Anybody but Hillary, right ? ;-)
Larry Storch as a young, crazy McCain.
Posted on 05/05/2007 11:06:59 PM PDT by jdm
Rudy Giuliani portrayed himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan at the first Republican debate last night, talking tough on terrorism - but struggling to present a clear and consistent position on abortion.
Giuliani, who strongly supported abortion rights during his eight years as mayor, said he would not object to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision affirming abortion.
"It would be OK to repeal it," said Giuliani, who is courting key anti-abortion voters in the GOP primaries.
But he then added that "it would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as a precedent" - meaning upholding Roe vs. Wade.
"I think the court has to make that decision - and then the country can deal with it."
Giuliani was the only one of the 10 candidates onstage at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., to say it would be OK if Roe were upheld.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Rudy is a long ways from being another Ronald Reagan. Rudy is a classic Liberal Rockefeller Republican. The RNC can call him whatever it wishes and Rudy can claim to be Abe Lincoln in drag. But the truth is he’s a Rockefeller Liberal much closer to the politics of Ted Kennedy than Ron Reagan. His election will be the end of the GOP. Conservatives will walk and they won’t be back.
ROFL!!
Liberal Republicans like Guiliani are MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than liberal democrats....
because liberal Republicans BLUR THE DISTINCTION between liberalism and conservatism...
making LIBERALSIM MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE!!!
If you want the liberal dream of TWO political parties to the left of center....JulieAnnie is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!
As of right now, Thompson is my candidate...if he ever becomes a candidate. But I have this sinking feeling that HRC is riding a wave that can’t be stopped. I know, I know, polls, her past, etc. But considering how narrowly GWB won both elections, and the 2006 election, and the super-saturation of the airwaves by the libs, I don’t think even Reagan could fight off Clinton in 2008. I’m not conceding defeat, merely expressing how I feel at this moment.
WRONG! Of course they'll work today. The conservative politics of Ronald Reagan is exactly what the GOP and America needs today. A strong defense, limited govt, tax reform, support for pro-life issues. Add to that the fifth issue of paramount concern, tough immigration reform.
You make a huge mistake when you rattle off issues that you suggest Reagan failed at. That is a simplification process that doesn't hold up under a serious scrutiny or intelligent debate of the issues. It also creates the appearance of taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy. Not a good move around this forum. IOW, it comes across similiar to how the liberal establishment defined Reagan for years in their pop culture magazines like Time and Newsweak. Soundbite politics will only get you in hot water with conservatives.
Anybody but Hillary, right ? ;-)
Larry Storch as a young, crazy McCain.
This would suggest that we are giving them a reason to label us, but I strongly disagree. History beyond Amercia’s shores reveals a continuous assault on our rights as Christians regardless of the so-called justifications.
"Conservatives can be as religious as they like; but when debating such issues as abortion, we can win the argument without bringing religion into the mix which makes many who might be on our side dismiss us.”
First of all, I must distinguish Christians from those who are religious. You cannot separate a Christians fundamental principles when addressing political issues. His position is based on these beliefs. Take abortion, for example. The whole reason we fight for the right of the unborn child is because we believe in the fundamental right and validity of the child. “the pursuit of happiness” includes that unborn baby. Furthermore, we believe that every child is precious. To disregard this is to fail to grasp the depth of our convictions on these issues.
“...we can win the argument...”
Christian conservatives are not concerned with winning an argument. These issues in the public arena are not about oneupmanship. It’s about distinguishing the differences, and persuading others to recognize the importance of a human life.
Finally, we are not concerned with being dismissed. People have been dismissing and murdering Christians for centuries.
We are not begging people to take us seriously. We wish to engage in civil debate, and let the chips fall where they may.
Thank you. It is time to sign off. Good night, and God bless.
TJI
That’s cool!
I believe our rights come from God not from man or government. Rights given by man can be taken away by man. Our God-given rights are unalienable rights and no man government can justly take them away. Our government was established to secure and protect these rights and derives its power from the people. The powers we consent to allow the government are few and defined and can be altered or revoked by we the people. Our unalienable rights are many and undefined. The government cannot legally take or restrict our unalienable rights. God is at the very root of our existence and our rights and all down through our history our society and our governments have been God centered. The liberals and our totalitarian enemies throughout history have tried and are trying to separate God from our rights and from our society, but this cannot be done. As long as there are free people in America who believe in God and our founding and our national heritage and are willing to fight for our God-given rights, we will remain free. If we fail to defend our most basic right to freedom of religion, no other right or freedom will be secure.
I'll give him credit on one thing: he got the WoT issue right.
I’m not denying that the founding fathers believed in God, or believed these rights came from God. I’m just saying that not all political arguments are religious arguments. As you say yourself, the powers of the government are given to it by the people it governs; the discussion can be won or lost on that basis. One can believe as you and the founders did about where we came from without turning every political discussion into a religious discussion.
Who asked Christians to do this?
Whatever makes a Christian believe in these POLITICAL points of view doesn't matter within the debate.
Simply put, it doesn't matter whether you get your beliefs from God or from a book or from wherever. All that matters is the facts and perspectives on the issue being debated.
Then why are you engaging in soundbite politics?
You can't argue that my points were incorrect, because they weren't, so you say "WRONG!" and don't even bother arguing the points I made. You just toss slogans and non sequiturs around.
"A strong defense, limited govt, tax reform, support for pro-life issues. Add to that the fifth issue of paramount concern, tough immigration reform."
Limited government? Under Reagan? Last time I looked the government didn't contract under Reagan. We have a president right now who is for a strong defense, tax reform and support for pro-life issues. Something he and Reagan have in common is support for an amnesty bill, the difference being Reagan signed one into law.
I don't really care what you or anyone else here may think about criticism of Reagan. He is not above criticism; no President is. I don't believe that thinking he is great means I have to ignore his failings.
Sorry, without God we have no rights, no freedoms and no reason to exist. You cannot separate God from man or from our society or our politics or our government and continue to exist as a free people. Anything short of complete and unrestricted freedom of religion is tyranny.
I agree. I'm not sure what it is we're arguing about.
“Who asked Christians to do this?”
To quote you, “...we can win the argument without bringing religion into the mix...”
“...POLITICAL points of view doesn’t matter within the debate.”
There lies the problem. Are you dismissing because of our point of view? Because it is rooted in a Christian viewpoint? We may share the same coin, but look at it from different sides. For example, if you and I agree in capital punishment, we may approach it from a Christian position, which is to say that if you commit a capital offense you are deserving of the appropriate punishment. A non-religious person may say this has nothing to do with “religion”, and yet it does for a Christian.
I appreciate your position, and how you’ve articulated your opinion.
I’m now in trouble and must really go. It’s been constructive.
TJI
No one--including me--is asking you or any other Christian to be separated from your principles when addressing political issues.
Period.
But when you're arguing a LEGAL or POLITICAL point, you have to argue it on the LEGAL or POLITICAL merits.
Let's take capitol punishment: Saying it should be made illegal because your God says so has no bearing on the legality of capitol punishment. None. That your religion informs your opposition is fine--but don't expect to convince anyone of the legal merits of your position by saying "My religion tells me it's wrong, so that's why it shouldn't be the law of the land."
NOTHING and NO ONE is stopping you from living your religion or having your political positions informed by your moral values. (It doesn't even make sense--how COULD anyone have positions that are uninformed by their values?) But these battles have to be won on the legal and/or political merits, not on the convictions you have which are not (whether you like it or not) the law of the land.
They also make the GOP ineffective by splitting the party wide open. With the Executive Branch doing much of the DEMs dirty work for them it in effect kills the efforts of conservatives to force change.
Tennessee is a good example. When our RINO governor was term limited out 5 years ago even a DEM was a welcome relief. The GOP was able to hold the DEM governor to their agenda instead of being split out of an insane sense of party loyalty to follower the party leader no matter how wrong he is. Odd enough the DEM is more conservative on most issues than the RINO was. A sad commentary on the state of the GOP.
If the GOP really wants to beat Clinton it can be done. It will take a true conservative to do it though. The GOP is very wrong if it thinks running a moderate can defeat Hillary. She can talk moderate just like her husband did in 1996. Hillary can't go full conservative though and keep her base but a conservative can unite the GOP and much of the Independent Conservative base. Such a person would take away significant conservative DEM votes as well. The GOP usually fairs well when as a party it runs conservative.
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.