Not true, they are both socialists...
Posted on 04/16/2007 4:29:04 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
***... Mr. Giuliani maintains a big lead over his Republican rivals in the polls yet has all the wrong policy positions on social issues such as abortion and homosexual rights considered key to cultivating Christian conservatives. However, some evangelicals and pro-life Catholics seem willing to overlook his faults -- including his two divorces -- in the belief that he is the only Republican actually running who can defeat the Democratic nominee in 2008.
Still, Mr. Giuliani and conservative Christians "probably have irreconcilable differences on life and family and that kind of thing," said Mr. Falwell, adding, "I couldn't support him for president."
Nor is Mr. Dobson in Mr. Giuliani's cheering section.
"I do not believe that the current excitement over Giuliani will continue," Mr. Dobson told U.S. News & World Report.
Richard Land, president of the Religious and Ethics Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, takes a hard line against virtually all the major Republican candidates. He says he'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, over Mr. Giuliani if the 2008 presidential race came down to such a choice. And if Mr. Giuliani wins, "he'll do so without social conservatives," Mr. Land said. .....
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
But experience isn’t everything, and for Land, who certainly is voting morals, the only morals Hillary has over Rudy is that Hillary never got divorced, even when her husband cheated on her. For whatever reason, she did keep her vow to stay married.
Hillary is a flaming socialist, a proven liar and drooling at the prospects of pushing us further toward the socialist model of Europe. Her concerns are just that. Rudy's are for self-help and fiscal conservatism. He'll appoint conservative justices. If you can't see the difference, this divide isn't about life it's about politics.
Many states, including TX, do not allow write-ins unless one is an “offical” write-in candidate. Other states have provisions that write-in votes are not even counted.
So it’s either the liberal GOP nominee in 2008 or the Constitution Party.
Your translation is as confused as you are. I'm supporting Duncan Hunter through the primary, only to change if Fred declares. I can trust you to effect enough negative reaction, (against our candidate).
If Thompson enters the race, I don’t think we will need to write in any candidate come next November. Thompson will win the nomination if he enters the race.
Not true, they are both socialists...
He had no problem defying federal law that required employers to cooperate with the INS about illegals. He sued all the way to the SCOTUS over this...and after losing, he defied the law anyway!
He has said he'd appoint Justices that could overturn Roe.
He thinks taxpayer-funded abortion for women is a Constitutional right, he has no problem calling for national gun control, and his record of appointing judges is abysmal...and yet you trust him when he says he'll appoint "strict constructionists?"
He has stated he hates abortion,
So does every other person who says they're "Pro-Choice."
would counsel against it and encourages adoption.
And yet he would have no problem paying for his grandaughter to have an abortion.
You don't want a president, you want a dictator.
If all of the current GOP candidates had gone to the same high school, Rudy would've been voted "Most Likely to Act like a Dictator." At least, compared to the rest of the Republicans running for President.
Go wherever you like, you didn't address my point, at all.
Well, I believe I read that Mayor RG appointed the same kind of conventional liberal judges in NYC as his predecessors and successor have done.
I don't like Rudy, that should be clear. I want Thompson or even Romney. However, I will certainly vote for whomever the GOP puts up in the general election against Hitlary. That said, I know MANY so-cons who won't vote for Rudy in any circumstance. I simply don't think he's electable. You don't have to be a so-con on all issues to the the GOP to vote for you, but you can't be a so-lib on basically ALL of them...
Awesome post!
The question is will Richard Land vote for Obama over Guiliani? Obama will probably get the nomination.
People in PA said that Santorum was too intellectual for them. In VA, didn’t Allen try to move left at the end, but I don’t know the details of that race. Certainly, John Warner has been on the left for years after a couple of initially conservative years from 1979-81.
Just that HCI picture is probably enough to doom Rudy in the primaries...
How did I not? Duncan Hunter’s far more of a conservative than Rudy is. How would he be more divisive than Rudy is here on FR?
I wouldn’t call you shallow. I would say that, given your posts in support of so many things Giuliani opposes, your support for him seems illogical.
One way of explaining it though is to suggest first that Rudy is the only candidate who is strong on terror, and second that terror is much more important than any of those other things.
But he’s not the only candidate strong on terror, so that would be ignorant. And if you consider terror an issue that overrides all those other issues, I can understand some interpreting that as being “shallow” on those other issues — because they certainly don’t think terror trumps everything else.
On the other hand, if your argument is that only Giuliani can win, and therefore you will vote for him even though he disagrees with you on all those issues you posted supporting articles for, then one has to wonder what criteria you use for voting other than having an “R” by the name?
So in the end, if you are a principled conservative posting support for conservative positions on the 2nd amendment, abortion, religion, illegal immigration, and the environment, it is very hard to see how rationally that corresponds to supporting a candidate who is against the conservative position on the 2nd amendment, abortion, religion, illegal immigration, and the environment.
Ditto regarding the disgust. For me, the plethora of draft dodging republicans nationally and in my state is the #1 point of contention. Rudy is of course, as bad as any of them in that respect.
Just read the post again, brilliant one.
The liberal media brought out the “macaca” fiasco right before the nomination, labelling him as a racist.
And even then, Allen only lost by one point.
That's so screwed I can't fathom you said it.
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.