Posted on 03/27/2007 6:32:11 AM PDT by pissant
Play along with me this morning. Would you vote for the following candidate? This person supports parental notification laws and a ban on partial birth abortion; is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and believes mariage is between a man and a woman. Don't look any further. In your mind, does this candidate seem attractive? Yes or No?
Guess what. That's how Rudy Giuliani describes himself. If you go to his website, that's how he lays out his positions on three very sensitive topics. What about this bleeding heart socially liberal Republican. As you might imagine, it is nowhere to be found on his website. The Brody File has pulled the three parapgraphs from his website that lay out his position on abortion, guns and marriage.
Abortion:
"Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God."
Guns:
"Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."
Marriage:
"Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not - and has never - supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That's why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."
If you were an Evangelical who just stepped onto this Earth from Planet Pluto (oh wait,sorry, Pluto is no longer a Planet. I thought scientists were "always" right?), after reading that, you may not understand why a large segment of Evangelicals may have a problem with Rudy. But the religious conservatives who live here on Earth might think those paragraphs on his website are just a tad bit disengenous. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm sure others have a much different word for it. Does the way he portrays himself on his website bother you or do you just chalk it up to political spin just like every other candidate out there? Comments?
"You can't win by running against someone. You have to win by being FOR something - such as conservartive values."
Amen brother, preach it loud, preach it long and preach it OFTEN!
Asking people NOW to support someone in November 2008 before any primaries are held, and before several other candidates have entered the race is ridiculous. I would never agree to vote for a liberal like Giuliani, under any circumstance. If the GOP really wants to win, they will nominate someone who can appeal to voters across the board.
I'm so tired of the math-defying nugget of pseudo-wisdom. A non vote is a non vote. If the Republicans thought they already had my vote in the bag, that's their own presumptuous miscalculation. I'm under no obligation to prove them right.
Now it seems to me, if we must depend on people who will turn their backs on their loyal representatives at the drop of a hat, who is to say they won't do so again, to Thompson or Hunter or Brownback if another dirty, rotten no good homosexual is found in the midst of the Republican caucus. The 2006 results ought to cause every pro-life politician to wonder when the religious right will throw them overboard.
What, you say? The religious right DID turnout for Allen, Santorum, and Talent? If that is the case, then there aren't enough of them to carry us into a majority in the swing states, so they are irrelevant anyway.
The perverts and losers far outnumber the religious right. And for the last two cycles, when the perverts and losers smell even a whiff of support from the religious right upon a candidate, they show up in droves to vote against him. The devil is whisperin' in their ears dontyaknow. So the religious right is actually a net negative to the Republican party at this point, and becoming as irrelevant in America as thay are in California.
Voting for Rudy is the same as voting Democrat...
So if he wins the primary---you'll be staying home for the general?
Yep, look what happened with Bush and spending. Bush warned us about his "compassionate conservatism". We had to vote for him, but we've paid ever since.
And Rudy is far, far more liberal than Bush. In politics, one usually has to vote for the lesser of two evils. But with Rudy, the difference is far less than it was between Bush and Gore.
You cannot win a presidential election by running against the other person. If the rational for Rudy boils down to him not being Hillary, he's already lost the general.
The elephant in the room.
They provided quotes from Rudy's own website.
Sheesh...Rudy v Hillary.....that's sounds like a one party system to me....
I am not so short-sighted as to consider a Rudy Giuliani victory a "win" for America.
"BTW, a non vote IS a vote for the Democrats."
That's a lousy ploy - people go to the polls to vote FOR a candidate or an issue, they're not drawn there just so they can say they voted against the "other" party. Only the party of fools attempt that tactic in desperation when they are virtually empty of political innovation - the Republic party is beginning to prove itself just that.
Sheesh...Rudy v Hillary.....that's sounds like a one party system to me....
I'd rather have my enemies in front of me, than behind me. If its Rudy vs. Hillary!, then let it be Hillary!.
Besides, if the GOP nominates Rudy, I don't have a party home anyway.
my opinion is that our president bush, cheney, rumsfeld, and bremer
lost the iraq war
and they've elected a democrat in 2008.
i live in a conservative area: republican u.s. congress and state assembly. and you no longer see "support our troops" bumper stickers. the mood has turned ugly, and anti-bush.
Good to see you at long last!
I won't vote for Rudy, even if this is effectively a vote for the Dem. I will no longer compromise since I've nothing left to trade away. Rudy has no respect for the Second Amendment, which actually means that he has no respect for the Constitution and the sovereign status of the People.
I have voted compromise in most elections in the past, and look where it got us! The GOP needs to actually represent me, or I will not support them. As I said before, I've nothing left with which I can compromise.
Somehow, the People need to take charge of the nomination process. This should not be done by congresscritters.
"Sheesh...Rudy v Hillary.....that's sounds like a one party system to me...."
That's because in reality, it is.
Which means he's still on his knees, puckered up to his abortion-on-demand cronies.
Rudy is also learning how to sign "Doo Dah" a capella for his deep-South campaign swings.
Rudy figured out he needs conservatives to make a decent showing. He'll have a "Come to Jesus" moment every now and then---temporary blackouts from which he'll fully recover AFTER the primaries.
That might work if the country was conservative, but it is not. The are decidedly OPPOSED to conservatives, in fact. Take a look:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312
The political miscalculations of hard right conservatives cost us the House and Senate last year. Now they say "trust us" as we desperately try to save the presidency for the Republican Party. They have no evidence that any conservative can win, and they say they will just take their marbles and go home if we do not do things their way, but "trust us."
The majority of decent, hard-working Republicans understand that if you are in the trenches with someone, and that someone looks out at the enemy charging, then says: "if our army appoints the wrong general, I'm hightailin' it outs here" -- well, it doesn't particularly inspire a lot of confidence.
Ya voting Democrat then?
BTW, a non vote IS a vote for the Democrats.
Man, grow up! This line of arguement is going to be eaxactly as successful as the one guys like you were using last summer and fall. You know...vote for us or you're voting for Speaker Pelosi. It didn't work then and it won't work now. You want conservatives to vote GOP? Give them an honest conservative candidate. I will never vote for a pro-abortion, gun grabbing, global warming advocating, gay pride parade marching liberal. Never, not ever.
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.