Posted on 11/07/2007 1:34:34 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Robertson endorses Giuliani, Weyrich endorses Romney, Dobson says stop the madness, vote third party. Limbaugh sits on the sidelines but appears to be willing to accept the worst without so much as a whimper. This is what happens when a conservative party loses its way. Conservatism takes a back seat to liberalism. Conservative leaders start endorsing pro-abort liberals and RINOs because they're "electable." Conservatives flee to third parties or stay home in disgust. The party self-destructs.
!0, 9, 8, 7, 6...
I agree. Though I personally like Dobson that man is going to be the death of the GOP if he keeps this up.
Beating Hillary is the prime directive in this election. If that is not true, then it’s not an election but an affirmation of faith. Whomever conservatives vote for, he had better be able to beat Hillary or the conservative movement will become irrelevant. Right now three possibilities exist: Fred, Mitt, Rudy, and it sure looks like conservatives, by themselves, will not determine the outcome of the primary. But conservatives sure can help get Hillary elected if they throw a well-timed tantrum.
The person’s running this permitted guesses to be made for a small fee. When all the guesses were obtained, they then gave a large prize to the most correct.
-
that’s the key to making it work. but that is not like democracy and it is why markets work better than governments most of the time.
I refuse to vote for anti-gun liberal pukes.
Here's my problem with it. The underlying assumption of your argument is that there exists some reason to be a member of this party and to accept the result of a primary election. If, however, you throw into that mix a candidate who has been married three times, who dodged the draft when he was younger, who is pro-abortion, anti-gun, and pro-gay rights, you are suggesting that none of those issues are issues around which Republicans need coalesce.
IOW, if you believe that Rudy would serve as a suitable representative of the Republican Party, then please tell me what, if any, unifying principles will be left to distinguish the Republican Party? What continuing reason would there be to BE a Republican?
If you believe Romney has genuinely moved right on important conservative issues--as Weyrich and (I believe) Dobson do, then it makes sense. Romney is a hard-nosed and highly accomplished businessman who is very unlikely to fall for the "compassionate conservative" crapola that we have been served up these past eight years. So, we stand to get fiscal conservatism AND social conservatism in one tidy package from Romney.
If you believe Romney is lying about his move to the right, then you should not even consider him. He'll be substantially equivalent to Giuliani, and no gain at all.
I believe he is sincere, and I believe he proved his conservative bona fides by pushing as hard to the right as governor of Massachusetts as the ultra-liberal environment there permitted him to push.
Is Pat about to come out of the closet here?
I see the word "conservative" not as a religion, an ideology or a series of litmus tests but rather as an attitude based on underlying principles.
Those underlying principles are well described by Russell Kirk in his magnificent essay you can find: HERE
Kirk was the principal author of the modern conservative movement. He is well worth a read. And a careful read of his efforts would suggest, at least to me, the common ground that principled conservatives share.
“I believe Dobson will eventually declare his public support for Romney.”
Maybe
“The online evangelist said Dobson’s Focus on the Family, for example, is part of the World Congress of Families – an organization which the foundation of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the Mormon church, is a major funder of. Keller also claims Dobson and other leaders remain silent on Romney because they don’t want to upset the large number of Mormons who buy their books.”
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071016/29718_Why_Some_Evangelicals_Won’t_Vote_for_Romney.htm
On the contrary, I'm expecting a lot from the surviving Republican Senators. I have some trust that they'll see the light when RINO Rooty goes down, along with other GOP Senators who supported Hillary-lite.
More recent is James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock who wrote in the their Nobel speech, "The average individual acts on the basis of the same overall value scale when he participates in market activity and in political activity>"
We aren't BORN Republican, we don't have Republican DNA or Republican tattoos. Those of us who are Republican have CHOSEN to be Republican because we feel a UNITY OF INTEREST BASED UPON UNIFYING PRINCIPLES WITH OTHER REPUBLICANS. What unifying principles would be left?
Are you really suggesting that paying lip service to the memory of Russell Kirk is sufficient for the Republican Party to retain the loyalty of its members?
They are working right now on a new assualt weapons ban that Rooty, Mutt, or any of the RATS would be sure to sign.
GWB would have signed them as well. There are always going to be a few Democrats out there pushing for more gun control but the rank and file learned the hard way that gun control for Dems is a losing issue. I highly doubt Rudy is going to jump on the gun-control bandwagon.
At any rate, the USSC is about to decide one way or the other on the 2nd Amendment. Gun rights isn't going to be an issue for the next election. Like abortion, the right to keep and bear arms is an issue that has already been decided in the hearts of the American electorate.
You, obviously have not read Kirk’s essay. I have nothing further to add.
I was disappointed the other day when Rush said and I'm paraphrasing here that he would gladly get behind whomever the Republican nominee ends up being.
And this from the guy who says Republicans only win by running as conservatives.
“GWB would have signed them as well.”
President Bush said he would sign to renew the bill that was expiring IF nothing was added to it.
Then he made a deal with Bill Frist and the NRA to let the RATS run wild adding things to it so it got no support and died in the Senate.
Bush played the RATS like a Banjo on that one!
The AWB is dead because of President Bush’s leadership on that issue.
What really doesn’t make sense to me is the fact that Rush has said things like “it looks like a two person race at this point” or “it looks like Rudy will get the nomination,” yet he has acknowledged that anything can happen in the months and weeks leading up to the primaries.
It’s a complete mystery to me why Rush would say these things.
Not to mention why he won’t come out for Hunter or Thompson. What am I missing?
If you're a "long time listener" of Rush, perhaps you recall his "caller abortion" jokes with sound effects. He used to joke about abortion. I don't recall him ever expressing strong feelings about the gay agenda. How many times has HE been married? Three?
The point is that I don't think Rush has ever been very interested in the social value issues that concern so many people about Rudy. The one time I remember Rush really getting emotional (tearful, actually) was back in 1993 when they were passing Clinton's tax hike. He was GENUINELY upset by that. But I don't think the social issues really capture his interest.
Nothing wrong with fighting for your candidate in the primary. But once the dust clears we have to support the anti-Hillary Republican candidate regardless of who he is. Hillary would be a loser for us all the way around.
Sorry, I will not be supporting a constitution trampling, gun grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-planned parenthood, pro-gay agenda, pro-thought crimes, pro sanctuary city liberal candidate for president. Best double and redouble your efforts to nominate a conservative instead of whining about Hillary.
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.