Posted on 11/13/2007 9:09:41 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
They have zero percent chance of winning my vote unless they change about 100% of their political positions. I have no adverse feelings about the letter “D” or the title “Democrat.” It’s everything they stand for I reject. If they change their positions then sure I’ll vote for them. Since there is zero percent chance they will change there is zero percent change I will vote for them.
"Some of my best friends are religious!"
convincing economic and political conservatives within the GOP they can kick religious conservatives to the curb.
These scenarios are among those envisioned by scholars on religion and politics in advance of the 2008 election, which they say is turning out to be a referendum on both the religious right and left.
A this would not happen B)- most aren’t merely moral conservative or fiscal conservative they are Reaganites), B) Shut up this liberal author (and his dreams), c) they won’t win if we split the reagan coalition. d) Guiliani isn’t even truely a so called “fiscal conservative”. No real conservative support for him (only RINOS, liberals..)!
Last go-around many of the Freshman Dem winners ran on very conservative sounding platforms, then conveniently got a case of "jello-brains" and dutifully began toeing the party line.
SO WHAT???????
I suspect this is just another Lib MSM trying to derail
I know exactly what you mean and that same surperiority-toned comment bugs me too.
Democrat’s “courting” of religious voters will met with the same response that cat-calls and wolf whistles from a construction crew get.
It is not just that Rudy is (twice) divorced... it is more about the way he handled his personal life. He was having an affair while mayor and still married to his second wife, taking his mistress to public events, announcing his divorce to the press before telling his wife, etc... Newt would have the same problem if he ran.
Thompson is divorced and re-married, but that is not a big issue for most voters. He and his ex are on good terms, he didn't cheat on his ex while married to her, and in general has treated her with respect despite the fact that they are no longer married. That is one of the reasons his ex-wife is supporting Thompson for President.
The term “religious” is thrown around pretty regular today. A lot of people who say they believe in God do not read their bibles, pray, or fellowship with other believers on a regular basis to share their “faith”.
Those people will certainly be moved by the democrats, especially if they see no real difference between the democrats and the GOP on social issues.
Anyone that doubts me needs to explain why Ted Kennedy is a US Senator. Yes, he gets votes from “religious” people.
Just as CarVILE figured out awhile ago, the Democrats can get Reagan Democrats and former Reagan Democrats turned Republican to return to the fold and vote their pocketbook instead of their values if the the social issues are negated in a race, or the Democrat runs to the right of a Republican on them.
Rudy v. Hillary = PA and WV both vote solidly blue and no need to waste $ contesting them. Probably plenty of other places like VA too, from what I've read.
I’d say that religious conservatives will be just about as taken in by this sham as NRA members were when Kerry borrowed a shotgun and pretended to be a hunter. Which is to say, not at all.
It should to any conservative with a brain. A man's character matters when he is taking positions that contradict his record.
Promises mean nothing from a low-life that would parade his mistress out in public while alienating his own children.
But, I guess we've gone from character mattering for Bill Clinton back in 1992 to not mattering at all if the candidate is a Republican.
That’s NOT my (and other conservatives’) only Issue with Rudy!..
Ah, yes, typical Democrats.
Wherever there’s a potential vote to be found . . .
Ever wonder what the political affiliation is of the majority of atheists, agnostics, new agers, ACLU/separationists types?
Therein lies your answer about faith and the Democratic Party.
Well, I'm not what anyone would call a Christian, but I vote Republican. Next question.
Guiliani is bending over backwards in my view to placate Christians. He is in no way, manner, or form "kicking" Christians to the curb.
Anyone who seriously believes the dims have a shot at the Christian right are out and out stupid.
Why any conservative would want to vote for a man with a liberal record and no character is a mystery to me. It's no different than voting for Bill Clinton if he were running as a Republican.
Surely you're not advocating a third party pro-life ticket are you?
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.