Posted on 02/18/2007 4:12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I don't know about you, but I doubt the Christian conservatives throughout the red state farm belt and especially down in the South are going to cotton to a liberal New York Yankee coming down to try to clean up crime by taking their guns and bringing abortion and gay unions (gay marriage) into their families, schools and churches.
How are Christian Conservatives being thrown under the bus?
What do Christian Conservatives want? The President can't waive a magic wand and outlaw abortions, even if he/she so desired.
Has Bush done away with Abortion? Did Reagan?
All the President can do is tell you what sort of Judges he will pick and Giuliani has extended his hand to Conservatives in that regard.
Gays are going to get a measure of equal protection. It's going to happen whoever is President. Contrary to the lies told here, Giuliani is and has always been against gay marriage. Bush patronizes Conservatives by supporting a Constitutional amendment which dies on the vine even before his lips stop moving. But that's enough to make the gullible happy.
Is that what you want in a candidate- someone who lies and patronizes you? Makes you happy by telling you what you want to hear. Voted "correctly" a couple of meaningless times?
Social and Christian Conservatives have a unique opportunity to now, today, bargain with Giuliani. Politics is compromise and Republicans/Conservatives and America could all win big if the Social Conservatives will act responsibly and rationally.
Or they can go down in flames and take the Republicans and America with them.
I learn from the best. Ronald Reagan used the term holocaust to describe abortion in one of his famous essays on the subject. He even quoted from a book called "Abortion: The Silent Holocaust". He also used the descriptive terms "horrors" and "infanticide".
I really like this quote:
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning." - Ronald Reagan
I'm sorry if such strong denouncement of abortion hurts your feelings. I didn't realize that you required things to be described in more politically correct terms. I'd bet that if you lived in the time of slavery, you'd be upset if it was called that as you would insist that it be called involuntary servitude. And you would consider someone an extremist if they didn't conform to your more sensitive language.
Very dishonestly, I might add, unless you can show where the poster is supporting an anti-war candidate.
But that will be the result. Apparently the Republicans don't appreciate all the years of hard work, effort and dollars kicked in by the Christian right to keep the big "R's" in office. The Christian right does not deserve to be thrown under the bus. I'm sure that some will vote for an abortionist but I'm 100% positive that a great many Christians will not betray their beliefs or deny their God. The results will be disastrous for the Republican party and ultimately for all of us. If you think I'm going to be asking Christians to vote for an abortionist, gay loving gun grabber you're nuts. Ain't gonna happen.
Reagan made the pro-life movement mainstream. Bush signed a PBA ban after two Clinton vetos. Oh, and Rudy supported those vetos.
President Rudy will be cracking heads and taking names. "No hateful unprogressive opinions allowed here! You will think happy thoughts about Islam or else!"
No. Case in point. Clinton vetoes ban of partial birth abortion, Bush signed it. Now for the kicker. Giuliani said he agreed with Clinton.
I wasn't talking about my feelings. You commented on my question concerning whether you think America is evil, so I answered that your language prompted me to ask that question. Surely, if you blast America for a holocaust of 50 million people, that means SOMETHING.
would nominate justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Do conservatives really want
a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of an Alito, Roberts or Scalia?
Giuliani Praises Conservative Judges
GOP Presidential Hopeful Giuliani Says He Wouldn't Hesitate to Appoint Anti-Abor
by BOB LEWIS, The Associated Press
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who favors abortion rights, said Friday if elected in 2008 he wouldn't hesitate to appoint anti-abortion conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito to the federal bench.
Giuliani headed a fundraiser in Richmond organized by Jerry W. Kilgore, the anti-abortion Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2005, and attended by several social conservatives who oppose abortion.
"They share the kind of overall judicial philosophy that I have," Giuliani said during an impromptu news conference just before the fundraiser.
Giuliani said he helped select U.S. attorneys and federal marshals during his service in the Reagan administration. People who filled those positions were "strict constructionists" in their approach to constitutional law, he said.
"What I mean by strict constructionist, or using the plain language or meaning of the Constitution, is judges should try to interpret the Constitution, not make it up to fit their social preferences," Giuliani said.
Though not officially declared as a candidate, the popular former New York mayor is trying to win over social conservative Republicans, who can dominate primaries, particularly in Virginia and the South.
Giuliani's assurances that he could appoint federal jurists who disagree with his pro-choice stand on abortion cause social conservatives like longtime GOP activist Wayne Ozmore embrace Giuliani.
"I'm pro-life, so it's hard for me to accept that, but I'm also a veteran a veteran of (operations) Desert Shield, Desert Storm and Provide Comfort," said Ozmore, a veteran of the Iraq war in the early 1990s who attended the fundraiser.
Ozmore, GOP chairman for the 4th Congressional District, said he was comforted that Giuliani's assurances that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to federal judgeships without using positions on abortion as a litmus test.
"Right now, this country really needs leadership and Rudy Giuliani knows how to win the war on terror," Ozmore said.
Other abortion opponents at the event included the state's Republican lieutenant governor, Bill Bolling and Kilgore, who lost the governor's race to Democrat Timothy M. Kaine.
Giuliani also said he is through accepting payment for speaking at motivational seminars, speeches that reportedly net him $100,000 apiece.
"What we've done is we're taking no new ones, and we're going through the ones that exist to see what the commitments are, but we're not going to take any money for them," Giuliani said.
"I have to devote my full-time attention to this (candidacy)," he said. "This has all happened, as you know, a lot faster than we thought it would."
______________________________________
would raise taxes
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTZkMmE5MGNmNDFiN2JlYjAzYzJkY2I0NzRkM2MwNDE=
The Mayor led a team that reduced crime and reformed welfare. He cut taxes 23 times while actually reducing the size of the City bureaucracy. The Mayor transformed a historic deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus with a balanced budget. New York City became a safe place for families and small businesses to invest in their future. In Rudy Giuliani, New Yorkers had a leader. One they could believe in.
(snip)
Not one vote has been cast yet, nor will one be for 11 months, yet you act like we don't have a choice already. I guess you want to turn the GOP into the Borg.
Thanks. That's seven strikes. I'm not sure when the rules changed to allow more than three.
I really don't believe Guiliani is that appealing to the general population, a majority of whom are waning in their support for the Iraq war. He is appealing to many Republicans because of his handling of 911 which to them means he will also well propagate the war on terror (which isn't necessarily so).
If 911 had never happened, Rudy would have far less support for the Republican nomination at this time.
And if you nominate a candidate who opposes everything the Republican Party has stood for since Ronald Reagan was President, you will elect Hillary. You can't make the social conservatives vote for a liberal no matter how many images you draw on your computer and how hard you stomp and wail. They're not going to do it. So, you have to find a better candidate acceptable to more people in the Republican Party.
Because as it stands, Clinton in slated to win based on the power of the MSM and voter fraud. Unfortunately, the misinformed are ready to vote for anyone but a Republican. And voter fraud hasn't been dealt with. Winning in 2008 with Rudy still advances the conservative movement, because losing against Hillary would have dire consequences. Ie: China and the Clinton years.
Rudy isn't going to take away our guns, he isn't going to enact gay marriage and he'll appoint judges like Roberts. And he'll fight terrorism better than any other candidate.
No one is addressing voter fraud. Or the fact that the 2008 election is going to be more unique than any other election in that our candidate must pick up some blue states by a large margin - due to voter fraud.
If our candidate is anyone but Rudy, all Hillary has to worry about it Ohio and she thinks she has it. She's hoping to get CO and NV as well as many other states.
Would rather have Rudy than Hillary. It's as simple as that. And no other Republican candidate can beat her. Don't want another Dole or Bush #1 campaign. And that's what we'll get if we put up any other nominee.
Now why do you think we'd lose the war by electing a conservative?
Name one...that can win?
Because there was no life of the mother exception.
Without that exception I too would have vetoed it. And you may be interested that the most Orthodox Jewish law would have also vetoed without such an exception. The life of the mother comes first.
Oh, I don't know. One of the major goals of the Christian right has been to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since Giuliani has already committed himself to naming judges like Roberts and Alito, the end result will be the same, whether it's Giuliani or Hunter in the White House. A Hillary presidency would name 4 new liberal judges and safeguard Roe for another generation, and probably forever. Judges aren't going to overturn a precedent that is 60 years old, even Scalia says that a recent precedent might be addressed, but if it's 100 years old, too late.
Very, very well said. Thank 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.