The way to electoral suicide -- vote Giuliani

Agape Press via OneNewsNow.com ^ | 20 February 2007 | Matt Friedeman

[Spiff]

The way to electoral suicide -- vote Giuliani

February 20, 2007

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.

[FreeInWV]

"when Hillary nationalizes healthcare/single-payer and your tax dollars are used to fund abortions? "

I see no difference. Julie-Annie leans that way too. We all know he is pro-abortion (including taxpayer-funded ones). Here are some of his speeches that touch on universal healthcare:

Universal Health care

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000b/healthstat.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/99a/me990321.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000a/weekly/wkly0619.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000b/weekly/wkly0925.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000b/weekly/wkly1127.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001a/weekly/wkly0618.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001b/weekly/wkly0709.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001b/weekly/wkly0820.html

[Jhensy]

Will you join us when a conservative nominee wins?

Of course!!!! So will EVERY Rudy supporter here!!!!

And that's the big difference between our sides.

[sam_paine]

I see no difference.

Do you see any difference between Nancy Pelosi running the House and a "rino" like Hastert running it?

I'm sorry, I think it matters to the troops who is in charge. And it matters to the supreme court, etc.

[sofaman]

retard? Short attention span?

I was taught at a very early age that once you resort to insults and personal attacks, you have lost the debate. Not to mention that it also indicates that you the lack the power to persuade and convince others.

It takes two to play that game, but I choose not to participate.

[Marine Inspector]

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.

Amen to that!

[colorado tanker]

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

Uh, the Gipper cheated on his then wife with Nancy Davis and as Governor of California signed a liberalized abortion law.

I'm not a Rudy supporter (I don't have a candidate yet) and Rudy's not the Gipper, but this strikes me as a bit hypocritical.

[sofaman]

well said...you just placed the whole argument into a very tidy nutshell.

Good one..

[sitetest]

Dear NorCalRepub,

I look at realclearpolitics.com regularly.

I don't think that Mrs. Clinton is the strongest candidate for the Dems in the general election. However, in that she has the highest name recognition right now, she'll do better than other Dems in the polls for now. Same thing with Mr. Giuliani.

Try to find Mr. Kerry in the polls as of February 2005. Was he much above an asterisk?

I'd look harder at polls that tell us what folks think about particular issues - like the war. The election's a long way off, and getting folks to seriously concentrate on making connections between specific issues and specific candidates might not make a lot of sense. That'll sort out eventually. By November 2008, if he's the Republican nominee, everyone will know that Mr. Giuliani is a pro-abort Republican who is in favor of the homosexual agenda, gun control, and who is about the most hawkish candidate on the war. Just as everyone will know that for which the Dem candidate stands.

Folks' views of specific politicians can change dramatically, especially from nearly two years out from the election. But folks' views on specific issues is probably somewhat more stable - although probably less stable on some issues than others.


sitetest

[etlib]

We need leaders not one issue platform candidates.

Are you talking about the single issue of whether the candidate has an "R" after his or her name?

[from occupied ga]

I was taught at a very early age that once you resort to insults and personal attacks, you have lost the debate

Then you lost it from the getgo since your very first remark to me was to call my post "tripe"

It takes two to play that game, but I choose not to participate.

LOL, You're the one who started the whole thing by calling my post "tripe" I responded seriously (in retrospect a mistake) You made some smart a$$ remark to which I quoted your "tripe" comment back to you and now you don't want to play. Typical liberal accusing others of what you yourself do.

[Antoninus]

I'm not for or against any of the candidates but one will eventually be the republican nominee and will need our full support in order to defeat the libs.

Rudy won't get it. He's a party-splitter and a sure loser.

[Antoninus]

Take heart - our numbers are vast - and growing daily.

A mile wide and an inch deep. Rudy is a 38% candidate in the general election--if he's lucky.

[BykrBayb]

ROFLMAO!!!! Even a quick peek at your posting history reveals that to be the funniest joke I've heard yet today. "America-bot" and "Constitution-bot?" Do you believe that Americans have a right to not be killed? I think Rudy shares your views on that, but it sure doesn't make him a Conservative American.

[etlib]

So why not support someone in the primaries who actually stands for what the Republican party has traditionally believed in, and who needs no nose-holding except by those whose social views are such that they'd likely be voting for Hillary anyway

AMEN!

[scripter]

Trouble is, I only agree with Rudy on one issue. As I don't want to be a single issue voter, I can't vote for him.

That's a great way to put it.

[GoforBroke]

I would love to see the best "R" as our President. However, many of the candidates haven't shown to be leaders.

I can't agree with all the candidates on one or more issues (especially those being inflated at this point, but this would not prohibit me from voting for the republican candidate over a democrat.

[etlib]

My voting strategy is to look at the election, review the candidates, and decide which choice I make will make our country stronger over the next 4 years.

Mine too, even if that candidate happens to be a third party candidate.

I can't imagine Hillary Clinton being the answer to that question -- even if we do something crazy like pick Tom Tancredo as our nominee.

The message in this thread is that many of us cannot see Rudy Giuliani as the answer to this question either.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

We need leaders not one issue platform candidates.

Who is "we," do you have a mouse in your pocket? Sheep need leaders, I want someone who will REPRESENT me.

One issue? I don't like the perverts, the dopers, the illegals, the gun grabbers or the baby killers - - just to chalk off a few... (and I am an atheist, in case you come up with that asinine Christianophobia BS)

---

...it would be catastrophic to let the pandering left wing run the country into the toilet.

The fancy Madison Avenue label on the same bargain basement liberalism is not what I will vote for.

Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not going to get my vote...

[sofaman]

what part of calling your post "tripe" was a personal attack on you...I disagreed with your post.

A smart ass remark? Go back to your post..."Thanks for your cleverarguments against voting your conscience. You really convinced me." Sarcastic and snide remarks tend to cause a reaction.

"Typical liberal accusing others of what you yourself do." Boy, that was good! You really got me with that one! Boy, oh, boy!