Posted on 04/26/2007 1:26:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.
Excerpts from the American Spectator:
The Real DealDon't be fooled. Don't betray your principles or the cause due to fear of Hillary and the moonbats. Would Ronald Reagan cower in fear and betray his principles?4/19/2007
~~snip~~
"Despite the calls to leave litmus tests behind, pro-life Rudy reluctance is justified. If nominated, Giuliani would be the most pro-choice Republican presidential candidate in history. Even Gerald Ford, an archetypal Republican for choice, backed a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade during the 1976 campaign. Barry Goldwater, who was nominated before abortion became a national issue and outspokenly pro-choice in retirement, backed the human life amendment in his final Senate race."
"Giuliani has feted NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He has praised Margaret Sanger and repeatedly accused mainstream pro-lifers of wanting to put pregnant women in jail. His concessions to date have been minor and offered without enthusiasm."
"Abortion opponents can ill afford to give up their leverage in the GOP. Their position has little support among the cultural elite; many in the Republican establishment would like nothing better than to “get beyond issues like that.” If pro-lifers support Giuliani because he “hates” abortion, it will be difficult for them to criticize “personally opposed” Democrats like John Kerry in the future. Their campaign to get bishops to withhold communion from pro-choice Catholic Democrats will seem partisan and hypocritical. And the whole movement may be seen as less serious and less influential."
~~snip~~
Keep the faith!!
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
George Allen for President? (vanity)
Posted by HHKrepublican_2
On News/Activism 04/13/2006 1:58:25 PM CDT · 1,068 replies · 6,653+ views
>>POLL<< Would U.S. Sen. George Allen make a good presidential candidate?
Posted by johnny7
On News/Activism 03/23/2006 8:38:22 AM CST · 83 replies · 938+ views
President or VP in 2008? An Interview with Senator George Allen
Posted by redgirlinabluestate
On News/Activism 01/21/2006 2:11:30 PM CST · 172 replies · 1,403+ views
Buckling His Chin Strap (George Allen For President)
Posted by CarlEOlsoniii
On News/Activism 11/11/2005 3:40:09 PM CST · 131 replies · 2,558+ views
Rush Limbaugh calls for George Allen Presidential Run
Posted by Smelly_Fed
On Bloggers & Personal 10/19/2005 7:44:09 PM CDT · 4 replies · 331+ views
George Allen for President
Posted by moose2004
On News/Activism 05/10/2005 12:46:19 PM CDT · 185 replies · 2,389+ views
Sen. George Allen for President?
Posted by wagglebee
On News/Activism 03/07/2005 8:12:22 PM CST · 158 replies · 5,920+ views
President 2008: Keep an Eye on George Allen
Posted by WoodstockCat
On News/Activism 01/05/2005 1:26:57 PM CST · 156 replies · 5,877+ views
George Allen in 2008?
Posted by NapkinUser
On General/Chat 11/08/2006 1:31:07 AM CST · 165 replies · 2,735+ views
President or VP in 2008? An Interview with Senator George Allen
Posted by redgirlinabluestate
On News/Activism 01/21/2006 2:11:30 PM CST · 172 replies · 1,403+ views
2008 Contender Senator George Allen’s Comments On Illegal Immigration
Posted by GOPGuide
On News/Activism 05/02/2005 3:31:49 PM CDT · 103 replies · 2,620+ views
George Allen Lookin good for 2008
Posted by SDGOP
On News/Activism 04/30/2005 3:17:23 PM CDT · 171 replies · 2,581+ views
Virginia looks to 2008 (George Allen)
Posted by LdSentinal
On News/Activism 01/04/2005 2:00:00 PM CST · 53 replies · 2,326+ views
2008 George, George Allen!
Posted by maineman
On News/Activism 11/05/2004 1:25:12 PM CST · 206 replies · 5,249+ views
LOOK THAT HUGE GRASSROOTS SUPPORT!!
We better have a FR poll on whether freepers will vote for “Rudy” or “George Allen” in the 2008 primary. After all, last year we heard vanities and pep rallies from so many freepers (none of whom will now admit that they were wrong) that George Allen 2008 was a foregone conclusion. No, he never said he was running, but everyone JUST KNEW he’d not only run but anniliate all challengers.
I mean when when you see hundreds of vanities proclaiming a guy who’s not even running is a “front runner” for 2008 they can’t all be wrong... can they?
So who you guys gonna vote for in next year’s primary? RUDY or GEORGE? Pick One. After all, those will the ONLY names on the ballot, trust me. :-)
I agree with nearly every word you’ve written in this post, and disagree only in very minor detail. Good one.
Hoo HAH.... Dead on, brother!
Put have fun with your imaginary undeclared candidates. Bring back the ol' 2006 chant, since you guys were sooooo sure he was running...George Allen for POTUS!
BTW, I'll gladly bet any of you loudmouth "Pick either Rudy vs. Fred" types that there will not be a SINGLE primary ballot next year where the only candidates we get to pick from are "Rudy" and "Fred". Any of you guys who want to dictate our candidates to us want to take me up on the offer?
Didn't think so.
“Libertarian” = conservative? BWAH-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaa!!!”
Interesting point at which to laugh, Kent.
“If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” - Ronald Reagan
So, Kent, are you a Reagan Republican,...or one of those squishy, nanny-state types who want to tell everyone how we should each be living our respective lives?
Thanks!
What’s that one minor point?
I’m open to criticism or further education on this subject... (One of the few that I don’t think I have all the right answers;-)
*YAWWWWWWWWWWWN* Ronald Reagan was staunchly, proudly anti-abortion... a principled conservative position which liberal "libertarian" know-nothings must regard, one imagines, as "nanny-statism." Dear, dear.
So, plainly, then: yes, I most assuredly AM a Reagan Republican, and fiercely proud of it. Could always be worse, after all: I could simply be a far-left social liberal with a hypocritical fondness for the occasional juicy tax break... i.e., a libertarian. God has been good to me, in that regard.
Interesting point at which to laugh, Kent.
Heck... if you think that's interesting, you should see what I'm laughing at right now!
Blowhard, do us all a favor and stop the Dean shriek fonts.
FR management apologizes. The FR polling software is unable to record voting percentages under .01 percent.
I think I am the blowhard you meant to address, in all fairness those were my words, not Billy’s. I am new to FR and the poll in question has been the only one in my short time as a member. Thanks for the link, but again it would be interesting to see how Freepers would have voted without Newt Gingrich in the poll.
Sorry, we do a new poll about every two weeks or so, so we may not be able to get all the polls in, we’d like to. Sometimes I run the same or similar poll more than once over time so we can see if opinions are changing. Our polling software is a quick and dirty and doesn’t have room for all candidates names on one poll and I sometimes have to leave off those who are drawing in the low single digit territory.
Here are a few of our past presidential polls:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=139;results=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=92;results=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=138;results=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=145;results=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=154;results=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=158;results=1
Etc,
Here’s the entire list of FR polls todate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll
I understand the sitution of trying to please everyone and the limitations on how many "polls" you can do, I just hope in the future you'd try to do more scenarios, include Tommy Thompson...especially after including non-candidates that aren't terribly popular like Newt Gingrinch.
Our guy is doing better than alot of the included candidates like Ron Paul.
However, after the update from Jim Robinson I better understand the limitations of the FR polls and how it's hard to cover all the bases.
And this week's poll is just a retred of the same poll from a few weeks ago.
And bottom line, none of you guys telling us we have to side with "Fred" against "Rudy" will take me up on that bet, because you know deep down inside that the actual primary ballot will probably have other legitimate options. I'd even hold my nose and vote for a backstabber like McCain if I had to stop Rudy from winning.
The Pubbies in New York City thought they had but one obvious choice: the “Republican” Mike Bloomberg.
Didn’t work, he’s as bad as Dinkins and is spearheading a nationwide effort to ban handguns...
Giuliani will do the same thing and the Pubbies left in office won’t fight him, as they would a Dem pushing the same anti-gun and anti-life agendas.
Ed
Apparently, Guiliani doesn’t believe the Constitution applies to New York City.
Jim,
Since you mentioned the polls, I’ve been meaning to ask a question on those:
Would you consider adding a discussion thread with each poll, that was linked from the poll?
With many of the polls, I’ve often wished that I could get a gauge of reasons why most people voted the way they did. Not so much on the presidential ones, but during normal times. Each one having it’s own thread would be a good way to do that.
Ahh, you dismiss Reagan’s “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” quote as meaningless by not even referencing it in your reply.
You’re a “Reagan Republican” who ignores Reagan’s very own quotes.
Okay. Got it.
For the record, I am in favor of overturning Roe - because THAT is the libertarian thing to do.
“God has been good to me, in that regard.”
God has a sense of humor, that’s for sure.
Enjoy your laugh, Kent. Just be sure to look in the mirror to see who the laugh is on.
You accused principled anti-abortion conservatives of being (to use your own silly neologism) "nanny-staters"; and then, when confronted with "Reagan's very own quotes" to the contrary, mewl like a sulky kitten. Either you already knew what Reagan's clearly stated and inarguable position on abortion was when you misstated it -- which would make you a shameless and baldfaced liar -- or else you didn't, in which case you're simply getting the highly public spanking you deserve.
For the record, I am in favor of overturning Roe - because THAT is the libertarian thing to do.
Ah... then it IS "shameless and baldfaced liar," then.
Libertarian Party Platform: "We oppose government actions that [...] prohibit abortion..."
Enjoy your laugh, Kent.
There's an old joke in conservative circles, which goes as follows: "A 'libertarian' is just a liberal Republican who's thinking of taking up sodomy as a hobby."
Do keep us all posted as to how that ends up working out for you.
Dismissed.
I am basically libertarian in belief - not a member of the Libertarian Party. Can you tell the difference? Do you know there is a difference?
And, you say I am engaging in a bald faced lie when I say I am in favor of overturning Roe. Kent, really, would I like to you?
You call your tripe a “public spanking” of me!? Lord, do you think highly of yourself and your, at best, mediocre reasoning skills and verbiage.
As for your “public spanking” and “sodomy” comments, methinks you point the finger way, way, too quickly. Time to get “straight,” friend!
NOW, it’s dismissed.
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.