Posted on 05/22/2004 7:43:29 PM PDT by Maurice1962
Agreed.
Rudy could MAYBE get by if he was one or the other (pro-choice/anti-gun) but not both, especially in the South and Midwest. Too many conservatives would just stay home.
BTW, your analysis of the abortion issue above was spot-on. Unfortunately, as subsequent posts show, for many it is an issue of religion, and of life itself, not a political issue.
As a current Florida resident, I like Jeb very much, but I'm not sure the public at large would be up for such a dynasty.
Overall, the field for 2008 is still wide-open. I can only hope that the White House and the Republican Party know this, and are grooming SOMEONE to take the top spot.
The Bushbots need to look elsewhere for leadership for once. George H W Bush let down the conservative cause and so has G W Bush (with the exception of tax cuts and the War on Terror). I suspect Jeb would do the same.
How about Santorum or Tancredo?
I admire your activism and methods. But to be fair, you will alienate some people by focusing on religious arguments. Sadly, I suspect that method would alienate many of the people who need the guidence most. But keep it up, it's a good thing.
Do not presume my methods from my moral stance. I stated the pro-life argument in moral terms with you, for you said you were pro-life. For a non-religious person, I would use a scientific approach (if a fetus isn't human, what species is it? What DNA does it have? Hmmm?) or an emotional approach (Did you know a fetus feels pain?) for a non-scientific, non-rational person.
I strongly disagree that 'once Roe v. Wade is overturned, most states will be anti or very restricted in their abortion laws.' Not a chance, sorry. My guess is that most states (over 40) would maintain the same status quo as they do now, and there would be no significant change and no out-and-out ban on abortion on demand. GOPers are not the toughest guys in the world, what makes you think they are going to suddenly get a backbone when R v W is overturned? They would immediately hold press conferences apologizing for the USSC decision within hours! Your faith there is severely misplaced.
Your cynacism may be correct. My belief is based on the fact many states have passed laws restricting abortions, most states banned them prior to 1973, and the population in general opposes abortion. It's hypothetical until reality comes--which it may not, before the return of Christ.
And the hearts and minds of the people haven't changed yet. Something as dramatic as you suggest (remember, in a country where one state made same-sex marriage legal last Friday!) isn't going tohappen this side of Never-Never land.
The trouble with predicting the future is that it hasn't happened yet. There may yet be a conservative revival before the fall of this country. As far as the MA judicial tyranny, note that even in MA, they couldn't have passed same sex marriage in the legislature.
Americans don't like abortion, but they don't want it illegal. Period. I wish it weren't true, but it is. What you say isn't going to happen in our lifetime.
I'd say you're likely to be correct, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Also, you raise the level of rhetoric with talk of Nazis and such. Frankly that is a shell game - the choice isn't between Nazis and lesser evils, regardless of how much you like to imagine it is. Talk of a third 'no abortion' party is flatly stupid - it will marginalize itself almost immediately and be characterized as a nutty fringe. It will in fact hurt Republicans (and hinder their fight on the abortion issue) and in fact help Democrats (and help their fight on the abortion issue).
I see we don't see abortion the same way. I see it as exactly equivalent to the Nazi Holacaust, only worse and more pervasive. I see as worse than slavery. It's really not a negotiable issue for any Christian.
I never said the third party would be effective--I don't expect it to be--I only thought it was the likely result of the Republicans going pro-abort--which would marginalize the Republican party, by the way.
We're really operating on two levels here. I am thinking of my voting as not to achieve a political end but to be consistent with my moral beliefs. You wish to achieve political supremacy over the Democrats, who are noticably immoral. I laud and support your efforts politically, but I think a political victory achieved by compromising morality is pointless. You have become as evil as the enemy.
I have no faith in politics to make a significant improvement in the country. I can only hope to elect politicians who won't harm the country worse than it already is. If both parties support bad policies (communism vs socialism or pro-abort versus some abortion) I cannot vote for either. I must simply do what I can on the individual level.
The immediate legacy of a 3rd party as you suggest will be less abortion restriction, more partial birth abortions, a movement against parental notification for abortions for minors, and worse. While that is happening, more minds change in that direction (NOT our direction).
I agree, the collapse of the Republican party would lead to what you say--the country would collapse sooner. I do not think the solution is to adopt the pro-abort policies of the Democrats.
How this is a successful strategy in fact (and not in theory) is a mystery.
Obviously it is not. The issue is not a political problem, but a moral problem. If the polity prefers immorality to morality, then they will elect immoral leaders and will suffer for it. The point is, if the country simply won't turn from abortion, it will simply collapse, as Europe is slowly doing.
I agree with you about Jesus returning and setting the record straight, but we still have work to do until then. Also, talk like that flatly does not resonate very well with people on the other side of this issue who we should be trying to change minds. It will resonate with some, to be sure.
I try to change minds on a one-on-one basis, by building friendships and using the Socratic method (questions) to understand another's position. Then I ask questions about their assumptions and inherent contradictions and see how they resolve them. The goal is to gently lead them from illogical and immoral positions.
As for the guilt issue you raise at the end, we do disagree. Yes, people indignant enough, out of a sense of moral purity and superiority, who because of their inaction (the sin of omission) when they should have acted are guilty of playing a part in the realization of a greater evil.
I'm not sure what "guilt issue" you're referring to. I re-read my last two paragraphs and didn't see a reference to guilt. We can chose to do good or evil. Inaction, as you point out, is also a choice and may be evil. It depends on the circumstances. Specifically, I think we disagree in that I feel voting for a pro-abortion Republican is evil, whereas you feel not voting against an even more pro-abortion Democrat is evil.
The choice is not between good and evil, in this case, but the lesser of two evils. Spiritual matters aside, it is naive to absolve people of responsibility because they chose not to act and allowed a greater horror to happen.
The "greater horror" of allowing a pro-abort Democrat to be elected is caused by the people voting for the candidate, not by those not voting for his/her opponent, who may be just as evil. If the choice is between two evils, I say chose neither, but opt out of politics and into Christian work.
They might feel good about themselves but they help cause a lot of harm in the world.
I still disagree those who do not chose a lesser evil are responsible for the greater evil. One is as bad as another. We individually are responsible only for our own behavior, actions, and inactions.
Also remember, this is a presidential race - the president doesn't decide whether abortion is legal or not in the USA. What he or she can decide. So ponder that - to rank a sense of personal moral purity over doing the better thing (rather than passively assisting the worse thing to happen) as anything but hopelessly self centered and self absorbed.
The President is key to this issue--he/she appoints Supreme Court and federal court judges. It is mostly the liberal judiciary that is blame for the Roe v. Wade atrocity. Although the Republican track record has been spotty, the Democratic record is abominable. I have no faith R. Guliani would appoint a judicial conservative.
Planet Earth. 2004. Here. Now. Until the second coming, as you suggest, we have to fight for those who can't speak up for themselves - the unborn. An obsessive fixation with overturning R v W and a basic avarice that will allow partial birth abortion on a whim and outlaw parental notification for abortions of minors is simply, flatly, matter of factly NOT progress, regardless of your convincing yourself it is.
I'm not sure where you're getting allowing PBA's and outlawing parental notification. I haven't mentioned nor supported those things.
Good luck. With friends like you, the pro-life movement really doesn't need enemies.
How am I hurting the pro-life movement? All I do is point out abortion is murder. That is a mere fact. As you and I agree, the real solution is a ground root change in the disposition of people toward abortion, just as there was over slavery. When the people change, the politicians follow.
Pawlenty has a huge pro-sodomy side (supported inclusion of sodomites into Minnesota "Human Rights" definitions, which will someday lead to sodomite marriage in Minnesota unless a constitutional amendment is passed). And I'm not sure how pro-life he is - seems to be a pragmatic pro-lifer, i.e., he's pro-life until it's time to actually do something strong about it.
I agree with the assessments about Jeb Bush. It's too bad that he didn't win the governorship his first time trying, because I think he'd probably would've been the nominee in 2000, not George. Jeb is also much more conservative than George. However, he's shown himself to be a little bit of a bumbler, and after all of the crap in Florida over the past few years, I don't think he'd get the nomination.
You've gotta look at the context of those statements. Columbine is a very sensitive issue. Sometimes you have to look at actions, not words. Sometimes you have to pay lip service to a constituency that has suffered a tragedy.
That's easy. FIRST, he's smart enough to know that the Dems are the party of military CUTS (maybe to retirement perks?). Second, and more telling, the 'Pubbies were the ones in charge when Powell retired.
Good to see you EW! ;)
I like Condi/Guilliani
Now President Palmer...whoo whoo he's got my vote and me! ;)
bflr
Personally I'll vote against Jeb in the primaries. Lets get some new faces into national leadership in '08.
Rudy Guiliani has said on national TV that he doesn't believe that private citizens should be allowed to own handguns. That statement disqualifies him from being my president. If he wants to be president, he must defend the entire Constitution, and the Second Amendment protects my right to own a handgun.
In addition to being unacceptable on the Second Amendment, he favors legalized abortion and is pro-homosexual. We don't need or want someone with these views leading the Republican party.
I think it this thread is interesting in that there are two seperate things going on. One group is looking for the 'most conservative' viable candidate. The other is looking for the 'most electable' candidate.
I think ultimately what we all desire is the most conservative candidate who can still win. There is something to be said for the idea that conservative ideas are winning ideas...if we have a good and eloquent conservative, we can win AS conservatives. Reagan proved it is possible...but he was as much enabled by Carter's ineptitude as his own eloquence. It is also true that he was the exception to the rule.
Ultimately, conservatism is winning and beating liberalism, but is still very much a minority in this country. There is no majority. There are more conservatives than liberals, but there are also more 'moderates' (in reality, no specific political ideology) than conservatives. The key to elections is winning the middle. Perhaps convincing them to support conservative ideas is a possibility, but the proven election strategy is to play to the middle...to limit the extreme. That is what both Xlinton and GW did to win.
We have one valuable insight...we know who the D candidate will be in '08. That gives us some idea of what we have to be prepared for. It also addresses the issue of demographics. White men lean strongly R. Every other demographic leans D...because the Ds are the party of special interests. She who must not be named will pull a much higher percentage of the woman vote than say Kerry or another white male candidate. This is not to say that a white male can't beat her, only that it will be harder. It also points out the value of race and sex...the key appeal of Cain or Condi. The D party is dependent on winning the woman and black votes. A female candidate negates 'her!' advantage in that regard. A black candidate could very conceivably fracture the D lock on the black vote. Condi does both. That counts for something, and is valuable, but it is not the whole ball of wax.
IMHO, the D party is in a precarious situation. They are in this precarious situation because they do not have any principles...which is how Kerry became their nominee. They are a collection of special interests. That is how you get black mom's trying to get school vouchers so their kids can escape failing schools supporting the same party as the teachers union stopping it. There are lots of these internal contradictions. I think there is a threat to the sustainability of the party as a whole...and I think that should be our goal. Not just to win the election...but to destroy the infrastructure of our enemy.
The generally religious and socially conservative black vote is one vulnerability. This points to vouchers and the homosexual agenda as issues. (I know more than a few blacks who are quite offended by the gay marriage 'civil rights' comparison).
Another vulnerability is Jewish support. Although not especially large in numbers of votes...it is an essential part of D fund raising. Republicans principled support of Israel and toughness against terrorism is valuable here. Make these issues stand out...and D's would be entirely dependent on union money.
Another contradiction is between the environmentalists and the unions. ANWR is valuable here, but the issue has to be made bigger...development and jobs v. stifling environmental restrictions. For example...we should also be pushing for nuke power and additional refineries. The environuts will oppose it...but there are lots of good union jobs there.
To the extent that the D's have principles...it is socialism and environmentalism and the gay agenda. None of these win elections. I think we can strip away key support from the D party (black votes and Jewish money). At that point...they will be helpless.
That said, I don't think that will result in an R lock on elections...I think it will result in the shakeup of parties and party affiliations as a whole. It will be as dramatic as going from federalists and anti-federalists to whigs and tories to democrats and republicans. And I seek that shakeup....because it will swing the whole political spectrum towards conservatism.
I'm no real fan but she did sound like a better candidate than her husband in 1996 (how's that for setting the bar low?) and she did win a U.S. Senate seat while being nothing at all like the man she was replacing.
If Hillary becomes the candidate in '08, I wouldn't be shocked if the Republicans offer a woman on the ticket as balance and, if so, Dole would be a very plausible name to see in the ring, maybe moreso as veep than as prez. Condi's never run for office (too big a risk) and most of the other prominent women in the GOP are just slightly to the right of Jim Jeffords.
While Dole is too, she like her husband, manage to con a lot of folks into believing she's a conservative.
Why didn't Newt run in '96? I suspect it's because the Clintons had dirt on him regarding his personal life.
Don't worry about it. The insiders will pick a candidate and shove him down our throats, just like they've done or tried to do every election.
Reagan was the only recent candidate to overcome this, but that was largely due to the fact that he had a large base of support prior to running, and because the primaries were spread out.
The elitists have manipulated the primaries such that they are front-loaded, and thus very difficult for a challenger to prevail.
And I doubt JBush and Owens will run against the other. They wouldn't do anything to split the conservatives in the primaries.
Rudy would give a powerhouse celebrity appeal to moderates, or the GOP can kiss the White House goodbye. No ideologue will stand a chance. Jeb Bush would turn off a lot of people just on the family thing.
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.