Posted on 10/20/2007 2:08:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
"I speak for at least half the people here, including the Founder Jim Robinson, who has stated he will not vote for Giuliani under any circumstance."
Agree.
Don't Cut and Run, vote pro-life every time. It's the way you always win.
‘We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life.’ —Ronald Reagan
You obviously do not know how the political process works. Let’s do simple math - if the electorate is almost equally divided and your side loses ten percent of their support, what can you now expect. Answer: you can expect to be back in the minority like you were before the Religious Right became politically active. Have fun!
“I realized that not many conservatives were even calling his show anymore.”
I was listening to him on the way home from Mass today (probably for the last time) and he jumped all over a guy who called to say that supporting Giuliani amounted to turning his back on people to whom morality is important.
“I won’t let you say that” blah blah blah. I wished I could get through and tell him, “The man is a gun-grabbing baby killer. Support that if you want to, but never call yourself an American again.”
He seems to think everybody should take Giuliani’s recent flip-flops on guns and baby-killing as legitimate.
1. They are conservative "single issue voters" who have been duped into voting for Rooty because he was mayor of NYC on 9/11. Hopefully, when they understand that Rooty is a liberal who didn't do anything on 9/11 (though he is responsible for untold unnecessary deaths due to his ignoring the fact that the WTC was a terrorist target for seven and a half years), these conservatives will come around. (For what it's worth, I think that the number of people in this category is VERY SMALL.)
2. Thy are Rooty Rooters because they actually support his liberalism and have always resented conservatives in the GOP.
So, which category are you in?
Apparently you need to reevaluate your facts because they are simply incorrect. As I have stated elsewhere, I support Thompson for now in the primary. But I will completely support Giuliani if he is the nominee.
This is because he proved himself by cleaning up NYC during his term as mayor, 9/11 has nothing to do with it. His foreign policy views are spot on. His views on international trade are correct. He has pledged to support strict constructionists to the court (which is the only way to have any meaningful impact on abortion). While you might say he won't do this, I trust those that advice him such as Ted Olson.
While Rudy is not my first choice and I don't agree with some of his positions, he would be far superior to any of the Democrats running. Sitting out the election or voting third party is an intellectually void move and would do far more harm than good to the pro-life cause.
You fail to realize that Giuliani would draw in many moderates and independents that would otherwise vote Republican but have been chased away do to the tactics of some in the social conservative movement, which have only managed to alienate those that do not already agree with them.
If you will not vote for Rudy Guliani for Prez, you will instead get Hillary Clinton or worse. You have all just condemned untold numbers of fetuses to death, under a Hillary Clinton regime. So your “principles” will buy death and more abortions than ever. Plus new planned parenthood clinics and abortion clinics, which will inevitably spring up under a Democratic presidency. Under Guliani, you will get neutrality, and probably little change from the status quo where pro-life candidates and demonstrations against abortion clinics in individual states have made great inroads. The one area that is under the control of the Prez of the U.S. is appointment of judges, and Rudy has sworn to appoint constructionist judges. If he is the Pub candidate, then that will be a good thing in the one area most important to pro-life conservatives. If you do not vote for Rudy, you will be absolutely guaranteeing the deaths of future babies by abortion, more than you can imagine. So, that’s where your hard-nosed, non-logical, lacking in pragmatism viewpoints will take you. Enjoy yourselves while dooming future babies to an early demise.
Just like before the Reagan years when the Republican party was the minority party in Congress for forty straight years. The Evangelical vote was driving power in the Reagan elections and was the margin in the two Bushes getting elected. Can you say President Gore or maybe President Kerry. Without the social conservatives you had better get used to minority status again.
P.S., I might add, I am not a Rudy supporter. I am a Duncan Hunter supporter who realizes that he won’t make it as a candidate, therefore am leaning to either Romney or Thompson as alternatives in the top tier. But I will never vote for a Dem under any circumstances, and if there is anything I can do to prevent a Dem from getting the Presidency, that is what I will do, including voting for Rudy if forced to. Hopefully we won’t have to deal with this by electing someone other than Rudy as our candidate. But I know what will happen (including on the issue of abortion) if ANY of the Dems get in. And so, I suspect, deep in your heart of hearts, do all of you.
For whom do you plan to vote in the primary?
My candidates vote pro-life.
For whom do you plan to vote in the primary?
See my #807.
You obviously haven't been reading the whole thread. No one believes this to be true - his record proves this out. This is the same smoke screen that Hannity has been trying to sell. Rudy will appoint the same judges that Hillary would - you are fooling no one. I very much doubt you even believe that - it just does not make sense. A pro-abortion politician who even stated he would pay for an abortion for his own daughter, will appoint judges that will overturn Roe?
Romney, Hunter or Thompson? :)
He also said a strict constructionist (as he defines it) could uphold Roe v. Wade. As I recall, he also referred to Ginsberg as a strict constructionist.
“You obviously haven’t been reading the whole thread. No one believes this to be true - his record proves this out. This is the same smoke screen that Hannity has been trying to sell. Rudy will appoint the same judges that Hillary would - you are fooling no one. I very much doubt you even believe that - it just does not make sense. A pro-abortion politician who even stated he would pay for an abortion for his own daughter, will appoint judges that will overturn Roe?”
I have read the entire thread, including your comment above which totally ignores just about everything I was saying. Nothing you say above about whether Rudy is really telling the truth or not negates the ABSOLUTE result of allowing a Dem to be elected, which will be increased, not decreased, abortions, more abortion mills, more deaths of fetuses, and probably, if any of them had their way, a return to partial birth abortions. Do you want those results on your hands? Then don’t vote for Rudy if he ends up being the Pub candidate, and you will get just exactly what you claim you don’t want.
Everything you expect Hillary will do Rudy will also do. But Rudy won’t be opposed by Republicans in Congress. Hillary will.
“He also said a strict constructionist (as he defines it) could uphold Roe v. Wade. As I recall, he also referred to Ginsberg as a strict constructionist.”
And who do you think you will get if Hillary or any of the Dem candidates becomes Prez, hmmmmm? You will ABSOLUTELY NOT get a constructionist, will you. So, therefore you will be ABSOLUTELY guaranteeing that Roe v. Wade will not be reversed for years to come. With Rudy, it’s a crap shoot. With a Dem as Prez, it’s a given. No constructionist period.
The socons would be committing suicide. Yes, it would hurt all of us, but the socon movement would be destroyed. And I think that is a BAD thing.
Don’t you wonder why there isn’t a viable socon presidential candidate this time around? I mean, GWB has done such a great job for the movement, you think people would be chomping at the bit to get another one of him in office.
Absolutely false. Just this spring Rudy said he was for government funded abortions. Even Hillary hasn't said that.
It’s not a crapshoot for either one, unless you are blindingly naive.
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.