The Right Moves

Weekly Standard: Social Conservatism Is A Must For GOP Hopefuls

(Weekly Standard) 
Because Romney's switch is the most sweeping, it's received the most attention and the most press criticism. Romney has explained that a conversation with a Harvard scientist in 2004 led to his changed view of abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

The scientist said, according to Romney, that killing 14-day-old embryos was not a moral issue. This pushed Romney to regard all human life, from conception, as worthy of legal protection.

Just as he'd been publicly pro-choice, Romney had also been a champion of gay rights. He changed after the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 legalized gay marriage in the state. Whatever the motive, Romney's flips have conveniently put him in sync with Republicans nationally.

McCain gets credit from social conservatives for his pro-life voting record in Congress. Now he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the opposite of the position he took in 1999. Nonetheless, McCain said last week that it's "a false claim to say I have changed my position." Reversing Roe v. Wade is consistent with his anti-abortion record, he insisted. On gay marriage, however, social conservatives fault McCain for refusing to back the proposed constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriage.

Giuliani has the most difficult task in appealing to social conservatives because he hasn't repudiated his support for legalized abortion and gay unions. But he's tried to soften the blow. In an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he said he believes "in a woman's right to choose," but implied that as president he would appoint justices like Antonin Scalia who might overturn that right. "I would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it," he said.

On marriage, Giuliani said, it "should be between a man and a woman." As New York mayor, he signed domestic partnership legislation and still favors legal recognition of gay unions. "We should be tolerant, fair, open, and we should understand the rights that all people have in our society," he said.

There's one issue on which social conservatives admire Giuliani: his strong opposition to Islamic radicalism and eagerness to lead the fight against it. "The threat of Islam is a moral issue," says Perkins. "That's in the mix with the social issues."

The rush of Republican candidates to social conservatism points up a striking political fact. "It tells me the movement is surprisingly healthy," says Bell. The movement is a somewhat amorphous body that is dominated by religious conservatives. "It's so much a part of the Republican Party that people feel the need to come to terms with it," Bell adds. And when presidential candidates do just that, they're likely to be rewarded.

[zoroastor]

And why do Dems think bush lied about WMDs? Do some research into the facts that led up to the current Scooter Libby trial.

[zoroastor]

katg21 (part 1),

In fact it would not be hard for me to argue your point, as, by and large, it is mostly your opinion and paraniod suspicions. You provide very little facts, you get angrier than many posters here do - you get angrier than 'I' do, and I had to leave my wife and kids here to go get shot at in 128 degree heat for a year. I believe you get on these boards because, on some level, you enjoy being angered by the postings and you want to rant. Yes, many of the posters are democrats. I think you should consider that the majority of voters in 06 were too. Why? We didn't manufacture more. People - smart people, people like me who have lived it, people like you who had NEVER before voted democrat - are fed up.

[zoroastor]

Hey, you have a computer. Do some research on this: Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to get Clinton, find his approval rating vs. Bush Sr. and Jr. Find also the number of Felony convictions in his administration vs. Bush Sr. and Jr. I think you might be surprised.
Further, don't get me wrong. I want to win the war on terrorism, on poverty and crime, etc... I just think the conservative battle plan is wrong. And I'm tired of anyone who disagrees being labled unpatriotic or sympathetic to the terrorists. I (F'ing exchanged gunfire with 'em!) I'm also tired of any news organization which reports facts counter to conservative point of view being labled left. Trust me, as a liberal, there are plenty of news stories, editorials, reporters, organizations and shows that tick us off. It doesn't represent a right wing conspiricy.

[katg21]

And by the way, while I was in Iraq (at the begining of the war) it was common knowledge among the brass that there was little to no danger from weapons of mass destruction.
So no, not "everyone" knew he "had weapons of mass destruction." In fact, many people tried to tell you that he didn't.
Posted by Zoroastor at 08:24 AM : Mar 01, 2007

He had a big, 3 week or so, heads-up from the UN; more than enough time to get those weapons out of Iraq. Yet nobody talks about that. Democrats and Republicans both voted for military force based on intel that was provided, intel that even Clinton had during his administration. Yet nobody on the 3 major networks talks about that. So why do democrats say that Bush lied about WMD's? I just don't get it. I've followed all of this from it's inception, I am aware of what many Democratic Senators have said then verses what they are saying now. It is an attempt on their part to tarnish the presidency of George W. Bush for their own political gain. The Democratic talking points are out and everyone of them is on board. If they continuously say the same things over and over again they know it will lock into the brains of the people. They get to say whatever they want on the three major networks so in essence they are brainwashing you. I do watch all of networks and FOX, CNN and MSNBC. If you did too it would be hard for you to argue my point.

[katg21]

Zoroastor,

I have a brother "over there", thank you very much. I am proud of him and he is proud to be fighting for the country he loves so very much. I guess that is why I find myself getting so defensive on these posts. It is a fact that CBS is owned by the left and a fact that over 90% of the people posting responses here are democrat. I know this because everytime I post I get attacked. Having said that, I am not trying to disrespect you or anyone else with my responses, I'm just trying to defend what I hold to be true. Judge me if you will. I guess that's what makes our country so great, huh?

[zoroastor]

And by the way, while I was in Iraq (at the begining of the war) it was common knowledge among the brass that there was little to no danger from weapons of mass destruction.
So no, not "everyone" knew he "had weapons of mass destruction." In fact, many people tried to tell you that he didn't.

[zoroastor]

Katg,
Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't state that the three major networks want us to fail in Iraq and "that is a fact". That isn't a fact, it's your suspicion.
I get my facts from all sorts of sources, not just the big three. I was a public affairs officer. I know many reporters from all sorts of news agencies all over the world, including FOX news. I suspect ALL your news comes from agencies with a right-wing agenda, not an agenda of simply reporting facts objectively.
Kurds - yes Saddam attacked them. Having been there, I can tell you, however, that the sectarian violence there is not restricted to Saddam. Further, WE assured the Kurds that if they rose up against Saddam while we were kicking him out of Kuwait in 90/91 that we would back them up. They did. We didn't. They got their a$$es kicked for it.
I don't see "us" as the bad guys. I see a commander-in-chief with a personal agenda, faulty intelligence, and a very short-sighted, self centered goal. I was just a soldier. I did what I was ordered. Now I'm a civilian. I speak my mind, with a vast amount of personal experience and inside knowledge to back it up.
I AM one of the good guys. I fought over there. Did you? Just because I think being there is a mistake and a misdirection of funds, resources and time that would be better spent elsewhere, doesn't mean I'm a "bad" guy.
You never took logic or debate in school did you?

[katg21]

Correct, and your president pulled troops out of Afghanistan when they had a chance to get the person who attacked us and diverted those troops to attack a country that was no threat to us.


Posted by taddles at 04:36 PM : Feb 28, 2007

He's your president too my friend, embrace it.

[taddles-2009]

"We were attacked on our soil, unprevoked, and lost thousands; it's just going to happen again if we walk away now.
Posted by katg21 at 10:45 AM : Feb 27, 2007"

Correct, and your president pulled troops out of Afghanistan when they had a chance to get the person who attacked us and diverted those troops to attack a country that was no threat to us.

[bm6005]

******What******'******s****** ******going****** ******on****** ******eith****** ******the****** ******board****** ******this****** ******morning****** ******and****** ******all****** ******these****** ******asteriks******?
***Posted*** ***by*** ***dallison7***

***Glfkt*** ***had*** ***a*** ***seizure*** ***at*** ***his*** ***keyboard***!

[golfkt]

***Centrist*** ***Rep*** ***here***....***and*** ***there*** ***are*** ***many*** ***of*** ***us***...
***probably*** ***slightly*** ***more*** ***centrist*** ***R***'***s*** ***then*** ***centrist*** ***D***'***s***...
***The*** ***D***'***s*** ***castigate*** ***our*** ***party*** ***because*** ***of*** ***the*** ***conservative*** ***base*** ***of*** ***the*** ***R***'***s***....***you*** ***are*** ***beginnning*** ***to*** ***experience*** ***the*** ***same*** ***thing*** ***due*** ***to*** ***the*** ***outspokenness*** ***of*** ***the*** ***Left*** ***wing*** ***of*** ***your*** ***party***....***your*** ***party*** ***will*** ***splinter*** (***it***'***s*** ***showing*** ***signs*** ***already***) ***due*** ***to*** ***the*** ***positions*** ***taken*** ***by*** ***the*** ***left*** ***wing***....***that*** ***turns*** ***off*** ***a*** ***lot*** ***of*** ***American*** ***voters***...

***Concerning*** ***the*** ***conservative*** ***wing*** ***of*** ***the*** ***R*** ***party***...
***They*** ***are*** ***value*** ***based*** ***issues***; (***abortion***...***will*** ***not*** ***debate*** ***that*** ***issue*** ***now***, ***family*** ***values***...***etc***...), ***where*** ***your*** ***left*** ***wing*** ***bashes*** ***our*** ***parties*** ***conservatives***...***it*** ***has*** ***a*** ***tendency*** ***to*** ***swing*** ***voters*** ***to*** ***the*** ***Republican*** ***side***...***Iraq*** ***qill*** ***eventually*** ***be*** ***settled***...***the*** ***vicious*** ***attacks*** ***by*** ***the*** ***left*** ***wing*** ***will***, ***in*** ***all*** ***likelihood***, ***swing*** ***th*** ***centrist*** ***voters*** ***to*** ***the*** ***R*** ***side***...

[dallison7]

***What***'***s*** ***going*** ***on*** ***eith*** ***the*** ***board*** ***this*** ***morning*** ***and*** ***all*** ***these*** ***asteriks***?

[adian1-2009]

***The*** ***opening*** ***paragraph*** ***says*** ***it*** ***all*** ***about*** ***the*** ***Weekly*** ***Standard***. ***It*** ***contends*** ***that*** ***it*** ***is*** ***ok*** ***to*** ***lie*** ***for*** ***the*** ***sake*** ***of*** ***obtaining*** ***the*** ***nomination***. ***It*** ***contends*** ***that*** ***it*** ***is*** ***ok*** ***that*** ***pre***-***candidates*** ***voice*** ***positions*** ***they*** ***do*** ***not*** ***believe*** ***in***. ***It*** ***contends*** ***that*** ***the*** ***ends*** ***justify*** ***the*** ***means***, ***no*** ***matter*** ***how*** ***much*** ***immorality*** ***involved***. ***May*** ***our*** ***freedom*** ***of*** ***expression*** ***be*** ***saved*** ***forever***! ***May*** ***the*** ***immorality*** ***praised*** ***in*** ***the*** ***article*** ***be*** ***ignored*** ***by*** ***our*** ***growing*** ***young*** ***generations***! ***What*** ***a*** ***piece*** ***of*** ***moral*** ***garbage***!!!

[katg21]

I'm glad to be of some humor to you Zoroastor.

Everyone knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and everyone believed he would give them to the terrorists. He had attacked the Kurds with them and he had killed thousands of Iranians with them. He also refused to follow the United Nations resolutions. He was a destabilizing factor to a very important region. If we are going to be the strongest power, we need to use that power to prevent the type of genocide that the Taliban and Saddam had attempted. Saudi Arabia is a problem but at least we seem to be able to negotiate with them. There was no talking to or negotiating with Saddam. We can%u2019t leave Iraq until the Iraqi%u2019s can handle their affairs. They have been under a tyrant%u2019s rule so long that they don%u2019t know how to do that yet.



We are the greatest nation in the world and we have done more to promote peace and tranquility than any other nation. Why don%u2019t you take the side of the good guys rather than the side of the bad? Do you really see us as the bad guys? The 3 major networks want us to lose because they hate George Bush %u2013 that is a fact! You need to sort out the chaff!

[scott4261]

The influence of Jerry Falwell in the early days of the Ronald Reagan's first term set the tone for the religious right-wing takeover of that is now rotting the Republican Party from the inside. To say nothing of the neo-con wing which is doing its own damage.

The moderates have largely defected to the Democratic party now, and the GOP my have to suffer the same fate as the Whigs did in the 1800s. Then a more moderate party will be able to emerge from its ashes.

The Republicans are falling on their swords for George W. Bush as we speak!

[scott4261]

I don't think Mitt Romney's superficial changes in his positions on the social issues will be enough to overcome the queasiness many Republican voters already feel over his Mormonism.

The Republicans are dead in the water for 2008.

[katg21]

Thanks NativeWoman, but I'm sure it was pretty easy to find negative articles about Bush's policies in those left-wing media outlets. Do they ever say anything positive?

[zoroastor]

I love reading these boards. It is so amusing to see people with no facts but plenty of opinion duking it out, getting all worked up and name calling.

In the summer, two activities increase. Eating ice cream and swimming.

Katg21. You especially crack me up. I'm no hypocrite. I was in Iraq for a year. I agree with you that we need peace in the middle east. And how is it that what we are doing there is going to achieve that? Remember the old saying "fighting for peace is like Fu(k!ng for chastity." I'm no pacifist. If we are attacked, we should defend ourselves. However, Iraq did not attack us. Prior to our arriving there, there were very few, if any, Al Qaida there. Remember I was there at the begining. My fellow soldiers and I practically watched them come over the borders. I understand you feel the need to punch someone in the nose over 9/11 and other terrorist acts, but you have to punch the right person. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? It had a lot more ties to 9/11 than Iraq did.
Read something other than right-wing agenda. Get all the facts, not just some of them. Otherwise you might think eating ice cream leads to drowning.

[dallison7]

"But for a Republican seeking his party's nomination, shifting to the right on social issues is hardly shocking. Rather, it's quite normal,"


Yes it is quite normal for a republican,
IT'S CALLED LYING!!!

[getcentered]

Please, someone tell where the CENTRIST Republicans are?

Many Americans today have been enlightened by the two wars we find ourselves involved. One war, the "war on terrorism", finds its main battleground in Afghanistan, and it is a war that costs lives and money but the majority of Americans support. Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, most don't have a problem with us kicking down the doors of members of the Taliban.

When talking about the war in Iraq the parties have much difference. Democrats say that the public and congress was mislead to justify the war in Iraq and that the Bush Administration no longer deserves autonomy in situations where US service men and women's lives are on the line. Based on the results of the last Congressional elections, most Americans see a problem with GOP/Republicans; at least in the way they make decisions about the use of our military.

So why is it that in the GOP/Republican party there are no dissenters, no independent thinkers, no moderates? Where are the real conservatives who would laugh at how conservatively the current Republican party has been spending taxes, and creating big government? Has the Republican Party lost its identity? Can the ideology of the GOP be so easily summed up in Karl Rove talking points like %u201Csupport this and support that%u201D, and angry rhetoric like %u201Cliberals are traitors%u201D?

Hello centrist Republicans! Anybody out there?