A MAN WITH "PRINCIPLES CLOSEST TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!"
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Posted on 10/06/2007 5:51:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I tend to agree with one of our local talk show hosts who recently stated that while Rudy might be able to fool enough people during the primaries that he isn't all that liberal, you can bet when he goes up against Hillary she is going to make sure everybody knows his dirty little secret that most of the media including Fox News is trying to white-wash.
I am what is known as a Social Conservative. I voted for President George W. Bush twice and do not regret either vote even though he has disappointed me and even though I knew prior to both of my votes that he wasn't really all that Conservative.
I have a set of standards when it comes to deciding for whom to vote and while I consider abortion the slavery and Holocaust of our time, I care about other issues as well especially considering that we were attacked on September 11th, 2001. You see I have not forgotten.
I have a line that I will not cross when it comes to who can earn my vote and that line is someone who thinks it is okay to take the life of an innocent unborn baby. Therefore, Rudy Giuliani will not be getting my vote even if he does end up winning the Republican Presidential nomination.
I've been accused for ages now of being a one-issue voter because I will not cross this line but the truth be told, I care about a lot of different issues which is why even though Sam Brownback might be really strong on issues that concern most Social Conservatives, I never even considered supporting him seeing as he is weak on National Defense.
I've been told by other Social Conservatives that I should be supporting Mike Huckabee since after all he is a "real" Christian who attends Church regularly (of course he is a Pastor) and is for the Marriage Amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman. I have also been told that there are certain issues that Christians should not compromise on and it was impllied that this is one of them.
Yet no one stops to explain just how this Amendment is going to be passed seeing as it can't even be brought up as a resolution since there is not enough support. It's not like adding an Amendment to the Constitution is done every day. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass a resolution calling for an Amendment. Then it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.
Either that or two-thirds of the States must vote to call for a convention where Constitutional Amendments can be proposed which would still require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. This second option has actually never happened.
So I am suppose to use the support of this particular Marriage Amendment (which I do personally happen to like) as a litmus test for deciding which candidate I should support if I am being a "real" Christian? If I were to hold out for any Amendment it would be one to protect the lives of innocent unborn babies and even I, the queen of Naive don't have glasses that rosy.
Plus another issue that is important to me is illegal immigration and I'm afraid that I do not trust Mike Huckabee on this issue. He has tried to explain certain statements he has made about this issue but still the fact that he made them in the first place has me more than a little uneasy.
But the main reason I can't support Mike Huckabee is because barring some unforeseen circumstances he doesn't have a prayer of a chance in winning the Republican Presidential nomination and thanks to the media making Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor" I don't have the luxury of being able to play around with my primary vote. You see people often say that it is in the primaries where you should support someone who is closest to your own views and then when it comes to the general election, you can vote for the lesser of the two evils.
Yet if the polls are correct and all of us Social Conservatives split our votes between the Conservative candidates then Rudy is naturally going to win the Republican nomination. The way I look at it is either I need to compromise a little now or I will have to compromise a lot later and I have no intention of voting for a Democrat-lite, thank you very much.
I keep hearing Social Conservatives say that they must stick to their guns and vote for a particular candidate in the primaries even though they acknowledge their candidate is not viable but then they will say that they will vote for Rudy if he ends up winning the nomination. This does not compute in my simple mind. Why would you want to support someone who doesn't have a chance, knowing that if you do the option of having to vote for someone who is so totally anathema to your beliefs will be your ultimate decision?
Besides, Fred Thompson even has a set of principles upon which he makes his decisions and it appears to me that these principles are the closest to our founding fathers than all of the other candidates combined.
I don't know about you but I want America back. I believe Fred Thompson is the only one who has a chance of taking us there.
Well, dang...that’s annoying.
I know rules are rules, and I respect them,
but you’d think something this well written
that speaks to my heart would be in breaking.
It’s all about me. ;o)
ABSOLUTELY!
Great read...expresses exactly my thoughts.
I've never seen it put so succinctly, and so well.
Thank you ever so much for the ping and post!
Baptist bump!
Why not a Mississippi ping, too? ;o)
A MAN WITH "PRINCIPLES CLOSEST TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!"
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
“This is a very, very important point! Unless conservatives want to have to hold their nose to vote for Rudy! - to keep Hillary! from winning - we had better start lining up behind a conservative candidate that can win.”
But I believe that if Rudy were to win the Republican nomination, that Hillary will be our next president. The MSM have obviously chosen Rudy to be our candidate. Why? Because they have tons of bad press to bring out against Rudy and with Hillary having Wesley Clark as her VP to “take care of the war”, the MSM would point out that Hillary/Clark is the best choice for America! We can’t let that happen!
I agree. If Rudy is our nominee - we lose. A vote for Rudy is a vote for Hillary. If we put a conservative in there, we will defeat Hillary.
Now is the time to look at the bigger picture.
That's me. While I don't consider myself a one issue voter, I simply cannot vote for a person who supports the killing of unborn children..it speaks to their character, IMHO.
Thats works for me. I'm thinking he might be the next Lincoln.
I’m sure that former Agents Compean and Ramos are glad to known that GWB is a “social conservative”.
The 2000 election is a case in point. A week before the election it was shaping up to be a landslide win for Bush. The Friday before the DUI story comes out and Bush wins by a couple hundred votes in Florida. Why did that happen? A good chunk of the Christian Right stayed home. (Which made me want to pull my hair out!) Karol Rove even pointed that out himself.
btw..I consider myself part of the Christian Right.
I agree completely. Except that givne the choice between Rudy and any Dhimm, I’ll have to hold my nose and swing on the elephant’s tail.
ugh
No, but gross injustice should concern any social conservative. Actually, though, isn’t winking at illegal immigration a most anti-social conservative policy? Anyway, it will take more than GWB’s “social conservatism” to resell him to me.
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.