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
As for the damage that Giuliani could do as President, for starters he'd sign ANY "assault weapons" ban that made it through a Rat Congress to his desk. And after he repealed all the advances of the past six years, he'd move on to all of the "reasonable and sensible" federal gun restrictions that his fevered liberal mind could come up with. Sorry, I don't trust him at all on 2A issues.
You've been posting since 2001. Do I really need to repeat all of your drivel? Review your posts regarding Mae Maguirk, if it's not too upsetting for you. I know you nearly blew a cork when she was allowed to receive food and water. You lied about the effect the publicity and activism had in saving her from your agenda of forced euthanasia. You tried every trick in the book to convince people to stop reaching out to help others in her situation. Well, it didn't work. And those tricks won't work now, in this debate either.
Who said anything was bad. You began your usual tirade by telling me how funny my posts were. And I don't hang out at liberal sites. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Have some folks been laughing at you? Wear all the badges you like if that helps your self esteem.
How does my being lumped in with Jim Robinson and all the other Conservatives here, reflect badly on me?
Not sure what you are talking about, but I don't really lump you in with any conservatives. Nor do I feel any need for name dropping to make me feel important.
And why would you make it a point to bring that up in the first place?
I didn't; you did. You don't mind tossing insults. You just get your feelings hurt when someone hands it back to you. Grow up.
You were the one who claimed to be reading (or did you mean writing) the posts at that anti-freeper site. I see your problem. You really don't mean what you say.
You should post this to every Giuliani thread on Freerepublic.
I won't argue that, but the office of the President is not the place that will happen. It's going to happen through the court system.
But I'm not on here to defend Rudy's beliefs on the 2d Amendment. I do hate seeing the Republican candidates get destroyed one by one, not by Democrats, but by Republicans. I know there are many single issue voters here on FR, and I ask them to look at the big picture. Far more important that any of their single issues is the future of the Country, the war on terror, and a host of major issues that demand conservative leadership. That is what I will vote on, not any single issue, not with Hillary in the wings.
Yes, I remember how a few idiots fawned over the completely made up story, and were upset at the few sane folks that pointed it out to them. You know, that was the first time I had read a WND article, and soon learned that almost anything put out by that POS needs to be looked at with scrutiny. The story was actually a press release by a politician. Every statement in it was a lie. The process was taking place in the correct forum...the court, and because you fell for the BS, hook, line and sinker, you still want to believe that something you did had any effect. Sorry, but it didn't.
You're still repeating the same tired lies. Do you have anything to back up your lies? Of course not. Get back to me when you do. Until then, why don't you go back over to your other site, and tell them how unreasonable I am, in refusing to believe your lies.
I suppose you think Jim Robinson is a Dem troll, too.
Please refresh my memory. On what anti-Freeper site or sites did I claim to be reading any posts? Perhaps you can direct me to it, or them.
Look, I don't want to pop your bubble, but I don't have to go anywhere. Most know you right here. Does it bother you at all that in all likelihood, no one in all these years has ever read anything you have written for anything more intellectual than pure entertainment?
That is a complete LIE!
There were never any accusations that R.R. was unfaithful, and he didn't start dating Nancy until 2 years after the divorce, which he did not want and did not file.
Well Mr. "I do not recall that," try post #256.
Speaking as a social conservative I'd say, "maybe." But if the election were held today, there is not one conservative candidate who would finish within shouting distance of any of about six 'rat candidates. Right now Dennis Kucinich would beat Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, whoever else you think meets your standards as a conservative.That's the cold clear reality. So all you Rudy-phobes, stop gibbering about Rudy and come up with a viable conservative candidate. If you discount Romney, we don't have one right now
So you admit that you can't back up your lies. Thank you.
The only freepers who have ever had a problem with me are the ones who hang out at anti-freeper sites, and despise Conservatives. It really doesn't upset me that your kind can't agree with my posts. I'd be worried if you did. I've noticed that the same ilk that doesn't like my posts, are the same ones who hang out at anti-freeper sites, trashing Jim Robinson and all the other Conservatives, and then conveniently "do not recall that" when confronted over it. No, it doesn't upset me at all to have your kind dislike me.
************
That may be "something", but it's not reality. Kucinich couldn't beat my dog in an election. One reason? My dog is better looking.
Questionable on both counts. We still don't know what all was the perfidy of the Clinton regime. Between him, binLaden, Kim, and China he may have left the nation a "dead republic walking." All it would take would be a profound terror strike with a malignant socialist like Hillary in office to declare martial law and tip us over into fascist autocracy.
I'd rather have Rudy, abortions and all. I don't think he is a traitor, and it is clear, Hillary would be, given the chance.
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.