That's a good set of questions.
My wife and I voted for Barry Goldwater, and I persuaded my parents (lifelong Democrats) to vote for him.
I knew Goldwater was conservative. I read "Conscience of a Conservative". I didn't even think about his position on your other two questions. Remember that Roe vs Wade was in the future. Abortion was at that time illegal. And the atmosphere concerning "gays" was somewhat different.
I have been a staunch conservative for most of my 80 years. The last Democratic president I voted for was Harry Truman, and that was 1948. I have since voted only for Republicans because the Republicans certainly came closer than the Democrats to my own beliefs.
We are now in the midst of a great and pitched battle as to who will be the next Republican nominee. My concern, for my children, grandkids and great-grandkids is how I can best protect the United States as the great and glorious country it is and has been.
I know, in this election, we are confronted with one Democratic candidate who is essentially communistic in most of her pronouncements. The other candidate seems wet behind his ears with little idea of where he would like to take the country except certainly on a much more liberal path.
I want a Republican candidate who can win this election. That is no copout. So far as I'm concerned, the future existence of the United States is very much at stake. We've got to win this war on Islamofascists, and it appears most of the country has no heart for it. My Gosh!!
Hunter could emerge as our candidate, and I would happily vote for him if that is the case. I have no idea how he would fare in the general election if he gets that far, and I doubt he could beat Hildabeast. Right now, he appears to be a non-starter in the primaries. He is essentially unknown to most of the country. I doubt that he can muster enough money or a loud enough voice to gain much traction.
I am, to put it mildly, lukewarm about John McCain. McCain-Feingold sank him for me.
Romney may be a man of the future. But I doubt that he can win a general election.
And so, I'm pretty much left with Rudy, a man who certainly has some beliefs totally opposite to mine. But he's also a man who appears conservative in areas which I believe to be essential to the survival of the United States:
I believe he will appoint conservative justices.
I believe Rudy will pursue the war on terror with vigor. I think he's just mean and brash enough to trash the "new tone" and get things done in the war.
Rudy appears to be a leader. Gosh only knows, we need somebody following Bush who can lead.
Finally, I think he can hold his own with this spineless congress.
Now, does all this make me a RINO? Or a liberal? I reject the very idea. I've probably voted for a lot more Republican candidates than most of you. And I'm not going to waste time on 3d parties. They're not going anywhere. That's a copout.
Jim, this is my best effort to explain why I am supporting Guiliani. If it's not good enough, well, it's your forum. You've done more than almost anyone I know to advance the cause of conservatism, but on this, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Or to part ways. It's your call.
"By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion and gay rights. Goldwater concentrated on his Senate duties, especially passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gCeM7Djcm8oJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater+goldwater+on+abortion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
So, on gay rights and pro-life issues, Goldwater was definitely not a socon, but no one would deny he was a conservative.
Very well put, Ole Okie. Thank you.
It may not seem a big thing to you, but the truth is a bit different and a significant factor in the degrading of our culture. At the time Goldwater ran for President, abortion was legal in all the United States and territories to save the life of the mother. What wasn't legal was abortion on demand, to terminate the life of an alive unborn child just because the pregnant female wanted to be rid of the pregnancy burden.
If you cannot see how this difference in perspective pre and post Roe has debased out culture with abortion on demand, then you will find it hard to comprehend why we 'social right' conservatives are still fighting this battle of wholesale slaughter of alive unborn children.
When Goldwater ran for President, homosexuality was defined in Clinical Psychology texts (and I know because I sold them to colleges and universities shortly after that time) as aberrant behavior, with deadly consequences to life and health ... and that was prior to the emergence of HIV and AIDS (and I know about that too, because I was a pharmaceutical rep when that epidemic broke upon humanity). And we could go to other 'social issues', but I trust you get the point.
I tend to agree with you but how do you respond to posters who claim there is a moral obligation to vote conscience through third party protest knowing that they cannot win?
I have been a staunch conservative for most of my 80 years.
***Bump, gotta get back to work but this looks like a great place to stop and wish an old timer the best.
I believe he will appoint conservative justices.
***I see that others are responding to various points of your post. This one stands out for me. If you had good reason not to believe he will appoint conservative justices, would that change your position?
Culture of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."