Protestants have only voted Democrat in 1932, 1936 and 1964, so don't start mocking their conservatism.
You anti-social conservatives and seculars, vote overwhelmingly Democratic in every single election, you are their constituency.
Posted on 08/12/2010 4:41:22 PM PDT by wagglebee
Public opinion polls and the political pundits seem to now agree that if the November elections were held today the Republican Party would win an historic landslide victory. Indeed, the agenda of the Obama administration has been dominated by far left policies that have deepened the current economic recession and has pursued a radical social agenda, which includes a steadfast commitment to abortion on demand.
Public discontent with these policies is intense and the winds of political change are blowing mightily throughout the nation. The Tea Party movement has galvanized political dissension against the Obama agenda from all segments of society, and political commentators are telling us that the stage is being set for a political tsunami in November that sweeps out the old and brings in the new.
The Republican Party is confidently gearing itself up for taking over the reins of power in Washington D.C. and thus, bringing about corrective change that will reverse the present course of the country.
However, the pro-life movement must inquire of the Republicans if legal protection for the fundamental right to life will be on the forefront of these political changes to come. Will the Republicans who are swept into power because they espoused correct political rhetoric turn their backs on the pro-life movement once political power is obtained?
Recent comments from Indiana’s Republican governor Mitch Daniels leaves one with an unsettling feeling that a Republican assent to power may not guarantee significant changes to protect innocent human life from abortion and euthanasia. Daniels is a successful conservative governor who is being mentioned by the pundits as possible presidential timber in 2012. Indeed, his current record from a conservative standpoint is impressive.
Limited government, decreased government spending, and lower taxation on businesses and individuals are clearly being achieved in the Hoosier state under Daniels’ watch. His commitment to a sane economic policy is clear and he seems to have an economic game plan to save the country from its current ruinous advance towards economic collapse.
And, of course, his public political rhetoric has clearly been on the pro-family/pro-life side of the moral issues including abortion. Yet, recent comments from Daniels raise serious questions about his commitment to the moral issues -- particularly on the right to life.
Daniels was recently quoted as saying that there needs to be a “truce” in the country on moral issues such as abortion. When asked a few days later in an interview with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace to explain these comments Daniels defensively emphasized that his pro-life credentials should not be questioned. He went on to say that because our economic situation is in such dire straits the government must put “first things first”, downplay our differences on moral issues like abortion, and come together for the good of the country on economic policy.
Such a position amounts to a surrender to the status quo that favors abortion on demand and results in the deaths of 1.2 million unborn children a year. To call such a truce, as Daniels suggests, not only guarantees the deaths of millions of more children to abortion, but also means that the abortion industry will have achieved final victory in this cultural battle.
How can we in good conscience ever agree to such a truce? And how can we ever support a candidate for president who advocates such a position? One who truly believes that abortion is the ultimate atrocity occurring in this nation today, as I do, cannot call a truce on the issue in order to put “first things first.”
In 1980 the nation elected President Ronald Reagan in the midst of a deep inflationary recession. Reagan was brought into office through the votes of millions of concerned pro-life citizens who wanted to see an end to the abortion madness. Once in office, however, Reagan’s advisors told social conservatives that work on the life issue would have to wait because reviving the economy was the top priority of the administration. To his credit President Reagan fought as a leader for the right to life throughout his presidency despite the advice he received from advisors to downplay social issues, particularly abortion, and put “first things first.”
President Reagan was a true hero to the pro-life movement and did much to advance the cause of life. But many of his advisors, like Governor Daniels, viewed the pro-life movement as simply part of a political coalition that only need be placated with political rhetoric but not with solid political action. Reagan disagreed and his administration accomplished much on behalf of the right to life, notwithstanding the advice he was receiving.
As we approach the upcoming mid-term elections and the 2012 presidential sweepstakes the pro-life movement must not budge on its fundamental principles. We must insist that all political candidates whom we endorse be committed to ending abortion in the country once they are elected. Candidates of the Governor Daniels stripe must be wholeheartedly rejected.
Of course, the state of the economy is critical to our survival. However, a commitment to the pursuit of a sane economic policy should not preclude a strong commitment to simultaneously ending abortion. Forty million abortions have occurred since President Reagan was elected. Calling a truce in this matter will guarantee that millions more unborn children will be added to this grim statistic. This is simply unacceptable.
Putting “first things first” should clearly mean that the destruction of innocent human life in our nation must come to a screeching halt. The question to ask the Republican Party and its candidates in the coming elections is simply: “If elected, will you put first things first?”
Exactly!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If protection of innocent life isn’t Priority One, what good are your other priorities? Just asking.
So we have a smaller government, that is pro-business, and the economy thrives, and doesn’t protect innocent life, what good is that in God’s Eye?
If the GOP adopts such a truce, I’m out of the party. “Truce” on social issues means surrender. The other party will not agree to such a truce. Their agenda will continue ahead.
This guy isn’t what we can call a conservative political warrior is he?
Mitch Daniels:
“The next president, whoever he is, would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just to have to agree to get along for a little while,’ until the economic issues have resolved.”
“Stop dividing people as these issues do — as this administration likes to do, sadly — and try to come together in concert to do some very difficult and novel things. And this was really just an expression of the — of the hope that we might, at least temporarily — nobody changing their mind, nobody surrendering their principles — put first things first.”
I’m out now. I will vote for a conservative if there is one on the ballot, if not I’m writing one in.
Gov. Mitch Daniels = NO SALE
Not only is it that the GOP “can’t” do so, but it SHOULDN’T do so.
Not only is it that the GOP “can’t” do so, but it SHOULDN’T do so.
Mitch Daniels is no conservative, he has already come out against a major part of the conservative agenda, that is what the BS about “truce” is, he wants to somehow skip conservatism and yet be President.
Mitch is dead in the water. There are not enough liberaltarians to make up even a tiny portion of the conservatives that he has already lost by declaring war on them.
From the Weekly Standard:
Mitch Daniels Doubles Down on “Truce”
Mark Hemingway writes:
I got a call this morning from Indiana Governor and rumored presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. In my column yesterday on his remarks about a “truce” on social issues, I left the door open to the possibility that the Governor’s remarks may not have been a “rhetorical misstep.”
Of course, if you know anything about Mitch Daniels in this respect he’s the anti-Obama. He’s far more concerned about communication than rhetoric, he’s thoughtful and rarely speaks without consideration. Rhetorical missteps are exceedingly rare.
And indeed, Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitch-daniels-doubles-down-truce
If the majority of Americans are somehow "in the middle," then they had better smarten up or they will be paying Obambam's taxes and submitting to his tyranny and that of others like him for as long as they are "in the middle" (the middle being defined as a willingness to soothe their consciences by having a vague willingness to threaten to shut off a handful of the more egregious abortions each year). Pro-lifers can sit out any contest between varying degrees of pro-aborts and I am betting they will. I know I will.
If Mitch Daniels appoints judges to the Federal bench who will vote to remove a right to abortion from case law, that's really all he can do. It's as much as Reagan or Bush did, and it's enough for me.
If you want to see who is responsible for the continuation of abortion in America, don't point to Mitch Daniels.
Look instead at the millions of Catholics and Protestants who talk the pro-life cause 364 days a year, but on Election Day vote for the Kennedys, Daleys, Durbins, Kerrys - anything to keep that government cheese coming.
My state of West Virginia is chock full of people like that, which is why I am more and more dubious about "social conservatives" every year.
Since conservatism pretty much consists of what is called social conservatives, then you don’t have conservatism with out them.
The anti-social conservative category of voter is the base and the majority of the Democrat voting block.
Don’t let the minority of liberal but economically conservative deceive you into thinking that they make up even half of the conservative vote.
Protestants have only voted Democrat in 1932, 1936 and 1964, so don't start mocking their conservatism.
You anti-social conservatives and seculars, vote overwhelmingly Democratic in every single election, you are their constituency.
This is the same guy who, a year or two ago, said that the Republican party needs to "get over Reagan".
At that moment I knew this Daniels guy was no good -- so this is no surprise.
Other than encouraging speeches, and court appointments (which have yet to be tested on the issue) what exactly did they do to stop abortions?
I consider myself as pro-life as the vast majority of Freepers. It is one issue on which I disagree with my libertarian friends 100%.
What I do not believe is that it's particularly relevant to the Presidential election, other than not voting for a candidate who is explicitly pro abortion.
Abortion is going to gradually become extinct in our country. It is the one issue on which social conservatives clearly are winning over the hearts and minds of Americans. But it's not going to magically occur all at once on any given inauguration day.
GWB did not make major executive orders, especially where they were largely opposed by the public... As I recall.
Ground once given back to the enemy, is seldom ever recovered. VERY POLITICAL!
To some of the poor it is desired, probably through lack of information and understanding. There is a morning after pill.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABORTION,EXCEPT RARE OCCASIONS WHEN IT IS LIFE THREATENING DUE TO A COMPLICATING DISEASE OF THE MOTHER. moo
God Help us in our day, in Jesus name,amen.
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.