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
See post 246.
Posting too fast caused you to accuse a fine man of adultery?
You mean this?
BB Even a quick peek at your posting history reveals that to be the funniest joke I've heard yet today.
MACVSOG But I don't have entire web sites dedicated to laughing at my lunacy...BB.
It would appear that you were the only one who was "looking" at someone's posts. So exactly what site or sites are you referring to? Let me in on it so I can get a good laugh...
Why would you care what anyone thinks of conservatives? I've seen many of your posts over the years, and it's actually conservatives you've had all the problems with. You seem to be right at home with extremists, but not with conservatives.
No, it doesn't upset me at all to have your kind dislike me.
I don't dislike you. I enjoy debating real issues, so I rarely run into you. In fact, you were the one who attacked me on this thread. You didn't question anything I said, you simply attacked me as a person. You can't seem to discuss anything either intelligently or intellectually, which is fine as long as you keep your histrionics confined to the more single issue life-site threads. You do have issues and seem sorely in need of therapy. But you have been told that before, so I doubt you would listen to me.
In any case, I will continue not posting to you, and if you'll respect that of me, all will be fine. You take care.
No, I don't. He has much to say, and while I'm not thrilled with the extent of his influence on many in the Republican Party, he has that right. I just wish some of his followers were more broad-minded about issues of real importance. Prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research, evolution and gay issues while very important to many, have taken too much of the center stage, and to the extent of driving voters away from the Party. But I don't in any way either hate or even disrespect him or what he stands for.
Can't we talk about issues?
You don't know what site you were talking about, but you want me to explain it to you?
Did you ever come up with any sources to back the lies you posted?
If it appears that voting for a candidate that can't possibly win might still send some message, I would do it if that was the message I wanted to send.
But since I find e-mail a more useful way to send messages, I find voting for the best of two candidates that has a chance of winning is the best strategy for making a difference in the world.
A message is just a message. Getting 50% of what is good for the country instead of 10% is a 500% improvement.
I have found that e-mail only works when I know exactly who to send the message to and tends to be worthless when trying to influence what the MSM publishes and how political operatives and candidates interpret the results of elections.
I find voting for the best of two candidates that has a chance of winning is the best strategy for making a difference in the world.
I used to think so too but I kept ending up with elected officials who ignored my desires and often did exactly the opposite. Instead of "making a difference in the world" it seems that my vote was being interpreted exactly oppositely from my desires or opinions.
A message is just a message. Getting 50% of what is good for the country instead of 10% is a 500% improvement.
Exactly! That's why I would vote for the candidate who might provide a 50% improvement rather than the one who provides only a 10% improvement. However, I don't think that's your point.
I expect you assume that the only important result of your vote is the candidate elected. Another consideration is that the vote will make a difference in how the elected candidate and future candidates behave. If they see a large number of third party votes they will consider the positions taken by that third party. If all they see is "D" and "R" votes then they are less likely to change and are more likely to go along with any MSM interpretation.
Finally, as some FReepers frequently point out, it's often better to have the obvious opposition in power than the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Actually, it's an infinite improvement. If Gulliani is 5%, and Hillary is 1%, it's a 500% improvement.
Is the "message" I would send to (who am I sending a message to now, the 30 million primary voters who picked Gullianie?) whoever worth those issues?
BTW, it's a lot bigger than 4%. In fact, it is possible that after 4 years of Gulliani, there will have been nothing done that is particularly offensive to the social conservatives, while the fiscal conservatives might well feel like they are in heaven as a president actually vetos spending bills and stops supporting expansions of useless government programs.
More likely the social conservatives will be pissed off. But the fiscal conservatives will laugh at your "5%".
Given the current view of Bush amongst "conservatives", I'm thinking their powers of picking the "right" candidate for themselves are suspect anyway.
Very good point!
"You are owed nothing. You have to earn it."
You have that all wrong. I don't owe any candidate anything. He has to earn my vote. I will not be taken for granted by a party drifting leftward. I am not impossible to please but I will not sell out my core beliefs, either.
Sorry, not interested. Rudy is a non starter. If he is the best we have, we are in serious trouble.
"I fear they would much rather blame everyone else for marching out of step."
It does look that way, doesn't it. They take a hard left turn and then get mad at us for not following.
Not in the least We're still here aren't we? However, if you mean that our freedom and our way of life has suffered, then yes, I'll go along with that. Provided of course that you also acknowledge that the Republicans have contributed significantly to the demise of our freedom as well with the hypocritically named "Patriot Act" Terrorism is just one axis of the many threats that confront us every day. There is progressive taxation, environmental regulation, special privileges for racial or cultural groups (eg gays), gun control, misuse of eminent domain, restrictions on freedom of speech (McCain Feingold - signed by Bush), so if you're selling that a far left liberal republican is better than a far lift liberal Democrat, then the Julie Annie cheer leaders haven't convinced me or any of the other real conservatives on this site that there's a substantive difference.
I am far more likely to be killed by my friendly local police when they come to confiscate my guns (like the NY police under Julie Annie did) than be killed by terrorists.
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.