Why Bother Electing Pro-Gun, Pro-Family Candidates Anywhere? (The Rudophile Philosophy)

Free Republic - TitansAFC ^ | 2-10-07 | TitansAFC

[TitansAFC]

There is no point to electing Pro-Family, Pro-Life, Pro-Free Speech, Pro-Second Amendment candidates anymore. At least, that's what we're essentially being told by the Rudy Giuliani for President crowd. The candidates themselves have no impact on such issues, we're told, and so we shouldn't take that into consideration when choosing whom to elect.

Yes, the Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Speech voters should not take their respective issues to the voting booth. They are issues that can be addressed simply by nominating judges. That's all that matters. So we're told.

So this is where the Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Speech crowd stands with the modern GOP, eh? This is all that's relevant for the Social Conservatives and Gun Conservatives in 2008, is it? Well, at least that's the perspective of many Pro-Rudy publications, such as National Review, and the clear majority view of GOP columnists nationwide.

Let me sum this up: Those of us who are Pro-Life, Pro-Traditional Marriage, Pro-Family, Pro-Second Amendment, and Pro-Free Speech have been reduced to a three word expression determined by Pro-Rudy pollsters and perhaps some time previous to his candidacy:

"Roberts and Alito" (Also accepted is "Thomas and Scalia.")

That's it. That's all we are to them anymore - that's all it takes. This alone should be enough to placate the base, or at least enough to stem fears of any GOP candidate so long as there exists a Democrat on the ballot. Just three words, whether the candidate has a history deeming this implied promise credible or not. Just three words, that's all.

It's a shame, isn't it?

Never mind Embryonic Stem Cell research; never mind the Mexico City Policy. The President has no effect on life issues.

Never mind a push for Hate Crimes Legislation or Campaign Finance Reform. The President has no effect on Free Speech issues.

Never mind the Assault Weapons ban, or lawsuits against gun manufacturers, or calls for federal laws against guns. The President has no real effect on Second Amendment issues.

Or so we're being told.

"Roberts and Alito!" -- Oh yes! Problem solved; all questions answered! Whatever were we concerned about in the first place?

This is what they want us reduced to. They want our free labor as volunteers, for certain; they want our votes and unending party loyalty, no doubt. But our issues? No. Not anymore; not in 2008.

We're at war, after all! How can anyone take those peripheral issues seriously in a time of war? Abortion? Bah! The Soviet Union might nuke Washington tomorrow! And we're supposed to address abortion?!?!

Oops, sorry. Replace "Soviet Union" with "Islamofascists." Same argument, different decade.

Yes, that's the other thing. We're supposed to table our issues - not that they'd ever table issues like taxes and Free Trade - but we're supposed to table ours until that mythical time in the future when no one on earth means us harm anymore; that day in the future when war is no longer upon us or even imminent.

You see, our issues need to be put aside during a time of war; and we've declared perpetual war. How about that?

It comes to this: we are to be Republicans first, and issues voters last. Or so we're told. Voting is always a choice between the "lesser of two" evils, and Democrats are always, under every circumstance, the greater evil. Why, it would be irresponsible to stay home or vote third party just because our issues are off the table - even all of our issues.

After all (reading from cue card), "Roberts and Alito."

Perhaps most frustrating in all of this is the strange lack of concern the National Review and Pro-Rudy types have about his record. He spoke at NARAL, called for the purging of the Pro-Life platform from the GOP, raised money for Pro-Abortion groups, called for federal laws against guns, sued gun manufacturers, spoke out in favor of tougher Hate Crimes Legislation and Campaign Finance Reform, just to start. He has been an abortion rights activist, a gun control activist, an activist for limitations on Free Speech, and an activist for gay rights.

An activist, yes. He has taken active steps in every case, using all of his influence as mayor to promote said issues. He has stood hand-in-hand with the enemy onthese issues, and often used what powers were availoable to him as Mayor to enforce them.

Does this concern the Rudophiles? No. They are still unabashed Rudy apologists. What concerns the Rudophiles - get this - is that values voters might have a problem with this and hold it against him.

Yes, you heard that right. They are concerned not with his stances, issues, and record - they are concerned with the Social and Gun Conservatives having a big problem with it when the First Tuesday in November, 2008 comes to pass.

Make no mistake about it, if the Social Conservative and Gun Conservative movement is willing to bend this far, the party will not be asking them to bend any less in the future. This will not be the last time the base is given an abortion rights/gun control/ gay rights activist and told he's the "next Reagan." On the contrary, these new stances will be the standard for future "Conservative" candidates, having proven that they can not only fail to address Social and Gun Conservative issues and still win elections, but they they can run candidates who have been activists on the wrong side of every issue and still win.

"Roberts and Alito! And now that I've addressed all of your issues........"

So now, there's no point in fighting for those Pro-Family, Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Free Speech candidates anymore. They cannot have any effect, after all, on any of said issues - with perhaps the exception of voting on judges. We can win a lot more of the Moderates and Independents if we takes those issues off of the table, anyway, and simply run as an anti-tax, pro-defense party - stance we know that large majorities can easily agree on. Just say, "Roberts and Alito;" that should be enough. Asking for anything more would be, well, unreasonable.

Or so we're being told.

[sitetest]

Dear TitansAFC,

How dare you bash Mr. Giuliani?

How dare you mention the facts that he's a total and complete pro-abort? A champion of the homosexual agenda for special rights? A foe of the Second Amendment?

You're bashing! Or trashing!

Sorry. Not sure if you're bashing or trashing. I can't keep them straight.

In any event, don't you know that it's entirely inappropriate to bring up a candidate's past record, past statements, past positions, past alliances?

That's just unfair! That's just trashing!! (Or bashing.)

So what if Mr. Giuliani previously stated that he's opposed to any ban on partial birth abortion?? Why are you bashing (or trashing - I'm still working on which it is) him for stuff that he did and said in the long, distant past??

Don't you know that Mr. Giuliani is a conservative? How do we know? He TOLD us so!!


ROTLFMAO!!!

GREAT THREAD!!


sitetest

[lilylangtree]

Ron Paul but he's not running.

[sam_paine]

Good, solid conservatives often win.

Great. Then there should be a plethora of election tested, trueblu social conservative candidates in the running against Rudy and Mitt and Duncan hunter, etc.

But I just don't see anyone that I think fits your bill, and that has enough "white shoe" east coast sheisters behind him to fight the onslaught that's gonna come from the Hitlery wing, do you?

This is gonna be the dirtiest, saddest election in US history, IMO.

George Allen was a good, solid conservative. And he was too nice. So nice, and so clean, that he was ripped to shreds by a leftist college kid with a videocamera. How do you feel about Bush rescinding the order for the CIA to avoid paying off 'dirty' spies for info? I felt like the environment is such, in the ME and China that or intelligence guys have to swim with the sharks to keep us safe, you know? Maybe you disagree.

But I think the race for POTUS has also devolved greatly since AuH20 "tell it like it is" days. I think even back then, a straight-talking trueblu conservative was scaremongered by an LBJ-type dirty campaign, and the environment has simply just not gotten better for conservatives, social and/or fiscal.

You could pull Barry Goldwater hisself out of the grave and dress him up in a modern suit and he'd be thrown out of the race at the first mention of personal responsibility.

I think America has seriously decayed in the past two decades, and I think a country gets the government it deserves.

I think, unfortunately, that America right now probably deserves someone like Rudy---but I do not believe---for all the mess---that America deserves Hitlery. We just do not. Yet.

[narses]

Sooo.....who is the candidate that satisfies you?

[sam_paine]

Anyone else? You're saying it's either Ron Paul or you're not voting?

[lilylangtree]

Who are you voting for?

[narses]

You're bashing! Or trashing!

You left out my favorite - you're spamming!

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES (November 14, 2006)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm pro- choice. I'm pro-gay rights.

KING: Giuliani supports a woman's right to an abortion, and back in 1999, he opposed a federal ban on late-term abortions.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

KING: Immigration could be another presidential landmine. Back in 1996, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants.

JEFFREY: He took the side of illegal immigrants in New York City against the Republican Congress.

KING: Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage but as mayor, he supported civil unions and extending health and other benefits to gay couples. He also supported the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

GIULIANI: I'm in favor of gun control. I'm pro-choice.

Republican Big-Wigs Support Pro-Abortion Event in NY

Pro-abortion Governor George Pataki and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also supports unrestricted abortion, are co-chairs of the 2000 Choice Award Presentation to be held on May 30 at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The event is sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, a group that is campaigning for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

Rudy Guiliani has marched in lockstep with liberals on affirmative action, gay rights, gay marriage, gun control, school prayer, tuition tax credits, liberal immigration policies, and he's reinforced it, time and time again. Just about everytime Rudy opens his mouth, offensive liberal words come pouring out. As Mayor, Rudy put liberals in high-paid city jobs, an indication what a Rudy WH would look like. Here then is Rudy in his own words:

--The New York State Liberal Party on its endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for Mayor: "When the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party's stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party's views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion." N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of Candidate Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989

--On the Republican Party: "Mr. Rockefeller represented 'a tradition in the Republican Party' I've worked hard to re-kindle - the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition." Rudy Giuliani told the New York Times July 9, 1992

--Village Voice Interview with Guiliani: He was asked: "What kind of Republican Is [Giuliani]? A Reagan Republican?" Giuliani pauses before answering: "I'm a Republican." Village Voice January 24, 1989

--On Attending 1996 Republican Convention: Rudy expressed his pleasure when he wasn't invited to the Republican National Convention in San Diego. "If I take three or four days off from city business, I want to do it for a substantive purpose. It didn't seem to me any substantive purpose could be served by going to the Republican convention." said Rudy. Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Page 459, by Wayne Barrett

--On Barry Goldwater: Giuliani described John Kennedy as "great and brilliant. Barry Goldwater as an "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man." New York Daily News, May 13, 1997

--On President Bill Clinton: Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, Giuliani told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett.

--The Daily News quoted Giuliani as saying March 1996: "Whether you talk about President Clinon, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group." An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett.

[narses]

--On Barry Goldwater: Giuliani described John Kennedy as "great and brilliant. Barry Goldwater as an "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man." New York Daily News, May 13, 1997

[sitetest]

Dear sam_paine,

"And I think the politicians and strategists are ALSO learning that the social conservatives cannot be counted on to pull that lever for them, so in that respect, pat yourself on the back."

I'm a social conservative, and I've voted for social liberals before. I voted for the puke boy social liberal Robert Ehrlich this past November for re-election here as Governor of Maryland.

But I won't vote for a social liberal for president.

No reason to.

Every reason not to.

Someone here quoted a line earlier today from ee cummings:

"there is some sh!t I will not eat"


sitetest

[narses]

Who are you voting for? (asked by lilylangtree.)

A good question. I asked what you asked - Sooo.....who is the candidate that satisfies you?

What say you?

[sam_paine]

Anyone not on the Dem ticket.

Anyone who will not socialize America's healthcare.

Anyone who will not surrender to the Islomonazis.

Anyone who has said that he believes that the FedGov has no business deciding the Abortion issue, and that stare decisis can change over decades, and anyone that actually believes that the commerce clause should not be used willy nilly to deny states rights.

Rudy fits this (my) bill. I dunno if Romney does. Hunter may actually not fit. Tancredo doesn't.

But whoever it is....I will vote, and I will vote AGAINST Hillary, Hussein Obama, etc. etc.

And you? Hello?

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

"You're bashing! Or trashing!

"You left out my favorite - you're spamming!"

Oh yeah. I forgot.

TitansAFC - you're spamming, too!! LOL!

Thanks, narses. I forgot about spamming. ;-)


sitetest

[narses]

How can anyone forget that?

The Real Rudy Giuliani:

From Human Events:

Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance

As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:

"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.

I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...

Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.

Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."

Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:

"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999

It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?

Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.

An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate

In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.

Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?

You didn't mind that post, right?

[narses]

"And you? Hello?"

An honest conservative.

[sockmonkey]

It wouldn't surprise me coming from a dim, but, coming from a republican is what can't be swallowed.

I think that Duncan Hunter would appeal to socially conservative Republicans, and also to conservative Democrats like those in my family.There may be some yellow dog democrats in my family, but they didn't need much coaxing to NOT vote for John Kerry in the last election.

What Hunter needs is more name recognition. I just don't see him getting support from the party..It looks like all I hear is Rudy, Rudy, Rudy.

[sam_paine]

Come on lily. I answered your question with real answers in #91. I answered narses.

All you gave me was a Ron Paul cop-out.

Give us a real example.

[narses]

PS Rudy says that abortion is a right. He wants a pro-choice party. He supports the gungrabbing Brady Bill and assault weapon ban too. He derides Senator Goldwater and disses the GOP. You say he fits your bill. How odd, I thought ducks had bills and RINO's had horns.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[sam_paine]

What is it about Barry Goldwater's blistering defeat, and subsequent ushering in of LBJ's Great Society disaster for America that you find so impressive?

From Wikiland---

After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as “hardheaded” and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican Party had been taken over by a “bunch of kooks.” In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said,“

When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. ”

Goldwater also had harsh words for his onetime political protege, President Reagan, particularly after the Iran-Contra Affair became public in 1986. Journalist Robert MacNeil, a friend of Goldwater's from the 1964 Presidential campaign, recalled interviewing him in his office shortly afterward. "He was sitting in his office with his hands on his cane...and he said to me, 'Well, aren't you going to ask me about the Iran arms sales?' It had just been announced that the Reagan administration had sold arms to Iran. And I said, 'Well, if I asked you, what would you say?' He said, 'I'd say it's the goddamn stupidest foreign policy blunder this country's ever made!'"[13]

Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.” He also said, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” In 1996 he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?” In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned,” Goldwater retorted: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”[14]

[joebuck]

There's a hard rain gonna fall.