Fair enough, Peach. I apologize.
But why do the pro-Rudy people constantly refer to the conservatives here in such belittling terms, and say how glad they are that us social conservatives are finally going to be kicked out of the GOP?
It's like they like Rudy more for what he represents, i.e., clearing social conservatives out of the GOP, as Arnold is doing in California, than what his positions are.
I would LIKE to be enthusiastic about the GOP's chances in '08. I've been a life-long Pubblie, starting when I was 13 yrs. old and campaigned door to door in Newport Beach/Costa Mesa for John Schmitz, and I served two terms as an elected precinct person, so...if there really IS something to favor about Rudy (BESIDES his electability vis a vis Hitliary!!) I would like to read it.
But so far, most of what I read talks about his polling numbers, and how he's really not as bad as his past positions seem to indicate.
THAT sort of stuff does not get the base excited, and believe me, I know the base...I AM the base, at least here in my small southern Oregon county, where I have made countless calls throughout the years to people on behalf of Pubbie candidates and have walked countless precincts passing out flyers for numerous campaigns and candidates.
All I was saying is, if all y'all really support Rudy for reasons OTHER than "thank God the whole-loafer, dragging-down-the-party Social Conservatives will be kicked out or rendered moot," let's discuss them with cordiality and respect.
I do remember Rudy from his days as mayor, by the way, and he was great...I just know he is a liberal in ways that disturb us social conservatives.
Ed
I guess because when the first few Rudy articles started coming out and a few of us talked about what great leadership Rudy showed in NYC during his term as Mayor and in the days after 9/11 and we were visciously attacked that we've become overly sensitive and now when people even mention that they aren't sure about Rudy, we're reluctant to be drawn into convesation about him and we are snappish. I apologize for my role in that.
My family calls me to the right of Attila the Hun and I think I'm quite socially conservative, but I have to say, since 1980, what strides have we made toward even dramatically reducing abortion, let alone abolishing it?
Conservatives used to wish for the states to be given the power to determine a lot of policy and perhaps most especially social policy. That seems to have changed, although I'm not sure if the states just gave up or if Republican opinion about that changed.
Regardless, it is the states who are making the most strides with regard to policy surrounding social issues. My current state, SC, is passing legislation which will require a woman to obtain an ultrasound and counseling prior to an abortion. This has proven in other states to dramatically reduce the number of performed abortions because the new technology has improved so much in the last decade that women can finally see, it's not a blob.
Women my age are becoming grandmothers for the first time and are seeing their daughter's ultrasounds and realizing just how wrong they've been all these years. They may not admit it out loud, although I've heard a few admit it, but inside, hearts and minds are changing.
But those hearts will harden again if we have a staunch conservative in the WH who talks about getting rid of Roe v. Wade. That's just human nature and after years of conditioning by the feminists, this issue needs to be handled one heart at a time, not with one "mean spirited" Republican "forcing" women into backroom alleys, etc. You know all the arguments.
That last post was a long one and I didn't want it to continue in some long, run-on (even longer) monologue. But as to guns, yes I can certainly understand why some people would be concerned about Rudy's position on guns.
But given even the Democrats in Congress's reluctance to go after ANY gun issues in recent years, and given how close our margin is in the Congress, I honestly don't believe that Rudy is going to march into the WH and demand gun legislation. It's not going to fly and I don't think he'd even ask for it.
And let me just address another issue. Reagan was a great president and I voted for him twice. But he wasn't perfect and this mythology that other freepers have built around his memory really does a disservice to every other Republican presidential candidate that comes down the pike in the future. Reagan would not want that.
Reagan evolved over time as well. He used to be a Democrat and he signed what was then the most liberal abortion legislation in the nation while he was Governor. He raised taxes 4 times while president. He signed anti-gun legislation while Governor and while President, and he advocated publicly for the Brady Bill when he left office. Granted, he had less of the anti-gun rhetoric than most presidents, but let's not pretend that just getting a social conservative in office is going to prevent any gun legislation because we've seen clearly that hasn't prevent even more gun legislation over time.
The conservative credentials of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. cannot be questioned by anyone who has been paying attention for the last twenty years. It is telling that he is so high on Rudy. I don't think most of us who are open to Rudy's candidacy are rooting for social conservatives to be expunged from the GOP. On the contrary, I am a social conservative myself which is why I know that losing in 2008 is not an option. If the GOP is going to reverse the disastrous landslide of 2006 we need some charisma at the top of the ticket. While social issues are dear to my heart my politics is not one dimensional. 2008 is about three things to me. We must elect: 1) someone who understands that we are in a struggle for the survival of western civilization and will vigorously defend it. 2) Someone who understands that our children's future depends on a vibrant globally competitive economy, and who knows that high taxes and protectionism won't give us that. 3) Someone who will fight against moral relativism and decay and will appoint constructionist judges. Rudy is solid on one and two and has promised to deliver on number three. Rudy and Mitt will change the entire electoral map. We will once again be able to compete for Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and California. If he puts an innovative southernor like Mark Sanford on the ticket it'll be a landslide.