Let me see if I’ve got this straight. If paleo-conservatives don’t drop their candidates whom the “center” won’t support because they disagree with their positions and support a candidate whose positions we don’t agree with, we will be responsible for the Clintons election. But, the “center” won’t be responsible if they refuse to vote for our candidate should our candidate win the nomination. We will be responsible if we either nominate a non-center candidate or refuse to support a center candidate should said center candidate win the nomination. Okay, I think I’ve got the picture.
***...Why do you think you can win over Christian conservatives?
Because Republicans, however people describe them, respect people who tell them who they are and don't pretend that they're going to agree on everything. Ronald Reagan is kind of my model, and his approach was: "If you're my 80% friend, you're not my 20% enemy." I think I'll do well with conservative voters because they will see that I'm one of the most fiscally conservative candidates in the race. I'm the one who has just about the strongest record on tax cuts. And I think they will be in pretty close to total agreement with me on how to handle homeland security and deal with terrorism. On social issues, they're going to find that the area of disagreement is not as great as some of my opponents have told them.
But so much has been made of your decidedly unconservative positions on gay rights, gun control, and abortion. How big a factor will those positions, your personal history, and Judith's personal history be in the campaign and Presidency?
Ultimately, the election will be about who the American people think will be the most effective leader. And they have every right to examine all aspects of my public life and my private life. Because I've had such a long career in so many different areas—probably the most diverse of anybody running—they can look to the success that I've had even though I've made mistakes and things went wrong, which I think kind of makes me human. When I was mayor, various things going on in my private life did not stop me from reducing crime by 57%, reducing homicides by 67%, turning a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus. It didn't stop me from reducing the welfare rolls by 660,000. Then I had to deal with the worst attack in the history of the city, maybe the country. Sure, I've made mistakes, both privately and publicly, but what's the balance? The balance is that I've been able to have success. So I think they can be pretty confident that that's what would happen as President.
.....You said your wife, Judith, could sit in on Cabinet meetings if she wanted to. What role would she play?
The preface to that, Maria, was a question by Barbara Walters about what Judith would be interested in as First Lady. And her answer was: "I'm a nurse...and what I think I would be good at is educating people about the things they have to do to remain healthy." So then Barbara asked me: "Would you be comfortable with Judith sitting in on Cabinet meetings?" And I said: "I would if it was in areas that she's interested in or in areas where she has expertise." But she has no interest in being part of the Cabinet.....
The Los Angeles Times has a rule that the phrase "pro-life" will not appear on its pages because it might offend the pro-abortion crowd, reports Reuters, something a witless opera reviewer found out the hard way.
A music critic for the paper wrote that a Richard Strauss opera was "pro-life," intending to mean that it was a celebration of life. But he had his story changed by a copy editor to read "anti-abortion."
"It's about children who aren't born yet screaming to be born — not abortion," said the critic, Mark Swed. "Somebody who didn't quite get it got a little bit too politically correct ... and we had a little breakdown in communications."
The ban apparently doesn't extend to the phrase "pro-choice."
Partial-birth abortion, as defined by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is a procedure in which a physician:
"[D]eliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;..."
Mia T is no longer allowed to post on FR. She asked me to express her regrets that she cannot answer your thoughtful comments.
She would like to thank everyone who has extended support and kindness to her over the years.
If you cannot do this, I will understand.
thanx~mia :)
I always tell people that I am “anti-abortion” NOT pro-life because I believe in the death penalty. Therefore, I cannot truly call myself pro-life. But, I am anti-abortion.
We all know that Giuliani was and still is firmly pro-abortion, and has not changed his true position but only tries to disguise it to mislead the millions of pro-life Republican primary voters. Millions of us who are truly serious about our pro-life beliefs will not vote for him in the primary, and a lot of us won't vote for him in the general election either if he is the GOP nominee.
There are several pro-lifeconservative Republicans who are either candidates or soon will be, there is no reason to abandon the conservative pro-life platform and principles of the Republican party just to cater to Rudyites who will settle for anyone with an R after his name because he promises to be a "leader". Personally, I don't want my nation to go where Rudy wants to lead it.
If he reads this thread, I'm sure he'll be revising that number -- upwards.
.
So can we all agree in retrospect that this thread was completely retarded? Why this crazy Mia chick was regarded as a deity amongst freepers by some still baffles me.