Posted on 03/02/2007 8:40:17 AM PST by areafiftyone
They deny it, but I would love to put polygraphs on the leaders of the religious rightwing and ask if they really want a theocracy. I bet the results would be very telling.
"I am going to ignore the nanny --- he knows he's a butt boy and tattler --- I recall he was first to jump on the Bush is a cokehead threads too. NOT a serious poster --- just a kissy poo poof."
shhhhh There's quite a few here that don't like to be reminded about those days. Glad there are some of us that still remember the slander and lies against Bush.
I have no beef with any candidate (except Paul and Tancredo) or their supporters. While I believe Rudy will be the ultimate nominee I also will do all I can to ensure that the Right is addressed and acommodated. That is one of the functions of the primaries and I can easily see myself voting for Hunter in the Illinois primary which I expect Rudy will run away with.
It is critical to have a strong conservative as VP both for today and to strength conservatism in the futurek. There are several who could fill the bill there.
Now, there's one hell of a lopsided, sweeping statement.
What you just basically said if that principles are principles if they're only held by a minority, and that being in touch with the majority of the people he's looking to lead, makes a presidential candidate less than principled.
In other words, you believe that Presidential elections are won by not being in touch with a majority of the people who will be voting.
That's nuts.
Let's examine YOUR principles, shall we?
You used the words "killing babies" in your post...now, we both agree that abortion is wrong, and it's murder, and that abortionists kill babies by the millions every year.
What exactly have you done to stop this?
How many times have you physically walked into an abortion clinic and stopped a murder from happening?
Ain't that the truth.
I'm sorry I missed this thread while it was happening...you've really had a time of it here! I couldn't agree with what you've posted above more. I learned my lesson and I'll be yanking a lot harder from now on.
In his recent travels, he (Giuliani) has directed questions on the issue toward a discussion about judges, saying he would appoint jurists who believe in interpreting, not making, the law: judges, he said, like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who he has said he believed would place limits on Roe v. Wade.
Giuliani Shifts Abortion Speech Gently to Right The New York Times
Until I find evidence that he doesn't mean it (and I've been digging), I will give him the benefit of the doubt. They say a man is known by the company he keeps. Rudy Giuliani is keeping some pretty good company these days, including the 3 guys he mentioned there.
Let's pretend for a moment that this item deserves comment or discussion...
The teleprompters were removed for Giuliani's address. He rarely glanced at notes, and he did not read a speech. Every other candidate had the teleprompter except for Tancredo. These are the facts, without political commentary or bias...while pretending this topic has merit.
Bumping.
NautiNurse, I just reviewed your posts and want to thank you for your reports from CPAC. This firsthand eyewitness accounting is what I love about Free Republic.
A few comments and questions: Who is the lovely lady in the photo series with Cheney and Bolton? BTW, I love both of those guys: wish one or both would show up on the ticket. But since the border security/illegal immigration crisis is supremely important to me, not sure there would be much change on that with Cheney, sadly.
It's encouraging to hear your report on Hunter's speech, and the fact he was featured! So, contrary to other claims put forth on this forum, he IS known beyond California and beyond Free Republic. He does look a bit like Gomer Pyle in that pic you posted, though. LOL.
Tancredo presents himself well and is a very bright fellow. His highly visible advocacy for border security has made him seem one-issue; not sure that is true though. Unfortunate that he so closely resembles Durbin...
I agree with your observations re Romney; he has never appealed to me. In fact, he creeps me out.
Never, because that would be breaking the law itself. Gulliani is the law-and-order candidate so I'm surprised one of his supporters would suggest that type of action.
At the moment, I can do little more than discourage women from exercising their "constitutional right". We do that by talking about their unborn being human, about the immorality, about the options.
It won't help if we vote for a candidate who thinks they aren't doing anything wrong, that the baby isn't really human, and that abortion is the RIGHT answer to their "problem".
You have a source for Rudy saying tghat having an abortion isn't "doing anything wrong?"
Some pro-Rudy people thought it was important enough to mention, so I wanted clarification.
I can speak for 40 minutes on a range of topics with no notes, but I'm certainly not presidential materia.
Limits on Roe are not limits on abortion. There are judges that are are "in the same vein" as those judges who might not vote to overturn roe (we don't even know if Roberts and Alito would vote to throw it out, and we can only hope they will vote at least to limit it in some ways).
If Roe was gone tomorrow, you'd still have to fight state-by-state to convince people that abortion was wrong and should be illegal, and Gulliani would be a loud, popular voice saying abortion is OK and we shouldn't mess with it.
I did not advocate any such action, I am curious however...where is the President empowered by the Constitution to write or repeal laws, or overturn Supreme Court opinions?
No. I presume that based on his statement that women should have a right to choose abortion, and that he would pay for an abortion, and that he didn't say a word about abortion in his CPAC speech, which would have been the perfect place to say that abortion is wrong and we should eliminate it.
That, his association with NARAL, and his lack of any actions taken as mayor that would have in any way stopped abortions all seem to suggest he finds nothing wrong with it.
However, I've seen that he said something to the effect recently that he personally opposes abortion, although I couldn't find it when I just looked.
Nowhere, which is why we still have abortion.
The biggest thing the president can do is speak out forcefully about the horrors of abortion, and make it clear it is wrong.
The biggest thing pro-life supporters can do regarding the presidency is not to cast votes which allow pro-abortionists to claim that we like power more than our principles, and that we'd sell out those babies we say are alive just to keep hold of the presidency.
This morning I was wondering if it bothered anybody that we were seriously discussing a candidate who, if not for the war on terror, could be the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination for President?
If that were to happen as you say, why do you care where Giuliani stands on abortion? He would have no power. It sounds to me like you're saying it doesn't matter if Roe stays or goes.
GIULIANI: Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.
However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.
So what I do say to conservatives, because then, you know, you want to look at, well, OK, what can we look to that is similar to the way we think? I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed.
Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.
And I guess the key to it is -- and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor -- so it's something I take very, very seriously -- I would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it, understood the difference between being a judge and being a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very, very seriously.
HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, a Roberts, an Alito?
GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a really great judge. I mean, that would be -- you're never going to get somebody exactly the same. You're never -- and I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I'd describe it.
HANNITY: Is "Roe" a bad law?
GIULIANI: I think that's up to the court to decide. I think that it's been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it's precedent. It's going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it.
I think probably they're going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they'll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done.
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.