Was Goldwater a conservative? Was he pro-life? For gay rights? Just asking.
Yes, no, and no.
At least in the days Goldwater was the leading conservative Republican, abortion and gay rights were simply not issues. They were beyond the pale to all conservatives. The people at National Review, another of the key pioneers, were certainly not in favor of abortion. Abortion & gay rights were forced into prominence by the "social left" during the 60s. By acquiescing in abortion & legitimizing gay coupling, we are accepting the Left's leadership, not following conservative principles.
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.