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
*THIS* is a point everyone, whether you are currently pro-Giuliani, or not, should consider, and consider well. While I had my reservations about President Bush, they were only firmed up into a distaste in his obvious unwillingness to secure our pourous border. It is a dangerous, potentially lethal situation which must be addressed. Anyone not interested in doing so, is in reality, not as interested in keeping the country secure as they would have you believe...
the infowarrior
Who said anything about FA-18s? (Although if Rudy wants to give me one, I'll take it). The gun owners want him to say that he'll leave them the heck alone. Even with his recent shuffling he hasn't said anything close to it, and with his past rotten and extensive record on guns, it's no wonder the gun owners are very concerned about what he'd do to them once in office.
The NY MSM want their favorite Male? and Female? to be the only choice for POTUS!
They can have a socialist with a D by ITS name or a democrat with an R by ITS name.
Win, win for MSM, loss by the Country!
At least Giuliani, should he be the nominee would nominate originalist Supreme Court Justices. Do you think Hillary will? Obama?
Look what we got when people stayed home in the last election. We got a freak show.
Only true if Giuliani presents a unified conservative narrative.
That means he must take a strong and convincing stance on the conservative issues like life and guns. He is hampered considerable by his past on those issues and a lack of trust among conservatives who have been burned by those talking the conservative talk but not walking the walk.
That's what I get for posting too fast. Give me the Ann Landers, 40 lashes with a wet noodle.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Interesting typo there, Free Thinker!
I assume this is addressed to the Giuliani supporters.
Context is almost always the first victim of passion. He was referring to the ease of purchasing a gun, and how a criminal can easily acquire one, and did. Since RKBA folks here are always saying that guns should not be kept out of the hands of law abiding citizens, he was suggesting that some means of ensuring that was necessary. Why do you have a problem with that? Or as the RKBA folks believe, should everyone have the ability to purchase any type of weapon they desire?
Dear gesully,
"At least Giuliani, should he be the nominee would nominate originalist Supreme Court Justices."
I don't believe that he has promised to nominate "originalists" to the Supreme Court.
Rather, he has promised to nominate "strict constructionists." For someone who believes that abortion is a consitutional right, that there is no incompatibility between strict gun control laws and the Second Amendment, and that it's perfectly reasonable for courts and legislatures to re-fashion an institution (marriage) that precedes the government both chronologically and ontologically, it's no wonder that his view of good nominees to the Court ranges from Mr. Roberts to Mrs. Ginsburg.
If you think abortion is a constitutional right, then Mrs. Ginsburg becomes a "strict constructionist" on the issue.
Somehow, I think that if he's elected, he's more likely to nominate another Ginsburg than another Roberts.
sitetest
Why doesn't Rudy just run as a pro-war Democrat? He has far more appeal than Lieberman, and gosh darn, people like him!
(oh wait, that's the turd from Minnesota)
"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."
I doubt it. History has repeatedly shown that those with no fixed conservative principles desert conservative Republicans in their hour of need. Think Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Keane...
Yes...and as they wake up, President Hillary will be imposing Marxism on us and it may be too late. She will do IRREPARABLE damage to America.
Then perhaps the Republicans should make sure they chose someone that we can vote for with clear conscience. Why should we vote for someone who does not even have our morals or convictions???? It is the RNC that you should be mad at not the voters.
As well they should!! Dr. Dobson is a very wise man.
But I don't have entire web sites dedicated to laughing at my lunacy...BB.
Most who have the passion, but not the intellectual capacity to engage in debate usually find their only tool is the inane and pathetic insult.
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.
You don't know my views, so don't pretend to. As for conservative, you wouldn't begin to understand that concept.
Radical conservative is an oxymoron.
Oh, I am, believe me.
And rightly so. Credit served where credit is due, Rudy did a great job in New York in the wake of the attack there, the second time around. Had it not been for his decisiveness in leadership, he'd have carried a brand far worse than Ray Nagin for events leading up to the attack - but that's only a subjective assumption. He failed the city with his sanctuary policies which he vigorously defended even by threatening city employees with dismissal should they share legal status info with other city agencies or if they contacted INS in violation of his edict. He also urged those policies' expansion under his successor, Bloomberg - of which he successfully accomplished.
I'm not a Rudy "hater", I've just removed his name from my choices as Chief Executive Officer of these United States early on.
There's PLENTY of time to form your opinion of the candidates, I would hope your heart's convictions lead you because in the end, you have to be comfortable in whom you've place your vote and for what reason(s) you've placed it.
Concerning Rudy as a viable candidate, I've assumed the position as a very well articulate statesman once said of a defining moment for himself, "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
I've got it. If nothing matters but (alleged) "toughness on terror," and all other conservative principles can be jettisoned, why do we need Rudy? Why not just hand the nomination to "war Democrat" Joe Lieberman, in exchange for his voting with the Republicans to organize the Senate? We don't need no stinking primaries! We don't need no stinking conservative rank-and-file! Let the RNC do it in a smoky back room. /sarc
I believe he said that to Hannity.
Even with his recent shuffling he hasn't said anything close to it, and with his past rotten and extensive record on guns, it's no wonder the gun owners are very concerned about what he'd do to them once in office.
You mean when he went after those who shouldn't have guns in order to clean up the abject crime in New York?
Which of my guns will he, as President, order taken from me?
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.