Rudy Guliani Opts Out of Religious Broadcasters MeetingIs Rudy Going to Ignore Evangelicals?

Associated Content ^ | February 16, 2007 | Jeff Musall

[WalterSkinner]

With the bare fact being that no Republican in recent memory has been able to win a major contest without at least the tacit backing of the religious right, Rudy Guliani might be trying to buck that trend.

[Coldwater Creek]

BINGO!

[sine_nomine]

You are correct about all those issues. I am really tired of RINO politics. The GOP has been a Me Too party for the last 70 years, with the exception of the blessed days of Ronaldus Magnus. Even Reagan had to fight the weasels in his own party.

I support genuine conservative issues, the ones you listed. All of them are eroding fast.

[CyberAnt]

I've been an evangelical for 30 years and I don't follow Pat Robertson (but I don't bad mouth him either). Rudy is a Catholic .. not an evangelical.

People will have to decide if they want to win the WOT or if they want to stop partial birth abortion.

If we don't win the WOT .. NOTHING ELSE WILL MATTER .. we'll all be dead!

[MHGinTN]

Oh yeah, that's why the Morris fumes are in the air! And hasn't Dicky boy vested in a huge Internet presence, with a push to allow Internet voting? That Rat in jester clothing is trying to change the complexity of the voting process and become the vacuum salesman of the future political realm.

[Mom MD]

I would rather be dead than sell my soul for temporary gain. Hopefully that will not be necessary

I think the repub party should be able to find a pro-life strong WOT candidate. It is 2 yrs til the election, and we are acting like it is Rudy or HIlary, no other choice. The DUmmies must be laughing their butts off.

[elmer fudd]

Many social cons don't want the Republican judges, nor do they want the Congress back. They are more interested in displays of authenticity than policy results.

Personally I don't give a damn about Republican judges. I want conservative judges, not Republican ones and I see no reason to believe a liberal Republican will nominate conservative judges. Stevens is a Republican justice and so is Souter. To get conservative judges we need a conservative president.

[MHGinTN]

A better explanation of landslide votes is needed if you want to cite blasphemy ... I wasn't comparing their fundamentals, only the demographics for landslide. You might want to note also that the "c" was not capitalized in 'Catholics'.

[Dolphy]

People will have to decide if they want to win the WOT or if they want to stop partial birth abortion

Why is this so difficult for so many to see? Have they not looked at what the new majorities in the House and Senate have done in the last 30 days?

[deaconjim]

Second, since when does Robertson, Falwell or Dobson speak for all, or a majority, of Evangelicals? A faulty conclusion based on leftist fantasies as to what is or what is not and Evangelical. Leftists usually ascribe lock step and goose step behavior from Evangelicals because they know not one.

I have no idea what position Robertson, Falwell or Dobson have on any of the candidates, and that is because I haven't cared enough to find out. I can hear the candidates' own words and make my own decisions about their suitability for holding public office. Anyone who believes that Christians need to hear from any so called religious leader to form their opinions has not a clue about how we think.

[Calpernia]

>>>And hasn't Dicky boy vested in a huge Internet presence, with a push to allow Internet voting?

MoveOn.Borg sent out a campaign to ban any sort of paper ballot voting 2 days ago, also.

2008 is for all the marbles.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Zarf" is the name of a character on a soap opera, who is a transsexual rock musician. Sort of a peculiar handle for a conservative site, isn't it?

[deaconjim]

Why are the two mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to be strong on both issues?

If it came down to it, I too would rather die standing up for the rights of the unborn rather than give in on either issue.

[dmw]

Gosh, this really surprises me. Rudy is being touted here as being the "macho man" for fighting the WOT because of the way he handled 9/11, and yet he doesn't have the courage to visit with social conservatives. For some reason the word "coward" comes to mind. If his strategy includes ignoring evangelicals then he can be sure of one thing--he ain't gonna win!

[deaconjim]

People will have to decide if they want to win the WOT or if they want to stop partial birth abortion.

If we don't win the WOT .. NOTHING ELSE WILL MATTER .. we'll all be dead!

So how many innocent children are you willing to sacrifice in the WOT? Wouldn't it be the same as waiting until they are born and then strapping a bomb on them?

[Spiff]

When did he state that? Link please?

Just use Google to search for the terms giuliani ginsburg hannity. You'll find a lot of links where you can go to read the transcript and a lot of commentary about what he said.

Let me help you out:

Fox News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, Thursday, July 21, 2005

COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...

GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.

I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her.

Now, let's do what FReepers do and dissect his comments.

Colmes question about Roe v. Wade gave Giuliani the opportunity to say that he is is "pro-choice" but that he disagrees with Roe v. Wade. Instead he dodged the question and instead had to bring up Ginsburg and compare her to Roberts. He said he wanted someone who is "very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court" and then he said that Ginsburg was all those things as well as "very smart" and that "lots of Republicans supported her."

Here's the "very good lawyer on the court" that Giuliani was praising. She's the worst liberal judicial activist on the court today - a radical feminist who is idealogically aligned with the communist party. And Giuliani used a question about Roe v. Wade to praise her.

[MHGinTN]

Frankly, I want a paper receipt for every voter's ballot, with the voter walking away in possession of a copy of his or her vote. It is the only way to bring vote fraud to an end, eventually. Democraps pick up 1 or 2 % each national election via fraud. Dead people and illiterates have got to be expunged from the polls.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Anyone who believes that Christians need to hear from any so called religious leader to form their opinions has not a clue about how we think."

People who believe such things tend to hail from the northeast, where the predominant strain of Christianity is Catholicism. As a result, they presume some sort of hierarchy, kind of like the Vatican. It's an understandable mistake, given their lack of familiarity, but Pat Robertson in no way equates with a bishop or cardinal, let alone the Pope, so his words only carry weight among those evangelicals who choose to give them weight.

[Kevmo]

This is how Rudy is earning his "Pass from the Right".




Rudy Has Earned Pass From Right
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786945/posts

[deaconjim]

People who believe such things tend to hail from the northeast, where the predominant strain of Christianity is Catholicism. As a result, they presume some sort of hierarchy, kind of like the Vatican. It's an understandable mistake, given their lack of familiarity, but Pat Robertson in no way equates with a bishop or cardinal, let alone the Pope, so his words only carry weight among those evangelicals who choose to give them weight.

Frankly, I think it's because liberals assume the same thing about Christians that they do about blacks. Specifically, they assume that members of either group are incapable of thinking for themselves and need a 'leader' to tell them what to think.