Vision, Mission, and Strategy

Hillbilly Politics

Yes, it’s a pun on a RedState blogger’s screen I.D. but it really fits. Pilgrim, himself/herself, took a segment of an old speech and changed but one word in it to say this:

If abortion is right, it ought to be extended; if not, it ought to be restricted — there is no middle ground. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality — its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension — its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought abortion right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think abortion is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation. 

 Mr. Lincoln, stated thus about the issue of slavery in 1860.  My reply to the entire missive that pilgrim wrote was that this one segment encapsulates conservative ideals because you can interchange any issue barring those of a federal nature such as national security and use the same argument over and over again.

The more we continue to look to the federal government as the cure to all ills, the less freedoms we have, as outlined in the Constitution.

Read the whole entry at RedState. It’s a very good one. This is the message that conservatives should carry first and foremost and why we need strict Constitutionalist judges. Were they all so, then California could enjoy its socialist state, as well as some others, and those states that reject such ideology could employ what they deem best without the fearsome fighting that is eroding the heartstone of the Constitution itself: individual liberty protected by a small central government with all other rights accorded to the individual states.

If necessary, perhaps it’s time to divorce conservatism from the Republican Party and carry the message to the people. With the state of current affairs, the relationship between conservatism and the Republican Party reminds me of a marriage wherein one spouse is forced to stay married to the other, in spite of the other’s chronic infidelities.

12 Responses to Pilgrim in the Wilderness.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    Why ” interchange any issue barring those of a federal nature such as national security ” granted an exlusion?
    Could we put in ‘Iraq”, “CEO compensation” ? “Rap Music”? (please!), “Reality TV Shows”? “Tax Evasion”? Seems we could, I dunno. As a dem, I cannot judge or help on the future of the GOP, but as I recall, there were some serious splits going on early in the Romney, Guilliani, Thompson, which seemed to bring out some internecine divisiveness…then hardly anyone wanted McCain…which is odd, because thats who y’all voted for in the primaries. You suppose your side is so prinicipled that you will never all agree? 😉

  • hillbilly says:

    Other than Iraq which is a foreign policy concern so is a federal concern, you pretty much have the idea.

    McCain was elected during the primaries due to a lot of independents crossing over and voting for him rather than their usual habit of voting Democrat. As candidates dropped out before the national primary date, they endorsed him over the remaining candidates for the most part. One holdout was Thompson who didn’t until after it was fairly clear that McCain was going to win the nomination. I found that odd considering the rumors about Thompson that killed his own bid along with the fact that he got started so late in the game.

    Internecine divisiveness is taking the thing out of proportion, I believe, but more angst because, yet again, we didn’t have a conservative candidate whom we could back, at least strongly, if not wholeheartedly.

    A lot of us were fence sitters until the Palin pick yet the media story was she was a drag on the ticket… at least until after they assured a win for Obama. Now, some are still attacking her but others are owning up to what they did.

    From beginning to end, this presidency was picked by the media, along with the candidates. Clinton was killed off by the media, as were Richardson, Biden, and the others… although most of the others deserved to be picked off. The same with the Republicans.

    The media even made much ado about there being so many Republican candidates but never seemed to be able to acknowledge how many Democrat candidates there were vying for the job. I think it was one less than what was being proffered on the Republican side. I’ll try to go back and confirm that count sometime.

  • Gary says:

    “…The more we continue to look to the federal government as the cure to all ills, the less freedoms we have, as outlined in the Constitution…”


    This idea is good for everyone in spite of party affiliation.

    “…then hardly anyone wanted McCain…which is odd, because thats who y’all voted for in the primaries“.

    Not quite true, BB. My guy was Duncan Hunter. He dropped out long before I had a chance to Vote. By the time California had its primary, it was McCain, Romney and I think maybe Huckabee? Anyway, I did vote for Romney because of his business expertise and executive experience.

    I voted for McCain in the general election because of Palin and because Obama scares me to death.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    “From beginning to end, this presidency was picked by the media” ..perhaps..I know Hannity and Limbaugh persuaded me 😆 Not sure how much influence the media has, since each correspondent and each talking head and each spinmeister has only one vote.
    IMO, the economic situation was the clincher….and no
    I didn’t see that on CNBC… 😉

  • hillbilly says:

    For the general, there were a lot of factors but during the primaries, the media … how shall I put this… “guided” peoples views with their slanted “news.”

    With a less biased media, I believe Hillary would have won the primaries… not that I would have voted for Hillary, either. That was confirmed to me when the media began their the free-for-all on Palin with outright and latent sexism.

    The same for the Republicans. McCain was the media darling until he won the nomination. Had it not played out the way it did, he wouldn’t have made it to the nomination. Romney may have. Tough to tell right now, all things considered, since it was so far back in the past and the information overload since.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    Speaking of biased media, I watched the Palin interview by Wolf Blitzer this morning. Thought she did extremely well. 🙂

  • Gary says:

    Of course she did, BB. She’s more or less from Idaho where people still think with their minds instead of self indulgent motivations.


  • BB-Idaho says:

    No, Twin Falls is about 400 miles south. But if they throw a message bottle in the river, it will come by in a month or so. Do they participate in the local weekend hobby ?

  • Gary says:


    I doubt it, though my dad was born about a 1/4 mile up river from the bridge… 1928ish.

    That’s about wher Evel jumped… er, attempted to jump, isn’t it?

    If your 400 miles north, that puts you near one of the finest golf courses in the country… and Skinhead country too… Oh no! BB, you’re not a skinhead are you?

November 2008


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.