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
The only wake up call will be to the Islamist enemy who will thank you for helping elect Hitlery by sending you a thank you note laced with anthrax.
....I get your drift...but you keep telling me WHAT they are going to do....which was my original post....yes, alot of Mods and Indep. are against the war.....on the other hand, alot are pro choice and still want a tough Pres on the WOT....I'm not dimissing what you are saying...but for every argument you come up with...I can come up with a salient point on the other sade....I'm not preaching for Rudy.....I'm saying that we can speculate but I for one am not going out on a limb and saying one group will or won't vote for anyone.....A piece from George Will or another condervative writer came out the other day and said the opposite....that many by now have heard of Rudy's views and his poll numbers keep going up......I just think it is a game of fools......and honestly, you don't have to try and convince me.....I'm looking at both sides.....
Now....we have a whole bunch of people that want to destroy this country....from Iran, to NK, to Russia and Al Qaeda (and yes, I do mean to include Russia)...we are in a war for our very existence, and I'm supposed get all bent out of shape over Gay Civil Unions?
I disagree with Rudy on his immigration stance. I am much more in agreement with Duncan Hunter on that score. Does that mean that if Giuliani is the nominee I will leave the party in a huff and run off to vote for Pat Buchanan, or Ross Perot or some other spoiler...and pontificate about how those who voted for Rudy as the nominee "split the party"...
So spare me your "clever" little barbs. I will listen and I will wait, and I will make up my mind once I have heard from all the candidates. I will NOT go off half-cocked, foaming at the mouth about that such and such a Republican who is in favor of Gay Civil Unions! Oh the horror!
This is tripe...
....Oh, ok, you were speaking only of the Amish..in that case I defer to your Amish expertise....I thought it was a blanket statement.....by the way...since you brought it up, what do they think about the fact that Laura Bush is pro choice?.....do they hate her?....do they think George should get a divorce?...just curious
Perhaps. I'm more interested in the principles under which the country is governed. Give up the Republican party to the Liberals and you get Euroweenie USA or the USSA which is no more deserving of survival than Europe or the USSR.
You don't live in the real world do you ? NH is very conservative. The state motto is live free or die. Taxes are low and so is state spending.
It's ok. All these "good conscience" folk don't actually care about the babies that are aborted every day in this country, as can be seen on threads like this.
They don't actually want to do anything to stop abortion, they just let it happen every day while they post these holier-than-Rudy threads. If they did, then they would be working feverishly to do something today, or in 2004 or in 2000 or in 1981----instead, these people are going to wait until 2008 to strut their stuff---while more babies die.
They claim Ronald Reagan is what they want, yet he presided during a period when millions of children were aborted over the course of his governorship and presidency, yet he's given a pass, and Bush is given a pass because they both phone in to pro-life marches (so they can't be photographed in public with them).
But this time around, they're happy to let Hillary nationalize healthcare, which will mean that their federal taxes will pay directly for abortions while Hillary stacks the USSC with leftists.
Principled? Of course not. Just more irrational feel-gooders.
Sorry, but I'll hold up my actions in preventing abotion to yours any day. However, I would stop short of shooting an abortion Doctor.
The next POTUS can do zip, zero, nada about abortion, or gay rights or gun control....but they can defend this nation, they can cut taxes and they can do something about our borders that are ricidculouslt porous.
But they'd rather insult and threaten because Rudy supports Civil Unions...
Not sure what you are referring to. He's not said anything I've seen lately that tells me he doesn't respect the 2d Amendment. Or do you want him to come out and promise an FA-18 in every driveway?
When I finally decide on a candidate, it will be for his overall platform of ideas and goals, his experience, and his chances against Hillary. But as I said, if WND and the other extremist publications are against him, that's already an endorsement I can consider.
aaahhhh another pearl of wisdom....
The Americans of Italian decent that I know aren't that stupid, in fact, most of them are devout Catholics that you would probably call the "Christian Right".
You are living in fantasy land my friend. IF, and that's a very big IF, Rudy gets nominated, you are in for a very rude awakening on election day 2008.
I can think of 4 right away. Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, and Paul. However, Paul is disqualified because he betrayed the troops last week and voted with the Democrats. He's against the WoT - but he still mostly fits your description. Personally, I'm keeping an eye on Gilmore and crossing my fingers that he gets something rolling and breaks away from the pack at the rear. He's conservative on all of the important issues, he looks like a presidential candidate (which is something Hunter has a problem with), he's got executive experience (which Hunter and Tancredo have problems with), and he doesn't have baggage (which is something Tancredo has a problem with). Check him out. That's the kind of candidate we should be getting behind. I'm not 100% in agreement with him on all issues, but almost.
Will you boycott your federal taxes when Hillary nationalizes healthcare/single-payer and your tax dollars are used to fund abortions? To fund RU486 prescriptions?
A VOTE against any GOP candidate vs. Hillary is insanity at it's core!!
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.