Posted on 01/21/2013 9:48:38 PM PST by ReformationFan
It is hardly realistic to attempt to sustain moral virtues with a giant government acting against them. The chicken and egg might be a little hard to separate here, but the leftists did not take over because someone on our side didn't run socially conservative. They took over because they are a self-sustaining cabal, and they coopted people like George W Bush into growing the government. (Not to mention Nixon).
I think your partially right. Allen, Thompson, Romney ran bland campaigns thinking this would be a walk. Akin and Murdoch said statements that were so ignorant and misogynistic that they were used to back up the lefts claim of the imaginary “war on woman”.
Santorum was the last remaining credible Conservative in the Presidential race. Was he the best we could run ? By no means. However there is a serious problem EVERY Conservative candidate must face, in that they have to run against the establishment brick wall that doesn’t want anyone but big government liberals to be the nominee.
It’s appalling we have to run against our own f’ing party just to get a GOOD nominee through, which by the time that happens, if even possible, they’ve been completely bankrupted of funds fighting against that left-wing establishment, AND have had their names and character dragged through the mud. All of this BEFORE they face the Democrat and media onslaught for the general. And you wonder why our best and brightest say, “F it, I’m not putting myself or my family through this crap.”
The reason why Santorum was remotely viable was solely because of how horrendous and viscerally unpopular Willard was to the base and wanting to support someone, anyone, who remotely shared their values to go into the general election.
Indeed, it’s not Santorum I’m worried about running again in 2016 (I doubt he would). It’s that the establishment will insist on coronating that Zero bootlicking fat tub of $hit from New Jersey, Christie. You know, “Someone who can win !” Just like how McCain won and how Willard won. Gee whiz, why bother having two parties when the GOP does all the dirty work for the Democrats ?
It’s pretty well demonstrated the party establishment and the Democrats are in bed together. Might as well stop insulting our intelligence and they should declare it publicly, that their sole mission is to stop non-leftist candidates from making it to a general election, and only ringers need apply.
Well, that means everything devolves into leftism. The Salvation Army in my rural area is happy to anyone including illegal immigrants. I’m not sure if that makes them leftist or not.
You certainly don’t understand libertarians. They don’t cast God out of the world, nor declare Anything Goes morally. It’s just that government is not in the business of God, nor creating a law to cover every little scruple. Where government does not tread there your religion and translegal morality step in.
Right now I don't see anyone seriously advocating for the elimination or drastic reduction in government enforced wealth redistribution. Too many people have too much at stake and really are dependent on maintaining the various programs. That means this ends only after it all comes crashing down. My goal is to prepare me and mine for that inevitable result.
There was talk early on of something like a 55 senator advantage in the senate. A couple tea party losses do not account for the current imbalance. A whole lot of candidates, including more than a few establishment picks, failed.
What’s so maddening about Allen is that many of us believed he was on his way to the White House. Going to the Senate turned out to be his biggest mistake (one wonders now if Reagan had gone to the Senate in 1974 at the end of his Governorship as he initially planned would’ve substantially harmed his future races for President — he only dropped out of running because of Watergate and polling showing him trailing Alan Cranston).
This was an unabashed Conservative in the ‘90s who took down the heir apparent Democrat to the VA Governorship when he’d been trailing for a good part of the race. The guy who unapologetically said he wanted to knock their (liberals) soft teeth down their whiny throats. He took out Robb in 2000, but that was to be his last moment of triumph. The Dems knew he was likely going to be the 2008 candidate (much in the same way the GOP thought that of Hillary), so they needed to soften him up in his 2006 reelection. Even they were flabbergasted when their kook anti-Semitic thug nominee managed to knock him off, not only grabbing the Senate in the process, but eliminating a leading Presidential candidate.
I think Allen may have merely viewed his return to the Senate as a consolation prize and ran his campaign on auto pilot, since it was highly unlikely he’d be mounting a serious run for the Presidency again. Viewed through that prism, he ultimately shouldn’t have even run again. It’s sad to see someone once so highly regarded end their career like that.
An 8-seat gain (which is all that was needed to get to 55) was not an unrealistic expectation. After all, many were the Dems carried over in the anti-Bush 6th year backlash of ‘06, some occupying heavily GOP seats. It was simply inexcusable that we not only didn’t make gains, but lost seats.
I don’t know what is the problem with Senate contests. Since after 1980 (when we beat 9 incumbent Dems), we have never been able to defeat more than 2 Senate Dem incumbents in a cycle. Two. The Dems almost do that against our side routinely without breaking a sweat. Not even in 1994, the great vaunted GOP year, did we knock off more than 2 (Harris Wofford in PA by Rick Santorum and Majority Leader-presumptive Jim Sasser by Bill Frist in my state of TN). Had it not been for all the retirements producing open seats that year, we’d have likely failed to win the Senate.
He’s right, but doesn’t really explain why. At least, not in this excerpt.
That is BS. Those in prison for drug crimes didn't get there for an ounce or two of pot for personal use. Any there for having pot for personal use had a rap sheet longer than your arm already, and likely were busted for probation violations.
How about? I am complaining about Rs blowing it FOR NO GOOD REASON here.
Its pretty arrogant blaming peoples bad behavior on God.
Next will you claim that those nutbag statements were inspired by God.
The purpose of the government is to secure our unalienable rights - among these is life. Another is the child"s natural right to have a mother and a father. Marriage is a contract between mother, father, and fellow citizens. The purpose of which is to delegate the responsibility of protecting the child's right to the parents. It also allows the citizens to hold the parents responsible jointly, thereby financially protecting (protecting the property rights of) the citizenry in general.
Fiscal Conservatism is inseparable from social conservatism.
At least they want to win, not play silly excuse games while the other side is getting their agenda passed.
Moral relativism and cultural marxism are at the root of a morality that calls for big government.
Most younger, Americans no longer believe in a literal, gendered, biblically-documented God, but they are at least ‘spiritual’, if not religious. And that doesn’t place them that far off from Thomas Jefferson’s edited version of the bible.
Mr. Prager argues (beyond this article) that more traditional, religiously adhering and God-fearing people make better free citizens—and I wouldn’t on average disagree with him.
But just because A leads to B doesn’t mean that a majority can simply be made to believe in A in the way that their forebears did. And therein lies the rub.
Exactly!!!
The so-con faction here on FR loves to share that John Adams quote: "Our Constitution was made only......" without following through with its implication, that the Constitution cannot make an immoral people into a moral one.
That transformation can take place only via the winning of hearts and minds at the retail, face to face level.
Social (and all) conservatives need to steer clear of the liberal temptation to try and make men virtuous by legislative enactment.
“One cannot have small government when the vast majority of citizens are immoral and/or unwilling to restrain the sinful impulses that are a natural part of human life”
And how would you propose to choose those virtuous individuals who would manage that large government that will force us all to be virtuous? By a vote of that unvirtuous majority?. That’s the problem that we have now.
Local school boards are nearly 100% made up of candidates picked by the teachers union. Most are teachers, retired teachers, or friends and family of teachers.
School boards are chock full of rabid barking moonbats!
Republicans were posed to take the Senate and Angle(prior midterm) , Akin and that other one were a big help keeping the Senate in Os hands, so now we can listen to Reid's barking every day and Obama;s arrogant boasting.
A 30 state strategy may be OK for the House with districting but its a disaster for the Senate and WH.
Romney wasn't any better with his 47% comment. He was as out of touch as the others above.
Problem is that once these fools blow it with these its a lose-lose. defending them just brings everyone else down in that election, and being critical of them doesnt fix it either,
The past few years there was a delusion that 2012 would be just another 2010 so Republicans could say anything and still win, the delusion was that Dems would not turn out and vote no matter what.
Yes you may be right. ...but think back... I think Allen had some plain bad luck. He was a a likable, cowboy boot wearing southerner in 06 who had backed W’s big spending bills. Conservatives were worn out backing socially conservative fiscal liberals and the left were in flames over any cowboy Republican. Wrong place...wrong time. Maccaca was the final straw.
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.