posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:02 AM
Originally posted by micmerci
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by HappyBunny
I am simply setting the record straight on the history of the Republican Party's platform. I have made no reference to my individual stance on ANY
issues on ANY of my posts throughout this thread. So, to assume that I am a moral absolutist is baseless and just an attempt to sideline the purpose
of my post.
Okay, then--where has the Republican Party's moral absolutism gotten it?
As far as the history of the Republican Party's platform, prior to about 1980 there wasn't much difference between the GOP and the Dems except maybe
in foreign policy. Maybe you should look up Rockefeller Republicans and then contrast them with the neocons. And then look at Taft and Hartley.
Eisenhower not only didn't repeal the New Deal--he expanded Social Security, for heaven's sakes.
I thought this thread began with a call to Republicans to shift their methodology in order to win approval as well as elections? I called out the OP
in stating that simply if a Republican changes his platform for any reason (approval or winning being among the weakest IMO) then he cannot label
himself a true Republican. I did not endorse any stance whatsoever, I just pointed out a fact.
Personally, I don't think you are going back far enough- 1980 was just a stones throw away in light of the long history of the Republican party. How
about the 1860's? You want social issues? Who was it that championed the end of slavery in this country? Republicans. And who was it that started the
KKK? I don't think I need to answer that question.
In the 1860's, the Republicans such as Lincoln were the beginnings of the modern Democrats, so your argument doesn't hold water.
Social issues and biblical values are two different things- although one can be applied to the other. The US was founded on the pillars of
Biblical Values and religious freedom- whether people want to suppress that or not. I would like to point out that I said biblical and not Christian-
there is a difference.
Religious freedom--and the choice to follow no God at all. The GOP persecutes anyone who doesn't agree with them--thus going against everything
people came to this country for.
The founders were not overly religious. Some of them may have believed in a god, but they didn't let that interfere with their politics. They
recognized, from the struggles that were going on in Europe, the value of keeping them separate.
I am willing to concede that Republicans need to work on their image in order to win people over and thus win elections but I do not think it
wise to change one's stance. I feel the very same way for the Democrats, or Libertarians,etc. All I am saying, as I have been all along, is that if
one is going to attach a label to himself then they need to embrace and stand on the policies associated with that label. Anything else IMO is just
pandering and cowardice.
Working on their image isn't enough. They have to get rid of the Tea Party, and separate the fiscal conservatives from the social conservatives.