Posted on 11/24/2006 8:29:23 AM PST by Milltownmalbay
Rudy could possibly win the support of a number of pro-life voters if he:
1) strongly opposes partial birth abortion.
2) strongly supports States' Rights to restrict abortions (the most important).
3) strongly supports adoption.
I've said time and again that a pro-choice Repub could possibly be acceptable to pro-life Repubs if he or she strongly supports and endorses States' Rights to restrict abortions. I think the mere fact and that a vast majority of dems, and some Repubs, support the idea of allowing a CHILD to have a surgical procedure WITHOUT HER PARENTS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT is disgraceful and totally unacceptable. I don't know, just my two cents.
Yes, but you also live in a state that has an onerous ballot initiative process. THE PEOPLE keep voting for spending initiatives. THE PEOPLE are bankrupting the state by voting for every touchy-feely spending plan that gets onto the ballot.
Social conservatism posits something far more general and fundamental: that conservative institutions of long and established worth such as the family and religion are to be preserved and conserved by government, if not directly then indirectly by ensuring conditions are maintained that favor the health of these institutions.
The liberal-left strain of social liberalism posits that conservative institutions of long and established worth are mere anti-progressive trifles to experiment with, or to toss into the dumpster of social irrelevance.
The libertarian strain of social liberalism posits that conservative institutions of long and established worth are best neglected or stripped of protection and allowed to contend against the tsunami of atheist and morally-relativisitic anomie that has come to dominate popular culture in the past 60 years.
Either strain of social liberalism is deadly. We do not need to speed the destruction of this nation offering to put a "me too" socially liberal Republican in the White House.
I don't think he can or will either. He'll always be a brother to us NJ/Nyers for his crisis leadership in those days (figurehead, but still needed), but his social policies are too far off.
If any of those three can beat Giuliani in Texas in 2008, Republicans may as well concede the election today.
I'm very disappointed to see how many liberals are now posting on FR.
It can happen. But if it does, it's the death of the GOP as we know it, and America becomes a center-left country.
Conservatives will have to VOTE this time so the Cons can get all of their 14 percent.
Which means the Conservatives are HELPLESS !!
The once relatively solid GOP south and west are undergoing rapid demographic changes.A "R" by the name
on the ballot is no longer a guarantee for winning an election, even in South Carolina ( ask Karen Floyd ).
To govern, one must be in power, and to be in power, one
must win elections, and a 30% conservative electorate is
not going to win elections by themselves. The GOP must
win over 51 percent of those who consider themselves
moderates.
The alternative is a permanent Democratic majority in
control of the government if the GOP excludes the
conservatively impure or even if a conservative third party emerges.
That may have already happened while we were making other plans.
The fact that this free country allows for the values of all kinds of people doesn't stop me from practicing my own conservative values.
Excuse me .. I'm looking for a leader with a spine - and I would consider Rudy to have that - and he has a good track record to look at - the City of New York.
And .. if you don't have a leader with a spine in this WOT time we're living in - the rest of the wish list is worth diddly sqat. When are people going to get it - if the muslims take over this country as they are want to do .. there will not be any law except Shia - and being pro-life, pro-gun, or anything else deemed so important will not even exist.
I'd rather have a WOT president than a wishy-washy POS who will sell America down the drain - like Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
Maybe the next 2 years of democrat rule will finally wake some people up .. but I'm not holding my breath.
I can't understand voters who have special concerns and that's legitimate.
But the thing is, that in our separation of powers form of Government, the issues that concern the social conservatives are much more the prerogative of Congress. The President's role is minimal to almost non existent.
The Presidential nominee should be the one most suited to the Constitutional role of that office. Particularly in wartime.
typo = I can understand...
Even if Hillary carried NY (which I am not convinced she would), Giuliani would carry NJ and Penna, and probably most of the New England states. I believe he would take the Midwest blue states that were very close (like Wisconsin). In fact, I will stand by my prediction that in a Rudy-Hillary race, the electoral map would look something like Reagan-Mondale in 84. Of course if Hillary runs with Obama, Illinois will go Democrat.
Barring disclosure of some horrific skeleton post nomination, I see no way that Rudy will lose if he is nominated. I can't say that about any of the other GOP possibilities. Never mind what a hothead like McVain could do if allowed to have has his finger on the button.
The No vote on the cloning issue in Mo. actually did better than Senator Talent did.
The embryoinc stem cell issue is a loser for Republicans because it is a wedge isssue. Heather Wilson of NM probably would have done better had she not voted for it. It's a base supression issue.
The enemy is not going away.
It is in the American mind, which has decided to turn inward and forget. It would take another large terrorist attack on American soil to revive the issue and push Guliani to the White House.
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.