The Michael Savage thread got me thinking about something.

If an extremist liberal were to run for an office, the left would chanting his/her name in the streets, yet when an extremist conservative even thinks about running, we all think they're a fruitcake*.

Question: Are we afraid to let people know what we really think on the issues because we'll be labeled bigots/homophobes/etc... or are we just not as conservative as we think we are?





*- Not to be confused with the supposed slur.

The Dems portray themselves as the underdog. Therefore, they can get away with wild accusations, while being immune to similar jabs by the right because "those without power cannot oppress".

Robert Byrd is one of the highest ranking Democrats in the Senate. He was once a recruiter for the KKK. At the same time, ANY Republican with ANY hint of a racist comment in his background is immediately demonized as some ultra-conservative wacko who is unfit to hold any elected office.

Liberals can rampantly accuse people of "homophobia" without any basis in fact, and yet remain unchallenged and unaccountable. Meanwhile, if a Republican says that he wishes Strom Thurmond would have been elected President, he is immediately crucified for being a bigot and a racist, even though he never said WHY he thought Thurmond would have been better than the alternative. Race was never mentioned, it was simply assumed.

I actually think that most Republicans are LESS racist/extremist than our counterparts. However, any little slipup and they are painting targets on their backs.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called conservatives out there who are bigots and homophobes. Conservatives can't get away with calling people faggots today any more than they can calling people niggers. It simply doesn't work that way, and if conservatism simply means keeping old prejudices alive... then let conservatism die. It's outlived its usefulness.

However, if conservatism still stands for personal responsibility and the like, it should be kept around as it's still useful outside of the old hatreds that conservatives have unfortunately become known for.

What elected Republican has a record of saying these things?

Conservatism is NOT about prejudice, or discrimination.

I still say that the liberal leadership gets away with blatantly inflammatory remarks which are largely overlooked.

I agree with you, amlord. Democrats should subject themselves to the same standards as the ones they use to judge the Republicans.
Trent Lott, when he made that statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, did not make a racial slur but was just trying to make the old man feel good. He might have been thinking about race (who really knows but Trent?), or he could have been referring to state's rights in general.

Al Sharpton used race for political gain. Jesse Jackson had to apologize for a slur against Jews ("hymie town"). And of course, there was the KKK in the past for a lot of southern Democrats.

Since Republicans are the ones in power, they get the flack now. But all you have to do is remember the endless Bill and Hillary Clinton slams that took place before Bush took office (and Hillary is still getting slammed, this time on her book). I'd say things usually even out in the end.

Paladin - This thread is for declared Republicans only. Please don't post in here unless your party affiliation is Republican.

Sorry--I didn't notice, and I usually do.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the words bigot and homophobe because it appears to have taken the spotlight over my question.

I just get the feeling that many conservatives would rather have a democrat in office than a far right leaner. At least with the far right leaner you can support some of their issues. I have a hard time supporting any of the more important issues(which I admit is subjective) of a democrat.

So, I'm just curious as to why. Is it because we're afraid of being categorized into a card carrying member of the KKK or are we really not as conservative as we think?

I think people are generally quick to bring up the "slippery slope" argument on traditional conservative issues. By leaping to the extreme, even a relatively moderate conservative view seems like it is one step away from fascism.

On abortion, a law requiring a teenager to notify her parents before having an abortion is somehow seen as absolutely anti-abortion, even if that same teen can't get into the latest blockbuster down at the movie theater.

On taxes, a tax cut is somehow seen as a perk for the rich, even though the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay NO income tax.

School vouchers are somehow turned into a blanket "anti-education" issue or framed as state sponsorship of religion.

Setting up private accounts for retirement is somehow seen as wanting Social Security to "wither on the vine".

Almost every issue is like this. Democrats are quick to pounce on conservative ideas and take them to an illogical conclusion, thus raising a stink from alarmists. No conservative idea can be taken on its merits by liberals because they are constantly falling down that slippery slope.

The problem then becomes that "Joe Normal" doesn't want to be associated (even remotely) with a party accused of hating Seniors, wanting a state sponsored religion, or for keeping the poor down. None of these labels is anywhere close to the truth, but they stick nonetheless.

I think we are less afraid, so much as we are aprehensive, because we know that the Left will as Amlord said, jump down our throats and try to pluck our opinion apart, instead of coming up with an idea themselves, they just try to demolish ours. It's been the liberal strategy since Bush came to power.

CP

Ok, it seems we all pretty much agree we'll be labeled and stereotyped.

So, how can we get anything accomplished if we can't even back the people we think holds our values the most? I think this is where the liberals have the advantage.

Fear no exchange with liberals. We own them on damn near every issue. Engage! Engage! And support Howard Dean in the primaries so we can get Bush in a second time!

But absolutely, I think we must look like the wiser adults, and not go off the deep end credibility wise. Find the strengths of Bush's side and pound on them.

Michael Savage hurt the party by looking more like he was filled with hollow hate, than by hitting gays on the idiocy of gay high schools and the like.

I think we must stick to the points, and keep our eyes on the ball, because when America sees both sides of the issue, America turns right.

In a lot of ways, that's politics. Conservatives are no better with liberal ideas. You get a lot of people claiming that making abortion available is somehow wanting to mass-murder babies and the like. It's certainly not a Republican/Democrat thing, it's a politician thing and you're right, it stinks.

Other than the fact that abortion IS the mass murder of babies, you are correct to a point.

However, when Conservatives are opposed to Universal Health Care, it isn't because it is a slippery slope, it is because the ACTUAL proposal costs too much money, ends up with no accountibility, and the projected costs will be an order of magnitude less than the actual costs.

Same can be said for prescription drugs, welfare and several other staple issues of the Democrats.

Thank you for making my point for me. That's exactly what I'm talking about. The fact is that abortion is not mass murder of babies. You're taking a political position and turning it into an emotional one.

There are no babies involved. The proper medical term is fetus. Secondly, murder is a legal term that refers specifically to killing that is not sanctioned by law. As abortion is legal, it cannot, by definition, be murder. Refering to it as such is a dishonest attempt to emotionally charge the issue. Abortion cannot be murder, period.

This is just one example of Republicans taking a Democratic issue to irrational extremes, just as the reverse has been complained about in this thread. Pot. Kettle. Black.



Depends on your views of the costs, I suppose. Democrats don't think so. Canada certainly doesn't think so, they *HAVE* universal medical coverage. I don't support that in the US, that's my personal view. I'm sure the Democrats think a lot of the things Republicans do are stupid as well.

Yes they do, and do you have any idea how much taxes are stolen from their citizens for it?



Just because the supreme court was afraid of the backlash of feminists doesn't make killing humans any less attrocious. You don't want to call them babies, fine. I was once a "fetus", you were once a "fetus". If I would have been aborted, I'd call that killing me. A fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior citizen are ALL different stages of the life of a human being. I'd love to see you debate that with any embryologist.

Let us not forget that Robert Byrd likes to refer to white people that listen to rap as
"white niggers". That's his own quote. Not mine.

The tyranny of the majority does not necessarily make something moral or ethical.

I agree with you that abortion is legal. I do not in any way feel that people who choose abortion should be prosecuted or whatever. It is between them and whoever they meet when they close their eyes for the last time.

I think I can medically defend my position better than anyone could defend the opposite one. Defending those who cannot defend themselves, while obviously reprehensible, is not drawn out of thin air.

I do not believe it is "extremist" to defend life. It would be extremist to advocate taking the lives of those on the opposite side of the issue. Something I would never do, since I am no extremist.

America is being held hostage by the swing voters. Take illegal immigrants for example, the right thing to do is deport them for breaking the law. But which ever party tackles that issue would send the hispanic voters to the other side of the isle.

Politicians in the old days would serve their term and head back to civilian life. they would not be affraid to do what was right, because there was no re-elections.

Hi AirborneMedic - welcome. I noticed your profile listed you as a Reform party member. Please note for future reference that this particular forum is for declared Republicans only. Thanks

Words have meanings. Simply refusing to use the meanings because they lack the right emotional imact is inherently dishonest.

And yes, I was once a fetus. If I had been aborted, it would have been before RoeVWade and hence would have been illegal. But I wouldn't be around to argue the point so it's neither here nor there. And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether a fetus is human or not, a fetus lacks legal rights. Period. You can't argue that an 8 year old is a human being and therefore deserves to drive. Rights are granted at certain stages. Prior to birth, whether you like it or not, a fetus has very few rights.



Who is talking about morality or ethics? It certainly does make something legal, which abortion is. Deal with it.

I would like everyone here to know that it doesn't hurt that bad to be called a bigot or a homophobe unless you are. But to be called a Communist or a socialist with cause should shame a whole family for generations to come!!!

johnlocke - be constructive.

I didn't use the word murder in that post, so it doesn't matter if it was illegal or not. I used the word "killed". Huge difference. One is a legal term, the other is not.

I just cannot change my feelings because the supreme court decided to go one way instead of the other. Laws don't make things right or wrong, just legal and illegal. Abortion is wrong, but is legal.

You are welcome to your personal opinions, of course. Abortion is legal, and your opinion of 'right' and 'wrong' is irrelevant to the legality or availability of such.

The Supreme Court operates, not on emotion, but on evaluation of the Constitution and other legal statutes. It found that abortion is supported under the spirit of the Constitution and I agree with them. You are welcome to disagree, of course. After all, this is a free country.

Oh, c'mon. You don't really believe that do you?

allright gentlemen, i know i am not a moderator, but lets not drop from the topic of extremism amoung conservatives being a supposed bad thing. i would love to jump in on the abortion issue, but this is not the place.

On topic:

I am an "extremist" in the eyes of many people i know of the liberal orientation. i have yet to get my head cut off or my named slurred, but then again, i am not a big name.
Mike Savage on the other hand is blatantly extreme in his views of america. he totally opposes ILLEGAL immigrants in the country (oh no!), he totally opposes the breakdown of english as the universal language in america, and he doesent think that the gay population is doing anything but blur the lines of morality in the culture(an issue for another debate). and just because he does not candy coat any thing he says, he gets branded a bigoted close minded extremist who is as dumb as he is loud.
I find it unfortunate that we conservatives have to be wary of the media destroying us for our views, and/or our actions in accordance with our beliefs. as much as i do not like liberal thought in its extreme (and in the spirit of civility i will not elaborate), i wont try to destroy someone because of their words or beliefs, or for the most part, their actions. which i believe many people have sought to do to mike savage.
If you are a flaming liberal, i might not take you seriously, but i wont blast you, you are free to think whatever you like, and even say it.
I for my part am not afraid to be labeled, they are only labels, and they hold as much water as you let them. let them call me a racist, let them call me a homophobe, let them call me a hippo, it really doesent matter. i am not a racist, i am not a homophobe, and i am not a hippo, regardless of what i may look like.

i honestly wish that the declared conservatives in this country would start acting like what THEY lebeled themselves as...

Conservatives