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 ...
Rudy can't win without the evangelicals. No Republican could.
They are not being blind. They are, IMO, being deliberately obtuse by taking each of Rudy's liberal positions and acting like it's the only flaw in Rudy's GOP demeanor. It's completely dishonest.
And I figured it would be a matter of time before they turned on Bush and Rudy turns on the Iraq War. He's already positioning himself for that turn. He and his cult of personality seem to have no core values - just a fawning pursuit of power. And that, quite frankly, is Rudy's most liberal trait - the lust for power for the sake of power and his own ego.
I, a Rudy supporter, has supported many issues that evangelicals support (and posted tons of threads on these issues) but I continue to see that my reach is never enough. It is you who taunt and ridicule. I find it offensive too.
Thank you for pointing that out.
You are right. I do not see a direct quote from Land saying he would vote for Hillary.
This reminds me of the tactics used by Rudy supporters right here on FR.
I did notice that a direct quote was used in the next sentence stating that Rudy would have to win without socially conservative votes.
Does this remind anyone here on FR, how the Rudroids keep saying if you don't vote for Rooty, you are voting for Hillary.
Very interesting point you made.
Wouldn’t that be better posted as it’s own thread? That would also ensure you don’t violate excerpting standards.
And if it IS already posted as a thread, you should link to it, and quote the few relevant parts that deal with issues Land raises in the article we apparently aren’t going to discuss here because nobody wants to talk about the issues Land and others raise in the article, they just want to make fun of Land and call him names and post unrelated articles.
Quite obviously, any support you have expressed for socially conservative positions has been very shallow, or else you wouldn’t now be supporting a candidate whose values are frankly pagan.
You don't like it when I point out that your blanket statements about Giuliani's position are false. And now you are a mindreader into how Rudy will conduct the war on terror. I suspect he'll take it on like he took on the mob in NYC.
Land is just being sensationalistic.
It would be ignorant to vote for EITHER Hillary or Giuliani.
There are other choices.
The best alternative if those are the choices, since we’ll lose no matter which way we turn, is to WRITE-IN ones favorite conservative....for me at this point, that would be Hunter or Thompson....no matter how they do in the primaries.
That is the only way to send a legitimate message to the REPUBLICAN Party about how they blew it.
That post should be framed and I nominate you for FR Poster of the month.
Now see, this is what I'm talking about. Even though I've taken the time to put forth articles and supported conservative views on immigration, education, religion, life, the environment and others, you choose to call me shallow because I do not agree with you on everything.
This is where the "abortion" issue becomes a much larger issue of character and philosophy, and why it is so hard for me to support Rudy.
We are FOR life for all humanity. We are for honoring the life that each person has, and the liberty and freedom each person deserves because they are made in God's image and after his likeness.
Rudy is AGAINST letting some people live. He is against granting every person protection from the selfish acts of others. He is against protecting the weakest among us from being trampled, murdered, torn apart by those with power who find the weak inconvenient.
But rather than being honest, he pretends that it's US that are "against" things. I guess so, we are against murder. But I thought Rudy was against criminals, against terrorists, against taxes, against out-of-control spending. What does me mean then when he says we should be about what we are FOR, and not what we are against?
Simply put, almost ANY issue can be described either positively, as what you are for, or negatively, as what you are against.
And Rudy is not simply pro-abortion, he takes a negative view of those who want to protect the unborn. He describes them in negative terms, and claims WE are the problem, not the women killing a million babies a year.
Only in your own Rudy-addled brain do you show my statements about Rudy are false.
But, then again, I haven't drunk gallons of Rudi-Aid the way you have. So I look at what Rudy has done, not just what he says.
He has a 100 percent NARAL rating. He addressed them, twice. And although he says is personally opposed to abortion, just about every pro-choice Dem says that.
Throw in Rudy's re-defining of strict constructionism to allow upholding of Roe, his declaration that abortion funding is a right, and now his statement that the GOP should move on past abortion, and your claim that I am misstating Rudy is pure bunk.
Yeah, real evangelicals are going to vote for the W###e of Babylon over Rudy. Uh huh...
Once again, I look at what Rudy has done.
He used the 1997 Empire State Building terrorist shooting (which he refused to call such) as a springboard to call for more federal gun control laws.
He, against the advice of emergency professionals, kept the ECC at WTC7 - in the midst of a known terrorist target.
And he pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
So far, his record is less than stellar. Nothing he has done merits the claim that he is the best choice to lead the WOT.
You didn't quite just join yesterday, but I'll explain. FR is an open forum. Anyone can join and promote anything they like. Heck, they can even pretend to support things they don't like, just to cause an adverse, and divisive, reaction.
Proof should be in action, but here action is unprovable. Here, our words must speak for us and we must consider our own goals when we write them. Sometimes our rants can be seen as embarrassment, and even quoted other places solely for the embarrassing intent. We should seek to coalesce, not divide, but that cow has already left the barn. We are fully infiltrated with those who want nothing but division. I say pay attention to the words which inspire and coalesce and promote our points of view and not fall to the temptation of illogical ranting, division and ridicule of our points of view.
Or, evangelicals can show up and vote for Rudy, and be like the black community that keeps voting for leaders that could care less about them simply because they have a “D” in their name.
If the black community was intelligent, it would sit on their hands for an election, to show the democrats that they can’t take their votes for granted.
Instead, they vote “D”. And end up with leaders like James Webb, who could care less about blacks and will do LESS for blacks than the arch-conservative George Allen did. But Webb is a “D” and Allen was an “R”.
Evangelicals on the other hand really DID get politicians to vote and do what they wanted, because they were known to be people who sit home if they are not satisfied. By 2006 though, the politicians got cocky, and thought the evangelical vote could be taken for granted.
It amazes me that people are ready to make the same mistake again on a presidential scale.
“Maybe the thing I worked on the most in New York,” he tells the San Franciscans, “was to get New Yorkers to reestablish the idea of personal responsibility.” For generations, he says, New York’s comprehensive welfare system had operated on the idea of collective responsibility. “We were dramatically breaking down the work ethic,” he says.
Another really BIG LIE.
Plus, this completely obliterates his claim to be pro-life and anti-abortion - he frames the pro-life movement in a negative manner. I'm surprised any Rudy supporter has the gall to even try to frame Rudy in any kind of pro-life manner after his statements of the last few weeks, coupled with his past strong support of NARAL. But some do anyway.
Translation - I wanna promote a liberal on a conservative website and don't want a negative reaction.
We need to change the political climate, not give in to it.
When the rip tide is pulling you out to sea, the correct solution is to swim perpendicular to it until you can get into different currents.
The Rudy supporters believe the correct way to handle a rip tide it to swim out with it, because that’s just the way things are now and you might as well go along with it.
They correctly perceive that swimming against the current is wasted effort, but incorrectly advise that the alternative is to swim with it out to sea.
What we need is a leader who can CHANGE the current (akin to swimming into other currents) — NOT a leader who is driven by the currents to the wrong destination.
The Rudy supporters stink of defeat.
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.