Posted on 03/03/2007 1:05:48 PM PST by gpapa
SO NOW YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CAPSLOCK? YOU SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES HAVE SOME REALLY SCREWED UP PRIORITIES! :-)
Fact is, flashbunny, Rudy's record as far as being pro-anything conservative is dismal when the light is shined on it as you have. Or as his comments about using the terrorist attack on the Empire State Building to rejuvinate the call for stronger gun control laws illustrate his unfitness for command.
Mugged by Reality: After 30-plus years of fierce, intense arguments, much emotion, and many polls taken, both sides in the abortion wars have been mugged by reality, and realize that neither is likely to reach its major goals soon. Dreams of outlawing abortion on the one hand, or, on the other, of seeing it funded, legitimized, and enshrined as an unassailable civil right, have faded in the face of a large and so-far unswayable public opinion that is conflicted, ambivalent, and inclined to punish any political figure it sees as too rigid, too strident, or too eager to go to extremes. For this reason, no politician shrewd enough to make himself president is likely to go on a pro-life or pro-choice crusade. (Like Ronald Reagan before him, George W. Bush addresses the March for Life by phone and long distance; the new Democratic Congress, for its part, has wisely decided to leave the whole issue alone.) With this has come an understanding that, aside from the appointing of judges, and some tinkering with executive orders, the president's role is not large.
Purists will want someone whose heart is with them, but, in the real world, the state of the president's heart does not count: Support for abortion remained fairly high under Reagan and Bush 41, and began to fall off under Bill Clinton, the most pro-choice president in American history, strongly backed by the feminist movement, and pushed by his feminist wife. A strict constructionist justice appointed by a president who is pro-choice is no different from a strict constructionist appointed by a pro-life president, at least in the view of the practically minded, and better than an activist justice appointed by somebody else.
For some people, this argument will not be sufficient, and debates have now broken out among social conservatives. But the surprising thing is that these debates are occurring, which had not been foreseen or expected a few months ago. This is why early assessments of Giuliani's possible weakness may be misleading, among them polls indicating that many social conservatives would never back a pro-choice nominee. They do not show what might happen if the nominee pledged not to push for a pro-choice agenda, or if he were endorsed and supported by conservative icons who vouched for him, campaigned with and for him, and swore to their backers that he was all right.
In the 2000 Presidential election voters who attend church more than once a week favored George Bush by a 27-point margin, while voters who attend church weekly voted for Bush over Gore by 57% - 40%. Combined, these voters accounted for 42% of the American electorate. The 40% of voters who believe that abortion should be mostly or always illegal gave Bush over 70% of their votes (http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL07/more_signs_of_a_pro.htm).
Polls showed that 62% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage while only 30% support it (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml)
Al, I must respect your position, however, please tell me this: do you personally agree with the principles in this thread? If not, with which ones do you disagree and why?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794527/posts
Please. We prefer "socons". It has a much nastier edge to it.
I am telling all you Freepers now, there is no way I am going to vote for Rudy or McCain! We are Conservatives and our candidates are not selected by the press or simply the best we can do, I would rather lose on principals than settle for some slum candidate who is going to stab the base in the back!
I concur.
Catholic Californian
Fear of a boogeyman stampedes lemmings and sheeple. Citizens need not follow the Pied Piper of NYC down a moral slippery slope.
I note an undue level of anxiety in true Conservatives here-- for God says FEAR NOT......and of Faux Conservatives here--who are trying to cause a Rudy stampede.
In a sense, it doesn't matter who is which, both can lead American voters astray. We must guard our heart, eyes, ears and steps.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793613/posts?page=387#387
It beats "Goldwater conervatives."
====
Exactly. It IS a very good article, if only those who really need to read it, would do so.
I concur with you.
Because Giuliani is the only one who can beat Hillary.
If anyone other than Rudy gets nominate, HILLARY WINS, because she will easiely defeat them.
So the bottom line is still: NOMINATE RUDY OR SAY "HEIL FUHRER HILLARY".
So WHICH DO YOU PREFER?
Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.
The lowest of low blows. Anything beats that.
To Conservatives, skeletons in the closet are vote killers. To Democrat-icks, skeletons in the closet are a voting bloc to appeal to. See the way Foley was treated versus the way Gary Studds, Barney Franks, or Mel Reynolds were treated.
Liberals regardless of religious affiliation vote for the democrats you describe. I will not compromise my principles by voting for someone who I disagree with on issues of concern to me.
Sure, some Catholics will vote for RG. This Catholic will not.
I agree. I could have gone with Rudy if he'd said, "I disagree on these issues, but I'm not going to push them, because I know they're at odds with the party base. I can't go with the "vote for me even if you disagree with me on issues that are of importance to you."
Is that the opposite of Neo-Freepers;-) (Hat tip, ex-snook)
Repeat the lie often enough... and it's still a lie.
When exactly did Madame Rodham become this invincible Behemoth?
That's a rhetorical question. I already know when. It was the moment Rudy's supporters needed a scary prop to make thier guy look good by comparison. Nobody in the GOP field fits that bill, obviously.
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.