Posted on 02/21/2007 12:06:36 PM PST by Reagan Man
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.]
No, someone who wants to destroy conservatives who don't meet their social goals. And yes, we agree that we have fallen far, when some here will do all of the work of the Democrats, thereby saving their money for the real campaign.
Well, I am not a social conservative. Maybe I am not even a conservative. I certainly can't describe myself as a "Republican" given what that has come to mean (nothing). But I have always voted straight Republican come election time.
Rudy's gun control position is enough for me to rule him out. I am far from being a one issue voter, but make no mistake about it, a candidates views on gun control is bigger than one issue. It is in some sense a snapshot of ALL of their views. There is no better philosophical test. It gets right to the heart of how a candidate views the nature of the relationship between citizen and State.
Rudy does not believe that I have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Claims to the contrary are pure sophistry. This tells me an awful lot about the man.
I don't care what he did with the zoo known as New York. I don't live in a zoo. Consequently, his track record as a zoo-keeper means nothing to me.
As reasonable as that is, many here will not only not listen, but decry it as a left wing propaganda ploy to keep the "real" conservatives down. But hang in there. What you see by some here is not reflective of the Party as a whole.
Well, not sure what the "inalienable" means to you, nor what you believe about the 2d Amendment. Rudy certainly wouldn't put an FA-18 in every driveway, but past that, I've not heard him say anything that would seem to endanger my guns.
40? More?"
It's possible that you are too young to know why the Republicans were out of power for 40+ yrs. Because they ran Republicans for office that were nothing but "me too Democrats," Bob Michel Republicans, Gerald Ford Republicans, Rudy Giuliani Republicans. If you want to return to the bad old days pre-Reagan, you can go there without my help or my vote and you have no one to blame but yourself when you elect a Democrat president. The great unwashed, dumb as they may be, are able to discern a real Democrat from a wannabee one and will vote accordingly.
I would not vote for Guiliani if he were a Democrat (I would be very happy that the Democrats had fielded a pro-war candidate, but I still wouldn't vote for him...) - why should I vote for him 'cause he's a Republican?
If Guiliani becomes the 'Pubbie nominee, or, Heaven forbid!, is elect president, it changes the Republican Party. It will no longer be a home for conservatives. It will be a home for "pragmatic" politicians who will do anything for power - in other words another Democrat party. It IS better to lose the 2008 election than to abandon the principles of the Republican party.
Really? Did you know about his lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers? His attempts to change the way guns are sold in other states?
As I said, I've seen nothing he's said or done that would endanger my weapons. But then I don't have an F-18 in my driveway either. I'm not against reasonable efforts to ensure those who shouldn't benefit from the 2d Amendment including felons. And in any case, this would be one of numerous issues I would be concerned about.
I'm not against keeping felons from voting or owning firearms. But that is not what his efforts were about. He wanted to bankrupt gun manufacturers through lawsuits. He wants to limit the number of weapons that can be purchased at one time and he wants private individuals to have to get government approval to sell their own firearms. All of these potentally harm me and my right to own or purchase firearms.
Wouldn't mind an F-18, but they're expensive... and I couldn't afford the ammo for it...
Only a couple of RKBA Freepers here believe that even felons have the unrestricted 2A rights to any, and I maean any, arms that are available. Most don't. Therein lies the rub. In order to keep arms from those who shouldn't have them or to keep unreasonable arms off the streets, some restrictions have to be placed on arms transactions, which RKBA folks feel are unconstitutional. Your weapons cache might be in danger, but I know mine isn't.
Please read my post - I do NOT support Giuliani. I hope that a conservative, a REAL conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, gets the nomination. It would unite the Republican Party and get lots of the old Reagan Dems back into the fold, and leave Hillary for history's dust bin. HOWEVER, in the regrettable, tragic event that the Stupid Party nominates Rudy and he faces Hillary or anyone remotely like her, then IMHO the choice of staying home will only help the far greater of 2 evils win.
Again, please read what I said.
It's called being well-informed. If one is already very familiar with certain candidates there should be no problem making a judgement about their suitability.
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.