Posted on 03/03/2007 1:05:48 PM PST by gpapa
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
But, but Rudy sent Arafat packing.
"Don't you know that Pat Robertson said that Rudy would make a good president?"
The better question to ask is if I care that Pat Robertson said that Rudy would make a good president.
No! that's true!
Lets make a deal = You conservatives need to capitulate
Foreign terrorism?
That might be the best reason not to support Guilliani.
What about the lack of body armor in Iraq, do you really want to hear about that for the next 2 years?
I was wondering!
If Pat endorses rudy, and rudy endorsed cuomo, would cuomo endorse pat to complete the circle?
I think all kinds of conservatives are going to think for themselves and not let anyone tell them how to vote!
LOL!
Duncan Hunter comes closest of all!
Oh, that's right. I retract my statement and bow to His Hero-ness.
;)
Which part of UNELECTABLE are you having trouble comprehending?
You should listen to Newt speaking to CPAC now on webcast. Just started about 15 min ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794685/posts
Conservatives should be concerned that nominating a 3x married Catholic who supports abortion and gay rights will drive a good portion of the Catholic vote away from the GOP.
You are being disingeniuous. My recollection is that RG issued a press release within hours of the attack that identified shooter by name and origin. Although he did not characterize the shooting as a terrorist attack, there was no evdidence then or to this date establishing as fact that the gunman was anything other than a nut job. (I hate to tell you this, but WASP's don't have a monopoly on insanity.) And while RG did use the shooting as an excuse to advocate gun control, in this particular case he was right. Why? Because the 2nd Amemdment guarantees the right of American Citizens to bear arms. The gunman in this particular incident was not a United States Citizen and had only been in the Country for a couple of weeks on on a visitors visa yet was easily able to buy a firearm in Florida with no questions asked. The 2nd Amendment protects us, not temporary visitors from third-world cesspools.
Not to mention the Baptist voters!
I will never vote for a gungrabber. Period!
Forgive me for hoping that the best man wins.
I apologize for caring about my country so much that I'm willing to spend my time and money working toward a cause that I believe in.
I hope you can find it in your heart to pardon a fool for dreaming of a future where doing what you believe is right is more important than following the politically expedient path that others insist is the only way.
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.