Posted on 03/03/2007 1:05:48 PM PST by gpapa
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
In times of national peril, this "litmus test" is of paramount importance. The Ruler of the Universe, who is the only one who can truly protect us, is holy. He is righteous and just and will not let sin go unpunished. Go read Abraham Lincoln's speech on the subject of God's judgment via the civil war. How many died as a result of the sin of slavery? To think national peril is not tied to national sin is to disbelieve in Providence.
Conservatism is my litmus test. Pro-abortion, pro-homo, gun grabbbers aren't conservatives, period.
Was the author named Monty Hall? No deal. Ain't gonna happen. Rudy is a flaming liberal.
Which litmus test? The 1st Amendment/CFR litmus test? The 2nd Amendment litmus test? The illegal immigration litmus test? The abortion litmus test? The partial birth abortion litmus test? The hate crimes litmus test? The judges litmus test? The gay agenda litmus test? Which one do we give up? All of them? Why stop there? Surely we can find some other dead-weight conservative principals we can jettison in favor of a singular focus on national security.
I'll never understand the spell this man casts over people. It's positively Clinton-esque.
What you see are many conservatives setting aside their differences with Giuliani on a select few issues that the President personally has little power over, and supporting actual conservative governance & results (bringing down organized crime, fixing a city that was in decline, facing terrorism at personal risk to himself) rather than slogans and sound bites.
Nearly all pro-Giuliani Freepers have qualms about some of Giuliani's stands on social issues, but are looking at 2008 from a Big Picture perspective.
BTW, I saw Bob Tyrrell of the American Spectator with the Guliani people, and saw Terrill's pro-Rudy column in one of the NY papers on Thurs. (?) It's says a lot when someone like Tyrrell---once the most RADICAL of conservatives---is backing Rudy.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how open borders, gun control and demographic suicide make America more secure in this time of "national peril".
Love of country, hatred of terrorists and an (R) after their name are my only litmus tests.
We're looking at the 2008 Big Picture as well. And having a GOP nominee this left-of-center on this many issues is leaving the front-door off the hinge for a third party candidate to come walking in.
Not to mention the skeletons in the storage shed that the Dems are going to use against him. It's the political equivalent of a nuclear arsenal in the hands of the enemy.
Your concern is understandable, but "engage" can mean many things. The military has what it calls "rules of engagement." Giuliani may have meant it that way.
Needs to check in at one of those drying out joints with the bald headed Bimbo. Has got to be on some drug to get that far spaced out.
The third-party concern is legitimate. But the skelotons in the closet bit is nothing to worry about. None of the Rodents running have lived the cleanest lives possible.
RUDY PING -- a long, but very interesting article. The excerpt posted doesn't do much, but it's definitely worth reading the article and I think the Rudy Ping members would find it interesting, including bookmarking it for use in discussions later.
"In 2006, he campaigned for many pro-life candidates, spoke out against judicial activism, and cited the likes of Samuel Alito and John Roberts as the kind of judges he wanted to see on the bench. There has been some resistance, but since the start of this year a sizable cadre of social conservatives have declared either their willingness to consider supporting the mayor, or their intention not to write him off.
Some day their prince may come--the conservative who hits all the bases--pro-life, pro-supply side, pro-tax cuts, pro-deregulation, and hawkish in foreign policy--but this day is not it, and that day may never arrive.
The deal in the works has been carefully crafted to make sure that no one loses too much. Conservatives would be getting a pro-choice nominee, but one who would not push a pro-choice agenda, and one who would give them (as far as presidents can be sure in these matters) the kind of judges they long for. Giuliani would not be required to renounce his beliefs, merely to appoint the right kind of judges and to remain more or less neutral in a policy area in which, to be honest, he has never shown that much interest. The Republicans will remain the pro-life party--as desired by the bulk of their voters and required by the workings of the two-party system--though now with a larger, more varied, and in some ways more competitive field of candidates.
And it is worth noting in this altered context that the Democrats also are starting to change. One of the reasons Democrats now run both the houses of Congress is that canny recruiters defied their own culture war lobbies and rammed a number of pro-life and pro-gun candidates down the throats of their interest groups, assessing correctly that control of Congress was worth a few unhappy activists. "
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why he is so qualified to fight the War on Terror, especially since several other candidates are much better qualified. It is a shell game, produced and directed by a PR campaign that started on September 12, 2001.
Not even if hell froze over!
As much as I despise McCain, he could do a better job on the War on Terror than Giuliani. Duncan Hunter at least wants to close the borders, which is more than Rudy has done. Hunter also chaired and is the current ranking Repulican on the House Committee for Armed Services, and served in the US Marine Corps. He has far more insight to the Pentagon than Giuliani.
Rudy was a mayor, and a federal prosector. Whoop-de-doo.
Of course, that's an understatement. The Dems are habitual liars and career criminals. But then, so are their fellow travelers in the mass media. And in politics, like everything else, perception is reality.
"Rudy was a mayor, and a federal prosector. Whoop-de-doo."
I keep asking for his actual qualifications that enable him to be a great 'wartime president' and the best person to handle the WOT, beyond merely his tough talk or going after the mob.
The usually response is the sound of crickets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.