Posted on 11/20/2008 5:24:05 PM PST by lancer256
A good friend of mine (let's call him Bob) is convinced that unless the GOP puts abortion "aside as its focal point, it simply cannot win and regain power." That's especially interesting in light of Kathleen Parker's latest column, which disses the evangelical wing of the GOP.
Bob's point is that "we've lost a majority of women over this issue as they have become one-issue voters." It's not only liberal women but also others who believe it's simply not the government's business.
Kathleen Parker broadens the point considerably beyond abortion: "The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh." Since the 1980s or so, says Parker, the GOP "has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. ... The GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents."
I'll resist the temptation to respond specifically to Kathleen's uncharitable indictment of us knuckle draggers because I like Kathleen personally and because I want to respond to her and Bob's overlapping contention that certain social conservatives are dragging the party down.
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...
McCain’s divorce didn’t help him either.
You know what these current RINO charges about abortion and social issues and evil scary religious conservatives are?
Opportunism, pure and simple.
Anyone with half a brain knows that abortion, etc. had diddly to do with the election this year. It was economy, economy, jobs, economy, The War, and economy that people cared about. As Limbaugh says, ~4.1 million Republicans sat this one out. I’d wager that it had more to do with the excessive economic libertarianism that got absolutely no play outside the base this year, and ticked off a lot of populist-minded GOPers.
Yet, people like Parker are trying to use this year’s losses to scare the party leadership into distancing itself from its social conservative wing - all because Parker and others don’t themselves share these socially conservative values. In other words, they are trying to split the Party, instead of focusing on the 80% of issues we all have in common, because of their own personal, petty, spiteful agendas.
To this I say: Piss off, Kathleen Parker, and any other “moderate, socially liberal” Republicans like her. We don’t need you. Once we get our heads on straight about the economy and start taking some sensible approaches to taxes, spending cuts, fair trade, and actually caring about the little guy’s employment situation beyond merely telling him that tax cuts will solve all his problems, we’ll get more than enough Reagan and populist Democrats back into the fold to replace you.
the only thing we can do now is watch obama destroy the country, then from the ashes another reagan will emerge....we need patience and time.
“Plus Karl Rove tells us that there were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004, some of whom he believed turned independent or Democratic for this election, which might validate Kathleen's thesis, except that Rove says that most of those 4.1 million “simply stayed home.”
What's even more interesting is there was an almost identical drop-off (4.1 million) of those voters who attend religious services more than once a week (evangelicals, anyone?).”
So, if McCain had not attacked evangelicals, but had their support even as much as President Bush, he would have likely won the election. This completely refutes Parker's assertion.
I couldn't believe we didn't even get a pro-evangelical candidate except Huckabee, who was a big government governor, increased taxes, and supported amnesty.
One of the depressing things about this election is that I couldn't think of a single GOP candidate who could have won. Could Fred Thompson have rallied the evangelicals to his side? All 4 million who stayed home? I don't think so.
Well, then, you're a fool. Some bosses are jerks.
By your "logic", Monica Lewinsky was in the wrong -- she denounced her boss as a jerk, after all.
Nope. The BIG issues are:
1. Cut taxes and spending.
2. Cut taxes and spending.
3. Cut taxes and spending.
4. Cut taxes and spending.
5. Oh, yeah, cut taxes and spending some more.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Both parties bloat the size and scope of government, and recoil from the slightest hint of economic libertarianism like Dracula confronted with a garlic farm. That's why the GOP core vote (which held its nose to re-elect Bush, but exhausted its patience in the past few years) stayed home.
America's Independent Party
Born: 2008
Died: Whenever it abandons America's principles like the Whigs and the Republicans did.
Then how do you explain why so many fiscons voted for the marxist Obama? Because they don’t hold to their own defined big issues as if they were big issues. Their issues are negotiable, which makes them smaller issues.
Simple — the Republicans have bungled so badly that the Democrats have more credibility on fiscal issues. (Hint: Name the last president who had a surplus.)
Hi Delphinium. We’re still inundated with RINOs even here on FR. It was the RINOs that handed Obama the latest victory.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129419/posts
4.) At first glance, one wonders how Obama gets 20% of the “Conservative” vote. A look into several polls reveals the following: Social and Gun Conservatives came out hard for McCain, people who call themselves “Conservative” because of fiscal issues gave Obama a nice cross-over.
I think it’s time to have an idealogy litmus matrix. What do you & EV think?
_____________________________________________________
Vanities Arent The Problem (Time For An FR Cleansing)
The Awesome Mind of VaBthang4 ^ | 11/06/08 | VaBthang4
Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:27:52 AM by VaBthang4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2126945/posts?page=119#119
That’s because the Fiscon issues are not suitable to be the BIG Issues in the tent. It’s the SOCON issues that are suitable.
Hunter, Tancredo, or Keyes. They were always the only ones with a shot in hell at this. That is why "pragmatists" always get it stone dead wrong- "Electability" has everything to do about who can bring out the whole base- And that is always going to be the Reaganites.
Only liberals voted for that marxist.
***That’s why we need some kind of litmus matrix here on FR. These RINOs constantly pretend to be conservative, call themselves conservative, and maybe even think of themselves as conservative but when you scratch the surface you get an Obama voter.
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.