Pro-2Aers to join pro-lifers as source of embarrassment to GOP?
So the NRA, members of the NRA – you see, you gun owners, I have to tell you, you are seen in exactly the same light as pro-lifers are seen, a bunch of pickup-truck-driving hayseed hicks who get to church on Saturday night to get a close parking space for services on Sunday.
And you go to things like ice cream socials, and you do all this old-fashioned, embarrassing stuff while wearing those weird orange hunting uniforms, and you’re embarrassing.
The guns and the NRA, they’re gonna be tossed in with the stack of other things that embarrass Republican moderates, and that is, “We’ve gotta relax our stance on amnesty, Rush. Rush, what are you gonna do about the Christians? You’ve got to get this abortion issue off the table.” Well, add guns to it.
It’s coming. And the left knows this, by the way. They’ve got years of experience of learning exactly how to make Republican moderates buckle.
~ Radio host Rush Limbaugh, predicting supporters of the Second Amendment will be lumped in with “embarrassing” pro-lifers, The Rush Limbaugh Show, January 10
[HT: Fr. Z; Photo credit: Societies Mirror]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Before anybody freaks out on Rush, he doesn’t see pro-lifers this way, as he is pro-life, himself. He is saying that this is how the left sees those who are pro-Second Amendment and pro-life.
Exactly. Rush is describing the mindset of the country club establishment part of the GOP, the ones we social issue people look at as hard as the left. The ones who want to end regulation and be pro-business in a way that lets them pollute, ruin the working class’ rights, and turn the country into rich and poor with no middle class, like Dicken’s 1830 London.
The GOP loses election after election because this faction gets involved in talking everyone into thinking that you need to go down the middle, and it resulted in two Presidential losses to a leftist extremist. The Left isn’t embarrassed by its far end at all and makes excuses for it ad nauseum the way a battered wife excuses her husband’s treatment of her.
I am a Republican for 1) pro-life, pro-gun, pro traditional marriage, pro-social conservative stances, 2) a strong national defense, and 3) responsible, limited, corruption free government. In that order. That said, I’m against the Paulists who want to end the social safety net and union rights and not reform them. I’m against the neo-con view that they haven’t seen a war they didn’t want to fight and drain our financial and personnel treasures. And I’m increasingly ashamed of a party that instead of defending the social right as adamantly as the Dems defend the social left to the point of repeating Reagan’s words for the GOP this time: I didn’t leave the party; it left me.
Ron Paul supporters claim the party establishment’s rule-changing Romney coup at the convention was to shut him out; I (and you should) know it was to stop the thunder from Santorum, who with a shoestring budget and roaming the states in his pickup truck, was able to post a solid challenge even with his late start, and may have taken an open convention.
p.s.: all the GOP ignoring Palin hasn’t made people who supported her feel less for her as a result. We’ll have one of these, or a new, candidate in 2016, and if the GOP wants to lose again, they can do what they did the last 2 cycles.
Republican moderates buckle by being Democrats! And not just Democrats, but “Constitution Schmonstitution” Democrats. We’re painted as bitterly clinging to God (and life) and guns. So adhering to our founding principles is officially “nuts”.
Everyone who feels abandoned by the GOP needs to go 3rd party next election. That’s the only thing to do, and it has to be a unified effort.
Here is my problem with the alternative to the Republican party which often wants us to get them to the dance and then pretend they do not know us. The tea party wants to focus on fiscal responsibility, smaller govt, free enterprise and not deal with the social issues. Again, help us get to the dance but we don’t want to dance with you.
Rush knows what he’s talking about. This is the moment of decision for the GOP and will tell us a lot about who their leadership really is. If their goal is to uphold certain principles, then they will keep the pro-life stance and uphold the second amendment. If their goal is simply to win elections, then they will not and the only difference btn them and the Dems will be fiscal policies.
To go third party, there must be a third party and a third party that can win. The Republican Party must first officially be diminished and made obsolete. The Republican Party must be sent the message that not only can they lose, they will not even place.
A third party will only slit the non-Democrat vote, giving the Democrats a huge advantage. It would be like handing them a gift. I saw it happen in Canada in the late 80’s or early 90’s (can’t remember the exact year now), when Brian Mulroney was running for Prime Minister in their Conservative party. He won because the New Democrat party (which formed because some people didn’t think the liberal party was far left enough) split off from the Liberal party, and split the non-conservative vote. Thus Brian Mulroney didn’t need to get more than half the vote to win, he only needed a little more than a third. He got that and into office he went on a minority of the voters’ wishes. The moral of the story: You better really know what you’re doing before you start a third party.
That’s why I suggest unification, first. Until the 3rd party option becomes VIABLE, we’re stuck with the Reps. And people need to either unify clearly under a 3rd party, or tell the (R)’s what’s up and where their bread is buttered so that they get their priorities in line. I’m actually pushing for the 3rd party option because the RNC is actually quite hog-tied right now when it comes to challenging voter fraud due to a court case that took place the year I was born:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/05/is-it-true-that-the-rnc-cant-challenge-voter-fraud/
Even this article (which seems like a memo straight from an RNC chair desk) admits that the RNC is hamstrung when dealing with voter fraud:
…even if it were true that nonpartisan poll watchers like True the Vote were rendered wholly unable to prevent this fraud by the law, that would simply mean that the Democrats stole the election fair and square by hamstringing their opponents so effectively that even when something illegal was happening, the law itself rendered their opponents powerless to prove it and stop it.
So I think it’s time to stop hemming and hawing about whether the RNC is capable of going after charges of voter fraud and just kicking them to the curb altogether. They’re not the only game in town-or a least don’t HAVE to be.
Regarding the idea of starting a “third” party to replace the sell out, gilded cage, silver spoon, country club, snobbish, elitist, so-called “Republicans,” there are already third, fourth, fifth, and other parties, including the Libertarian Party, the largest, yet tiny, “third” party, the Constitution Party, the Green Party, and more.
The Libertarian Party barely garners 250,000 votes nationally for a presidential candidate. Moreover they are “liberal” regarding abortion, drugs, homosexual influence in the political spectrum and law regarding pushing their sexual behavior on the populace, and on the children.
Of course Libertiarians will claim that Abortion should be, or is, a states rights issue, not a Federal issue, and should be relegated to the states, yet many then claim that it is no one’s business what a woman does with her body, that if she wants to take part in the slaughter of “her” baby, so what? Go for it.
Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul, are Libertarians who have run, and won, positions in congress as Republicans. They both oppose abortion on principle but support relegating abortion issues to the states.
That would be an improvement, but it is not the final solution. Not yet.
Once relegated to the states it is an uphill climb to overturn it. To overturn Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, as well as the variety of pro-abortion, anti-personhood, protection of baby from slaughter by abortion referendums and judicial decisions have established precedent which makes it difficult to overturn them.
The process of getting Congress to take up the issue as well, for they will not unite against abortion, if ever, and the fact that the Supreme Court has already created a “right” which did not exist in the US Constitution, makes it near impossible for Congress to have any chance of overturning abortion, Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, etc.
We cannot suggest that pro-lifers should do as Lincoln and the Union did, form an army, come to the defense of babies who are targeted for abortion, and wipe it out, for that would make pro-slaugther of baby advocates pull out the “You are contradicting yourself, you are violent, not pro-life.”
Really?
No, abortion-baby butcher thugs, YOU are violent, advocating and supporting the slaughter of innocent babies, 1.3 to 1.5 million per year since 1973 in the USA alone, while abortions have killed hundreds, and possibly thousands of women, and injured and maimed thousands more, as well as resulted in the harassment, abuse, beating, and murder of thousands of women who refused to abort, beaten, hararassed, and murdered by the men who impregnated them and don’t want the responsibility of a child, and order the woman to “take care of it,” or by employers who use sleight of hand harassement and intimidation to coerce women to abort, women who push pregnant women to the abortuary against their will, and so forth.
So that leaves us with: We, protectors of babies from abortion advocates, cannot use force or police, or military tactics that should be used when innocent people, including babies, are being abused and slaughtered, which shows that so-called “pro-lifers” don’t value a baby targeted for abortion the same as an already born baby being murdered. Ergo, our stance is weak and babies will continue to be slaughtered while we pray, talk, march, write, talk, pray, march …
The fact is abortion-slaughter of baby advocates are vicious, malicious, violent people, for how else can a person, or persons, actually support, and take part in the butchering of innocent people, babies, in such voluminous numbers as takes place? They are also going to kill babies no matter how much religion, praying, marching, or letter writing to congresspersons is undertaken.
Congress is virtually useless and does vitually nothing to stop abortion, and about half, or more than half of congress actually do support abortion, in part, or in whole, while the president is usually the same, supporting abortion in part or in whole, while the current president is among the most cruel, vicious, aggression-violence, slaughter of babies advocate-supporters there is.
Mister Snarky, mister arrogant, the Lord of the Universe, Messiah, Savior of Mankind, is speaking as I type this, blowing more BS and lies, and straw man arguments, demonizing competition and difference of opinion regarding economics, which he clearly know nothing about, gun rights, which he enjoys with armed guards, but which he and his supporters clearly wish to obstruct in the population, ignoring the fact that there are already thousands of gun laws on the books. If they are acted upon, then law abiding citizens can own guns and use them for self defense, marksmanship-sport, hunting, collecting, etc., but criminals aquire weapons of any kind they wish, regardless, for they don’t obey the law. Organized criminals even purchase weapons underground, steal them, and even make their own.
The following are true: When seconds count, the police are always only minutes away … When law abiding citizens are prohibited from owning guns, only criminals will be left with guns (already clearly demonstrated in nations where guns were confiscated and banned, such as Great Britain, Australia, etc.) … Gun control is the ability to hit your target close to 100% of the time, and to stop the bad guy, rather than the bad guy succeeding in perpetrating violence and enacting a crime.
I think that if certain Democrats would be willing to risk their political behinds for our country’s greater good, and certain Republicans were willing to join them, together a group could create a third party that would give the two a run for their money. However, I think most policitians are complacent, greedy, and corrupt. Even if many Democrats aren’t thrilled with the directions their party has taken, they’ll go along. And Republicans? They did not throw themselves behind Romney with any kind of enthusiasm and they did not get out and rock the vote. They did not hire a PR agency to help them with their sorry image, nor did they use all of the easy ammunition that the Most Imcompetent Administration Ever has generously provided (Solyndra, Libya, Gulf oil spill, the list is as long as a hardened criminal’s rap sheet!).
What we lack in this nation is real, actual LEADERSHIP. We need good old fashioned statesmen (or stateswomen, or statespersons!).
“pro-life, pro-gun, pro traditional marriage, pro-social conservative stances” – a shrinking demographic. We saw how well politicians who espoused these as their ‘headline’ policies did. The ones who are regularly returned keep such policies in the small print at the bottom of their policy agenda.
A third party. Nice idea. Pity it won’t work. What would the policies be? Tea Party policies? The ones which are falling more and more out of favor as people realise such extremism is a losing proposition? Cliques who have their own proirities and could care less for the prioritiies of others who are needed to have enough numbers to matter? Or would it be the more rational and middle-way ones, um, just like the republicans who are successful in their campaigns now?
The world has moved on people, we got color TV and all, get with the reality of the situation.
I’d love a third party in the US. Citizens United makes it even more likely this will never happen though…too much money involved. You’d need some extremely rich people financing the machine.
Even if a third party did successfully take off, the lawmakers it elects would still have to caucus with one of the two major parties if they wanted any real power, and that means playing by their rules. The legislative agenda in Congress is always set from the top. There’s a reason why even an unpopular Speaker of the House is so hard to replace: because he makes committee assignments and determines which committees consider bills that have been introduced.
Well, we’ve heard from the abortion lovers, folks, and the consensus is a unanimous: “We prefer business as usual!” All their favorite politicians are doing perfect jobs and not a whiff of corruption or wrongdoing among them! Ah, abortion fans have such high standards…
No editing feature! I had gotten really used to that.
LOL, Ex-Gop, Barry didn’t have two of his own nickels to rub together, but plenty of folks threw cash at him for two presidential campaigns. Not bad for a guy with no real job history.
a shrinking demographic. We saw how well politicians who espoused these as their ‘headline’ policies did. The ones who are regularly returned keep such policies in the small print at the bottom of their policy agenda.
Ronald Reagan. Mitt Romney. One of them wrote a book about how abortion was destroying the conscience of a great nation, at a time when most of his supporters were pro-choice and his most astute advisors warned him that publishing it would severely jeopardize his election prospects. The other one bet the farm on the economy (at a time when unemployment was over 7%) when running against an unpopular incumbent. He avoided the abortion issue like the plague, despite recent polls showing pro-choice sentiment at an all-time low.
Which one of them was sent to the White House for two terms again?
the one who campaigned on everything except abortion – and that was 23 to 31 years ago
Romney dismissed almost half the nation, what else did he need to do to lose
how did the fundagelical candidates do in 2012?
You know what’s a shrinking demographic? Abortion advocates’ living children.
the one who campaigned on everything except abortion – and that was 23 to 31 years ago
Apparently being the first president ever to write a book while in office (during an election year to boot) doesn’t mean anything to you. Nor does the fact that the electorate wasn’t more pro-life in 1980 than it is now.
how did the fundagelical candidates do in 2012?
That would depend on how we define “fundagelical candidates”, along with whether we look at congressional and state level races. Why doesn’t 2010 matter to you?
So you’re saying Reagan campaigned with stopping abortion as a headline policy are you?
Gee, and I thought Rush the Mush was talking about the contemporary situation! That’s why I addressed the contemporary situation.
You can find all sorts of completely different scenarios, not pertinent to the here and now, if you want to go back in time, I’ll let you take that little journey on your own :-)
So you’re saying Reagan campaigned with stopping abortion as a headline policy are you?
That depends on what you mean by “headline policy”. He certainly didn’t keep it buried in the fine print.
Gee, and I thought Rush the Mush was talking about the contemporary situation! That’s why I addressed the contemporary situation.
You can find all sorts of completely different scenarios, not pertinent to the here and now, if you want to go back in time, I’ll let you take that little journey on your own
There’s a lot more to the contemporary situation than a single presidential election. I would gladly cite a more recent case, but I don’t have any others where the Republican nominee was an outspoken abortion opponent.
“I don’t have any others where the Republican nominee was an outspoken abortion opponent.” – well there you go then.
Reality, how many children have you paid to have aborted?
Has more to do with the candidates that decide to run (along with their individual flaws), the party elites that endorse the candidates and give them money, and the nominating process itself than it does with whether a strongly pro-life candidate can win the White House.
Yay! Comment editing is back!!!
I dunno ninek, probably about the same number as any other average taxpayer. How about you?
The ‘party elites’ are going to back candidates they consider to have a strong chance. That obviously precludes extremists in most instances. The results speak for themselves.
The ‘party elites’ are going to back candidates they consider to have a strong chance.
Sure, that’s one factor. Others include ideological agenda and rear-end kissing.
It’s also pretty bold of you to assume that they actually know what they’re doing.
Lost count, eh? I guess it doesn’t matter if you warm yourself with your fantasy “they weren’t people anyway…”
“Lost count, eh?” – well its obviously none or 50 million or somewhere in between. How about your count?
By my count, they were ALL people.