Posted on 11/15/2006 6:06:03 AM PST by steve-b
Earlier this week we learned that Rudolph Giuliani has filed papers to form an exploratory committee. That's the first step to running for president. Well .. .it didn't take long for the religious right to announce that up with this they will not put. Colleen Parro, the head of some group called the Republican National Coalition for Life says that Giuliani is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances." The two issues she cited? Homosexuals and abortion.
Now ... what was it I said earlier this week that made so many zealots so unhappy? Oh yeah .. it was something about us needing a political movement dedicated to individual and economic liberty, limited government with a strong defense, cutting government spending, school choice and strong capitalist instincts .. and one that had no desire to force the people of this country to live under any particular codification of religious dogma.
Good luck on that.
If he agrees to appoint strict constructionists (he's spoken words of admiration for Alito and Roberts), the 2nd amendment issues will take care of themselves.
Why is it that people who want political leaders who support if not share their moral views (a moral code which extends back for thousands of years)- are accused of being dogmatic religious zealots who are against "individual freedom"?
Some (many? most?) of us believe the "individual" starts at conception and that marriage (defined by the world's holy texts as being vows of fidelity before God between a man and a woman) ... is a religious sacrament into which govt is trying to clumsily intrude for purposes of social engineering...
That is radical dogma?
Wow. I didn't realize Yoda was a religious right-winger.. ;^)
Lets all be moderate-libertairians. That sounds like a winner to me! ( extreme sarcasm!!!)
I'm holding out hope a conservative comes along, because right now, i don't see much difference between Hillary & Rudy, obviously rudy is slightly better, though. But only very slightly.
More like a McClellan.
Great, another fan of the New York, pro-abortion, anti-constitution, cheat-on-the-wife liberal.
Please, enough with liberal ccandidates, and the liberals here who support them!
The Constitution is irrelevant??? You support Julie-Annie???
Not so fast, my friend. For starters, Rudy would have to acknowledge that the Second Amendment is an inviolable personal guarantee, pledge to veto ANY anti-gun legislation, and eliminate BATF harrassment of gun owners and legitimate firearms dealers to gain any traction with the gun people. Then, it would be nice for him to tell us his plans for expanding the protection of gun owners' rights at the federal level, and which obnoxious gun laws he would push to repeal.
Rudy's got a LOOOOOONNG ways to go on this issue!
"The hell with conservatism, Vote for Rudy!"
No doubt Rudy is 'far right' to many Freepers...
I agree with you. See my Post #31 for further comments, though. It is completely pointless to elect candidates who champion "states' rights" in this country while the Federal judiciary consistently rules against this basic concept at every opportunity.
And a fourth problem: Rudy's messy divorces. The public will forgive one discreet divorce, such as President Reagan's, but Rudy's were high-profile, sensationalized tabloid material. The DBM will gleefully dredge all of that up, and ignore Hillary's (if she's the dem nominee) shady past.
Neal wants to split the vote and have the beast win....I'm off his radio show as of Today
The only influence that the President has on abortion is by virtue of his role in appointing Supreme Court justices. I think Rudi would appoint conservative justices, irrespective of his views on abortion. He supported Alito and Roberts. That's good enough for me.
I agree. Sure, "Patton" would be great, but he's dead. There is no Patton, no Reagan waiting in the wings. If a President Rudi would appoint strict constructionist judges, and leave state matters to the states, he'd be OK in my book. We're going to have to learn to take what we can get, rather than go down in defeat because a candidate was not "Patton".
Rudy G can not pull in the conservatives...Rudy will lose the GOP vote...That's a fact of life...I'll write myself in before I vote for Rudy...
So why then, vote for Rudy??? Because you think he'll lose by millions less votes than Tancredo???
A Tancredo type is the only type that has a prayer of winning...Why? Because the pro-American crowd won't budge...Regardless of the outcome...
Don't waste your vote on R.G...
McClellan? If only Bush were a McClellan! We might have stayed out of the Iraq mess!
Sounds like a slogan for you. Not me.
Stay home, don't vote. And give us Hillary for president.
Could you not say the same for every past GOP president...and include the current one?
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.