Comments on: Free The GOP (Updated)

By: locomotivebreath1901

locomotivebreath1901 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:54:20 +0000

I’ll add another twist and say the WaPo article misses the point. It’s not an ‘either/or’ proposition: either expand the base or stick with the moralists. It’s not even a ‘both’ argument.

It’s a get back to basic political philosophy argument, and that includes the moralists, the fiscal conservatives, and the strong military crowd. A three fold cord.

This notion that religion cannot be used to formulate a political viewpoint is nonsense. It’s what emancipated the slaves, it’s what enfranchised women, it’s what spurred the liberation of occupied Europe, and it’s where the outrage at abortion and Obama’s infanticide comes from.

Obama didn’t win because the Republican base wasn’t big enough to include all the fringe he collected. The republicans lost because they put a low watt, inconsistent opponent with a message barely distinguishable from the democrats which Obama vanquished in the primaries.

People are drawn to strength & vision. It’s what made Ronald Reagan such an iconic success (much to the chagrin of the libs).

They were drawn to Obama for the same reason.

Reagan pulled the electorate right. Obama pulled them left. The center is the moth to whomever holds the flame.

It’s not the republicans base which needs to change, but their message.

If we be it, they will come.

By: Memo to Kathleen Parker: Please, Find something to do! | Political Byline

Memo to Kathleen Parker: Please, Find something to do! | Political Byline — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:59:49 +0000

[...] Townhall.com, The Corner,, Stop The ACLU, Eunomia, Don Surber and The Other McCain and more via [...]

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:52:53 +0000

Our government was not founded on a specific judeo christian moral code. The preponderance of our “founding fathers” were Druid. I find it interesting that more often than not, we (conservatives) frequently choose to create our “facts” in order to support our positions rather than basing our positions on actual facts.

By: William Teach

William Teach — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:23:20 +0000

I reckon you two hit it on the head: reaction when the code is attacked. Protection. But not pushing morals, at least as strong as has been done.

By: gael

gael — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:54:40 +0000

except, jay, that the government is founded on a moral code (that happens to be Judeo-Christianity). So when the code is attacked, the govt founding principles are attacked and as you say – someone has to protect them. We do let the social arguments get “reframed” (great point and I wish those who were fighting these battles would recognize that and not get sucked in) and distorted and pushed to extremes.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:40:10 +0000

Government SHOULD stay out of religion and morals. These should be individual liberties. Government’s role should only be in protecting those rights.

The right started getting involved with morals in reaction to the left attacking them, and the right to express them. It started out as protecting them, and I have no problem with them continuing that role. Of course government shouldn’t push any religion or morals.