There is more to being a Republican than being Pro-War/Pro-Life
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
January 26, 2008 1:44pm CST
Anyone can be Pro-War, Senator Joe Lieberman is Pro-War.
Anyone can be Pro-Life, Senator Harry Ried is Pro-Life.
There is more to being a Republican than being Pro-War/Pro-life. If that was all you had to be then I say let us nominate Lieberman/Ried, or Ried/Lieberman. A liberal can be Pro-War/Pro-Life, but they are not a conservative. The True Republican party is a CONSERVATIVE party. We believe that compassion is not shown by how many people you get into government programs, but how many people you get out of government programs. True Republicans do not believe in more government, but less is best. True Republicans believe that you have the right to make as much money as you want to, and spend it however you want to. True Republicans believe that if you want to be a Bible tumper, or a gun toter, or a cigar smoker, or a SUV driver, we have a party for you. True Republicans should not comprise their beliefs, but should make liberal comprise theirs. The left never moves to the right, so why should we move to the left. Look at Hillary she is more liberal than Bill. Obama is left of Carter, so why should we not try to be right of Reagan. Republicans are always tring for some odd reason to move to the "middle". The Left never moves to the middle. Ford was a moderate and lost to Carter, Reagan was a conservative and destroyed Carter. Bush returned to the middle and got beaten by Clinton. If history has anything to say when the Republican party moves to the middle it loses, but when it stays true to from it is unbeatable. If the American people want Liberals they will vote Democrat, nothing we can do about it. We as a party do not need to become better Liberals, but the Best Conservative party we can be.
Thanks for Reading
1 person likes this
4 responses
@jormins (1223)
• United States
26 Jan 08
The Republican party also thinks evolution is a scam and is responsible for us being in Iraq because Bush went "all in" on Saddam's bluff about WMDs.
Bush has been such a bad president it is forcing Rep's to move to the middle (i.e. McCain winning the nom). He will still lose but due to Bush not due to himself.
You might be a member of an extinct party very soon as more and more immigrants are coming here and being accepted by the Dem's, you're going to see less red states and more blue if the Republicans don't adapt. And no deporting 12 million people all at once and staying in Iraq for the next 100 years is not the Republican party adapting.
I do think a lot of what the Republican party stands for is good but especially right now, the bad outweighs the good.
2 people like this
@mkirby624 (1598)
• United States
29 Jan 08
I think republican means less government. I am republican and I am anti-war and pro-choice. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It is the fiscal issues that keep this country's head above water, so they are more important to me.
1 person likes this
@bravenewworld (746)
• United States
28 Jan 08
Do you consider the current Bush administration to represent true conservatism? I think this administration has poisoned the upcoming election for the right-wing faction of the Republican party. There seems to be a feeling that a moderate Republican has a better chance of winning.. Not sure whether that's really the case, but so far the more conservative candidates have done less well.
I think Bill Clinton did move to the center, and if anything, compromised liberal principles too much.
1 person likes this
@kbanta11 (59)
• United States
26 Jan 08
I dont think that being Republican is being Pro-War at all. Republicans used to think less of war than Democrats, but now to me there seems to be no difference on the issues between Democrats and Republicans. I think the difference is now between the big 2 parties and all the small parties like Libertarians or the Green party. Thats where the difference lies.
1 person likes this
