Posted on 09/11/2007 10:17:51 PM PDT by goldstategop
Isn't it amazing they all have more important things to do to get elected President than to meet face to face with Christian and Jewish leaders who represent millions and millions of votes?
I tell you it is gut-wrenching fear that kept them away.
They are scared to death of the questions. They're scared to death they won't have a good answer. They're scared to death they might say something they will live to regret.
So, all four of the "front-runners" have decided "to play it safe."
Playing it safe means not showing up, making excuses for their absence and hoping they really can take all those values voters for granted. Surely, they will not vote for Hillary! Surely, they won't sit on their hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Thats just because you don’t care all that much about Fred’s positions on social issues. He matches the views of the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party very well. However, on social issues he does not support the pro-life amendment, he does not support a an amendment banning gay marriage, he refused to take a public position on the Terri Schievo case, and he is unwilling to come to a debate sponsored by Social Conservative leaders. You can spin all day if you want but this does not look good to dedicated social conservatives.
P.S.
You can complain about us voting for hillary by not supporting your candidate. However, remember the libertarian/pro business wing of the Republican party has to be willing to push a candidate which we can also support. True we can’t always get everything we want but the compromises have to go both ways.
"and has stated" -You accept his promise on faith rather than with certainty, I would much prefer the predictability of a solid conservative record.
Mr. Giuliani has also made many promises to act differently than his record predicts, including a pledge regarding judges. Shall we take him at his word as well?
"Social" conservatives - it seems like "social" conservatives still want the rule to come from Washington over States Rights...
Fred is a Federalist - and the United States is a Federalist government - per the Constitution. Washington is supposed to have few rights over the states and it's people to decide it's laws.
The main reason for Washington is do those things we, at a state level, cannot do alone or for ourselves, the main thing being to protect us against foreign enemies.
Fred is NOT against the things you accuse him of - he is for those rights to be returned to the STATES where they belong - where you and I and all others can have the say of what goes on in our back yards - where we live/
I thought republicans have been screaming for decades for less big government? Then along comes the first man that just is determined to bring that about and you 'social' conservatives are screaming bloody murder for the power to be kept in the hands of Washington.
So, one can wonder, are you 'social' conservatives the socialist republican counterpart to the socialist democrats?
We either go with a leader who will cut off the power from Washington and return it to our hands in our states - or continue on the slide into total SOCIALIST control from Washington that overrides = unconstitutionally = our rights - and responsibly - to determine these issues for ourselves in our home states?
I hope like hell you FReepers out there that continue to accuse conservatives of losing the election for you will smarten up a bit this time.
Your railing against us will do you no good. You need only to support a true conservative who will stand for conservative principles, and has a record to prove it. Then, and only then, you will receive the support of the base that you so fervently desire.
The conservative wing, re-branded "social conservatives" in a vain attempt to allow RINOS the luxury of inclusion, out numbers the Rockefeller wing by a factor of two to one. In the light of that, why is it the conservatives that are always asked to compromise their principles?
Federalism is about the powers of the federal government under the constitution. I am federalist when it comes to issues like how expansive of a view the courts should take of the power to legislate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. However, when we amend the constitution federalism does not apply because any constitutional amendment is by its very nature within the powers of the federal government.
What an absurd statement. To compare the Value Voters debate to MSM debates is idiotic, as you well know. It is probably the only debate that will be substantive- and also allow enough time for a candidate to offer an elaborate answer.
Snubbing this particular debate was a drastic error on Fred's part.
I was referring to your comments @ #137. Fred was the subject thereof.
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.