Posted on 09/08/2010 11:03:34 AM PDT by julieee
And? Depending on the district, then give 60% or 70% of your message to the economy...but don't ignore the social issues...
BTW, I find the fantasy land on these threads pretty amazing sometimes...for example, FReepers talk as if one little ole legislator talkin' 'bout the huge, steep economy is then going to waltz into office & presto-chango...the economy's back...
Talk, talk, talk, about something so massive...and we think a handful of newly elected Republican office-holders will turn the mighty Titanic enough to keep navigating around every iceberg @ the breakneck speed we keep operating under.
Amazing.
Listen. I don't mean to completely downgrade talkin "the talk." But, unfortunately, there's not a lot of substantive ideas injected into "the talk." The solutions haven't usually been corporately thought out. And what's worse, few engage like statesmen anymore. IOW, really persuasive statesmen.
Let's face it: The Republicans should be elected to keep the Dems from driving the country faster into the ground than it's already moving. Having said that, I don't expect Republicans to "turn things around" -- just slow down the decay & deterioration & erosion.
Frankly our country is in such a horrific moral state that we're bankrupt there. That being the case, only God; plus mass repentance, daily widespread prayer, and trust in God to act can turn this ship around.
"Economy talk" isn't the gleaming new showroom showcase it's being plugged to be on this thread.
What candidate that we are discussing is pro-choice?
Bears repeating. Some just aren't getting it!
RINOS now control the party.
Excuse me, but where is the disconnect between killing off millions of people who could have made up our workforce, and economic prosperity in general? Abortion is not merely a social issue, Mr. Barbour. The sooner you and your ilk figure that out the better off we’ll all be.
Since elites in this country are almost uniformly hostile to conservatism, our movement must necessarily be populist in tone....Bipartisanship, on the other hand, is all about deal-making among inside-the-Beltway types, Such deal-making is poison to populism because it makes it impossible for the people to know exactly where key players stand on important issues.
Ingraham goes further with the example of Stupak. If Pelosi had picked off a few GOP votes for Obamacare, she would have allowed Stupak to vote NO, and he could have run for reelection as a "pro-life opponent" of Obamacare.
I'd ditch Haley Barbour before I'd ditch God and his unborn children.
Haley Barbour will next be wanting conservatives to embrace the Log Cabin Republicans as well I suspect. But will he ask them to embrace them from the backside?! LOL.
Better idea, Haley — ditch any idea of running for President. Apparently, Barbour didn’t learn the lesson that Mitch Daniels was recently taught.
Sounds like his "credentials" were just a matter of him doing what he had to win in Mississippi.
And, no, he didn't say the focus should be on economic issues. He said to ditch social conservative issues. Hell freezes over before social conservatives vote for someone that disrespect issues they hold dear like that. Barbour is proving to be part of the problem with the Republican party.
Again, we have an example of career politician out of touch with the grassroots of the party.
Scott Brown is not pro-life.
There isn't a GOP candidate out there not running on the economy first anyway so his comments are merely an attack on social conservatives.
There is a big difference between ditching social issues and putting an emphasis on the economy while strongly supporting measures that will eliminate or reduce abortion and protect marriage.
Neither ditched social issues when they got in office. In fact, Christie has aggressively sought to eliminate PP funding and the state of Virginia has ramped up regulations against abortion clinics.
In fact, the Democrat went out of his way to make McDonnell's "extreme" views on social issues a issue in the campaign and the strategy failed miserably, proving that Republicans don't have to ditch the issues while running.
It is also easy to dismiss an agenda you did not run on.
The blanker the slate, the more dangerous the candidate, IMO.
When has campaigning not largely been about morality positions and speeches about the right and wrong of competing political positions and platforms?
How many babies do you think will be saved if the Democrats win?
RC, I think you mistook my commentary as directed at you in particular. It wasn’t. It was meant as a general commentary.
That being said, I will continue to refuse to support anyone who is pro-choice. I do NOT care which party that person belongs to. I will not cave in on my beliefs to mistakenly assume that my ‘tolerance’ of such an inhuman act is better than an outright democrat in office. For me, BOTH are part of a culture of death which do NOT deserve to be in elected office.
I will NOT cave on my beliefs for the sale of expediency or anything else.
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.