Skip to comments.GOP's 'Young Guns' Program Backs Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gay Marriage Candidates for Congress
Posted on 01/05/2014 11:09:17 AM PST by JeepersFreepers
Although the Republican Party Platform opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is backing and promoting through its "Young Guns" program two congressional candidates who are homosexual, and who support same-sex marriage and abortion.
Richard Tisei, who is married to his male partner Bernie Starr, in Edgartown, Mass., is running for a congressional seat in the 6th District in the Bay State. Carl DeMaio is running for a congressional seat out of San Diego, Calif. DeMaio, who is openly gay, supports abortion and same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Why do commie libs always insist on using terms like “young guns” to describe themselves? These two pixies are probably pro-gun control.
No to sodomy. Period. End of story.
The movement is to end conservatism and have a democrat party, and a democrat GOP, that is merely right on economic issues.
In a word, no — the Republican Party does not stand for anything. (At least nothing that it says it does.)
It's all part of
The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy
Just see my tag line.
I don’t care who the GOP candidate is - who is the Tea Party candidate?
Oh, I remember this well.
Not too many years ago, I used to have a generic trust that a GOP candidate would reflect my values and ideology. But that’s long gone. With the steady stream of GOPer’s actively pushing things like amnesty, unwilling to fight socialism as in Obamacare, or even embracing the sheer deviancy of fag-marriage, I see that today’s Republican Party is just about as much of an enemy of mine as the Dems. Really opened my eyes, when I saw the backstabbing treatment given Palin.
DO NOT DONATE even a single penny to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Should you receive a fundraising solicitation from them in the mail, return any postage free return envelope to them filled only with several blank sheets of paper. Don’t put anything with your name or other identification in the return envelope. That way the NRCC idiots will continue to send you fundraising mailings and you can continue to do the same thing with their postage free return envelopes. Bleed these RINOs several pennies at a time at no cost to you.
Donate directly to true CONSERVATIVE candidates.
“The movement is to end conservatism and have a democrat party, and a democrat GOP, that is merely right on economic issues.”
You nailed it, friend.
Which means off shoring, open borders and continued H1B imports.
No surprise. National Review just told us again that social issues are now officially OUT. All that matters is money.
conservative, pro life, against gay marriage and pro gun. so what is the problem.
And the difference between these ‘Wacko Birds’, (using Mclame’s term), and Democrats is what?
They assume the position.
They bend over and take it from the Democrats and expect all of us to do the same.
Apparently they stand for just about EVERYTHING!
Yep - If you check the link I previously posted, you'll see a PDF for a [semi-satirical] brochure laying it all out... the most common complaint I got was that it looks too much like it could be real GOP promotional literature.
Chicago Young Republicans
Pro-gay Marraige, Pro Amnesty, Pro Everything the Democrats are: Who needs them?!
Mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio, right, holds hands aloft with partner Johnathan Hale as they march in the San Diego LGBT Pride Parade in July. John Gastaldo
Never EVER donate to the nrcc.
Hmmmm....Democrats or Establishment Republicans....Think, think, think...
To quote Hillary Clinton: “What difference does it make?”
But, don’t dare mention the possibility of a truly conservative third party! That’s an invitation to instant attack.
Just keep working within the GOPe, hoping beyond hope that you can find the right words, the right argument, that will nullify the sway held by Tokyo Rove and his ilk.
Third party starting to look even better, IMO.
Thers another one in New Hampshire that is runing and will probably take on Che Porter. But if that s what it takes to get a few of them to win in districts that might not otherwise go for it thats fine. Just make sure they don’t stab you in the back like Lindsay Graham on things that are really important. tiei is not really worth fragging because if he does win he will only serve 1-2 terms since it is a heavily dem district.
On the face of it, who could argue with that? Haha!
It also occurs to me that if you wanted to be really optimistic, you could take the point of view that the Federal government has usurped FAR too many powers that are rightly the province of the states and the state electorate, and it interferes far too much in it's citizens' private lives. One of these candidates said that, or similar, and maybe they would be perfectly fine legislators (or better than the incumbents in their races, who would surely have the same progressive social views, likely more extreme, and ALSO very progressive views on national defense, interstate commerce, etc.)...
Of course, maybe that genie can't be put back in the bottle? But would that it could! Just imagine...no Massachusetts rules imposed on Ohio, no California rules imposed on Wyoming...no Fed's regulating your education, your gas mileage, your Christmas or other "Holiday" display...!! And yet, with all these GOP governors and state legislatures, we ALL have to live under the Federal mandates.
Reminds me of JFK saying he would not govern "as a Catholic" (deferring to Church teachings) and Romney likewise (re: Mormon teaching)...that turned out to be true in Kennedy's case, and I'm guessing would have been in Romney's, too, had he gotten the chance.
Perhaps, JUST perhaps, we could do worse???
I don’t think we fully appreciate what kind of trouble we are in.
Even if its candidate loses, conservatism will gain. Joe 6-Pack Democrats are mostly pro-gun and anti-government interference; their party has been over-run by what they themselves call "liberals." Joe 6-Pack Republicans are even less inclined to government and more to 2nd amendment, and find their party has been over-run by functional liberal Democrats. The Republicans' last presidential candidate was pro government-run health care, pro homosexual agenda, pro environmentalist/global warming agenda, abortion-friendly, and 2nd amendment hostile.
A third party now could possibly win, but it could also draw enough votes from either Rep-Dem candidate to make the leftist Rep-Dem winner lacking a popular mandate, as in more than half the country more conservative than he, voted "against" him. It truly hurt Clinton both times, even with the MSM on his side.
I think we should prepare ourselves: the GOP presidential nominee in Nov. of 2016 will be a Romney/Christie type, and Americans will be facing the same "Uniparty" dilemma it did in 2012. Count on it. So a third party thing might happen whether we like it or not.
BANKRUPT THE NRCC!!
I really couldn’t tell if you were saying these two candidates, or the Young Gun candidates in general, should be supported or not.
It's the classic political dilemma. Which candidates have integrity? Which candidates would most reflect my views and principles? What choices do we have? Whose opinions and recommendations do we trust, if anyone's?
In my district, we had DENNIS! Kucinich for years upon years, and I dutifully voted for the GOP opposition, since there was never a viable, electable other choice. GOP never could field a great candidate, either. FINALLY, the GOP regained the Ohio governorship, as well as the State House and State Senate (chalk one up for the fly-over counties!)...the newest census came out, the districts were re-drawn, and as appalling as that whole process is, I would take John Kasich as Governor over Ted Strickland and Jim Renacci as U.S. Representative over Dennis Kucinich ANY time, whether I agreed with them on each and every policy issue or not (and if NOT, I would certainly let them know: at the state level/constituency, I think you have a fighting chance of being listened to)...
Romney?? Yes, state-government-run health care, in the state of Massachusetts ("quel surprise"!) but what is the basis for the rest of your statement? Romney was also not in favor of Federal government-run health care.
If a conservative who is pro-life, pro gun, supports state rights, against illegals, wants a tax rate of 13%, but is gay, you wouldn’t vote for him? If he was running against an Obama supporter he got my vote.
You missed the bus. If you aren't aware of the mountain of information proving Romney's propensity for every single thing in that post, then I'm wasting my time, and you have wasted mine. You haven't done your homework for me to take the time to post links illustrating Romney's QUOTED WORD regarding homosexual "right" to adopt children, Gay Pride outreach to 6th graders, judges overriding her parents' decision to prohibit their 16-year-old daughter from getting an abortion, gays in the military, leftist environmental "save the planet" regulation, his ludicrous statements regarding guns -- this is 101 Romney. You don't know it. Posting the links here to wake you up is ludicrous -- it's been going on HERE for the past six years.
88keys, Republicans like you, who are willing to support Romney and accept him as one of "us," are going to FORCE a third party split because limited government conservative principle sails so far over your head that you think the dif between state and federal government control of health care, makes a dif. Either one is slavery to government, and freedom MUST REJECT Republicans and Democrats who advocate in any direction except THE OTHER WAY, toward freedom of self direction.
There's a difference between a guy (Romney) who very clearly, demonstrably sees government as a source of control and manipulation, versus a politician who calls out, "We must cut back government in every area of American life."
Well, thanks for taking the time to reply, anyway, FRiend.
How Dare You Conservatives Walk off the GOP Plantation! If You don't vote for them You Could get Amnesty! Or a Huge Inflated Budget! You Know, all those things the Republicans have Stopped..../sarc
How? I only donate, directly, to conservatives and groups like Senate Conservatives Fund. The US Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove RINOPACs will likely keep the NRCC afloat.
At this time in the cycle, GOPe sycophants claim that we need to ‘wait and see’ because surely the GOP will suddenly go Cruz/Palin any moment.
When the primaries arrive, they say “Well you shoulda done that third party thing months/years ago but right now we must unite behind the liberal or we will end up with a liberal cuz lesser evil and stuff....”
Same poop, different pooper.
This is why I am not a Republican. They give me no motivation or reason to become one either.
Haven't you done any due diligence?????
I can believe he may have said and done some things as Governor of Massachusetts that he would not have said or done as President of the United States. I think it's really crucial to have a good legislature, and I won't fault Romney for making the Democratic-controlled state of Massachusetts better than it would have been with a progressive socialist Democratic governor. IMHO, that's not a "compromise", that's what you can possibly do to improve a bad situation.
My question always is: which President would be better on the issues of gay adoption rights, gays in the military, abortion, guns, health care, the environment, and all other issues...a Romney-type or an Obama-type???
Like it or not, those were the choices we had in 2012, and you see the results.
Do you honestly think we'll be better off for the next three years with President Obama than we would have been with a President Romney?
It does matter who you vote for, or who you don't vote for. Again IMHO, there were only two candidates that could realistically win the Presidential election in 2012. Obama was duly elected. Why?!
You should look into his record. Maybe you don't think supporting "Gay Youth Pride" politically, legitimizing homosexuality to kids in sixth grade, for crying out loud, egregious. I do. Maybe you don't think his statement that homosexual couples have a right to adopt children -- and understand that what it really means is that he thinks the government has a right to punish adoption agencies that refuse to cooperate when a "married" gay couple comes in to adopt kids entrusted to them. Maybe you don't think that's egregious. I do.
Maybe you don't find embracing in any part the concept that the state should be in control of health insurance and ultimately health care, egregious. I do. The "state's rights" vs. Federal argument is moot. It's the principle that is an egregious intrusion of government, unconstitutional certainly.
Romney embraces that principle the same as Obama, right down the line. Look at his record, see his deeds. He didn't raise taxes, no! He created fees.
He is philosophically and principally on board with the environmental movement, with great need for government oversight to safeguard the environment.
Limited government principle sails right over his head. So YES, I do honestly believe that having a Republican President do that is a worse thing than having a Democrat President do it.
That offends you, I know. Oh well.
You don't get to vote "against," FRiend. You only get to vote for. It's like a light switch, on or off. You didn't vote against Obama, you voted for the GOP to move left, when you voted for Romney. You didn't mean to, and I didn't mean to when I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger. All past done and gone, but what remains: when you vote for liberalism, you get liberalism.