By J.B. Williams
Saturday, March 3, 2007
I find it both interesting and troublesome that people, who just booted Republicans from power on the basis that they were not conservative, seem so eager to get behind a presidential candidate who is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-illegal amnesty, anti-school prayer and who appointed 8-1 liberal democrat judges, of the 75 judges he appointed while mayor. Meet Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.
Don't get me wrong, on many other issues, I like Giuliani and share some common ground with him in areas such as the war on terror and handling crime. But...
The primaries have not even really begun yet and already, we are supposed to jump behind a candidate who I might oppose on any other day, just out of fear that if I don't accept a notably liberal Republican, I'll end up with a corrupt socialist egomaniac like Hitlary?
Is this the best we can do? Isn't this exactly how the nation keeps sliding further and further into the leftist abyss? Have we not yet figured out what "compassionate conservative" means?
I recently had an in-depth conversation with one of my favorite conservative writers on this very subject. He had written a column suggesting that conservatives shouldn't be so fast to toss candidates like Giuliani out of the ring for their less than conservative positions on the issues. What? Conservatives shouldn't be so fast to toss liberals from their camp? I need an explanation.
While I certainly understand and agree with the general premise that we should remain somewhat open minded this early in the race and seek to unite behind the most conservative candidate available once the primaries have netted a winner, I fail to grasp the logic of hitching my wagon to a liberal candidate so early on when more conservative contenders are available.
Isn't this the purpose of a primary? I realize that the national committees of both partys are accustomed to anointing "their" leaders on the basis of who is willing to "play ball" after the election. However, based upon the fact that 50% of eligible voters don't bother to vote anymore, and the other 50% are equally unimpressed with their options at election time, it seems time for a new game, doesn't it?
When looking at the current field of Republicans who have thus far tossed their hat in the ring, one is hard pressed to find a true conservative winner in the lot. Based on issue positions alone, as if there is any other consideration, only Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo qualify as conservatives. Yet both are conservative outsiders in today's Republicrat Party, and neither seems to have the political power to fight city hall all the way to a nomination, leaving the field full of lesser evils early on in the race.
True conservatives seem about as welcome in today's Republican Party as Joe Lieberman was in the Democrat Party last November. They could meet with the same fate.
Based on current indications, it seems that after the '06 butt-kickin', conservatives are so scared of a potential President Hitlary that they are grasping at anyone they think able to defeat her, even though such a victory could hardly be considered a win for conservative values.
The left has always been defined by their sense of moral and ethical relativism, always willing to adjust their morals to accommodate their current agenda. That's what liberalism is in a nutshell.
But now, the right seems equally willing to adopt new morals and ethics, a whole new communally conscious, socially acceptable and globally nuanced set of standards as well, if that's what it takes to win an election.
Well, if that's what it takes to win an election, I'm beginning to understand why 50% of voters don't bother to vote anymore. Based on current polling data, the general consensus amongst conservatives seems to be, "we can't beat them fellas, so we had better join them by offering up a liberal candidate of our own!"
Yet it's no secret that the so-called new progressive liberal ideas of today are nothing more or less than the old failed socialist notions of yester-year, spit-shined and renamed as a progressive social conscience. These are the ideals defeating conservatives? Or are conservatives simply forfeiting the fight?
Why should conservatives continue to fight the losing battle against abortion? Because it's the right thing to do! Because as Jefferson stated, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Life (and liberty) is an "unalienable right" in America. If young innocent human life is not worth defending, protecting and preserving, what else is? And if a man can't stand for this, what else could he possibly stand for?
Why should conservatives continue to fight against a growing political acceptance of re-defining marriage? Because if the age old institution of God uniting one man and one woman in holy matrimony for the purpose of securing a fundamentally sound family unit in which to raise children in a healthy environment isn't worth fighting for, nothing is! This is not an attack against homosexuals. It's a reasoned defense of a morally sound institution which is under attack.
Why should conservatives fight against a worldwide effort to remove guns from the hands of law abiding American citizens? Thomas Jefferson answered this best, "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
The conservative right in America, the often too silent moral majority, if it is still a majority, has always stood for the right things for all the right reasons. The American left has worked for decades to deconstruct all fundamental American moral values and today, many conservatives seem to sense that if we don't join them, we can no longer defeat them.
Well what a sad state of affairs that would truly be, to believe that all is already lost, that the moral American majority has fallen victim to an immoral minority who was simply more willing to fight for their beliefs, willing to not be silent.
Jefferson spoke of this as well, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Said Jefferson. This once defined the conservative Republican Party.
Like Jefferson, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."
Consider yourself hereby so informed...
If faced with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani in November of '08, Giuliani can count on my vote. But that isn't saying much since Satan himself could count on my vote if he were running against Hitlary. At least we'd know what were dealing with face up.
My question to conservatives is this: Should we not be working right now to make certain that a real conservative is running against Hillary on real conservative values come November of '08, instead of lining up behind yet another faux conservative too compassionate towards leftist ideals?
If not now, then when?
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement