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.
Don't say he's never been in Queens, because I'm sure we've all seem him in drag. If I knew how to post pics, I would.
#21---all excellent points.
The usual Bortzian "if it ain't my way of thinking, it's wrong" I really wish that some times he would just STFU. He like the 65% solution, mostly correct but a huge slice of intolerant Libertarian groupthink.
Abortion is not "religious dogma." It's murder.
Sometimes these libertarians take it too far. Ayn Rand was one messed up woman (who writes some crappy movie dialog, BTW).
We can start calling Hillary "Madame President".
Yes, it was all those "stay-at-home" GOP moderates who lost the election for Allen, Santorum, and Talent. Wonder what the conservatives are going to whine about if a Guiliani administration takes office come January 20, 2009? We're moving to Canada?
Neil Boortz is a dunce and moral midget.
Conservatism is over if someone as liberal as Gulliani ever become President and we'd be stuck with a judicial tyranny for another generation.
Screw liberaltarians that won't compromise their beliefs but demand other conservatives sellout everything they believe.
And, the ironic thing is Boortz is too stupid to realize that such a flaming liberal would sellout even him out when came to the appointment of SCOTUS and other judges.
When you're in a war, you have to fight it and fight to win. McClellan was in a war and he refused to fight, which is exactly what Bush is doing.
Whether we want to admit it or not, the Muslim world is at war with us. The problem is that they do not value self-preservation. The MAD principle worked on the USSR because they valued theirs. Since the Muslims don't, the only way to win is to kill them before they kill us.
Yep the old Neville Chamberlain plan works very well every time. Oh....Never mind
You will vote for whom ever the RNC anoints, just like last time.
Sorry, I'm not aware of Eisenhower's "old Neville Chamberlain plan."
It would be possible to win Rudy over - him promising not to ban guns, install homo special rights or enhance abortion. But who would believe a man in a dress?
LOL. The dress thing is pretty bad.
Nope. I will never vote for McCrazy. If it's McCrazy v. Hillary, I'm voting Libertarian.
Just ask Senator Keyes.
I'd vote for Rudy because he believes in separation of religion and politics, and does not endorse using one to run the other.
You have it exactly backward. The courts are imposing the agenda of the most morally depraved segments of our society on the majority of the American people by judicial fiat. Same sex marriage couldn't win at the ballot box in any state, but courts have imposed it on the people of MA, and are poised to do the same in NJ and CA. Abortion on demand for no other reason than the convenience of the parent or parnets would be rejected by voters in a majority of the states, but it has been imposed on every state by judicial fiat for the past 3 decades. Conservatism isn't restricted to just fiscal issues and limited government, it involves respect for traditional standards of morality and decency as well.
Not good enough for me, I won't vote for him if he's the nominee.
It isn't as important to me how a candidate will vote or act on a major moral issue such as abortion or homosexual marriage as is his or her personal belief on the issues. If an office seeker believes a mother, or anyone else, has the right to kill an innocent human being in the womb, that person is not morally fit to hold an executive office in government, to participate in making laws and policies as a legislator, or to rule as a jurist on the constitutionality of it's laws.
The same goes for the "gay" marriage issue. A candidate who can give his or her approval for the destruction of the most basic unit of civilized society, i.e., marriage and family, doesn't have the moral character I want in a government official.
The character and moral standard of a candidate is shown by his or her stand on moral and ethical issues, and I don't trust anyone whose personal standards are low enough or flexible enough to tolerate abortion and/or approve homosexual behavior.
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.