Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
You two ever read the autopsy of the campaign run by a guy named Goldwater?
Between Goldwater and Reagan, can you really say that you'd even support Ronald Reagan today, knowing that he allowed 12 million babies to be murdered during his 8 years, and that he annointed a total "kennybunk" RINO blueblood to succeed him in office? Much less a Goldwater conservatism who lost miserably in a much, much more conservative time in our history????
I stated, and understand, the fact that it helps the GOP agenda. I don’t see how it helps the conservative agenda, at least in terms of Scott Brown being the vessel. Does defeating Obama help the conservative agenda? Sure. Does Scott Brown in particular help the conservative agenda? I don’t think so.
AH-nold ran as a fiscal conservative who would reform the situation that caused the problems in this state. Rather then campaign for that agenda in a special election, he let it go down in defeat, after listening to his wife and Uncle Teddy. The people of CA were head-faked. I still think they did the right thing in throwing out Grayout. They deserved better than the gubinator, who turned out to be a “girlie-man.”
Well, then you need to rethink it.
Scott Brown will probably vote the conservative line, oh, 60-70% of the time, as opposed to Martha Coakley, who would have voted the conservative line 0% of the time. A guy who votes for conservative bills, etc. 60-70% of the time is a guy who helps the conservative cause 60-70% of the time, as opposed to someone who would do so 0% of the time. I honestly don't understand why people on here have such a mental block about this.
Keyes has run for statewide office ... three times for the Senate. And lost big-time each time. Buckley ran once for NYC mayor and did not expect to win - he ran more as a lark. The point is, Brown DID win, Keyes never has. And Brown winning is gonna put a serious hurting on the liberal agenda - something Keyes has never accomplished. So at the end of the day, winning DOES matter.
I think thats “Lurch,” but, yeah, “Ole-rice-in-the-Arse” needs to sent packing, also.
Or, not everybody is as gung-ho about this "Scott Brown Republican" as you are. That seems more likely, doesn't it? People can have differing opinions. It's really not that hard to understand.
Not to rain on your parade, but actually the Leftists are in power because they pretended to be moderates and conservatives well enough to fool enough people into voting for them. If the Democrats had ran nationally on the platform advocated by their hard-left purist Daily Kos wing, they'd be a super-minority right now.
In last week's debate, Brown made it clear that his abortion position is identical to Coakley's.
Why is she a "pro-death ghoul," but he is not?
So now I’m insane because I don’t think Scott Brown advances the conservative agenda. FR is really hitting the skids these days.
The conservative movement apparently needs more politicians who vote in support of taxpayer-funded abortion. I learned something today, I guess.
That is a flat-out lie, EV, and you should be ashamed for posting it. Brown is against partial-birth abortion, in favor of abortion restrictions, and against federal funding for abortion. Coakley wanted federal funding for abortion to be part of health care reform.
You have no credibility when you make deliberate distortions of someone's views to try and hold your own pointless point together.
And, quite frankly, you are an adherent of a man who has NEVER won an election. Brown has already done more practical advancement for conservatism than Keyes ever will - because his victory will do to the Obama agenda what pouring water on the witch did in Oz. And quite frankly, that IMO is why Alan is in such a twist here.
I admire Keyes’s principles, but he has zero political sense. None. He’s a great commentator, but he couldn’t get elected dog catcher.
Yes, Brown might be called a RINO. But he comes from a state where no one else could possibly get elected. And he appears to share a lot of the same principles that we hold here. Not all of them, but many of them. And he appears to be a real man, not another wimpy metrosexual.
Yes, he’s a great addition as Senator from Massachusetts. Even if he never gets re-elected, he sent a decisive political message to Washington.
No, we don’t want him as president. That’s a silly idea. Why spoil the party by even mentioning it?
He is not a full-bore pro-abort. He does support parental consent for minors, and he does oppose partial birth abortion. He tried to add an amendment allowing medical personnel freedom of conscience, which is why Coakley started ranting about not allowing Catholics to work in emergency rooms. Certainly Coakley puts no such limits on her screaming love for abortion. If he is willing to vote with the party on abortion issues, or even (like a good RINO) vote against the party when his vote isn’t needed and the leadership give him permission, more power to him. That may be necessary in a liberal state. If he turns into another Lincoln Chaffee (which seems very doubtful to me), and defies the leadership, then he’s out of there next time around. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think he’s another Lincoln Chaffee or Jim Jeffords.
Last I checked, all of them held in the latest Senate vote on health care reform. The Dems all caved. If you cannot grasp the importance of one more vote in the GOP column in the Senate to fighting the Obama agenda, once again, you are a couple of chads short of a ballot.
“So, IOW, if you’re against gay marriage, you have a problem with the Constitution?”
Respectfully,
First, I am fervent in my belief that marriage IS between a man and a woman.
But, expanding the power of the central government to enforce personal views on other citizens is most certainly not constitutional.
Again, this needs to be with the states, if at all.
So to attempt to answer your question, if you are FOR giving the federal government the authority to regulate marriage, then you have taken a stand that is not constitutional. You could, possibly, take that up with your state, and it would not be inherently unconstitutional.
You're right, everyone has differing opinions. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily good opinions. Especially not when, as you just demonstrated for us, they ignore what was actually said in response to a question that you yourself asked.
Look, let's face it. You want very, very badly to be able to sit back smugly and pretend that you are morally superior to all those "RINOs" who would rather win with an imperfect candidate in a left-leaning district rather than lose to a pure-as-the-driven-snow, allowing a hard left Democrat to win and advance the leftist agenda. Fine. That's your call. You're perfectly free to be a smug, condescending jerk all you want.
But guess what? Those of us on here arguing against you aren't RINOs. In fact, if I were a betting man, I'd wager a good deal of money that a lot of us are more conservative than YOU are. In fact, I'd wager a lot of money that *I* am more conservative than YOU are, when you get right down to lining up on every last issue and every last aspect of our lifestyles. So stow the condescending arrogance, wudya?
Because he's a member of Team GOP! ;)
No kidding? You mean Brown supports partial birth abortion? And what's you're evidence for this stunning revelation?
“Well no, that is a gross and dishonest reading of what he said.”
You, sir, lie. As I shall now demonstrate.
“Scott Brown’s position, when you get right down to it, is more pro-life than that held by all these yahoos who want to pass a never-going-to-happen “Human Life Amendment.”
Buncombe. You want us to think that approving of baby-killing under some circumstances is “more pro-life” than disapproving of baby-killing under all circumstances.
What seems to be escaping your notice is that being pro-life is a matter of one’s convictions, and that willingness to compromise those convictions on a matter of such import demonstrates that the person in question does not really hold those convictions.
“Brown specifically says he wants to reduce the number of abortions…parental notification laws, end PBA, consent laws, supporting adoption as an alternative.”
Those things are good, but they are not adequate. They tacitly admit that baby-killing under some circumstances is acceptable.
“even though we all know it will never in a million years pass.”
So, your recommendation is pre-emptive surrender? Your judgment is inadequate to the task of forecasting the future of a constitutional amendment.
“Scott Brown, as soft as his position is (and yes, I think it’s soft and doesn’t go nearly far enough) has saved more little babies lives than all the yapping about a HLA put together.”
Logical fallacy. You are comparing an actual policy with a proposed policy. Of course a proposed policy has had less effect than an actual policy. It hasn’t been put into effect yet. However, an amendment would—over decades—save far more lives than all the parental notification laws that could be passed.
“And isn’t that REALLY what being pro-life is about - saving little babies’ lives?”
Anyone who has read this far should see that you are asking us to admit that being pro-life is really about saving fewer lives than could be saved.
No. Being pro-life is about working to save as many babies as possible, while at the same time striving to end abortion altogether—which entails electing representatives who share those goals. Both of those goals, not just one.
“Or are you content with the pro-life movement being merely for show so that a few bigwigs at the top can rake in donations?”
Another false dichotomy. Here, you try to sell the proposition that our only options are to compromise with evil, or to be content that the pro-life movement should be “merely for show.”
Another alternative is to continue working toward an end to abortion by supporting candidates who share that goal.
“Second, gay marriage”
When we use the word “gay,” we concede the battle of language without firing a shot. We concede that same-sex attraction disorder is an acceptable phenomenon that can rationally be described in other than clinical or pejorative terms.
It’s not.
“He specifically said that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Which is how RINOs weasel out of supporting legislation to implement the policy in question.
“He also supports that little regarded concept called “federalism” - you know, the 10th amendment and all that jazz? Or do you only support the Constitution when it’s to your particular benefit to do so?”
Another dishonest argument. These false dichotomies are really tiresome.
Here you’re trying to sell the proposition that the only two alternatives are to approve of sodomite “marriage,” or to violate the Constitution.
Everyone knows—which means you never should have advanced this little canard—that states’ rights are not unlimited. States do not have the power, for instance, to set the voting age higher than 18, or to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote (for the reasons specified in the Constitution).
A citizen has a perfect right to support the adoption of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting sodomite “marriage,” with no taint of philosophical or moral turpitude accruing therefrom.
A person really should make sure he has cause before he calls another’s statements “dishonest.” As we see, you didn’t.
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.