TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Salty1 wrote:

jmra wrote:"If the religious right ever "dies" the republican party and the constitution as we know it dies with it."

well said and I could not agree more, the liberal left has already shown us what they think of the Constitution and especially the 2nd Amendment. Just look at the Chicago vs McDonald case as a point of fact. Obama's recent SCOTUS appointees did exactly what they claimed they would not do during their confirmation hearings. If they had the majority all of us would be a few giant steps back concerning citizens rights to keep and bear arms. This is yet another reason that we need the GOP to take the White House in 2012, if Obie gets another SCOTUS appointment the left will turn this country upside down....

There's some real truth to this (both)... unfortunately. Instead of finding ways to work together and resolve differences, US politics is becoming more polarized every day. I don't think it needs to be this way. The whole dialogue is alienating. The Left screams loudly and the Right digs in. Like Palestinians and Israel some days...

Here's my impression....

I think that most folks on the Right are pretty reasonable and thoughtful. Sure, you have your way-Right folks who sit on their rocking chair on their philosophical porch (a metaphor from a psych class a long time ago, forgive me), but I believe most folks on the Right are capable of independent thought. I don't give the left quite as much credit. So..... I think it's up to those on the Right to step up and lead. There's a huge difference between leading and digging in... Leading means getting out and voting and holding representatives accountable. It also means being mature enough that our reaction to the the Left screaming for "Cap and Trade" or QEIII is CONSTRUCTIVE, informed, realistic and constitutional. It's all too easy to demand "black" when the left is demanding "white". That's not leadership that's political entertainment.

I like Paul Ryan... I think if I was in Congress, he and I would get along well. Why? Because he's literate, not afraid to speak his mind, has well-considered proposals and is ready to talk about ways to improve those proposals. He's not afraid to lead out and take a few punches. He's also a relatively clean slate. Doesn't owe too many allegiances (so it seems). We need more plain honest people representing us. Does anyone think Rick Perry is a good candidate for President? Newt? Romney?... People like Romney because he's "electable"... What an awful reason to vote for a person for President. We're in huge trouble if that's really what it's come down to.... We all have our reservations about Romney, but he doesn't stink totally and he's better than what we have so, he's my guy..?? Sad. I haven't voted FOR a President since Reagan, have you? Look where that's taken us.

Quit babbling and get to the point....

We are ALL guilty of accepting mediocrity. Taking the least painful path. We need to stop this. If a Republican is going to win the WH in 2012, he is NOT going to be an established candidate (My opinion). All the established candidates are worthless. They're either politically compromised, old ideas or unable to win the primary and the general election. We need a candidate that can win the CENTER with a promise to hold true to the Constitution. All of our other needs (speech, religion, secure in our homes, etc.) will be strengthened by this kind of leadership.

If we demand the same old story out of our primary candidates.... Abolish Abortion, Allow Prayer in Schools, Ban Gay Marriage... We have not only no chance, but no right to expect this country to change. Because in making those demands we not only fail to honor the Constitution, or the Golden Rule, we also fail to behave as constructive adults and we allow the Nanny Staters to define the political battlefield, just like a parent getting sucked into a pointless argument with their teenager.

IMO, YMMV

Hopefully some of this makes some sense. Sorry for the ramble.

The problem I see with your argument is the assumption that the "middle" is attainable or that it even exist. I believe the reason we are where we are today is because in the past republicans have taken an appeasement approach in order to move the nation to the "middle". The "middle" was never achieved because the left has no interest in the "middle" and will never have an interest in the "middle".

By asking people to ignore abortion (right to life), prayer in schools (freedom of speech) and States Rights (what the gay marriage issue is really about) You are in effect asking people to set aside what they believe to be constitutional issues in order to protect the constitution. That simply doesn't fly.

AEA wrote:Well, that's the beauty of this Nation (at the moment) that we are allowed to have and express our feelings/thoughts regardless what others may think.

AEA wrote:Yes, REALLY.

AEA wrote:

Pug wrote:
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

You hit the nail on the head!
He has been "groomed" since childhood for the position he holds and has no clue what he is doing is wrong.

His Czars control him based on the Democratic Parties agenda (GOVT CONTROL).

TexasFlash wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

...for the "unenlightened" such as myself...could you further explain these statements? As a religious man, should I assume you want me gone? What exactly is "neo-conservative social engineering"? Help me out here. Please.
Dave