Posted on 05/29/2007 6:16:58 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Rudy Giuliani, whose positions on abortion and homosexuality mark him as the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate in more than a generation, is so far winning the contest for the support of social conservatives, according to a new analysis of recent polls.
Widespread perceptions that Giuliani is the most electable Republican in this year's field are driving his support among social conservatives, according to the analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
If the trend holds, this apparent willingness to support a candidate who fails what were once regarded as litmus-test issues would mark a landmark shift in the political behavior of a constituency that has been a pillar of the modern GOP. Already the shift is spurring sharp debate among prominent Christian conservative leaders, some of whom warn that Giuliani backers are abandoning core principles.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I read the first paragraph and it was blather. Rudy didn't take your guns away, so therefore he isn't a gun-grabber? Just ignore all of his calls for federal gun control laws. Or the gun permits that were not renewed. Or his suing gun manufacturers.
Yeah, what you wrote was blather. And there are plenty of posters on FR who write meat to bother with your small potatoes.
Thanks for the reply.
If we can retake the Senate and have ANY Republican in the White House [...]
"ANY" republican no longer works for me. Sorry, but Bush and his cronies have utterly destroyed my trust in the GOP. My support didn't dwindle, it left.
There is absolutely no way to square this border/immigration crap with America's best interests. From a security position alone it is not only inconceivable, but extremely dangerous.
That they are working against America's best interest is apparent- That they would shove it down our throats despite record objection shows their determination (or devotion) to their agenda.
I expect such things from Democrats who have gleefully been against American interests for a long time, but it is a new thing in the GOP- Their fear of losing the party base had always kept their big-business dreams at bay.
Obviously they feel they can now move with impunity- That they have marginalized their base enough, or that their base will remain loyal to the lesser of two evils.
I for one, will not remain loyal. This GOP is dangerous if it is not made to straighten up and fly right- Every bit as dangerous as the Democratic Left is.
Who are you supporting?
Hunter for the moment. I would vote for Gingrich, but I would rather see him in the party chair doing the plank-work he does so well.
Do you think a conservative (Hunter, Newt) can get elected in 2008?
No. But I think that will be because a true conservative will not be offered past the primary. We may have something that looks like a conservative... but I doubt even that.
-Bruce
Hi gidget7,
thx for the reply.
The RNC is not promoting conservatives because they think the base will stick with them as "the lesser of two evils", and they feel that the "big 3" are more palatable to the general population than a true conservative.
I think they're wrong.
-Bruce
While I don’t agree with your stance, I do have a sense of humor and I found something you may enjoy:
http://rudymcromney.com/
Sorry, didn't mean to 'dis ya... your message was overlooked.
Yes the site was funny. Thx!
-Bruce
“Just ignore all of his calls for federal gun control laws. Or the gun permits that were not renewed. Or his suing gun manufacturers.”
Guess what? Rudy didn’t wake up one morning and say “hey, how can piss people off today? I know, I’ll mess with their guns!” What he did was enforce laws. He didn’t write ‘em, and judguing from most of the other pig-ignorant BS that’s spouted about him not enforcing immigration laws, I hardly see how you can make the argument that the Mayor has the right or duty to enforce or ignore laws either as he sees fit...or as you do.
And if you were the Mayor of a city of 8 million, and your predecessors left you a crack epidemic, and 2,000 murders a year to clean up, you might reasonably come to the conclusion that, yeah, there are too many guns around, and sure, the Police should be able to stop folks on the street if they suspect them of having an unlicensed concealed weapon. if you had a license and a carry permit, no problem other than the inconvenience. Small price to pay to get an illegal gun off the street.
And so what if he’s philosphically aligned with the gun controllers? If elected, he’d be president; not dictator. He wouldn’t write the laws then, either — the same idiots who wrote all the other (mostly-idiotic) gun-control laws would still be doing it. Take the issue up with them.
As for the revocation of permits, most of them weren’t revoked; they just weren’t renewed. Please be accurate. Using “revoked” implies conspiracy and hamp-handed government where there was none. In most of the occasions that I’m aware of with regards to complaints about non-renewal most of them revolve around the fact that the state made it more difficult to renew by eliminatging the mail-in renewal form. I know of one FReeper who “lost” (and cries about it on an almost-daily basis)his permits because he wasn’t aware that the date for renewal was advanced and he missed it.
Get your facts right, Dirt.
People may abandon the social conservatism that is the foundation of our nation and its governance, but one cannot say that someone adherent to these principles will so greatly violate them.
“People may abandon the social conservatism that is the foundation of our nation and its governance...”
Umm, actually the foundation of our nation is based upon Classical Liberalism, and a 3,000 year old culture dating back to Ancient Greece (when there weren’t any Christians o rChristian morality) of which the particular brand of “social conservatism” (at least the brand many here advocate) is but a part.
Then please, explain yourself..
If one post went over your head, you think another one might not?
I'm not sure the socialist party (DNC) can stomach a public fight over judges. The thing they hate most is a true ideological battle in the public. They have much more luck defeating people with personal attacks than with true debate.
"What is a moderate interpretation of (the Constitution)? Halfway between what it says and halfway between what you want it to say?" - Antonin Scalia
Oops. You stepped in it and must needs be corrected. ;-` Go directly to this link. Do not pass "Go." Do not collect $200.
Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America
It's probably going to be somewhat painful to you, but after you see you are compelled to repent of your wayward notions, you should be appreciative.
Dude, I’ve studied history for 30 years. The sort of conservatism that you are elevating to the “most important part” of the foundation is in fact, not even anywhere close to it. There cannot be democracy with that sort of conservatism because no one would have taken the extraordinary risks to try it out!
In fact, it has been axiomatic throughout history that conservatives (especially social conservatives) are not crusaders working for the freedom and advancement of mankind (although they are often portrayed that way, and there have been notable exception); they have, instead, typically been a force AGAINST advancement, and FOR stratification of thought. As Irving Krystal once said “A Conservative is someone who stands in front of the runaway freight train of progress, yelling ‘STOP!’”
And while the hyperlink was quite informative (and mostly) correct, it misses the mark in several areas.
To begin with, if by “Social conservatism” you mean traditional conservatism based upon Christian faith, two arguments against:
a) Freedom advances only when people are free to question and challenge authority. “Conservatives” have historically been champions of the status-quo, therefore, have often defended authority even when doing so was immensely illogical and futile. Especially when it’s THEM being questioned and challeneged (See O. Cromwell, infallibility of the Pope, et. al.).
b) Christianity is fundamentally inimical to most liberal (Classically Liberal) thought because most liberal conventions revolve around the improvement of the human condition, which therefore raises the promise of an “Earthly Paradise”, or even the heretical idea that mankind may become his own master. This weakens the power and mystery of the church, and lessens it’s ability to manipulate superstition for it’s own benefit. Every advancement of knowledge has had a corresponding regressive effect on Religion. The Church has, in fact, been the biggest opponent to freedom in history (because it’s very survival depends, basically, on ignorance), and where it did take the “right” side in the fight for freedom (such as John Paul II’s opposition to communism) it typically only did so because of a coincidance of interests.
So, in a sense, what a “conservative” truly wants, is a moment in time when his ideology and power are at their peak, and then, as if taking a photograph, seeks to freeze time and keep things the way they are at that, penultimate moment, spining out a future which in all respects resembles the present. There can be no progress, or even democracy, if that’s your brand of “conservatism”.
Therefore, “social conservatism” based upon “Christian morality” in the context of the founding of the American government is a bunch of BS, because both are hostile, in the litteral sense, to freedom itself. What you really have is a compromise between liberalism and religion which allows a little heresy (on the one hand), for a recognition of an institution’s perogatives in matters spiritual (on the other). This is not “true” conservatism; it is a cultural compromise.
Only Big-C, Big-L Classical Liberals are able to make that sort of compromise. Therefore, Big-C, Big-L Classical Liberalism is the foundation of your democratic republic.
That such a compromise WAS made is a victory for Classical Liberalism over Social Conservatism, and one that we’re fortunate to have won; without it, there would lieterally be no United States.
P.S.
Hope that you are now compelled to repent of your wayward notions and appreciate it.
Cheers!
You are arguing with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, not me. I wasn't there. They did it and I think they should know.
You argue indefensible points. Our founders (in addition to pointing to their chief political philosopher being Algernon Sidney and his basis of virtue as well as the double negative of Locke’s freedom) over and over and over again warned us that our free republic was only suitable to a moral people trained in the morality and character of Christianity.
Study the truth, for a change — not modernist revisionism.
Lastly, our perfect model of granting freedom has nothing to do with the weird Roman heresies.
Jesus Christ granted people the freedom to hang him on a cross.
Don’t bother to ping me again, until you are truly educated.
Ah, right. Facts don’t matter, only faith does. Another 1-percenter.
Listen Dude, I went to Catholic school all my life and never once in the Bible do the words “the Lord gave you the right to...” ever appear. God did not grant rights, he gave commands. The idea that he did is an invention of the Enlightenment and was used to counter the idea of the divine right of sovereign kings with the idea of the sovereign rights of the individual.
So long as your opinion is solely informed by your superstitions and misinterpretation of history you will continue to be pig-ignorant.
“You argue indefensible points.”
Hmm, then explain this: how could Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, both Adamses, et. al. be “social conservatives” when their actions overturned the entire political and social order of their day?
That is your arguement, that social conservatism is as old as American democracy, but it isn’t. Our Founding Fathers were not “conservatives” they were radical liberals.
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.