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
We'll, if we keep electing candidates that have an (R) next to their name, but are mostly just Democrat's, what are we really succeeded in doing?
Currently, the GOP is taking a sharp left turn. Do we let it continue turning left or do we correct it and turn it back to the right?
I see Rudy as continuing down the wrong road.
Same here.
That's what everyone said about Bill. It didn't happen.
Yes, and enthusiasm of grass-roots workers is not measured by polls which ask "who would you vote for if the election were held tomorrow?" I suspect most of Rudy's support is very very thin, and based on hype, name recognition, and ignorance of his positions on issues.
Sort of an intellectual Elmer Gantry....
"I believe he said that to Hannity."
And you believe everything an ambitious politician says? What would you expect him to say to a conservative talk-show host? You need to look at his record, not his campaign rhetoric. Once in office, he will revert to type, and that type is: Urban Liberal.
Second, he went after legal gun owners in NYC. The case of Freeper Pharmboy has been brought up several times as an example of a long-time licensed owner who lost his guns.
Third, if you have anything other than a single-shot .22, or if you don't use that .22 only for hunting, then your guns are in jeopardy under a Giuliani presidency.
I think you are absolutely correct.
I don't think he'd do that - the 2nd prohibits it, but he'd see your use would be so regulated your owning a firearm would be like a ball and chain. New Jersey is now testing legislation that prohibits your purchase of ammunition unless you're a registered owner OF THAT SPECIFIC BORE WEAPON. If it passes and is signed into law, no longer in NJ can you buy your son or daughter, brother or sister a box of ammo for a gift. You won't be allowed to buy .22 cal ammo if you have a .45 cal registered and not the .22 cal.
This is exactly the type of "regulation" Rudy spoke of implementing in his appearance with Sean Hannity a few days ago and a donut and cup of java says Ruty's mouth waters at the idea. Rudy's "Regulation consistant with the Second Amendment" means you can have "ARMS", you just won't be abled to purchase ammunition unless the "ARM" is registered. Since NJ and NY are "joined at the hip" Rudy's most likely eyeing this like a hawk on a field mouse.
Ping.
There are folks in this thread who think that Mr. Giuliani only took guns away from those who shouldn't have had them.
Have you been hanging out at that liberal website that makes fun of Free Republic? I know they laugh at me, Jim Robinson, and all the other Conservatives. What's your point?
I do know what views you have posted. If those aren't actually your views, it's your own fault, not mine. You have repeatedly come out against the one right that most Americans embrace as the most sacred of all rights. If those aren't your views, you have a real problem expressing yourself.
Let me ask you a question, leaving all other arguments regarding presumed "electability" aside. If you were a Democrat and had to debate either Giuliani or Hunter on the topic of the war against Islamic radicals, whom would you rather debate, and why?
I know one thing. Very little that comes out of WND and it's sister publications bears any resemblance to truth or reality.
You need to look at his record, not his campaign rhetoric.
I've noticed a lot of "social conservative" spin here to make the main stream candidates look like they're to the left of Mao, and those acceptable to the RR look like a Reagan-Patton-Washington composite. I'll spend a lot of time sorting it all out and enjoying the spin on all sides.
Worth putting in bold.
Unfortunately it's not "just" about the WOT.
There are a litany of items that Guiliani comes up short on. Most having to do with moral and freedom issues.
If we win the WOT and lose basic rights, such as the right to life and the right to keep and bear arms.
I don't want to live here.
Or I'll live here in constant warfare with this country's government. Either way, Rudy is not the solution. There are far better candidates.
Correct.I will vote for a third party.At least the R's will have to fight the Dims or loose what little credibility they still retain.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
Other answers he gave indicated we was going to simply leave various gun laws where they are now. In other words, he would leave the issue to local governments to deal with.
Second, he went after legal gun owners in NYC. The case of Freeper Pharmboy has been brought up several times as an example of a long-time licensed owner who lost his guns.
I've read nothing at all on it. Do you have a balanced source?
Third, if you have anything other than a single-shot .22, or if you don't use that .22 only for hunting, then your guns are in jeopardy under a Giuliani presidency.
You see that's what I'm having problems with. What on earth do you think that Giuliani, as President, would or could do about guns, since he seems quite satisfied that local authorities have that responsibility. And eventually, some of these laws will likely work their way up to the USSC for decisions. I don't even see Hillary or any of the candidates with that on their agenda.
Still waiting for you to explain. How is it a bad thing for me that you and the other moonbats at your liberal anti-freeper site don't like me? Personally, I wear that as a badge of honor. But tell me what you think. How does my being lumped in with Jim Robinson and all the other Conservatives here, reflect badly on me? And why would you make it a point to bring that up in the first place?
I know he's strong on crime, and his actions in New York brought the crime rate down drastically, but crime will no longer be an issue he would have direct control over. These issues such as the ones you cite will and should ultimately make their way through the court system to the USSC.
Bottom line for me is this is simply not an issue for most Americans yet. But I'm sure during the campaign, people will bring out his philosophy on it.
Really? What is that, and what did I say.
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.