won a debate where he was the only participant?!
I bet the Paul kooks STILL spammed the internet polls.
“HUCKABEE WINS VALUES VOTER STRAW POLL!”
Apparently, the Values Voter Debate Crew disagrees about who won.
Stacking online polls didn't work very well, this time.
Ron Paul Forums.com. Pay particular attention to the very first entry.
I am kind of dissapointed that they were ckicken enough not to answer tough religious voter’s questions.. (of course it’s more of teh plan by the elitists to take advantage of Christians- use them for votes, but meanwhile delegate them to the “back of the bus” in the Republican Party). See some of these elites are former 60’s radicals (now rich liberals made so by the corporations they once railed against!!), anyway they hate Christians, Southern voter, Middle and Red-State America..
Well I will tell them, I WON’T go along with it; I won’t give them my vote for lack of (”Somewhere else to go”..they figure ‘Who are religious ‘values voters’ going to turn (in ‘08) to the Democrats..surely not’ We may have a (liberal candidate: Guiliani, Romney, McCain, etc..) yet the Democrats are worse, and the Christians know it, they’ll vote for us no-matter what’. THe problem with this is that Republicans, Christians are not sheep (even though they have not always acted like they aren’t), and party loyalty isn’t that important. We need to deny the elites, and choose a third way: FRANKLY I COULDN’T CARE IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DIES, as long as Conservatism advances, and it may well require a new CONSERVATIVE Political Party to purge the leadership of the Republican Party, in the near future!
I won’t go along with the elitists of the Party..I will BUCK them, and VOTE 3RD Party if their Elite Liberal Candidate wins the Republican Nom. THAT’S A PROMISE.
I’m a Paul supporter but I’ll be the first to admit Huckabee did a damn good job.
Which part did Ron Paul win? The lightning round? Who judged him the winner, because the Values Voter folks voted Huckabee the winner.
The more, the better? Can one have too many values? How many values do you recommend a person should have?
Gee, I thought it was Huckabee. Get your facts straight people.
Seeing as all 4 questions to the missing candidates were “gotcha” questions, I wouldn’t have wanted to show up either.
What are conservatives seriously going to do next after the Democrats win everything important on November 4, 2008 and then turn the entire U.S. into a socialistic country for the long-term?
“Here’s his closing statement.”
Did I miss or it was his closing statement just a recitation of questions other candidates ducked by not showing up?
“Christians are not sheep”
Well, we are just not in the context that you use. Our shepherd is mighty and carries no party identifier alongside His name.
I beat the Dallas Cowboys all by myself tonight. Those chickens didn’t show up, and I won 35 to nothing. It only took me 6 plays to score on each drive too.
First off, we aren’t backing Ron Paul to prevent that from happening.
The internal revolt against the Paulistinians is intense. The agents of surrender managed to sneak this thread in the middle of the night however.
During the day, it really sucks to be a Paulistinian on Freerepublic. They should get no comfort here on this forum. If you would like, I can add you to the "Paulistinian Ping" list.
BTW, love the TehRon name.
True, but we should be sheep to the ~right~ shepherd!
Yep, Democrats love the throw away vote like that.
Traditional stuff every election around here by mostly the libertarian types who love to benefit Democrats in the name of conservatism.
I think primaries would be the time for an attempt at the more conservative change, then once people are set as the nominee you have the real choice between the fire breathing communist Hillary and her socialized medicine, or the Republican.
The third party types are chump change that make liberals very happy because that lowers the votes for Republicans and can better get the liberal democrats in.
You have the right to help get Hillary elected if you wish, but don’t go around blind folded about what voting third party really means in elections where a lack of Republican vote can get the worst Democrat in.
Conservative third party voting in main elections ends up being passive support for the Democrat party.
Of course.
Only Paul should get the 'gotcha' questions because he can answer them.
Call me what you wish (helper of Democrats, etc): I am only advocating this for the Presidential election in this circumstance (not Congressional/Senatoral Elections)..I don’t think our nation can survive another liberal republican as POTUS (God bless our Pres, I think he has done some good. Judges, Tax-cuts, War on Terror, etc, yet I belive he as gone too far left for my tastes), We need a true Reaganite in as President (or none at all) because we CANNOT survive a liberal Republican; and I will not be taken for granted by the Elites in the Party@!
Guarantee I won’t vote for a liberal- a liberal=a liberal= a liberal whethere they have a (D), an (R) or anyother combination on their ticket. I don’t care if they are an (R) frankly the (R) is a tool, and when that tool becomes rusty you find/buy another one..~!
Your not helping the country survive if you do things that give Democrats power.
Your better off to try your best to get your republican nominee and then who ever it is you back them for President, if you don’t, we get the fire breathing communist Democrat.
Common sense has to rule the day.
Common sense also says that liberals=liberals whether they have an (R) or a (D) next to their name.. I am helping the nation if I choose not to support a liberal.
I agree with you most of the time that it is best to win the primary with the best conservative candidate..
but The ‘08 election is a special circumstance; I would contend! Our nation cannot surivive another liberal Republican, and not to mention that in the eyes of 90% of the voting population the Republican Candidate (Standard Bearer) is the Conservative candidate; He defines “Conservatism” for the next 4-8 years..and I would be doing a disservice to the nation, and to the cause to let this happen by supporting a liberal Republican Candidate for President. This would harm the cause, the nation, and make it less conservative; more liberal! I could care less about the Republican Party (partisanship), as long as Conservatism (Ronald Reagan brand of Conservatism) is advanced, whether support of it goes with it or not..!
BS my friend, 08 is a Presidential election year like ever other Presidential year.
If you want Hillary care, socialized medicine, to surrender the war on terror and to ruin the economy, then don’t vote for the Republican representative for President in 2008.
Anything else done but voting Republican in the main election is a vote for the far worse communist, surrendering liberal Democrat and you will also give them power to appoint some important judges. (Which would be insane)
That is the truthful bottom line of the facts.
Vote away from the Republican in he main election and you are in effect supporting Democrat rule and destruction.
Look at the logic and drop the emotions and it is simple logic.
Sure I am with you in not wanting less than the most conservative choice, but if WE feel in a primary to get that one in the Republican slot, there is no sense in shooting ourselves in the head by getting Democrats in.
It should be EVERYTHING you are against to get Democrats in.
Frankly, as I have said, I am not disloyal to America by not voting Republican for POTUS (if a liberal wins-really I have declared freedom from elitists); and I will not be a (R)- Footsoldier, to be taken for granted-no thanks -country-club Republicans, at least those whom aren’t RR Conservatives too!)- ((not saying you are one though))..
POTUS 08 is different because of the choices we have been given by the media and our party annointed -elites- candidates- NO THANKS; I prefer getting my candidate by ideas; conservative values, and real world-grass roots interaction..not soundbites, and big campaign donations, and media coverage..
I will not bow to the Republican Party -elites- and it this iteration of the Republican Party is destroyed; so be it.. Then maybe we can get along with the task of forming a Real Conservative party..and actually getting something done for once such as overturning Roe v. Wade, reigning-in-spending, actually reducing the size and power of the Federal government; winning the war-without worrying about PC sh8t, and protecting our Constitutional rights..
I don’t have to support a Republican- it seems you are owefully tied to the support for the Republican party (do you have a vested interest..just curious, not being acusatory or viscious to you).
BTW I dont think some of our supposed candidates ARE better than the democrats on some of the issues you listed; they would be worse or the same..plus as I said The REPUBLICAN POTUS becomes the standard bearer for “Conservative Values” to 90% of the nation-if that candidate is less than Conservative then the net effect is to move the country in a more liberal direction; no thanks, and for this simple reason I won’t support a liberal for President ‘08, whether R or D!
There is no logic to helping Democrats get power IMO.
You are going to participate in the 2008 version of Ross Perot again to help a Hillary get elected.
I don’t see anything gained by that.
Unless it galvinizes Conservative opposition to push for true Conservatism next time- not a mix “big-tent” of liberalism republicans-country clubism-neocons-paleocons-Reaganites/Goldwater cons-social cons-constitutionalist-etc that we have now!
I think you are mistaking power (which may be lost further) for the advancement of priciples and ideas.
Power should not be sought at ANY cost,..including the compromise of one’s principles; this would be far more dangerous, IMO.
Typical bad thinking that we saw in Perot voters as well.
Nothing new, screw the more conservative candidate because you don’t have the best candidate you like, causing the worst liberal Democrat to gain office.
Not a bright move in any case.
Judges
The war
Immigration
All on the table and will go in far worse directions if the Democrat wins over the Republican.
I don’t see any advancement, principles or smart ideas when it leads to helping Hillary Clinton get elected.
Sure, she’s give you a badge of honor for helping her, but that is about it IMO.
It’s not bad thinking when we have a candidate like Guilani or Romney becuase
A) It gives the elitists that put these people (as the “front runners”) increased power-
B) It defines conservatism for 90% of the nation (and Guliani, et all certainly aren’t conservative-thereby making the average joe (that may not believe in much of what they support go though a crisis of conscience when deciding to ‘reluctantly support’ them or not). I know many principled conservatives that simply will NOT support someone like that, or worse for the people that do not care- (Liberal) defines Conservative for them, thereby making the definition of conservative not truely Conservative Anymore, te average joe would then see liberal polities (that our “CandidateStarndard Bearer Represent”- The Left and The Media want this to pervert conservatism (and make the country into their image! It’s a classic communist tactic (or other subversive org): infiltrate your enemies, with liberalism, then we will have won by moving the fight to the “left” thereby having won by default!
C) It causes the elites in the party to take advantage of Christians (and other grass-roots activists) for their own power gain-one in which if they gained it (becuase WE now see that the vast majority of the “elites” in the Republican Party are not truely Principled Ronald Reagan Conservatives) they would WORK AGAINST the values/principles of the very people that put them in power! (And this is the most dangerous aspect of it-We have seen “inside” the hidden room, just a glimmer with the recent immigration debate!
As I asked before Do you have a vested interest in this fight (I will be friendly, and I am a Christian so I hate no one; I won’t persecute you if you are), yet I WANT you to answer this: Do you have a dog in this fight? Are you a republican party worker.. or a highly esteemed volunteer on someone’s camp?? It sure seems like you have a dog in this fight..
Anyway I lets also see you actually answer some of my points (and if you disagree; fine, but point out whey ‘I am wrong’ in your opinion) rather than going in ‘circles’ metaphorically, rhetorically!
How much aluminum foil was there?
Once again you are avoiding the issue myfriend, you are not answering my “faulty logic” thereby diluting your point becuase you fail to answer it; and as a result my points are not seen as faulty (becuase they aren’t)..
I could care less what you call (helper of Democrats..ect?)
AND you didn’t answer my question: Can I take that as a, YES?
Sure makes sense now..
You sure as hell are not going to get better Judges, economy or respect from Democrats. So why do things that help them get elected?
I’ve heard all the religious or pure conservative arguments for most of a decade now and it is immature to think that way.
What are the fruits of what you want to do?
President Hillary Clinton.
That is why you do the best you can in the primary and then go for the Republican.
You are going to have either a Republican or Democrat win and the Democrat side is so left it’s ridiculous now.
Support DUNCAN HUNTER.
Problem solved.
How is is immature?
You still refuse to anwser my point; you call them “immature”, “stupid”, yet my points STAND becuase they haven’t really been challenged..?
Yo, I don’t have to support the Republican candidate (as a Conservative) like I said, I think the Primary system is stacked: there isn’t a way for a true Ronald Reagan style conservative to win..and if a liberal does, I will NOT support them..
I think I will take the ANSWER to the Question of do You have personal vested interest in this fight as: YES.
Now you haven’t really pointed out why my arguments are “idiotic”..infact you really haven’t answered me at all.
Will you..?
In anycase instead of continueing to go in circles metaphorically. It is pretty much useless to argue with you unless you actually want to debate my points (and yours too, instead of the attacks!). SO unless you do, this will be my last post to you becuase YOU only post the same thing, over, and over, and over..again!
You don’t in the primary need to support the Republican candidate but during the main election you sure do unless you are for getting Democrats in power.
It really is as simple as that.
NO, I (WE Principled Cons) do NOT@!
(chuckle)
That’s why many here including myself fell third party types are just liberals who like to talk a little conservatism to get by.
I look at what they do, and what they do gives liberals more power than conservatives, so that is where I consider their loyalties to be since that is the outcome they enable.
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.