Posted on 10/21/2007 1:16:26 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
I'll give you a hint: the US Constitution is not like the constitutions of communist countries where a candidate is disqualified for political beliefs or religious views. You may not like it, but you cannot give a religious test to qualify a candidate which is what every 'disqualification' you listed above entails.
Don't use the word 'disqualification.' It obviously means something you do not understand as written in the Constitution. If you don't like Guiliani then don't vote for him. Don't say it is because of his religious or political 'qualifications.'
Of course they will feel smug in their feeling because they can blame others for the whiners mistake of pimping for any of these three.
If the RNC jams a person down our throat that is for the murder of the most helpless it deserve to lose as they prove they have no morals!
Their slogan might be “Vote for me, I might not be as bad as my opponent”.
I do have some morals and will never vote for Rudy, Romney or McCain.
Whine away RINOS.
Well you, Ann Coulter and myself all favor Congressman Hunter. Plus many other Freepers do also. He really would be the best!
Should add amnesty and refusal to protect our borders.
Huh-- since when? It's if you don't vote you can't copmlain
For those who are not “value” evangelical voters, but simply conservative, I would assume that respect for individual property rights; the right to bear arms; federalism/local control; small government; and a republican (representative) form of government would be among the litmus tests.
Both your litmus tests and mine have been traditionally folded under a bigger Republican tent. I don’t think Guliani qualifies under either list.
The question becomes after the primary process, and if Hunter is the standard bearer will the supporters of Rudy, McCain and others rally to Hunter's candidacy? The even bigger question is if Rudy or McCain ultimately is the big picture winner, will Hunter supporters return the favor? Or would they rather allow the worst to happen when something better than the worst is a probability.
complain not copmlain
The word “disqualification” can be used in many senses. Your posts are tedious and (for you) embarrassing.
Get lost.
And your post makes you come off like somebody who is embarrassed that he or she didn't understand the implications of the word used. You probably haven't read the Constitution for years and forgot that it had parts explicitly listing qualification and disqualification from office. Luckily I provided a link in my last post. Read it and educate yourself. After that, head over to the FindLaw site and read how the Constitution is actually interpreted.
How many senses is it typically used when referring to a candidate? It only loses its precise meaning in places where disqualifying a candidate for political views is useful to the state like in Iran.
You seem to assume that Right to Life issues are strictly a religious issue, and that’s where you are wrong. The right to life is actually more of a Constitutional and Civil rights issue than Slavery or segregation ever were. Perhaps the Movement needs to better expand in those areas.
Alan Keyes has said much the same thing numerous times as the quote I used in my thread, which was written by a theologian with extensive knowledge of the subject matter. I would suppose your off-putting response to them would be the same.
There’s a book called “How to win friends and influence people” by Dale Carnegie. You should read it. HINT: insulting potential allies in neither a sign of true intelligence or wisdom.
Low-canyon immoralism, coupled with enough ex-pro-life voters voting for pro-abort Republicans = guaranteed pro-abort Republicans in key races from here on out.
Once again, Duncan Hunter
wrote the border legislation,
defends our border guards and military, including Compean and Ramos,
and is working to rebuild American manufacturing capabilites.
And Carl Cameron is saying, on his blog, that the cowards in Florida threw Duncan Hunter out of the hall!
www.gohunter08.com
Thanks for the advice which I shall surely follow. And, in any case, it was a rhetorical question.
I’m tempted to be for him too.
I’ve been for Thompson. I still would be, especially if he and Hunter teamed up, which has been promoted by a friend of mine.
I thought his post made sense.
I thought that the issues mentioned would be better left to States, not Federal gov’t.
Hmmm.
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.