Posted on 02/20/2007 9:54:39 AM PST by Spiff
The Republicans, and even some socially conservative and evangelical leaders, are beginning to adjust to the possibility of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee for president. But not all.
The Southern Baptist's Richard Land, for instance, predicts massive defections from Rudy in the event of a Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton race. Hugh Hewitt, evangelical talk-meister in the syndicated stream of radio shows doubts this; "... If Rudy is persuasive on the judges he will nominate, he wouldn't have a problem with the social conservatives in the general election." So tell us you'll nominate the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito to the Supreme Court, and we will line up behind you no matter your substantial views that run counter to the Judeo-Christian ethic, he and his handlers are undoubtedly thinking.
Well, I won't.
And I bet I speak for hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions when I say that I cannot in good conscience vote for a man with significant moral problems in his personal life, a radically wrong view of abortion (against it personally, but for women making their own pro-abortion choice), and oh-so-very Times Square and Hollywood on the issues of homosexual rights and guns (for and against, respectively).
Can't vote for him, even if his opponent is Hillary Rodham Clinton? No, I cannot.
Aw, c'mon, Team Republican says, nobody who purports to be socially conservative, evangelical, or who voted twice for Ronald Reagan will be able to muster a vote for Hillary over Rudy.
Probably right. But voting for her isn't the only option. When the electorate isn't excited about the candidates, they are capable of staying home -- particularly those who don't much care to think political thoughts 24/7 and are not enthused about the choices. There are others of us who will either leave the presidential portion of the ballot unmarked or decide for the first time in our lives to vote, say, the Constitution Party.
Next argument -- Then you'll just be putting Hillary into office. Next rebuttal -- No, rather, my precious vote won't be responsible for putting into office a man who thinks we will vote for him because he is best suited and capably prepared to keep America safe but can't guard his own soul from moral perdition.
But, in all of this, there is something else to think about. The President of the United States guides his own political party and its platform. And the party of President Rudy Giuliani will soon become the party of the same kind of governing mushiness that has absorbed the Democrats. Give the party to Rudy and the moral code and political sensibilities of Reagan are lost, perhaps for good. Better to lose an election and reload ideologically than try to cheer on and take cues from a man with a worldview radically divergent from your own.
May the primaries be kind to the GOP; and kindness means Giuliani loses.
Matt Friedeman (mfriedeman@wbs.edu) is a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary. Respond to this column at his blog: evangelismtoday.blogspot.com. Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates. The way to electoral suicide -- vote Giuliani
February 20, 2007
What I do with the candidates is prioritize my concerns for what I think over the next 4 years or so, which are:
1. War on Terror
2. Illegal Immigration
3. Taxes
4. Environment (local)
5. Abortion
6. Gun Control
Being that these are my main concerns today, I would easily support Rudy. I would not cast a vote becasue a candidate is weak on some of my lower prioritized issues.
That candidate was George Allen.
But Allen was plodding, slow on his feet, and lost to a caveman named Jim Webb.
Now the theocons, who couldn't even put people like Jim Talent over the top on their own turf, are making demands on the national party. Well, your choices candidates less skilled than George Allen -- people like Tancredo, Brownback, and Hunter.
No. The purpose of a political party is to win elections. This cycle, the political talent is with McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. Providence is responsible for this, not some RINO conspiracy.
And you might want to reread my post - no where in it did I say that I was voting third party. I'm just running up and down the deck of the Titanic yelling, "Big damn iceberg ahead!!!" and people are too busy Rudy-tooting to pay any attention.
Good one!!!!!!!
..actually both camps are wrong....anyone saying the Christian Right will flee in droves or that Italian Americans will vote for Rudy are both blanket statements based on emotion and NO facts whatsoever.....they are suppositions based the the writers views....NOT on any hard cold fact.....many Christians would vote for Rudy just as many Italian Americans won't.....
My feelings exactly.
Something has to change to get DH on the map...pot shots at other candidates will not do it.
"The Italian-American vote in East Coast states would outweigh the loss of the Christian Right."
I see your claim and raise you Ohio.
Last election, Bush won by about 100,000 votes. Some amish precincts had 100% voter turnout for Bush. The Amish won Ohio for Bush. How many of these plain folk do you thing will vote for a pro abortion, pro-gay rights candidate? Not many I suspect. They don't wanna have to explain that vote to their maker.
Which still leaves this broken clock in sore need of its first right call.
The difference between you and I is that I worry for my country first. There isn't a Democrat out there that would cause huge and, probably, irreparable harm to my COUNTRY.
It would be wise to remember that hyperbole does not further your argument. It causes your argument to be irrelevant.
ding ding ding..we have a winner...Roy Moore gets the Presidential Nomination, or I Stay home..I mean it!
Get me James Dobson on the phone...I need to know what show to watch on TV!/sarcasm
Bush would have won Ohio without the Amish.
"And we don't have a "perfect" candidate, Rudy is the best that we have, we could do a LOT worse!"
If Rudy is nominated we will do a lot worse because Hillary will win the election--guaranteed!
If that's the case, why are we even discussing this? The election is in 2008, more than a year away.
This entire discussion is an exercise in the "hypothetical"...
Dear NorCalRepub,
"many Christians would vote for Rudy..."
Certainly. But a large enough portion of folks who ordinarily vote Republican will not vote for Mr. Giuliani that he will lose the general election, if nominated.
Recent polls show that at least nearly a fifth, and perhaps more than a quarter of the Republican base just won't vote for the guy. That translates into 8 million, 10 million, or even 12 million votes.
There just aren't that many pro-war liberals to make up that kind of deficit. Neither are there enough additional Italian-American votes to do it, either.
Anything's possible, including a Giuliani win in November 2008, but frankly, I think that Mr. Giuliani may be one of the few candidates that even Mrs. Clinton could beat.
I think that a Dem with a "moderate" image would likely wipe the floor with Mr. Giuliani's carcass.
sitetest
Oh please...
Before the election, it's "na-na-na, we can win without you stupid religious fanatics, just watch us".
After the loss, it's the fault of the "stupid religious fanatics" for not dutifully trooping to the polls and voting for a man they can't stand, just because he has an "R" next to his name.
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.