Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani - A pro-life dilemma

Warren Throckmorton ^ | Warren Throckmorton

[gwbiny2k]

And one more thing...even if Hillary loses after 1 term,
and we get the most rabid pro-lifer elected, it still won’t
change the SCOTUS majority for decades to come. Note that
several judges are close to retirement or have health
problems.

[Pinkbell]

If it all comes down to a liberal socialist vs. a slightly less liberal socialist, I think I’ll vote third party or write in Duncan Hunter. If it’s Hillary, I don’t see this becoming a full blown socialist nation, and I don’t see this country recovering. If it’s Rudy, he swings the Republican party left, and ultimately we’ll end up with some form of socialism too. We need a conservative in there.

[Brilliant]

A lot of good pulling the rug out from under Santorum did. Now the Senate is pretty much devoid of vocal pro-lifers, with the exception of Brownback.

From what I can see, the guys who trash Santorum for not supporting Toomey did the same thing to Santorum that Santorum did to Toomey.

[Man50D]

You are either truly delusional or deliberately prevaricating my position. Either way you are beyond hope.

Instead of responding with remarks to refute my alleged prevarications you reply with insults, innuendos and false assumptions and yet somehow you perceive me as being delusional or beyond hope. Very clever. The GOP is becoming beyond hope as it drifts farther away from conservatism and closer to socialism.

[ctdonath2]

A true Republican or conservative would not willingly hand power over to liberal Democrats

A true Republican or conservative would not BE a liberal Democrat.

Just because there is an (R) after the name doesn't mean the candidate isn't a flaming leftist.

If you're worried about that "moderate fraction of voters" throwing the election, maybe you'd better start listening to them!

[Blogger]

There is no dilemma because there should be no compromise. I will vote for NEITHER. These are human lives that are being taken. You don’t vote for a Hitler over a Stalin simply because less will die. Rudy has no convictions that will lead me to believe he would choose conservative justices either. He is a social liberal by conviction. I would expect justices that reflect that view.

[Blogger]

When you are systematically destroying the next generation, life by life, you are also destroying the country. Morally, you are destroying her. Physically, you are destroying her. Spiritually, you are destroying her. Question is, do you destroy her in one short administration or over time.

Conservatives must NOT compromise principle for pragmatism. If we do, then Hillary is the least of our worries.

[Blogger]

It won’t be brought down if you vote pro-abortion.

[Blogger]

Rudolph Giuliani is a social LIBERAL.

This is not being a suicidal “single issue” person. Though if the choice is vote for someone who allows the killing of innocent babies or someone who doesn’t, anyone who doesn’t make that an issue has ceded any moral authority to make a decision.

We will not vote for a pro-abort. PERIOD.

[wagglebee]

You will want to ping this one.

[wagglebee]

You Rooty Rooters have a lot of audacity talking about “single issue” voters.

Here’s a “single issue” for you, Rooty Toot happened to be mayor of NYC on 9/11, a tragedy that was made WORSE because of seven and a half years of FAILURE on his part.

Here’s another “single issue” for you and the other Rooty Rooters to consider: when was the last time you voted for a candidate who supported an enemy that murders 3500 Americans a day?

Here’s another “single issue” to consider: when was the last time you voted for a candidate who gave orders to ignore the crimes of millions of people?

Here’s another “single issue” to consider: when was the last time you voted for a candidate who supported the denial of clearly defined constitutional rights?

[stockstrader]

Hotheads? Based on what? So now anyone that opposes a liberal like Giuliani is now a hothead? Unbelievable...lol Do you always make bogus, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated comments like that?

[cpforlife.org]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58065

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

---

---

Why Dobson is right

---

Posted: October 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jill Stanek

---

© 2007 

Monday night, Sean Hannity interviewed Dr. James Dobson on the recent news that many conservative leaders may support a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani is put forth as the GOP presidential candidate.

This third-party business is a huge deal.

Hannity makes no bones about supporting Giuliani (an issue for another day). So I was not surprised he took the "lesser of two evils" approach with Dobson, i.e., if we don't accept Giuliani, we'll certainly get Hillary.

Dobson responded not just with solid moral arguments but two solid political arguments:

1. It's way too early to try to force conservatives – again – to compromise.

2. Who says Giuliani can beat Hillary?

Good people I know are warning against a conservative split from the GOP, and Dobson acknowledged the danger.

(Column continues below)

But for many reasons, I'm open to following conservative leaders like Dobson and Tony Perkins down this path, if they so decide. It would be a serious, risky endeavor. The Republican Party has been relatively good on the pro-life issue.

But it hasn't been great on it, particularly when political stars aligned for it to take big strides, and then it did not. Also maddening is when the GOP wages war against solid pro-life candidates like Pat Toomey to sustain pro-abort incumbent weasels like Arlen Specter.

We only need look to the Democrat-controlled Congress for inspiration on how to handle the abortion issue with conviction. Its leaders are never shy about advancing the pro-abortion agenda, by word or deed. Even now, it has mattered naught to Democrat leaders that their current power is drawn in large part by conservative or moderate candidates they ran who won. They press on.

Clear now that one reason certain Republican politicos waffled on conservative issues was because they became morally compromised, which leads to policy compromise.

So what if Democrats get caught with cigars where they don't belong or a frozen stash of cash? There's no divide between their morality and their policy. Nothing to compromise.

Perhaps GOP housecleaning will lead to GOP ideology resolve, including presenting a presidential candidate who emulates his party's base. We'll see.

Otherwise the days ahead will be interesting.

---

Related special offers:

"ENDING ABORTION: How the pro-life side will win the war"

"Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"

"On Message: The Pro-Life Handbook"

---

Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.

[Little Ray]

Gee. Rudy was really good at appointing judges like Alito and Roberts when he was mayor of NYC.

Fer heaven’s sake, don’t listen to what Rudy says, look at what he’s done! He wouldn’t know a “strict constructionist” judge if one bit him on the @$$.

[wagglebee]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that ANY president would ever knowingly judges who have a political philosophy that is in direct opposition to their own.

The reality is that nearly all politicians will lie to get elected, so the best way to predict what they will do is to look at what they’ve done in the past. Look at the case of Bush41, he spent the first half of 1980 calling Reagan’s proposed tax cuts “Voodoo Economics.” He then spent eight years supporting Reagan’s policies and during the 1988 campaign he made the declaration, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” What happened? He signed the first tax increase that hit his desk.

Rooty Toot can say whatever he wants, but his entire record is LIBERALISM.

[TommyDale]

"ROFLMBO!"

Not a burrito, right? LOL!

[TommyDale]

"Right now it looks like it will most likely be Hillary v. Giuliani in 2008 and, if so, the Conservative movement in the United States risks tearing itself apart."

No, the Conservative movement may actually desert the GOP and tear it apart. So be it, rather than compromise for another Democrat like Rudy Giuliani with a (R) after his name.

[stockstrader]

Let's look at Rudy's very own words--

“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them".

–Rudy Giuliani discussing Supreme Court appointments on ‘Hannity and Colmes’, July 20, 2005

But yet the Rudy apologists are promising us that Rudy will NOT do that!!!!! Go figure.

Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

[Retired COB]

“Which candidate has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts?”

Have you reviewed the types of judges he appointed in New York? They're all liberals.

What make you think he'll change now? That's about as foolish as a woman marrying a man hoping to change him later....it never happens. In Presidents, like husbands, you should choose someone who agrees with your prospective. Don't believe the campaign promises in either case.

[stockstrader]

Not to worry. The Rudy apologists are promising that Rudy will only appoint those who oppose his long-held, core, bedrock social positions!!....lol They promise us that Rudy WILL abandon his core social principles once elected.

The apologists (the 20%ers) are promising us that Rudy will appoint personnel and implement policies to PROTECT US FROM LIBERALS LIKE HIMSELF!!!