Vanity: Questions regarding the Republican Platform, is it pro-life, pro-family?

[Jim Robinson]

I've long assumed that the Republican Party platform included pro-life, pro-family and pro 1st and 2nd amendment planks. Is this true or false? Or is the platform amended each election cycle to conform to the positions of the top polling potential presidential nominee (ie, the one with the most money or star billing and the MSM eye)?

If these planks are based on longstanding, sound conservative principles and are sincerely respected and upheld by the majority of the members, then I'd like to propose a motion that before being seriously considered by the official party powers that be, prospective nominees for the office of President of the United States must in the least demonstrate a solid history of being pro-life, pro-family and pro 1st and 2nd amendments, in addition to a solid history of abiding by and fighting for the other basic Republican planks, ie, national security, national defense, limited government, conservative spending, lower taxes, strict constructionist judges, local control of health, education and welfare, etc, etc.

Or is it too much to ask of the politician asking for our support for the highest office in the land to respect and abide by conservative principles and the basic planks of the party platform?

Or is there a movement underfoot to remove these planks from the platform?

[Calpernia]

You said you like 3 candidates. We all know you like Rudy and Mitt. Since you just mentioned Hunter, do you support Hunter?

[chasio649]

"FR aren't more concerned"

---

Because all politicians put the little monster puppet on one hand to scare you and keep your attention...while the other hand does what he or she intends...many aren't falling for it anymore...you can if you like...i've been following this dog and pony show for too long...it's old, stale and frankly i've wised up.

[freeperfromnj]

Remember when Brett Schundler ran in NJ. He was my ideal candidate. He campaigned on all those issues we hold dear -- Second Amendment, pro-life, pro-family. I was crushed when he lost - but it is NJ. With a more moderate candidate we have a chance to win blue states - snatch NY and NJ right from under Hillary. I believe people do change and evolve. I don't think Rudy is as socially liberal as he was when he was mayor trying to survive in a liberal NYC.

[My2Cents]

You've convinced me. I'm voting for Hillary in '08 instead of that baby-killer Giuliani.

[airborne]

Some here choose rather, to have a candidate is strong on security, but would not represent conservatives on anything else.

I would also point out the comments by 'Peach' in post # 127, whose sentiments I share -

"Is it too much to ask for us to get through some primaries and debates before asking people who they'll vote for?..."...I'm darned if I'm going to commit to you or anyone without seeing how these candidates handle themselves in the public arena."

I hope we can get past all the arguing and get on with the civil debate that made FreeRepublic great.

[TAdams8591]

"From what I've heard so far from Rudy"

The key word in the above sentence is heard. Rudy is a committed social LIBERAL and I do not trust him with appointments to the Supreme Court.

[Peach]

I like Hunter but he has a zero chance to win. I looked at poll numbers yesterday and on some polls this was his tally: --.

He didn't even register. He's trying to do it for under $100M in his own words because he says he doesn't need to spend $$ to establish his conservative credentials. But he DOES need to spend money to people know who he IS.

I've asked all my friends if they like him and they said "who?". And they're all retired and pretty interested in politics; way more interested than the average Joe.

And now I have to leave and go to a Super Bowl party.

[sitetest]

Dear My2Cents,

"Let's let him speak for himself once he announces, rather than setting our feet in concrete. Is that too much to ask?"

If Mr. Giuliani does a 180, and becomes an adamant pro-lifer, I'll be happy to reconsider my view of him.

However, speaking of naivete, I think it would be naive in the extreme to expect Mr. Giuliani to have a sincere "conversion" on this issue.

He has repeatedly affirmed that Roe was rightly decided, that woman should be free to procure the killing of their own unborn children, that although he'd disagree with her decision, he'd actually PAY for his own daughter to have an abortion, that he's against banning partial birth abortion, that he's in favor of government funding of poor women's abortions, etc.

He's always been forthright about his views about abortion, and although I disagree radically with him, I've always admired his forthrightness.

For him to say that he's had radical change in his views at this point would suggest deeply cynical opportunism.

I'm not sure what he could do to dispell the legitimate doubt and distrust that such a radical change would engender.

"We now see hints of self-identified conservatives here on FR willing to allow another monsterous evil -- the Clintons back into the White House, all in the name of some kind of ideological purity."

Nope, sorry, that's an unfair, inaccurate statement.

If Mrs. Clinton is elected against Mr. Giuliani, the fault will be those Republicans who chose a nominee by which a significant portion of the base of the Republican Party could not abide.

I'll vote for quite a number of Republicans, some happily, some while holding my nose. I don't agree with them all on every issue. I'm not sure I agree with ANY of them on every issue.

I'm far from a purist.

I'll even vote for folks who are far less pro-life than I am. Heck, I have to. I believe that all abortions should be illegal for any cause whatsoever.

But I want to advance the cause. Thus, I'd have voted for George Allen, even though he believes that the law should be that women could procure abortions for at least the first eight weeks of pregnancy. I disagree strongly with him on that. That represents the majority of abortions.

But even to get to that point - making abortions illegal after eight weeks of pregnancy - would require overturning Roe.

And that would be a significant advance of the cause of life.

If Mr. Romney can persuade me that he's truly become pro-life, I'd vote for him. Even though he believes that each state should be able to permit or prevent legal abortion, even legal abortion on demand.

I don't believe that states should be free to permit legal abortion on demand. Inalienable rights are inalienable. The recognition thereof should not depend on your zip code.

Yet, if Mr. Romney is sincere (and I'm not sure if he is or isn't), then he's really now opposed to Roe.

And that would advance the cause of life.

But Mr. Giuliani does nothing to advance the cause of life at all. He is anti-life.

He's for Roe.
He's for partial birth abortion.
He's for federal and state funding of abortion.

I don't expect him to do a 180, I don't expect him to lie to me about the issue, and pretend to "convert" to being a pro-lifer.

Thus, would he become president, the cause of life would be set back tremendously.

I won't help him do that.


sitetest

[LexBaird]

"Or is there a movement underfoot to remove these planks from the platform?"

From the vitriolic attacks flying around, I'd say it goes further than that. There is a movement right out in public to jettison any idea of there being a party platform at all. When asked, point blank, what the Republican party stands for unequivocably, I was told it is what it is and it will be whatever it will be.

The holding of a candidate to any basic set of ideals is anathema to the "just win, baby" crowd. That's why we have a party that includes both Arnold Schwazenegger and Tom Tancredo, who would in most countries be in opposition parties from one another. You've heard of "cafeteria Catholics"? We now live in the age of "Cafeteria Republicans".

[airborne]

Look, I'm trying to learn here. I readily admit I don't know half of what many others here know.

That description was from Wikipedia. I posted it without any comment from me, so why does it seem to me that you're angry at me for posting it?

[Calpernia]

>>>Remember when Brett Schundler ran in NJ. He was my ideal candidate.

I was, am, and still a Lonegan supporter.

>>>I don't think Rudy is as socially liberal as he was when he was mayor trying to survive in a liberal NYC.

????

He has always been a social liberal in life as well as in politicis. He married his second cousin.

OOPS! Not suppose to mention that. Let me insert Giuliani's response.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh that's just hooey. We've been told for years we WANT a strict constructionist on the benches and in the presidency and now that Rudy has been saying that, ya'll want to change what strict constructionist really means.

The problem isn't with the definition. It's with Giuliani's credibility.

While he was the “Republican Mayor” of New York City he appointed more than 60 men and women to the Civil, Criminal, and Family Court benchs. In all of those judicial appointment not one of them was a Republican.

All of his judical appointments were either registered Liberals or registered Democrats. As the “Republican Mayor” he had appointment power over more than 70 full commissioners in more than 50 City agencies, yet at no time during his administration did REPUBLICANS account for more than 10% of those appointments.

He even appointed Chuck Schumers wife as the City’s Department of Transportation Commissioner.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9054.html

Now, reading the above facts, pray tell why any conservative shouldn't ridicule the claims that Giuliani would in any way represent our interests when it came to executive or judicial branch appointments?

And Romney's no better. He appointed more Dems than Republicans to the bench as MA Governor, including radical extremists from the ranks of gay activism. And unsurprisingly, he left the MA GOP in utter ruin upon leaving office.

Rudy McRomney, if nominated, will bring about the break up of the Reagan GOP coalition.

Is that what you're after?

[EternalVigilance]

You've convinced me. I'm voting for Hillary in '08 instead of that baby-killer Giuliani.

Big deal. Not a dime's worth of difference, except that Rudy wears a dress more often.

[jwalsh07]

When you find out let me know because if it doesn't I'm in the wrong party.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

"People evolve."

Hillary claims the same thing.

[Jagman]

Given their recent performance, it seems to be more pro quid pro quo than anything else.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm saying the federal courts are all-important on the social issues we say we're interested in. What do you think is all important? Standing on top of a building and beating your chest?

I'm saying that if you say you care about the make up of the courts, but support Rudy McRomney, you're sellin' something, and it ain't support for judicial reform.

[Liz]

This doesn't exactly reassure conservatives.

From the FEC database: NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 04/24/1999 DONATIONS

Giuliani accepted $1,000 from NARAL in 1999. NARAL donated exclusively to Democrat candidates with one exception----Rudy Giuliani.

NARAL gave $250 to Hillary Rodham Clinton and $1000--- 4 times as much-----to pro-abortion Giuliani.

Clearly, NARAL trusted Rudy's pro-abortion credentials, and Rudy's willingness to advance NARAL's radical abortion-on-demand agenda, even more than NARAL trusted Hillary.

Rudy was guest speaker and made The Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Luncheon few years back.

Rudy declared his unwavering support for partial birth abortions. Rudy told Phil Donahue he'd give his daughter the money for an abortion (to get rid of his own grandchild).

Feb 1, 2007 Ann Coulter On Rudy Giuliani : "I Think He's The Only Republican Who Can't Beat Hillary."

We know everything we need to know.

[gidget7]

"But both sides need to back off the personal stuff and stick to the debate at hand."




Here, here!!

Personally I strongly feel that a country without strong social conservatism, cannot have fiscal conservatism, or security either. To me, and most folks I know, they go hand in hand. Patriotism is derived from social conservatism, and pride in your country does as well. It's the opposite of liberal indoctrination, and hate America.

[freeperfromnj]

This is the first I'm hearing about the second cousin. I guess he'll have to answer to that when the mudslinging starts. Fox just had an update stating McCain is pulling ahead of Rudy. Unless Republicans can compromise and rally around a strong nominee, the '08 White House will go the way of the '06 House and Senate.