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
Borders... borders... borders...
Cultural Marxism is rotting the country from the inside out...
The so-called "fiscal conservatives" have no trouble allowing MILLIONS of ILLEGALS to get public housing, welfare benefits, food stamps and bankrupt our health institutions (both public and private)...
Julie-Annie is neither fiscally conservative or socially conservative.
I don't know too many fiscal conservatives who would agree with your statement.
I DO know fiscal conservatives who aren't that concerned with illegal immigrants who are hard-working and have integrated into our society. But not ones that come here an mooch off the government.
My point is that the Rudy-haters have the gall to say, "Don't give us Rudy as the nominee, or we will let Hillary be elected. We WARNED you."
Republican voters don't owe you the candidate of your choice. YOU are the one responsible for making sure that YOUR candidate gets the nomination.
How irresponsible would you think it would be if social moderates were making the same threats if you don't support Rudy?
But at the same token we do not owe the republicans our votes. I will never vote for Rino Rudy.
ILLEGAL is the key word...
ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL...
How is breaking the law considered "conservative" all of the sudden???
Integrating is different than invading...
I know. Most of your posts here at FR are statements about who you won't vote for.
Rino Rudy will split the party if nominated.
That's right!!! let's all just roll over and give the country back to the Clintons for another eight years. There is not a candidate out there that doesn't have warts some more than others. Romney's been swinging in the breeze with the issues, McCain's a maverick, who goes from one side to the other, Hunter is great, but he has no name recognition or money, Brownback & Huckabee, cut 'n runners. If we don't stand behind the nominee of the party we lose.
It's not the conservative, it's the fiscal.
Beyond that, I won't argue the point, although there is an argument to be made, it's it's own book.
The biggest difference between Hitlary and Rino Rudy is he looks better in a dress. If he is nominated I will support neither, and frankly the scare tactic of vote rino or you get a rat is not working anymore with me.
Although I have no desire to discuss anything with you, if you truly want to be once again embarrassed, start another thread on revisiting "poor Aunt Mae", and ping me to it. I'll hold my nose and once more present the facts vs: the myths. Your ping list at that time will likely have at least one less on it, who finally got it.
This thread is about the 2008 election, and shouldn't be hijacked.
Agreed!
a conservative electorate has to EARN a conservative candidate? huh? isn't that backwards?
I complied with your request to back up my claims, which were directly related to this thread. That is not hijacking. Your attempt to turn this into a "poor Aunt Mae" thread was an attempt at hijacking. And without any facts (or even fellow liars) to back you up, it was a pitiful attempt.
Back to the original point. Your wild claims about being "an America-bot, and a Constitution-bot" are negated by your posting history, your insults toward Conservatives on this very thread, and your support of a radical left wing politician. Your waffling on that issue does nothing to conceal your credibility problem.
LOL So they haven't even been voted in yet, and you've already decided what their approval ratings are going to be. I don't find that to be a very convincing argument.
Thats why Rudy, Is our best option.
I see nothing to indicate that Rudy's approval ratings would be higher than 40 - 50%.
It's not backwards in the sense that the grassroots has to work to elect their nominee. If you're not making an effort to promote your preferred candidate, whether by donating to that campaign, or advocating it, then you haven't done very much to help.
Campaigns are hard work, and the ones who have the most volunteers are in a far better position. You can earn a win.
Finally. Now if we can leave the personal insults out and stick to the thread, I'd be happy to respond.
Your wild claims about being "an America-bot, and a Constitution-bot" are negated by your posting history, your insults toward Conservatives on this very thread, and your support of a radical left wing politician.
I'm not aware of ever insulting a real conservative here, unless he or she has first insulted me. And many of those on the radical right are anything but conservative, so obviously they don't count, though I never initiate the first insult, even with them.
As for my posting history you've mentioned, I failed to see one referral to any specific topic (other than poor Aunt Mae), in which I simply posted the actual facts versus the made up story by a bunch of anything but conservative folks. If you've read any of my posting history at length, you have found me completely supportive of the war on terror, the Republican Party, especially its beginnings, my disgust with the 109th Congress, and my desire to see this Party returned to its roots and real conservatism, not the bastardized version the right wing extremists have tried to turn it into. And when they put out false information, as long as I am a member of this forum, I will call them on it.
As for radical left wing candidates, I've no idea whom you are referring to. I want to see as many good candidates as possible in the coming months, including those who are now committed to running. And I find it disgusting that the only candidates with any chance for victory are being vilified, supposedly be Republicans, not Democrats, who are currently just sitting back watching the self destruction of the Republican Party.
And so yes, I consider America first, and the Constitution the supreme law of the land, and a law that deserves the highest respect and honor. Both seem to be vilified frequently here by some.
So yes, the radicals can eventually drive away the conservatives, but I doubt that what would be left would be a whisper of what the founder originally intended for this forum.
He has the highest approval rating right now, out of all of them..
plus he is the most "charismatic/likable"... (you gotta admit that...)
If its Rudy, I will vote for him.
I don't understand the fierce opposition to Rudy... where where these people when he was helping their candidates raise $?
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.