I don't have a clue why people keep saying Rudy will bring an end to the Republican Party. Rudy is a REPUBLICAN and IMO it takes nerve for any Freeper to say that. You must be a social conservative because no other type of Repubican would make such a statement. Repubicans are not just social conservatives, they are fiscal conservatives, moderates, and some liberals.
I take it you have never been involved in the trenches in the Republican Party because any of us that have will tell you the Republican Party is here to stay and here to fight to Take Back the House and Senate and Keep the White House.
The Republican Party is going to be even more alive and vibrant with Rudy as President. We are going to grow the Party and if we grow the Party, we will be able to make our voices heard in Congress that if they don't shape up and do the business they are sent to do, then we will have someone waiting in the wings to take their place.
It's a drama queen thing. Their predictions and accusations become more hysterical by the minute, as Giuliani's political strength grows.
I have come to the conclusion that "social conservatives" are not conservative at all. They don't opine for less intrusive government. Not at all. They want the same level of government intervention as the libs, just with different results.
Well, he's a pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro illegal immigration gun grabber for starters. But that's enough to drive a deep wedge deep into the heart and soul of the party. The gutting comes later.
BRAVO!!!!!!
May I suggest you start by reading the Republican Party platforms on issues such as the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, abortion, taxation, and homosexual marriage?
No organization, political, social, whatever, can survive the sort of contradictions that a Rudy presidency would bring. It would be like having Martin Luther become Pope; like Yasser Arafat be Prime Minister of Israel; like Rush Limbaugh becoming President of Harvard University.
I guess I never understood blind loyalty to an organization. Me, and many others, support the Republican Party because of what it stands for. These principles are in the party platform. If the Republican Party platform supported abortion, special rights for gays, gun control, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens and strong arm government control of citizens do you really think more people would be Republican then now? You support a presidential candidate who supports all of these positions. You apparently want to "grow" the party with others who support these positions. Why is it hard for you to understand that if the Republican party changes to a party that does support these positions that many who now support the party will leave?
I don't really believe there are enough liberals to support two liberal parties. Those who support conservative principles will find a home. If the Republican party becomes merely Democrat lite, conservatives will no longer be part of it. There are Republicans now who would find this desirable as they denigrate those they label "social" conservatives. This is an artificial construct created by those who are mostly liberal except when it comes to money. There is really no "social" with them as money is their overriding concern.
I can't predict the future, but I can easily see a time when the Republican party either reaffirms it's conservative principles or loses enough of its members that it will be irrelevant. If this happens, the Democrats will become dominant for an extended period of time.
I hope it doesn't.
Splitting up conservatism into distinct, opposed, or ambivalent "fiscal" and "social" wings is not true conservatism in my book. Being a "fiscal" and not a "social" is libertarian (and the famous quote, "Prosperity without values is no prosperity at all," comes to mind). And being a "social" without a "fiscal" view is counterproductive. Giuliani was darned impressive tonight; right upto the point of declaring himself "pro-choice." Giuliani may have a future in the Republican Party, but the Republican Party may risk its future in Giuliani if a conservative rift is forced within the Party. To gleefully push social-leaning conservatives over the cliff is a mistake. Rudy Giuliani is just one man in time.
Other than being pro-life, I'm not a social conservative and I think that Rudy is horrendous.
Bttt!
bingo - we have a winner - weve already lost the party to lifers who suck off the public teet, and whos biggest concern is re-election.
I think that the distinction between 'fiscal' and 'social' conservatives is artificial, but ignoring that for the moment -- what is the point of even HAVING a political party if there is no unity in matters of basic ideology?
Both the far right and the far left want more Government not less interference in the daily lives of people. I am a less government person who believes social issues belong in my home, my church, my community, and my State.
Have you heard Rudy's definition of freedom? "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." Does that sound like a "less interference","less government person" to you?
Oh, that's right. You believe that we don't have a right to judge Republicans.
You must be a social conservative because no other type of Repubican would make such a statement.
Hint: insulting and belittling social conservatives is not conducive to winning their support come November 2008.
I agree only on the latter part, re: the nerve of some to say RinoRudy is a Republican. I could be mistaken - maybe he is Republican and I'm not. I know this, he and I share very little common ground - so little I can afford not to vote for him under any circumstance.
Rudy is a pro-abort, pro-euthanasia, pro-illegal immigrant, pro gay marriage, pro school gay agenda, anti-gun RINO that will be a disaster if elected. George McGovern with a pink R on his lapel.